# data[].attributes.body
Q3: The author suggest that in order to see remarkable results, true tests with random allocation and control groups should be taken in consideration as well tests that are measuring the literacy progress of the child and not threading, balancing or fast naming.

# data[].attributes.body
Q2: I think an exercise-based treatment programme can not cure dyslexia because individuals who have dyslexia do not show signs of motor impaired issues however their is contradictory research that says otherwise. According to john et al. (2003)  the benefits of the DDAT exercise treatment transferred significantly to cognitive skills underlying literacy, to the reading process, and to standardized national literacy attainment tests.

# data[].attributes.body
Q2: Duncan et al 2019 suggests that even though it was found in post-mortem and imaging studies that some patients of dyslexia may have the cerebellum undeveloped, it is not the cause of dyslexia. The patients did not have locomotor problems and were able to maintain their balance. It was proven that the cerebellum can be modified in order to improve the state of the patient given by the lack of writing and studying.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: Dore is not an effective program in treating Dyslexia as researchers showed that all the results posted by Dore were modified and altered in order to prove that it actually works. The tests were made up as the randomization process was inexistent and also it was proven that the majority of participants were not affected by dyslexia, in fact some of them were 22 month ahead their reading schedule.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: there could have been research bias in the study as recruitment included only one ADHD diagnosis and only a handful of specific learning difficulties.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1
1 participants was not randomly allocated and this may advantaged Dore treatment.

2 progress was measured with screening tools rather than well validated tests.

3 many children's condition was not as sayed as having reading difficulties.

4 No control group.

# data[].attributes.body
Q3: An intervention should address the difference in general ability and literacy skills and a control group should also be used to ensure that there were no other factors that affected the improvements. Groups should be randomised and tests should be validated rather than just screened.

# data[].attributes.body
Q2: It suggests that it can only improve the symptoms of dyslexia not cure it. There is also no evidence to support that the cerebellum development is what causes dyslexia. An exercise based treatment programme has been shown to improve literacy skills but not act as a cure.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 2- Those who have dyslexia do not show any motor or balance issues, therefore the programme for exercise-based treatment would not be suitable because it may not make any difference to the condition.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1) No credible evidence of significant gains in literacy development, cannot conclusively prove that cerebellar abnormalities are the cause of dyslexia, no evidence that motor training enhances development of non-motor skills, selected based on their ‘risk’ to develop dyslexia, misleading mathematical calculations to conclude improvement, did not include the control data which showed improvements regardless of the intervention.

# data[].attributes.body
Q2. Children with better motor competence also have higher levels of academic achievement and PA. Higher levels of motor competence may enable children to engage in higher levels of PA which in turn, result in improved cognitive performance and academic achievement. Haapala et al (2017) noted children ages 6-8 year old with higher PA and lower levels of sedentary time had higher scores for reading fluency and reading comprehension compared to children with lower levels of PA or higher levels of sedentary time.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: There isn’t any evidence to support the idea that dyslexia is caused by cerebellum dysfunction. There is no link between DORE and improvement in the symptoms of dyslexia. There also was bias in the recruitment of participants with the majority of them not having dyslexia in the first place.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1) Dore is not an effective programme for dyslexia treatment because it suggests that the basis of dyslexia is cerebellar deficit involving balance and automatisation of motor skills. However, it may just be an associated feature not the fundamental cause. Also, looking at the study, we can see that the data on literacy tests did not provide convincing evidence for the efficacy of the Dore Programme; gains were common in the control group as well as in the trained group, presumably reflecting practice effects. The only literacy test showing a significantly larger gain in the treated group was a word reading test (‘one minute reading’), on which the treated group had a lower score to start with and so more room for improvement.

# data[].attributes.body
Continue with your great posts! Thank you Georgia

# data[].attributes.body
Can't be cured - role of genetics?

# data[].attributes.body
Can't be cured - role of genetics?

# data[].attributes.body
It's not a effective programme because there was no control group, the results could be contribute to external factors

# data[].attributes.body
Q1 - there was no random allocation to groups, the experimenter got to choose who was in each group and so the study can be criticised for being subject to researcher bias

# data[].attributes.body
Amazing posts please continue your contribution and reading your peers' suggestions :) Many thanks Georgia Niolaki

# data[].attributes.body
Methodology was not reported appropriately, not enough detail so future researchers won't be able to replicate the study,

# data[].attributes.body
Q1 - Researcher Bias - not reporting some of the results, not providing standard errors, not making the evaluators blind to what condition they were evaluation, not randomly allocating the children to each condition.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1) It is mostly based on testimonials; mismatch between what the data showed and what was claimed; children improve with maturation – not because of the treatment; no replication can be done because we have no method

# data[].attributes.body
Q3) An intervention should have randomized groups and tests should be validated not just screened.  The results need to be compared to a control group to make sure that that any improvement is actually significant. Participants should not be put into groups where there more likely to be at an advantage,

# data[].attributes.body
Duncan et al. (2019) found that combining both movement and story-telling offer benefits to both physical and communication developments, more effective and efficient than the Dore programme, which only focused on movement alone. Haapala et al. (2017) concluded that promoting a physically active lifestyle may benefit the development of reading skills in children. Becker et al. (2014) suggested that self-regulation grows when increasing active play, which then leads to improvements in academic achievement.

# data[].attributes.body
Reynolds D (2007) produced a follow up study 18 months after the original study in 2003 and the follow-up performance indicated significant gains in motor skill, speech/language fluency, phonology, and working memory.

# data[].attributes.body
Q3: An intervention should have psychometric developmental measures, double blind experimenter and 3 groups; control group, treatment group and control group with different treatment.

# data[].attributes.body
Q3: interventions should be focused on improving validated tests rather than superficial screening tools that are not designed to diagnose dyslexia. Additionally, intervention should address the mismatch in individual children between their general ability and literacy skills. Instead, Dore only focuses on the increase in literacy skills rather than a comparison between literacy and general ability. This could be due to the child learning the Dore assessment tasks, or through growing older and becoming more cognitively capable. Conclusively, interventions should focus on dyslexics disproportionately low literacy skills (when compared to their general ability), rather than looking solely at their literacy skills improvement over time.

# data[].attributes.body
past research has shown that active play has an increase in academic achievement. in order to keep children to focus and stay alert. An app called "Nessy" is a program directed at children which gives them motivation to learn and achieve by them receive stars and trophies within the software when completing the tasks.  They first complete a task which can indicate what field the child is struggling with and the program gives the child the specific tasks to aid them.Teachers are also able to look into the childs records to aid them more on specific tasks they struggling with.

# data[].attributes.body
Q2:

Evaluation of an exercise-based treatment for children with reading difficulties.

Reynolds D (2003) - within this paper pupils were treated with DDAT exercise treatment and were tested using specialist cerebellar/vestibular and eye movement tests. The treatment showed direct effects on balance, dexterity and eye movement control, the benefits of the DDAT exercise treatment transferred significantly to cognitive skills underlying literacy, to the reading process, and to standardized national literacy attainment tests.

# data[].attributes.body
Q2) Duncan et al shows that in conjunction with story-telling, motor exercises can improve literacy skills but thus cannot be a direct link with 'curing' dyslexia.

# data[].attributes.body
Q3- PT 2- interventions should be tested using controls such as children with dyslexia ranging from mild- severe and had no previous interventions (all previous interventions should be considered).

# data[].attributes.body
Q3) interventions should be based on good research and have clear aims and structure. Make sure there are standardised tests

# data[].attributes.body
In Duncan et al.(2019), the results support exercise improving literacy ability BUT this was proposed as a combined treatment alongside story-telling rather than exercise alone. Also, the study only focuses on people WITHOUT learning difficulties or attention deficits ' Participants were also only eligible to take part if they did not have a recognised special educational need (e.g. dyslexia) or behavioural problems'. So, it cannot be used as an intervention for dyslexic individuals in the same way that it can for 'normal' individuals.

# data[].attributes.body
Dore is not effective since there is no evidence that dyslexia is caused by cerebellum dysfunction. DORE might positively influence the learning and cognitive abilities and improve multi tasking skills that helps production and interpretation of language, however, there is no direct link of improving the symptoms of dyslexia.

# data[].attributes.body
Q2) Athletes that are dyslexic but have good motor ability.  Not enough research evidence to conclude that the cerebellum development was the cause of dyslexia. it could be the other way around (association not causal)

# data[].attributes.body
Duncan et al. (2019) suggests that combing movement and story telling improves motor competence and language ability more so than either movement or story telling, isolated. Children with better motor competence also have higher levels of academic achievement (Jaakkola et al. 2015), this may be because motor competence allows children to engage in physical activity more. Although the link between physical activity and academic achievement is supported by several studies, it is difficult to establish causality between the two. Physical activity may improve concentration by eradicating restlessness which facilitates better learning, instead of motor competence and language skills being directly linked.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1) expensive- people wont be able to afford it, so its not accessible. based on flawed methodology with no control. fire drill problem- did the research, didn't report the findings.

# data[].attributes.body
The methodology of the tests examining this was highly questionable, lack of sufficient evidence

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: They didn’t have a standardised test. The data on literacy tests did not provide convincing evidence for the efficacy of the Dore programme. There were no control data on those measure. The timing of these tests was not synchronized with the study.

# data[].attributes.body
Q2 (for exercise portion): Duncan et al. 2019 found that children in a movement and story-telling group had higher naming vocabulary post treatment scores (8 weeks) than 2 groups of controls (movement alone and story-telling alone). Reflecting that a combined treatment including movement and story-telling is effective in increasing children's language ability. However, the story-telling group scored significantly higher than the movement alone group, indicating that the reading-based task was more influential in increasing language ability than the exercise-based task. Providing evidence that movement isn't as influential as story-telling with regard to increasing language ability.

# data[].attributes.body
Q2) Some researchers argue that the exercise based treatment is beneficial as it improves cognitive skills underlying literacy, reading process and standardized nation literacy attainment tests (Rodrick, 2003).

Reynolds 2007 stated the treatment is highly significant as it reduces the symptoms of inattention. The results showed no change in speeded tests of reading and spelling, but improvement was sown on (age adjusted) reading.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1: There is a lack of evidence showing that general cerebellar development will improve dyslexia.  Typically treatment focuses on the specific part of the brain responsible for that function. An improvement in bead threading and balance may indicate cerebellar development, but due to its many regions, it does not indicate improvement in the specific areas responsible for dyslexia and language deficits. The lack of a randomised control group also means that findings cannot be compared to a base level.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: the fact that 'only a minority of them had diagnoses of specific learning difficulties' - how can researches derive treatments for dyslexia on non-dyslexic individuals. There were also no standardised tests (if any, it was one literacy test 'a one minute reading' to measure the dyslexia and relied on screening. Also, the control group was not really compared to so the data does not appear to be based on evidence, rather than coincidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: Bias in recruiting participants: the fact that only one child in the study has an ADHD diagnosis, and only a minority of participants had diagnoses of specific learning difficulties.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: Theoretically, the treatment has a lot of promise, as other studies have proved that exercising the brain improves brain function, i.e. London taxi drivers. So if the studies had been conducted properly then they may have found reliable and valid evidence for it.

# data[].attributes.body
Q2: Duncan et al. found that movement and story telling intervention had a significantly increased language abilities compared to movement only an story-telling only conditions which suggests it could improve dyslexia.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1) DORE cannot be effective because there were a lot of methodological issues such as the groups not being randomized, validated tests were not used, not all information about the study was released such as results of the control group. To measure improvement SAT scores were used which have been argued to be subjective. The results were not compared to the control group. Only 8 children actually had dyslexia out of the 29 that were followed up from a total of 35 children.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: DORE cannot be proven to be effective as it hasn't been properly tested. Standardised tests weren't given, the groups weren't randomised and not all participants were followed up after the study. So it is impossible to know if DORE is effective from this study.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: Because it does not have a control group to compare it to, also they didn't follow up all the participants that were taking place, not everyone was followed up in the study.

# data[].attributes.body
Q3 With exercise-based treatments it is imperative to find children who are already below-average with their abilities, further emphasized by John Stein (2003). This could heavily impact the study into how effective the treatments work and therefore could evidence that there is an issue with exercise-based treatment.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1 Not enough evidence and research to prove the theory, therefore DORE can't be proved as effective and worth the money it costs. There is no control group in to offer a comparison between children with dyslexia and children without. Also small sample size and actual experiment not carried out correctly.

# data[].attributes.body
DORE has shown to be effective for some children with cerebellum difficulties, in that it has helped improve reading

# data[].attributes.body
While exercise-based treatment may not be able to enhance language ability on its own, its links with more generalised learning could show that being used in conjunction with other treatments could enhance literacy skills. Perhaps if more research into interlinking treatments was conducted, this could be found useful?

# data[].attributes.body
I feel that exercise-based treatment can enhance literacy. However, there are many other ways to enhance literacy and exercise-based interventions are not the only way to do it. There are many studies that indicate language tasks and other literacy based tasks can help and could even be better than exercise-based treatments.

# data[].attributes.body
Due to limited research about the effectiveness of exercise-based programmes, current intervention should focus on language and literacy tasks and visual processing aids, whilst more research is being conducted into exercise intervention and other less researched types of intervention, so that parents and dyslexic people and children aren't given misleading information or having to go through 'treatment' programmes that don't work.

# data[].attributes.body
Q3: Optimal intervention should combine movement and literacy skills training. It should be examined within clinical group of children diagnosed with dyslexia. Randomised control trial would show significant results for efficacy of the intervention in comparison to placebo control group

# data[].attributes.body
Q2: Duncan et al. (2019) suggest that movement intervention applied alone isn't enough to enhance language ability. There is no evidence that exercise-based treatment may improve higher-level skills dysfunctional in dyslexia.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: There is no significant evidence that DORE improve literacy skills. The study supporting this intervention wasn't conducted in clinical group of children with dyslexia. Minority of them was diagnosed with this disorder. Sampling was based on the Dyslexia Screening Test rather than well validated test. The data on the literacy test doesn't provide evidence for the efficacy of the DORE programme. This intervention improve skills that are actually trained such as balance and bread-threading.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 2: Exercise-based treatment programme cannot work because many people with dyslexia don't show motor/balance problems, so this type of treatment may have no effect at all

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1 : some of the previous research "proving" that DORE is effective do not actually compare to a control group so it is uncertain whether the changes are actually meaningful. Also, the study comparing control and treated, there isn't a massive difference in results. So research for efficacy isn't that strong