This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Controlled Study and Follow-up of Lasting Effects

L. Eugene Arnold, MEd, MD; Norma Barnebey, PhD; John McManus, PhD; Donald J. Smeltzer, MA; Ann Conrad, MA; Gayle Winer; Louise Desgranges, MD

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1977;34(11):1279-1294.

Abstract
• In a pretest-posttest design with two matched control groups, 86 first-graders screened as vulnerable to academic failure and behavioral decompensation were each assigned to one of three groups: (1) channel-specific perceptual stimulation, (2) regular academic tutoring (contact controls), or (3) no contact. On most measures, including perceptual and achievement tests and behavior ratings by teachers, group 1 showed more improvement than either of the control groups. Several of these differences were significant (P <.05, two-tailed). In general, the two control groups came closer to each other than to group 1.

With no further intervention, follow-up one year later showed more dramatic significance. On every measure, group 1's improvement surpassed that of the control groups, and diverged from them even more than at posttest; this divergence was significant on most measures. Group 1 improved significantly (P <.05 to P <.01) in reading, lQ, and three behavior scales, while both control groups showed only deterioration on these measures. Group 1 gained five IQ points on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, while the controls lost five. On the Davids Scale, group 1 improved significantly (P <.01) to "probably not hyperkinetic," while both control groups deteriorated to "probably hyperkinetic." The hypothesized mechanism of group 1's behavioral superiority at follow-up was its significant (P <.01) reading improvement, with secondary emotional benefits.

Author Affiliations
From the Division of Child Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Ohio State University, Columbus.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication Feb 17, 1977.

Reprint requests to Department of Psychiatry, Ohio State University, 473 W 12th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210 (Dr Arnold).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Relationship Between IQ and Reading Disabilities in English-Speaking Canadian and Spanish Children
Jimenez et al.
J Learn Disabil 2003;36:15-23.
ABSTRACT  

Treatment alternatives for Attention-Deficit! Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Arnold
J Atten Disord 1999;3:30-48.
ABSTRACT  

Neverstreaming: Prevention and Early Intervention as an Alternative to Special Education
Slavin et al.
J Learn Disabil 1991;24:373-378.
 

Predicting Reading Problems at Kindergarten for Children in Second Grade: SEARCH as a Screen
Morrison and Mantzicopoulos
Remedial and Special Education 1990;11:29-36.
ABSTRACT  

IQ Is Irrelevant to the Definition of Learning Disabilities
Siegel
J Learn Disabil 1989;22:469-478.
ABSTRACT  

Nonpromotion in Kindergarten: The Role of Cognitive, Perceptual, Visual-Motor, Behavioral, Achievement, Socioeconomic, and Demographic Characteristics
Mantzicopoulos et al.
Am Educ Res J 1989;26:107-121.
ABSTRACT  

Factor Composition of the Search Scanning Instrument in Kindergarten
Hinshaw et al.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 1986;4:95-101.
ABSTRACT  

A Three-Year Auditory Perception Program for Low-Ses Minority Children
Williams and Oakland
Journal of Special Education 1978;12:331-344.
ABSTRACT  

Scanning, Diagnosis, and Intervention in the Prevention of Reading Disabilities: II. TEACH: Learning Tasks for the Prevention of Learning Disabilities
Hagin et al.
J Learn Disabil 1978;11:445-449.