Mariana Gobbo Medda, Thais Barbosa, Isadora Salvador Rocco, Claudia Berlim de Mello
{"title":"Response to intervention as an identification strategy of the risk for dyslexia.","authors":"Mariana Gobbo Medda, Thais Barbosa, Isadora Salvador Rocco, Claudia Berlim de Mello","doi":"10.1590/2317-1782/20242023031pt","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To develop on intervention process to identify children at risk of dyslexia, based on the Response to Intervention model. Specifically, to identify the pattern of changes in post-intervention performance in tasks of phonological awareness, working memory, lexical access, reading and writing; and to analyze which cognitive functions had a significant effect on the discriminating students at risk of dyslexia.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Sample of 30 participants with Reading and writing difficulties, aged 8-11, from public/private schools, students from 3rd to 5th grade. Participants were submitted to a battery of cognitive-linguistic tests, before and after 12 intervention sessions. To monitor their performance, five reading and writing lists of words and pseudowords were applied. We qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed the differences in pre- and post-intervention performance of each participant; and among participants in the post-assessment, to understand the patterns of dyslexia vs non-dyslexia groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were statistically significant changes in: rapid automatized naming, narrative text comprehension, phonological awareness, rate and typology of hits/misses in reading and writing, and reading speed. Being the last three variables the most sensitive to discriminate the two groups, all with less post-intervention gains for the dyslexia group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The intervention focused on the stimulation of phonological skills and explicit and systematic teaching of graphophonemic correspondences contributed positively to the evolution of the group's participants. The intervention response approach favored the identification of children with a profile at risk for dyslexia, as distinct from children with other learning difficulties.</p>","PeriodicalId":46547,"journal":{"name":"CoDAS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11189365/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CoDAS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20242023031pt","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To develop on intervention process to identify children at risk of dyslexia, based on the Response to Intervention model. Specifically, to identify the pattern of changes in post-intervention performance in tasks of phonological awareness, working memory, lexical access, reading and writing; and to analyze which cognitive functions had a significant effect on the discriminating students at risk of dyslexia.
Method: Sample of 30 participants with Reading and writing difficulties, aged 8-11, from public/private schools, students from 3rd to 5th grade. Participants were submitted to a battery of cognitive-linguistic tests, before and after 12 intervention sessions. To monitor their performance, five reading and writing lists of words and pseudowords were applied. We qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed the differences in pre- and post-intervention performance of each participant; and among participants in the post-assessment, to understand the patterns of dyslexia vs non-dyslexia groups.
Results: There were statistically significant changes in: rapid automatized naming, narrative text comprehension, phonological awareness, rate and typology of hits/misses in reading and writing, and reading speed. Being the last three variables the most sensitive to discriminate the two groups, all with less post-intervention gains for the dyslexia group.
Conclusions: The intervention focused on the stimulation of phonological skills and explicit and systematic teaching of graphophonemic correspondences contributed positively to the evolution of the group's participants. The intervention response approach favored the identification of children with a profile at risk for dyslexia, as distinct from children with other learning difficulties.