Independent and peer-reviewed for presentation at conference
Further Data On The Effectiveness of the DORE Treatment
Date: 2004
Author: Reynolds D (University of Exeter)
Presentation: The British Dyslexia Association International Conference, Warwick University
Scope:
This study further examines the progress of the Balsall Common School pupils who undertook the Dore Programme and compares their progress to their untreated school peer group. It examines how the Dore group improved in reading, dyslexia risk level and annual SATs performance and the then compares the Dore group to over 200 of their school peers who were from the same locality, receiving the same teaching in the same classes and school.
Results:
- The Dore group significantly reduce their dyslexia ‘risk scores’ over time
- The group with highest initial dyslexia risk score (DST>0.6) showed low dyslexia risk (DST<0.4) at the end of the Dore programme (average dyslexia risk score reduced from 0.92 to 0.34)
- Improvement continued after treatment was completed, with no ‘wash-out’ or loss of improvement (risk score of 0.31 at Dore programme completion to 0.24 12 months after completion)
- The whole Dore group (low and high risk groups) made an average of 31 months progress in reading in 2 years compared to only 22 months in their normal learning peer group during the same period
- The high dyslexia ‘risk’ group (DST >.06) made 36 months reading progress in 2 years
- The higher risk dyslexia group therefore make more progress than the lower risk group and both groups catch up with their expected national reading age
- The highest risk dyslexia group continued to make above average performance in reading progress (16 months in 12 months) in the year after completing the Dore Programme
- All the ‘at risk’ children using Dore made significantly more progress in SATs tests than their normal learning peer group (maths improved by 0.82 in the Dore group compared to 0.74 in the ‘normal’ group, similarly comprehension improved by 1.15 compared to 1.0 and writing improved by 0.88 compared to 0.79. This compares to the national improvement expectation of 1.0)
Full paper