Friday 28 March 2014

Should we dispense with the D word?

By Kevin Wheldall, Anne Castles and Mandy Nayton

[Note: This article appeared in a more abbreviated form in The Conversation:

The word dyslexia seems to arouse strong emotions, both for and against, and has a chequered history. Viewed by some as a device to spare the blushes of middle class parents whose children struggle to learn to read, it is seen by others as a credible explanation for the reading difficulties their child has been experiencing.

In their recently published book, The Dyslexia Debate (http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/psychology/educational-psychology/dyslexia-debate), Joe Elliott and Elena Grigorenko open up a can of worms. But it is a can that needed opening, and we applaud these authors for bringing this important issue up for discussion and debate. Elliott and Grigorenko argue that the term “dyslexia” should be abandoned – that it is an imprecise and unhelpful label that does nothing to assist the individuals to whom it is applied.

So what do Elliott and Grigorenko say, and why do they say it?

Two key points need to be made before proceeding. First of all, this debate is largely about terminology. Elliott and Grigorenko are not denying the reality of children’s reading difficulties, or that these difficulties need to be identified and treated as early as possible. What they are arguing is that giving the label of “dyslexia” to children who experience such problems is not helpful.

Secondly, it is important to keep in mind that reading ability falls on a continuum in the population; it is normally distributed like height or weight. This means that deciding whether a child does or does not have a reading difficulty will always involve applying a somewhat arbitrary cut-off. In this sense, a diagnosis of dyslexia is similar to a diagnosis of obesity, but quite different from a diagnosis of, say, measles where it is clear when someone has it and when they don’t.

With these points in mind, let’s look more closely at Elliott and Grigorenko’s two main arguments:

1.    There is no agreement about how to diagnose dyslexia

Elliott and Grigorenko’s first key point is that applying the label of dyslexia is intrinsically unscientific because there is no universally agreed set of criteria for its diagnosis. What one clinician might call dyslexia, another does not. Some apply the label to any child who struggles with learning to read; others apply it only when the reading difficulty is accompanied by strengths in other intellectual domains; still others when the reading difficulty is associated with particular cognitive “markers” such as phonological or visual deficits. And even within these different definitions, there is variability associated with where the cut-off for an impairment is applied: consequently, estimates of the prevalence of dyslexia may range from 3% - 20% of the population.

It is undoubtedly true that the term “dyslexia” has been used in a wide variety of contexts over the years, and that this has led to considerable confusion. We think that three particular factors have contributed to the problem:

Firstly, there has been a failure to distinguish between research and clinical uses of the term. Researchers often select samples of “dyslexics” with very specific profiles. They do so in order to answer particular research questions, or to control for factors in which they are not interested in a certain context. For example, they may select their sample to have average or above average IQ, so that this factor does not influence their results. But the fact that the use of these specific selection criteria can be valuable in a research context does not mean that they should necessarily inform a clinical diagnosis of dyslexia. Similarly, researchers may decide that, for their experimental purposes, ‘dyslexia’ will be defined very generously as those students scoring below one standard deviation from the mean. But this does not necessarily mean that this (relatively large) proportion of the population (about 16%) should be regarded as dyslexic and hence in need of special treatment and/or afforded educational dispensations.

Secondly, there has been a tendency to conflate symptoms and causes within definitions of dyslexia. Sometimes the condition is defined purely in terms of the presenting problem – a reading accuracy and/or fluency difficulty  – with the diagnostician remaining agnostic as to its underlying cause. In other cases, the definition incorporates a particular theoretical perspective as to why the reading difficulty arose in the first place.  The most prominent and certainly widely-supported of these theories centres on underlying language-based phonological deficits, but there are also a host of other neural, visual and attentional theories.  Given the wide range of theories as to the causes of dyslexia, it is not surprising that this has generated an equally wide range of definitions.

Thirdly, the term is widely used, and very frequently misused, by non-experts in the field and by the mainstream media. The label is particularly popular with promoters of dyslexia “cures” of dubious merit, including such things as: nutritional supplements, exercise regimes, coloured glasses and ‘high frequency’ ear plugs. The briefest of Google searches confirms this fact - and this, of course, only serves to add to the confusion.

But, these points aside, is it the case that there is no generally agreed set of criteria for the diagnosis of dyslexia? We think that this may be overstating the case. Amongst experts in the field, there is in fact a substantial degree of consensus about what is meant by the term and how it should be defined in a clinical context. Dyslexia is widely viewed as a severe and enduring reading difficulty that persists despite high quality instruction and evidence-based intervention. This is enshrined in documents such as the Rose report (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/0201-2006pdf-EN-01.pdf)
in the UK  and the report of the Australian Dyslexia Working Party (2010) (http://www.dyslexiaaustralia.com.au/DYSWP.pdf).

The definition of dyslexia above is effectively couched within the widely-accepted “Response to Intervention” model of remediation (RTI) (http://www.musec.mq.edu.au/community_outreach/musec_briefings#17):
a model that  seeks to match the amount and nature of reading intervention to the support needs of the child. In doing so, it provides relatively straightforward means of distinguishing between children who are performing poorly on reading measures because they have not received the appropriate instruction for some reason and children who are performing poorly because they have severe and enduring learning difficulties that require sustained intervention (whom we might classify as having “dyslexia” or some other label).

The RTI model works as follows: All children receive a systematic program of scientific evidence-based reading instruction right from the outset of schooling, ie a program of instruction that is predicated upon what reading scientists have found to be critical and most effective in terms of teaching children to learn to read. This is referred to as Tier 1 instruction. The reading progress of all students is closely monitored, and those children whose performance, following instruction, is poor on curriculum-based measures, regardless of the reason, are identified as low-progress readers and are provided with more intensive small-group reading instruction. This is referred to as Tier 2 and typically involves about 20% of the age cohort.  (In some socially disadvantaged areas, of course, this figure will be much higher.) The progress of Tier 2 children is again closely monitored and those who continue to have low scores, that is, who are not “responding to Tier 2 intervention”, are provided with even more intensive one-on-one intensive remediation and support. This is Tier 3 instruction.

Children who still struggle following a period of intensive Tier 3 intervention or who progress at an unusually slow rate, are viewed as having, a severe and enduring reading difficulty that persists despite high quality instruction and evidence-based intervention. This has been estimated to be about 3% of the population of students. Thus, without needing to look to underlying causes, or to associated deficits, a small subgroup of children can be identified who can reliably and consistently be given a diagnosis of “dyslexia” on the basis of their need for continuing intensive literacy instruction. However, it is generally viewed as important to gather additional clinical information from appropriate professionals at this point to contribute to the development of effective individual education plans (IEPs) with recommendations for both remediation and accommodations.

There are two key features of this definition. First, it makes a distinction between children who are struggling with reading because they have not had the appropriate instruction (perhaps because they have not attended school regularly, or have had poor teaching) and those who are struggling despite having had sufficient opportunities. Secondly, it focuses the diagnosis at the level of reading itself. Scientists have come a long way in developing precise and detailed theories of the reading process, and these have been translated into valid and reliable clinical assessment tools. It is our view that, armed with these tools, well-trained clinical experts are in a stronger position to provide a scientifically-informed diagnosis of dyslexia than Elliott and Grigorenko suggest. Whether the actual term ‘dyslexia’ is used or some other label is employed, this small group exists and can be identified.

It is only fair to note, however, that while RTI does have the potential to: improve reading outcomes significantly and will, in addition, identify students at risk of reading failure far earlier, create a more equitable system and should result in better ongoing monitoring and assessment of all students, we are only seeing a minority of schools implementing anything even vaguely resembling RTI at this stage in Australia. This makes the use of it, at this point, as the mainstay identification model challenging, to say the least. This is not to say, however, that it should not be an important goal. It also means that until RTI is established, students will not necessarily be picked up as falling behind until later in primary school or even into secondary school. This means that the transition through the three tiers is not as straightforward as it is in the early years. Identified students will simply move straight into a Tier 2 or even Tier 3 intervention. And finally, while it is our firm view that the RTI model has many advantages, it is viewed by some as being limited in that it does not individualise, it does not diagnose, and it does not classify.

2.    Reading interventions will be the same whether dyslexia is diagnosed or not.

The second key point made by Elliott and Grigorenko is that a diagnosis of dyslexia does not have any implications for treatment. Again, they are broadly correct. Let us suppose that two 8-year old girls present at a clinic, both of whom can barely read. One girl has frequently been ill and has attended school only intermittently over the past two years. As a result she has fallen behind in learning to read. The other girl has a history of struggling to learn to read in spite of having been provided with additional instruction. The latter child might well be diagnosed with “dyslexia”; the former most likely not. But the programs of intervention put in place for each child would most likely differ very little in both content and method. A large body of evidence tells us that the most effective thing we can do for each of these children is to provide them with systematic, intensive evidence-based reading remediation, targeted at the gaps in their reading skills.

So does this mean, as Elliott and Grigorenko argue, that a diagnosis of dyslexia (or some other label) is unnecessary and redundant? Again, we feel that this may overstate things. Although the nature of the treatments provided to these children will be similar, the evidence tells us that their length and intensity are likely to be quite different. Our first girl should respond quickly and well once she receives the required intervention; our second girl, by definition based on the RTI model, is likely to need sustained and ongoing support. She may need one-on-one assistance and, ultimately, compensatory technology.

More generally, the fact that the treatment is similar across the spectrum of a condition does not mean that there is no justification for giving a label to those at the extreme end. In the same way that the diagnosis of “obesity” serves to identify the most severe and at-risk cases along the continuum of weight, and the diagnosis of “hypertension” serves to identify the most severe and at-risk cases along the continuum of blood pressure, a diagnosis of dyslexia can identify the most severe and at-risk cases along the continuum of reading. Such labels focus attention and resources where they are most urgently needed. Where we might disagree is in the term we use to describe such children and their condition.

There remain the quibbles about terminology. Many researchers and clinicians do not like the term “dyslexia” because it medicalises the condition and invokes a disease model that is not appropriate. They prefer a term like “reading disability” or “reading impairment”. Others, however, counter that the use of a medical term like dyslexia attracts attention and resources to a problem that may not be so forthcoming if these other terms were used. And as Dorothy Bishop notes, this concern seems to be borne out in the case of the much less visible condition of “Specific Language Impairment” (http://deevybee.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/whats-in-name.html). Finally, not to be underestimated is the positive effect that a diagnosis of dyslexia has on the parents and children involved, validating their concerns and often providing a much-needed boost to self-esteem. For these reasons, there is considerable divergence in the field as to which label should be preferred (and indeed divergence even amongst we three authors!)

Elliott and Grigorenko argue that the most important thing is that all children who encounter literacy difficulties receive the help that they need. We could not agree more. At the end of the day, what we choose to call the small proportion of students with severe and persistent reading problems is not nearly so important as ensuring that they receive the support that they need. In the past, passionate advocates for dyslexia may have gilded the lily by claiming that up to 20% of children are dyslexic (and some still do). This is unhelpful and ultimately counter-productive since government agencies will baulk at the expense of providing special treatment and dispensations for such a large proportion of the population. Nor is such expenditure warranted when the reading difficulties of the vast majority of low-progress readers may readily be attended to in school with effective small group Tier 2 and individualised Tier 3 interventions.

Kevin Wheldall is an Emeritus Professor of Macquarie University and Director of the MultiLit Research Unit. You can follow him on Twitter (@KevinWheldall) where he comments on reading and education (and anything else that takes his fancy).

Professor Anne Castles is Head of the Department of Cognitive Science at Macquarie University and Deputy Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders. You can follow her on Twitter (@annecastles), where she comments on issues related to reading difficulties and other cognitive disorders.

Mandy Nayton is currently the Executive Officer of DSF Literacy and Clinical Services in Perth, Western Australia as well as President of AUSPELD, The Australian Federation of SPELD Associations. She is an educational and developmental psychologist and qualified teacher with extensive experience in the field of literacy education. Mandy is an Adjunct Research Fellow at Curtin University’s School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, and a member of the Federal Government’s Schools Disability Advisory Council.

Tuesday 4 February 2014

MUSEC Briefings on Topics of Interest

This item is not a blog post as such but comprises a listing of, and a link to, a series of short one page reports on topics of interest (often controversial) in special education, known as the MUSEC Briefings, written by members of Macquarie University Special Education Centre (MUSEC).

The link to the series of MUSEC Briefings is:
(You might need to copy and paste this into your browser.)

The titles of the MUSEC Briefings  (in reverse date order ie most recent first) together with key references are as follows

MUSEC Briefing 38 - Response Cards

§  Berrong, A. K., Schuster, J. W., MOrse, T. E., & COllins, B. V. (2007). The effects of response cards on active participation and social behaviour of students with moderate and severe disabilities. JOurnal of Physical and Developmental Disabilities, 19, 187-199. dpi 10.1007/s10882-007-9047-7
§  Gardner, R., Heward, W. L., & Grossi, T. A. (1994). Effects of response cards on student participation and academic achievement: A systematic replication with inner-city students during whole-class science instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 63-71.
§  Munro, D. W., & Stephenson, J. (2009). The effect of response cards on student and teacher behaviour during vocabulary instruction. Jounral of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 795-800.


MUSEC Briefing 37 - Cogmed

§  Apter, B. (2013). Improving working memory. Educational Psychology in Practice, 29(1), 96-97.
§  Chacko, A., Bedard, A.C., Marks, D.J., Feirsen, N., Uderman, J.Z., Chimiklis, A., Rajwan, E., Cornwell, M., Anderson, L., Zwilling, A. & Ramon, M. (2013). A randomized clinical trial of Cogmed Working Memory Training in school-age children with ADHD: A replication in a diverse sample using a control condition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(6), 769-783.
§  Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that improve children's executive functions Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 335-341.
§  Egeland, J., Aarlien, A. K., & Saunes, B. (2013). Few effects of far transfer of working memory training in ADHD: A randomized controlled trial. PloS One, 8(10), 1-9.
§  Gibson, B. S., Gondoli, D. M., Kronenberger, W. G., Johnson, A. C., Steeger, C. M., & Morrissey, R. A. (2013). Exploration of an adaptive training regimen that can target the secondary memory component of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 41(5), 726-737.
§  Gray, S.A., Chaban, P., Martinussen, R., Goldberg, R., Gotlieb, H., Kronitz, R., Hockenberry, M. & Tannock, R. (2012). Effects of a computerized working memory training program on working memory, attention, and academics in adolescents with severe LD and comorbid ADHD: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 1277-1284.
§  Holmes, J., & Gathercole, S.E. (2013). Taking working memory training from the laboratory into schools. Educational Psychology. Online May 10
§  Karin I. E. & Dahlin, K.I.E. (2010). Effects of working memory training on reading in children with special needs. Reading and Writing, 24, 479-491.
§  Kasper, L.J., Alderson, R.M., & Hudec, K.L. (2012). Moderators of working memory deficits in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(7), 605-617.
§  Melby-LervĂ„g, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270-291.
§  Morrison, A.B., & Chein, J.M. (2011). Does working memory training work? The promise and challenges of enhancing cognition by training working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 46-60.
§  Papp, K.V., & Snyder, P.J. (2012). Editorial to accompany - Training the brain: Fact and fad in cognitive and behavioral remediation.Brain and Cognition, 79(2), 158.
§  Pascoe, L., Roberts, G., Doyle, L. W., Lee, K. J., Thompson, D. K., Seal, M. L., Josev, E.K., Nosarti, C., Gathercole, S., & Anderson, P. J. (2013). Preventing academic difficulties in preterm children: a randomised controlled trial of an adaptive working memory training intervention - IMPRINT study. BMC Pediatrics, 13, 144-156.
§  Rabipour, S., & Raz, A. (2012). Training the brain: Fact and fad in cognitive and behavioral remediation. Brain and Cognition, 79(2), 159-179.
§  Redick, T.S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T.L., Hicks, K.L. Fried, D.E., Hambrick, D.Z., Kane, M.J., & Engle, R.W. (2013). No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: A randomized, placebo-controlled study. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 142(2), 359-379.
§  Riccio C.A., & Gomes H. (2013). Interventions for executive function deficits in children and adolescents. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 2(2), 133-140.
§  Shipstead, Z., Hicks, K.L., & Engle, R.W. (2012). Cogmed working memory training: Does the evidence support the claims? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(3), 185-193.
§  Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Is working memory training effective? Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 628-654.
§  Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., & Kawashima, R. (2010). Effects of working memory training on cognitive functions and neural systems.Reviews in the Neurosciences, 21(6), 427-49.

MUSEC Briefing 36 - Interactive Metronome Training

§  Taub, G,E; McGrew, K, S & Keith, T, Z. ( 2007). Improvements in interval time tracking and effects on reading achievement.Psychology in Schools, 44, 849-863.

MUSEC Briefing 35 - Mnemonics

§  Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., Berkeley, S.L., & Marshak, L. (2010). Mnemonic strategies: Evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 79 - 86. doi:10.1177/1053451210374985
§  Wolgemoth, J.R., Cobb, R.B., & Alwell, M. (2008). The effects of mnemonic interventions on academic outcomes for youth with disabilities: A systematic review. Learning Disabilities Research, 23, 1-10.

MUSEC Briefing 34 - Using Scripts to Teach Conversation Skills to Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders

§  Sarokoff, R. A., Taylor, B. A., & Poulson, C. L. (2001). Teaching children with autism to engage in conversational exchanges: Script fading with embedded textual stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 81-­84. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-­81
§  Wichnick, A. M., Vener, S. M., Pyrtek, M., & Poulson, C. L. (2010). The effect of a script-­ fading procedure on responses to peer initiations among young children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4, 290-­299. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2009.09.016
MUSEC Briefing 33 - Behavioural Optometry

§  American Academy of Pediatrics (2011). Joint technical report - Learning disabilities, dyslexia, and vision. Pediatrics, 127, e818-e856. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/3/e818
§  Barrett, B.T. (2009). A critical evaluation of the evidence supporting the practice of behavioural vision therapy. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics,29, 4-25

MUSEC Briefing 32 - The Tomatis Method as a Treatment for Autism

§  Corbett, B. A., Shickman, K., & Ferrer, E. (2008). Brief report: The effects of Tomatis sound therapy on language in children with autism. Journal of Autism and other Developmental Disorders, 38, 562-­¿566. doi: 10.1007/s10803-­¿007-­¿ 0413-­¿1.
§  Dawson, G., & Watling, R. (2000). Interventions to facilitate auditory, visual and motor integration in autism: A review of the evidence. Journal of Autism and other Developmental Disorders, 30, 415-­¿421.
§  Sinha, Y., Silove, N., Wheeler, D., & Williams, K. (updated May 30, 2007). Auditory integration training and other sound therapies for autism spectrum disorders. [Cochrane Review]. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2009 (1). Available from The Cochrane Library, Wiley Interscience. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003681.pub2.

MUSEC Briefing 31 - Visual Activity Schedules

§  Allday, R.A. (2008). Using visual strategies to improve classroom success for students with autism. Special Education Perspectives, 17, 94-109.
§  Banda, D.R., Grimmett, E., & Hart, S. L. (2009). Helping students with autism spectrum disorders in general education classrooms manage transition issues. Teaching Exceptional Children41 (4) 16-21.

MUSEC Briefing 30 - Learning Styles

§  Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
§  Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. (pp. 195-197)
§  Kavale, K., & Forness, S. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children, 54, 228-239. 
§  Landrum, T.J., &McDuffie, K. A. (2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated instruction. Exceptionality, 18, 6-17.
§  Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119.

MUSEC Briefing 29 - Functional Communication Training

§  Durand, V. M., & Carr, E. G. (1992). An analysis of maintenance following functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(4), 777-794. doi:10.1901/jaba.1992.25-777
§  Mirenda, P. (1997). Supporting individuals with challenging behavior through functional communication training and AAC: Research review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13(4), 207-225. doi:10.1080/07434619712331278048
§  Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Harding, J. W., Barretto, A., Rankin, B., & Ganzer, J. (2005). Treatment effectiveness, stimulus generalization, and acceptability to parents of functional communication training. Educational Psychology, 25(2), 233-256.           doi:10.1080/0144341042000301184

MUSEC Briefing 28 - Fast ForWord Language

§  Borman, G.D., Benson, J.G., & Overman, L. (2009). A randomized field trial of the Fast ForWord language computer-based training program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 82-106.
§  Cohen, W., Hodson, A., O'Hare, A., Boyle, J., Durrani, T., McCartney, E., Mattey, M., Naftalin, L., & Watson, J. (2005). Effects of computer-based intervention through acoustically modified speech (Fast ForWord) in severe mixed receptive-expressive language impairment: Outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 48, 715-729.
§  Gillam, R.B., Loeb, D.F., Hoffman, L.M., Bohman, T., Champlin, C.A., Thibodeau, L., Widen, J., Brandel, J., & Friel-Patti, S. (2008). The efficacy of Fast ForWord language intervention in school-age children with language impairment: A randomized controlled trial. Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 97-119.
§  Given, B.K., Wasserman, J.D., Chari, S.A., Beattie, K., & Eden, G.F. (2008). A randomized, controlled study of computer-based intervention in middle school struggling readers. Brain and Language, 106, 83-97.
§  Pokorni, J.L., Worthington, C.K., & Jamison, P.J. (2004). Phonological awareness intervention: Comparison of Fast ForWord, Earobics, and LiPS. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 147-157.
§  Rouse, C.E., & Krueger, A.B. (2004). Putting computerized instruction to the test: A randomized evaluation of a 'scientifically based' reading program. Economics of Education Review, 23, 323-338.
§  Strong, G. K., Torgerson, C. J., Torgerson, D., & Hulme, C. (2010). A systematic meta-analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the 'Fast ForWord' language intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 224-235.

MUSEC Briefing Issue 27: Schema-based Instruction for Mathematics Word Problem-solving

§  Jitendra, A. (2002). Teaching students math problem-solving through graphic representations. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 34 (4), 34-38.
§  Jitendra, A. (2007). Solving math word problems: teaching students with leaning disabilities using schema-based instruction, Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
§  Jitendra, A. K., George, M. P., Sood, S., & Price, K. (2010). Schema-based instruction: facilitating mathematical word problem solving for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 54, 145-151

MUSEC Briefing Issue 26: Cellfield Program

§  The Efficacy of the Cellfield Intervention for reading difficulties: An integrated computer-based approach targeting deficits associated with dyslexia. Lee-Ann Prideaux, Kerry A. Marsh and Dimitri Caplygin. (2005) Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties. 10, 2, 51-62.

§   Kern, L., & Clemens, N. H. (2008). Antecedent strategies to promote appropriate classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 65-75.
§  Wannarka, R., & Ruhl, K. (2008). Seating arrangements that promote positive academic and behavioural outcomes: a review of empirical research. Support for Learning, 23, 89-93.
§  Wheldall, K., & Bradd, L. (2010). Classroom seating arrangements and classroom behaviour. In K. Wheldall (Ed.), Developments in educational psychology (second edition) (pp. 181-195). London: Routledge.

§  Beaman, R., & Wheldall, K. (2010). Teachers' use of approval and disapproval in the classroom. In K. Wheldall (Ed.), Developments in educational psychology (second edition) (pp. 153-180). London: Routledge.
§  Gable, R. A., Hester, P. H., Rock, M. L., & Hughes, K. G. (2009). Back to basics: Rules, praise, ignoring, and reprimands revisited.Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 195-205
§  Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Copeland, S. R. (2000). Effect of varying rates of behavior-specific praise on the on-task behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8 (1), 2-8.

§  American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Auditory Integration Training [Technical Report]. Available fromhttp://www.asha.org/policy/. doi:10.1044/policy.TR2004-00260
§  Crncec, R., Wilson, S. J. & Prior, M. (2006). The cognitive and academic benefits of music to children. Educational Psychology, 26, 579-594. Doi:10.1080/01443410500342542
§  Nwora, A. J.  & Gee, B. M. (2009). A case study of a five-year-old child with pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified using sound-based interventions. Occupational Therapy International, 16, 25-43. Doi:10.1002/oti.263

§  American Academy of Ophthalmology. (2009). Policy Statement: Learning Disabilities, Dyslexia and Vision. Retrieved 30th December 2009 from http://www.aao.org/about/policy/upload/Learning-Disabilities-Dyslexia-Vision-2009.pdf
§  Hyatt, K. J., Stephenson, J., & Carter, M. (2009). A review of three controversial educational practices: Perceptual motor programs, sensory integration and tinted lenses. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 313-342.
§  Kavale, K. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2004). The positive side of special education: Minimizing its fads, fancies and follies. Lanaham, MD: Scarercrow Education.
§  Parker, R. M. (1990). Power, control, and validity in research, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 613-620

§  Department of Education, Science and Training. (2005). Teaching reading. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.
§  National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read (00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
§  Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading: Final Report. London: Department for Education and Skills.

§  Preston, D. & Carter, M. (in press). A review of the Efficacy of the Picture Exchange Communication System intervention. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, DOI 10.1007/s10803-009-0763-y.
§  Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Hoffman, A. O., Horton, C. B., Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (2009). The Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS): What do the data say? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24, 89-103.

§  Arendt, R. E., MacLean, W. E., & Baumeister, A. A. (1988). Critique of sensory integration therapy and its application to mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation92, 401-411.
§  Hoehn, T. P., & Baumeister, A. A. (1994). A critique of the application of sensory integration therapy to children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities27, 338-350.
§  Leong, H. M., & Carter, M. (2008). Research on the efficacy of sensory integration therapy: Past, present and future. Australasian Journal of Special Education32, 83-99.
§  Devlin, S., Healy, O., Leader, G., & Reed, P. (2008). The analysis and treatment of problem behavior evoked by auditory stimulation.Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders2, 671-680.
§  Devlin, S., Leader, G., & Healy, O. (2009). Comparison of behavioral intervention and sensory-integration therapy in the treatment of self-injurious behavior. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders3, 223-231.
§  Vargas, S., & Camilli, G. (1999). A meta-analysis of research on sensory integration treatment. American Journal of Occupational Therapy53, 189-198.

§  Apps, M., & Carter, M. (2006). When all is said and done, more is said than done: Research examining constructivist instruction for students with special needs. Australian Journal of Special Education31, 107-125.
§  Ellis, L. A. (2005). Balancing approaches: revisiting the educational psychology research on teaching students with learning difficulties. Australian Education Review (No. 48). Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research. Can be accessed athttp://research.acer.edu.au/aer/6/
§  Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.
§  Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist41, 75-86.

§  Bender, W. N. & Shores, C. (Eds.). (2007). Response to intervention: A practical guide for every teacher. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
§  Council for Exceptional Children (2008). Responsiveness to intervention: A collection of articles from Teaching Exceptional Children. Washington, DC: Council for Exceptional Children.
§  Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 14-20.
§  US National Centre on Response to Intervention http://www.rti4success.org

§  Baranek, G. T. (2002). Efficacy of sensory and motor interventions for children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 397-422.
§  Stephenson, J., & Carter, M. (2009). The use of weighted vests with children with autism spectrum disorder and other disabilities.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 104-114.

§  Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Theodore, L. A. (2000). A multi-component intervention designed to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 475-481.
§  Musser, E. H., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J. & Jenson, W. R. (2001). Reducing disruptive behaviors in students with serious emotional disturbance. School Psychology Review, 30, 294-304.

§  Brabham, E. G., & Villaume, S. K. (2002). Leveled text: The good news and the bad news. The Reading Teacher, 55, 438-441.
§  Jamison, R., L, & Burton, W. (2002). Matching texts and readers: Leveling early reading materials for assessment and instruction.The Reading teacher, 55, 348-356.
§  Pearce, S., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2006). MULTILIT book levels: Towards a new system for levelling texts. Special Education Perspectives, 15, 38-56.

§  Ali, S., & Frederickson, N. (2006). Investigating the evidence base of Social Stories. Educational Psychology in Practice, 22, 355-377.
§  Reynhout, G., & Carter, M. (2006). Social stories for children with disabilities. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 36, 445-469.
§  Rust, J., & Smith, A. (2006). How should the effectiveness of Social Stories to modify the behaviour of children on the autism spectrum be tested? Autism, 10, 125-138.
§  Sansosti, F., Powell-Smith, K., & Kincaid, D. (2004). A research synthesis of social story interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 194-204.

§  Reynolds, D., Nicolson, R. I., & Hambly, H. (2003). An evaluation of an exercisebased treatment for children with reading difficulties.Dyslexia, 9, 48-71
§  Snowling, M., & Hulme, C. (2003). A critique of claims from Reynolds, Nicolson & Hambly (2003) that DDAT is an effective treatment for children with reading difficulties - 'lies, damned lies and (inappropriate) statistics', Dyslexia, 9, 127-133
§  White, S., Milne, E., Rosen, S., Hansen, P., Swettenham, J., Frith, U., & Ramus, F. (2006). The role of sensorimotor impairments in dyslexia: A multiple case study of dyslexic children. Developmental Science, 9, 237-269

§  Alsop, G. (1997). Coping or counselling: Families of intellectually gifted students. Roeper Review, 20(1), 28-. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from Expanded Academic ASAP database.
§  Copenhaver, R. W., & McIntyre, D. J. (1992). Teachers' perceptions of gifted students. Roeper Review, 14, 151-153.
§  Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed., pp. 32-44). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
§  Gear, G. H. (1976). Accuracy of teacher judgment in identifying intellectually gifted children: A review of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 478-489.
§  Jacobs, J. C. (1971). Effectiveness of teacher and parent identification of gifted as a function of school level. Psychology in the Schools, 8, 140-142.
§  Plunkett, M. (2000). Impacting on teacher attitudes toward gifted students. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 9(2), 33-42.
§  Richert, E. S. (1997). Excellence with equity in identification and programming. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 75-88). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

§  Jacobson, J. W., Foxx, R. M., & Mulick, J. A. (2005). Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities; Fad, fashion and science in professional practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
§  Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1995). A history of facilitated communication: Science, Pseudoscience, and Antiscience: Science working group on facilitated communication. American Psychologist, 50, 750-765.
§  Montee, B. B., Miltenberger, R. G., & Wittrock, D. (1995). An experimental analysis of facilitated communication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 189-200.
§  Shane, H. C. (1994). Facilitated communication: The clinical and social phenomenon. San Diego, CA: Singular Press.

§  Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes? Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 10-26.
§  Giangreco, M. F., Yuan, S., McKenzie, B., Cameron, P., & Fialka, J. (2005). "Be careful what you wish for..." Five reasons to be concerned about the assignment of individual paraprofessionals. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 37(5), 28-34.
§  Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S., Broder, S. M., & Doyle, M. B. (2001). Paraprofessional support of students with disabilities; Literature from the last decade. Exceptional Children, 68, 45-63.

§  Carter, M., & Grunsell, J. (2001). The behavior chain interruption strategy: A review of research and discussion of future directions. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 37-49.
§  Grunsell, J., & Carter, M. (2002). The behavior chain interruption strategy: Generalization to out-of-routine contexts. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 378-90.
§  Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1988). Teaching spontaneous communication in natural settings using interrupted behavior chains. Topics in Language Disorders, 9, 58-71.
§  Sigafoos, J., & Littlewood, R. (1999). Communication intervention of the playground: A case study on teaching requesting to a young child with autism. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 421-29.

§  Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific method and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137-148.
§  Greenwood, C. R. (2001). Science and students with learning and behavior problems. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 37-52.

§  Hammill, D. D. (2004). What we know about correlates of reading. Exceptional Children, 70, 453-468.
§  Kavale, K., & Mattson, P. D. (1983). "One jumped off the balance beam": Meta-analysis of perceptual-motor training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 165-173.
§  Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities? Journal of Special Education, 37, 140-147.

§  Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
§  Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192.
§  Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188-192.
§  Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (1999). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: A critical review. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 71-85.
§  Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (2004). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: Recent Advances. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51, 57-82.

References (updated November 2010):
§  Reynolds, M., & Wheldall, K. (2007). Reading Recovery twenty years down the track: Looking forward, looking back. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54, 199-223.
§  Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K. & Madelaine, A. (2009). The devil is in the detail regarding the efficacy of Reading Recovery: A rejoinder to Schwartz, Hobsbaum, Briggs, and Scull. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56, 17-35.
§  Schwartz, R. M., Hobsbaum, A., Briggs, C., & Scull, J. (2009). Reading Recovery and evidence-based practice: A response to Reynolds and Wheldall (2007). International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56(1): 5-15.

§  Ardoin, S. P., Martens, B. K., & Wolfe, L. A. (1999). Using high-probability instruction sequences with fading to increase students compliance during transitions. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 32, 339-351.
§  Davis, C., & Reichle, J. (1996). Variant and invariant high-probability requests: Increasing appropriate behaviours in children with emotional-behavioural disorders. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 29, 471-482.
§  Lee, D., Belfiore, P. J., Scheeler, M. C., Hua, Y., & Smith, R. (2004). Behavioural momentum in academics: Using embedded high-p sequences to increase academic productivity. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 789-801.
§  Nevin, J. A. (1996). The momentum of compliance. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 29, 535-547.
§  Romano, J. P., & Roll, D. (2000). Expanding the utility of behavioural momentum for youth with developmental disabilities.Behavioral Interventions, 15, 99-111.
§  Wehby, J. H., & Hollahan, M.S. (2000). Effects of high probability requests on the latency to initiate academic tasks. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 33, 259-262.

§  Chan, S., Fung, M. Y., Tong, C. W., & Thompson, D. (2005). The clinical effectiveness of a multisensory therapy on clients with developmental disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 131-142.
§  Hogg, J., Cabet, J., Lambe, L., & Smeddle, M. (2001). The use of 'Snoezelen' as multisensory stimulation with people with intellectual disabilities: A review of the research. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 353-372.
§  Martin, N. T., Gaffan, E. A., & Williams, T. (1998). Behavioural effects of long-term multisensory stimulation. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 69-82.
§  Stephenson, J. (2002). Characterization of multisensory environments: Why do teachers use them? Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 15, 73-90.
§  Withers, P. S., & Ensum, I (1995). Successful treatment of severe self injury incorporating the use of DRO, a Snoezelen room and orientation cues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 164-167.