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?’ | Zendy

Snowling Margaret J. | Zendy; Hulme Charles | Zendy

Premium

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?’

Author(s) -

Snowling Margaret J.,

Hulme Charles

Publication year - 2003

Publication title -

dyslexia

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 0.694

H-Index - 51

eISSN - 1099-0909

pISSN - 1076-9242

DOI - 10.1002/dys.245

Subject(s) - dyslexia , reading (process) , psychology , cognition , developmental psychology , cognitive psychology , literacy , linguistics , pedagogy , psychiatry , philosophy

Reynolds, Nicolson and Hambly (Dyslexia 2003; 9 : 48) report a study to evaluate the effectiveness of dyslexia dyspraxia attention deficit treatment (DDAT)—an exercise‐based treatment for children with reading difficulties. They claim that DDAT is an effective treatment with positive effects on the cognitive skills underlying literacy and the reading process. We outline the numerous methodological and statistical problems with this study and conclude that it provides no evidence that DDAT is an effective form of treatment for children with reading difficulties. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research