Preliminary study on the effectiveness of the A.A. Tomatis AudioPsycho-Phonological Method for the treatment of children with reading disorders.
Folgheraiter, Kati: Psychologist, specialising in Learning Psychopathology, University of Padua, who is an expert in Listening Therapy using the Tomatis Method. Menestrina, Anita: Psychologist and Psychotherapist at the Psychology Department of the Merano Health Centre, who is an expert in Listening Therapy using the Tomatis Method. Menestrina, Rosanna: Teacher at the Galileo Galilei School, Merano, who is an expert in Listening Therapy using the Tomatis Method.
Abstract This article outlines a preliminary study aimed at making an initial assessment of the effectiveness of the Tomatis Audio-Psycho-Phonological Method for treating children with reading disorders. The subjects of the research were 8 primary and secondary school children with reading disorders who were subject (on average) to 46 hours of treatment, or in other words less than 3 months of treatment (these 3 months included a minimum break of 6 weeks). The differences between the z points were calculated both in relation to the time and errors in reading performance before and after the treatment, and an endeavour was made to see if such improvement differences were greater than they would have been without treatment (Tressoldi, P.E., Stella, G., Faggella, M., 2001). This article provides an in-depth presentation of the results of two clinical cases with reading disorders both in phonological and lexical terms; in one case there were greater deficits in terms of the phonological aspect, and in the other case there were greater deficits in terms of the lexical aspect. In addition, the mean values and standard deviations for the changes in reading performances after the treatment are presented, which are calculated in relation to the 8 children with reading disorders. It emerged from this preliminary study that the mean increases after the treatment in relation to the reading speed in the MT Reading Test (correctness and speed) and the Words Reading Test were greater in terms of development than would have been the case without treatment. In the reading of non-words on the other hand, there was an increase in the reading speed which was close to what
would have occurred without treatment, although there was an average improvement in the correctness of 1.32 sd.
THE OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH The objective of the research was to make a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of Listening Therapy using the Tomatis Method in the treatment of children with reading disorders. It is a preliminary survey as the children treated with this type of therapy have undergone a programme which may be defined as minimal since overall it made provision for a total of only 4 to 5 hours of proper reading during the treatment as a whole. For children with reading disorders, the “traditional� programme pursued, which makes provision for only 15 hours in its Active Phase, was not considered to be sufficient. In order to make reading an automatic reflex, it would be necessary to increase the number of hours in this phase of the therapy, a phase during which the child not only listens passively to sounds (or words) but actively reads reading extracts.
METHOD Subjects A total of 8 children were treated using the Tomatis Method: 2 in the 3rd class in primary school, 4 in the 5th class in primary school, 1 in the 1st class in secondary school, and 1 from the 3rd class in secondary school. All of the subjects treated have reading disorders. More specifically: 1 subject has a specific reading disorder; 1 subject has a reading disorder suffered in combination with an emotional disorder; 5 subjects have a mixed disorder affecting their scholastic capabilities, of whom one also suffers from an attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity, while another also suffers from an emotional disorder; lastly, 1 suffers from a reading disorder combined with an attention deficit. The treatments were carried out for some of the children at the Psychology Department of the Merano Health Centre, while the other subjects were tested at a school in Merano.
Tools The tests which were administered before and after the treatment are: the MT (MT Group) Reading and Comprehension Tests; Tests 4, 5, 10, 11 and 12 (Reading Words and NonWords; the Dictation of Words, Non-Words and Sentences) from the “Assessment Kit for Dyslexia and Developmental Dysorthography� (Sartori, Job & Tressoldi). Regarding the MT Reading Extract Tests, what was administered in the Post-test period was either the same extract from the Pre-test period or an extract with the same level of difficulty, particularly regarding speed. However, with regard to the MT Comprehension Tests, in the Post-test period either the same extract from the pre-test period was administered, or the extract which would have been administered in that scholastic period. Also, Dictation Tests were administered, as recent studies have shown that difficulties in writing are linked to an unresolved difficulty at phonological level (Brizzolara D. et al., 1999); this would have to be excluded in the case of Sentences Dictation, where only nonphonological errors were taken into consideration and where we did not expect any improvements after the treatment. In the Pre-test and Post-test phases, each subject also underwent the Listening Text which, it should be pointed out, is not an audiogram. As a matter of fact, the Listening Test is a test specifically for assessing the functioning of listening rather than hearing.
HYPOTHESES It was assumed that the Listening Therapy applied according to the Tomatis Method acts in particular at phonological level; there should therefore be improvements primarily (but not only) in the level of reading of non-words, especially regarding the correctness. If this hypothesis is true, there should be greater results following the Tomatis treatment in cases in which the reading disorder is phonological in nature. If, on the other hand, what is being aimed for is an improvement in subjects with both visual and phonological dyslexia,
this data could support the phonological theory regarding dyslexia, which would explain these disorders as a difficulty in representing and/or memorising and/or recalling the sounds of words, posing an obstacle to efficient and sound learning of correspondences between graphemes and phonemes (Snowling, 2000).
RESULTS Calculations With regard to the Reading Tests, for each subject, the difference between the Post-test and Pre-test results was calculated in terms of the speed (measured in syllables per second), and the correctness (measured by the number of errors). In addition, the difference between the Post-test and Pre-test results was calculated with reference to z points in relation to the speed (calculated in relation to the number of syllables read per second for the MT Reading Extracts, and calculated in relation to the number of seconds for the Reading of Words and Non-Words Tests) and the correctness. With regard to the MT Reading Extract, and the Reading of Words and Non-Words, the changes which occurred after the treatment were compared using graphs with the data relating to the changes that would have been expected without treatment, or in other words subject to the natural development of the disorder. (Tressoldi, P.E., Stella, G., Faggella, M., 2001). In the Dictation Tests, the difference between the Post-test and Pre-test results were calculated with regard to the correctness (expressed in errors and z points). In addition, the listening curves for the subjects before and after the treatment are provided, with comments on the changes involved. The thicker lines (red lines) are the curves relating to the bone conduction, while the thinner lines are the curves relating to air conduction. The curves on the right of the page are those relating to the left ear and those on the left are for the right ear. The oblique lines which pass through the curves indicate the closing of the Selectiveness, or rather they indicate the difficulty experienced by the subject in telling whether the sound that he or she hears in a sequence of words is more acute or deeper than the previous sound listened to.
The horizontal axis indicates the frequencies of the pure sounds which are transmitted to the ear; firstly the left ear and then the right ear. On the vertical axis (left-hand part) the volume in decibels is indicated for the sound transmitted to the ear. Each point, which is then linked to the others in order to draw the ear or bone curve, indicates how much the volume had to be raised for it to be heard clearly by the subject. The oblique lines in the lower part indicate Spatialisation errors, or in other words when the sound is transmitted to one ear and the child hears it in the other ear. The number on the right-hand side indicates the “Listening Laterality�: if it is positive, it constitutes right-hand hearing laterality, and if it is negative, it is left-hand hearing laterality. The size of the number indicates the extent in decibels to which a subject has left or righthand hearing laterality. Separation of the two listening curves, with the air curve above the bone curve, indicates an improvement in the listening capacity. In addition to analyses of every single case, for the eight subjects considered in the research, the mean is calculated from the changes which occurred after treatment in the MT Reading Tests, the Reading of Words and Non-Words, and the Dictation of Words, Non-Words and Sentences. The mean values for the improvements which would however have occurred in the eight subjects considered without treatment were also calculated. It was then seen, in the MT Reading, and Reading of Words and Non-Words Tests, how many of the eight subjects after treatment surpassed the values attained without treatment in terms of the reading speed, or in other words the values relating to reading development which would have been attained without treatment. Below, a presentation of two clinical cases is provided, along with the mean values for the improvements achieved by the eight subjects after treatment using the Tomatis Method.
Presentation of two clinical cases: The results for the reading tests before and after treatment are shown in the graphs. The graphs feature columns which indicate the subject’s reading performance as follows: Pre-test = tests administered before the treatment; Post-test 1 = tests which were the same as the Pretest ones, administered after the treatment; Post-test 2: tests which were different from the Pre-test (but which were the same as the Pre-test in terms of the level of difficulty, particularly with regard to the reading speed), administered after the treatment. The D.w/oT.
column shows the reading development which would however have occurred in this subject in the absence of any type of treatment.
Case 1 Case 1 presented with a specific reading disorder in which the phonological reading deficit is greater. Regarding the reading of words and non-words, there was a difference between the z points relating to the time of 2.9, in which the reading of words was better than non-words. However, with regard to the correctness, there was a difference between the z points for the words and non-words of 0.12, in which the reading of words was always better than the reading of non-words. At the time of treatment, the subject was 11 years and 5 months old and was attending the 1st class of secondary school. The subject underwent 5 months of treatment, making a total of 60 hours of treatment: 31 hours of “Musical Sound Response”, 14 hours of “Filtered Sounds” in which, in this case, the mother’s voice was filtered, and 15 hours involving the “Active Spoken Language Phase”. Throughout the treatment as a whole, the subject completed about 4 hours of real reading.
Comparison between the Pre-test and Post-test results: Reading Tests
Reading Speed_Syll/Sec 3
2.71 2.82 2.2 2.07
2.01 2.15
Pre-test
2.11
Post-test1
2 0.83 0.74
1
0.88
Post-test2 D.w/oT.
0 MT_Reading
Words
Non-Words
Graph 1
Graph 1 shows performances in the MT Reading Test and the Reading of Words and Non-Words for case 1, expressed in the number of syllables read per second.
Reading Speed_z Points_Seconds VelocitĂ Lettura_Punti z_Secondi MT_Reading
Words
Non-Words
0 -2 -4
-1.85
-1.25 -1.15
Pre-test -1.43
-1.7
Post-test1 -4.6
-6
Post-test2 -5.49
Graph 2
Graph 2 shows performances in the MT Reading Test and the Reading of Words and Non-Words for case 1, expressed in z points referring to the speed in seconds.
Reading Correctness_Errors 10 8 6 4 2 0
8
7 5
5
Pre-test
5
4
Post-test1 2
MT_Reading
Words
Post-test2
Non-Words
Graph 3
Graph 3 shows performances in the MT Reading Test and the Reading of Words and Non-Words for case 1, with reference to the number of errors.
Reading Correctness_z Points_Errors MT_Reading
Words
1
Non-Words 0.55 Pre-test
0 -1 -2 -3
-0.77 -1.65
Post-test1
-0.59 -1.44 -2
-1.52
Post-test2
Graph 4
Graph 4 shows performances in the MT Reading Test and the Reading of Words and Non-Words for case 1, expressed in z points referring to the number of errors.
Table 1 Differences between Pre-test and Post-test results: Reading Tests
Diff_MT_R Syll/sec: 0.64 E: -2 z.p. syll/sec: -0.6 z.p. _E: -0.88
Dev. Dev. Diff_R_Non- Dev. w/o Diff_R_Words w/o Words w/o Treat. Treat. Treat. Syll/sec: 0.75 0.13 Syll/sec: +0.14 0.1 Syll/sec: -0.09 0.05 E: -2 E: +1 E: -6 z.p. syll/sec: -0.7 z.p. syll/sec: -0.27 z.p._T: +0.89 z.p. _E: -1.06 z.p. _E: +0.56 z.p. _E: -2.07 Diff_MT_R1
Table 1 shows the differences in performances achieved by the subject before and after the treatment: in the MT Reading Test that was the same as the Pre-Test (Diff_MT_R) and different from the Pre-Test (Diff_MT_R1); in the Words Reading Test (Diff_R_Words) and in the Non-Words Reading Test (Diff_R_Non-Words). The differences are expressed in: syll/sec. = syllables read per second; E = errors; z.p. syll/sec. = z points referring to the speed in syllables read per second; z.p. E = z points referring to the errors. Also shown are the reading increases which would have occurred without treatment (Dev. w./o T.), expressed in the number of syllables read per second. The negative values however relate to the errors and the z points, referring to the errors and the number of syllables read per second, indicate an improvement, or in other words a decrease in the errors and the z points referring to the speed and errors.
As may be seen in the Table, with regard to the reading speed, there was an improvement, especially in the Reading Extract, both in terms of the one that was the same as the Pre-test one and the one that was different from the Pre-test, which turns out to be substantially better than the increase that would have occurred without treatment. There was also an improvement in relation to the correctness, particularly for the Reading Extract, whether it was the one that was the same as the Pre-test one, or different from the Pre-test one. There was also an improvement of 2 sd in relation to the correctness of the Reading of NonWords.
Comparison between the Pre-test and the Post-test results: Dictation Test
Dictation_Errors 4 3 2 1 0
3
3 2
2
2
Post-test
0 Words
Pre-test
Non-Words
Sentences
Graph 5
Dictation_z Points_Errors
1
Words 0.49
Non-Words
Sentences
0 -0.21
-1
Pre-test -0.32 -1.25 -1.25
-2 -3
Post-test
-2.7 Graph 6
As may be seen in Graphs 5 and 6, the subject improved only in terms of Words Dictation.
Comparison between the listening curves before and after the treatment:
Fig 1: Listening curves for case 1 before treatment
Fig 2: Listening curves for case 1 after treatment.
Regarding the Pre-test Listening Test, it may be noted that the bone curve for the right ear is completely beneath the air curve. The bone curve for the left ear between 250 and 500 Hz is above the air curve, as is the case for the Pre-test results, in which the two parts of the curve are superimposed. The remaining part of the bone curve for the left ear differs from the Pretest in that it is below the air curve, apart from at the frequency of 1500 Hz. As was the case in the Pre-test results, the “Selectiveness” is open and the “Listening Lateralisation” is always +/- 5.
Final comment: Case 1 experienced an improvement in the Reading of MT Extracts both in terms of speed and correctness, although for the Reading of Non-Words an improvement occurred only in relation to correctness, which was also the case for the Words Dictation. There were also improvements in relation to the subject’s listening capacity which were measured with the Listening Test, as may be seen in Figures 1 and 2.
Case 2 Case 2 presented with a mixed scholastic capacity disorder. With regard to reading, there were both lexical and phonological deficits, with a greater lexical deficit (visual). As a matter of fact, between the reading of words and non-words there was a difference in the z points in relation to speed of -1.74, in which the non-words result was better and, in relation to the errors, there was a difference of -0.28, with the reading of non-words being better.
At the time of treatment, the subject was about 10 years old and was attending the 5th class in primary school. Two months of treatment were completed, totalling 40 hours: 26 hours of “Musical Sound Response” and 14 hours in the “Active Reading Phase”. Throughout the treatment as a whole, the subject completed 4 hours of real reading.
Comparison between the Pre-test and Post-test results: Reading Tests
Reading Speed Syll/sec. 1.5 1
Pre-test 1.06 0.89 0.88 0.83
0.68 0.72
0.77
0.72
0.5
Post-test1 0.49
0.47
Post-test2 Development
0 MT_Reading
Words
Non-Words
without senza Sviluppo treatment Trattamento
Graph 7
Graph 7 shows performances in the MT Reading Test and the Reading of Words and Non-Words for case 2, expressed in the number of syllables read per second.
Reading Speed_z Points_Times MT_Reading
Words
Non-Words
0 -5
-2.85 -3.08
Pre-test
-2.8
-4.57
-10 -15
-11.58
-10.8
-9.84
Post-test1 Post-test2
Graph 8
Graph 8 shows performances in the MT Reading Test and the Reading of Words and Non-Words for case 2, expressed in z points referring to the speed in seconds.
Reading Correctness_Errors 15 10
10
Pre-test 6
6
5
5
3
5
Post-test1 2
Post-test2
0 MT_Reading
Words
Non-Words
Graph 9
Graph 9 shows performances in the MT Reading Test and the Reading of Words and Non-Words for case 2, with reference to the number of errors.
Reading Correctness_z Points_Errors MT_Reading 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4
Words
Non-Words 0.39 0.69
Pre-test -0.54
-0.67 -0.67
-1.37
Post-test1 Post-test2
-2.93
Graph 10
Graph 10 shows performances in the MT Reading Test and the Reading of Words and Non-Words for case 2, expressed in z points referring to the number of errors.
Table 2 Differences between the Pre-test and Post-test results: Reading Tests
Dev. Dev. w/o Diff_R_Words w/o Treat. Treat. Syll/sec: 0.23 Syll/sec: 0.06 0.05 Syll/sec: 0.04 0.04 E: -4 E: -4 E: 0 z.p. syll/sec: -0.23 z.p. syll/sec: -0.28 z.p._T: -0.78 z.p. _E: -1.56 z.p. _E: -2.39 z.p. _E: 0 Diff_MT_R
Diff_MT_R1
Diff_R_NonWords Syll/sec: 0.3 E: -1 z.p._T: -5.27 z.p. _E: -0.3
Dev. w/o Treat. 0.02
Table 2 shows the differences in performances achieved by the subject before and after the treatment: in the MT Reading Test that was the same as the Pre-Test (Diff_MT_R) and different from the Pre-Test (Diff_MT_R1); in the Words Reading Test (Diff_R_Words) and in the Non-Words Reading Test (Diff_R_Non-Words). The differences are expressed in: syll/sec. = syllables read per second; E = errors; z.p. syll/sec. = z points referring to the speed in syllables read per second; z.p. E = z points referring to the errors.
Also shown are the reading increases which would have occurred without treatment (Dev. w/o T.), expressed in the number of syllables read per second. The negative values however relate to the errors and the z points, referring to the errors and the number of syllables read per second, indicate an improvement, or in other words a decrease in the errors and the z points referring to the speed and errors.
As may be seen in Table 2, there was an improvement in the reading speed for the MT Extract which was higher than there would have been without treatment, particularly for the MT Extract that was the same as the Pre-test one. However there was also a clear improvement in relation to the correctness, both for the MT extract that was the same as the Pre-test one and different from the Pre-test one. There was a substantial improvement in terms of the non-words reading speed in which there was a decrease and, therefore, an improvement of 5.27 standard deviations.
Comparison between the listening curves before and after the treatment:
Fig 3: Listening curves for case 2 before treatment
Fig 4: Listening curves for case 2 after treatment
As may be seen in Figures 3 and 4, after the treatment, there was an opening up of selectiveness in the left ear. There was a lowering in the bone curve in relation to the air curve, particularly in the first zone of the curve, for both ears. There was a rise in the air curve over both curves, particularly in the first zone of the curve. In this case it was possible to administer the Listening Attention Test from the BVN-511 Neuropsychological Assessment Kit for Developmental Age (Bisiacchi, Cendron, Gugliotta, Tressoldi & Vio) both before and after the treatment.
Table 3 Comparison between the Pre-test and Post-Test results: Listening Attention Test from the BVN kit
PRE-TEST
POST-TEST
Diff_Pre-Post_Treat.
BVN_Listen._Attent.
BVN_Listen._Attent.
BVN_Listen._Attent.
P: 14 z.p.: -5.65
P: 32 z.p.: -1.47
Diff_P: +18 Diff_z.p.: -4.18
As may be seen in Table 3, after treatment, case 2 went from a raw score (correct answers) of 14 to a raw score of 32, and the z point dropped, therefore constituting an improvement of 4.18 sd. Therefore it would appear that after the treatment there was a substantial improvement in the listening attention.
Observations during and after the treatment: During the treatment, the subject put a lot of effort in, particularly in the “Active Reading Phase� during which he had to read. The subject was always willing and motivated. During and after the treatment, the teachers noted a profound change in him; the child seems to be more aware of the specific difficulties, and seems to have both improved self-esteem and an improved ability to concentrate.
Results for the 8 subjects treated The following Tables indicate the means, standard deviations, and maximum and minimum values for the changes after the treatment. The means and the standard deviations for the differences between the Pre-test and Post-test results are presented, as well as for the performances by the subjects in the Reading and Writing Tests. The differences in relation to the z points are expressed as negative values for indicating a decrease in the z point and, therefore, an improvement in the performances. They are expressed as positive values in order to indicate an increase in the z point and, therefore, a deterioration.
Table 4 MT Reading Extract: MT_R_Extract Mean Stand. Dev. Max. Min. MT_R_Extract1 Mean Stand. Dev. Max. Min.
MT_R_syll/sec 0.22 0.44 0.87 -0.61
MT_R_z.p._syll/sec MT_R_err MT_R_z.p._err MT_D.w/oT._syll/sec -0.23 -2.50 -0.98 0.07 0.44 4.11 1.66 0.04 -0.90 -10 -3.91 0.13 0.61 3 1.18 0.05
MT_R1_syll/sec MT_R1_z.p._syll/sec MT_R1_err MT_R1_z.p._err MT_w/oT._s/s 0.10 -0.17 -1.50 -1.28 0.07 0.45 0.45 4.04 1.03 0.04 0.75 -0.70 -8 -2.82 0.13 -0.66 0.55 3 0.39 0.05
Key: MT_R_syll/sec: MT Reading Extract - same as the Pre-test one - syllables read per second MT_R_err: MT Reading Extract - same as the Pre-test one - errors MT_R1_syll/sec: MT Reading Extract - different from the Pre-test one - syllables read per second MT_R1_err: MT Reading Extract - different from the Pre-test one - errors MT_R_ z.p._syll/sec: MT Reading Extract - same as the Pre-test one - z points referring to the syllables read per second MT_R_ z.p._err: MT Reading Extract - same as the Pre-test one - z points referring to errors MT_R1_ z.p._syll/sec: MT Reading Extract - different from the Pre-test one - z points referring to the syllables read per second MT_R1_ z.p._err: MT Reading Extract - different from the Pre-test one - z points referring to errors MT_w/oT.: Development that would have occurred without treatment
Table 4 shows the means, standard deviations and the maximum and minimum values for the change in the subjects’ performances in the reading of MT Extracts after the treatment.
As may be seen for the MT Extract that was the same as the one administered in the Pre-test period, after an average of 2.75 months and a total of 46 hours of treatment, there was an increase in the number of syllables read per second of 0.22, and a decrease in the number of errors of 2.50. Therefore, with regard to the speed, there was an increase which turns out to be three times greater than the development which would have occurred during these 3 months without any treatment. Furthermore, on average there was a decrease in the errors of approximately one standard deviation. For the MT Reading Extract that was different from the Pre-test one, but was the same in terms of the level of difficulty, the improvements were more modest. There was an increase of 0.10 of a syllable read per second, which is a bit higher than the development which would have occurred without treatment, and a decrease in errors of 1.50; the z point relating to the errors dropped by 1.28. It should be emphasised that for the second MT Reading Extract which differed from the Pretest one, the test was always administered after the child had read the first reading extract which was the same as the Pre-test one, and therefore the hypothesis may be made that the child, who struggled to read the whole of the first extract, did not manage to achieve an optimal performance when reading the second extract as the automatic reflex for reading had not been achieved, which means that the child had to expend more energy. The second MT Reading Extract was administered after the first reading extract due to time limits, which did not allow the Reading Tests to be spaced apart more appropriately.
Table 5 MT Reading Extract: Comprehension MT_C_Corr.
MT_C_z.p.
MT_C1_Corr.
MT_C1_z.p.
0.50 1.41 3 -2
-0.22 0.72 -1.25 0.91
-0.57 2.30 4 -3
0.45 1.37 -1.56 1.90
MT_Compreh._Extract Mean Stand. Dev. Max. Min.
As may be seen in Table 5, the z point mean referring to the increase in the number of correct answers is 0.22 for the MT Extract that is the same as the one administered in the Pre-test
period (MT_C), while for the MT Reading Extract that is different from the Pre-test one (MT_C1), there were no improvements.
Table 6 Reading Words Reading_Words Mean Stand. Dev. Max. Min.
Word_R_syll/sec Word_R_z.p._sec 0.11 -0.73 0.21 1.05 0.45 -3.00 -0.17 0.37
Word_R Word_R_z.p. _err _err D.w/oT._Words_syll/sec. -1.38 -0.16 0.05 2.92 1.01 0.03 -6 -1.43 0.10 2 1.67 0.04
As may be seen in Table 6, in the Post-test period, as far as words are concerned, the mean for the increases was 0.11 of a syllable per second, which turns out to be double the amount of the mean development which would have occurred without treatment (D.w/oT.); with regard to the speed, there was a drop in the z point of 0.73. With regard to the correctness, there was a decrease of 1.38 errors and a z point decrease of 0.16.
Table 7 Reading Non-Words RRRRNWords__z.p. Reading_N_Words NWords_syll/sec NWords_z.p._sec NWords_err _err D.w/oT._NWords Mean 0.02 -0.73 -5.00 -1.32 0.03 Stand. Dev. 0.21 2.11 4.60 1.05 0.02 Max. 0.32 -5.27 -12 -2.85 0.05 Min. -0.25 0.89 3 0.39 0.02
As Table 7 shows, there was an increase of 0.02 of a syllable per second and a drop in the z point relating to the speed of 0.73. With regard to the correctness, there was a mean decrease of 5 errors and a drop in the z point relating to correctness of 1.32.
Table 8 Dictation Tests Dictation Words_er Words_z.p.er Non_Words_er Mean -0.88 -1.23 -0.57 Stand. Dev. 2.75 1.61 2.57 Max. -4 -3.08 -4 Min. 4 1.22 4
Non_Words_z.p.er -0.08
Sent._err -0.86
Sent._z.p.err -0.45
0.92 -1.54 1.54
1.46 -4 0
0.77 -2.11 0.00
In Table 8, it may be seen that the greatest changes after the treatment occurred in the Dictation of Words, where there was a drop exceeding one standard deviation for the z point referring to errors.
Subjects who, in terms of the reading speed, exceeded the values achieved without the treatment The numbers of subjects who exceeded the values attained in relation to “natural� development, or in other words the values relating to the reading development that would have occurred without treatment, were: 7 out of 8 in the MT Reading Tests - Correctness and speed, 3 out of 8 in the Words Reading Test, and 3 out of 8 in the Non-Words Reading Test.
General comment on the treatment results: As could be seen, the most substantial changes occurred in the case of reading non-words, particularly with regard to errors.
This fact could support the initial hypothesis that Listening Therapy using the Tomatis method acts primarily at phonological level. With regard to the reading speed, there was a greater improvement in the reading of the MT Extract; in this test, after treatment, over half of the subjects attained a better performance than what we would have expected without treatment.
Performance of subjects when reading non-words:
Non-Words Reading_z Points_Seconds 1
2
3
4
0
-0.23 -0.86
-2
5
7
-2.4 -3.11 -3.24
-3.79 -4.6 -5.49
-6
8
-0.47 -0.96
-2.19 -4
6
-5.4
Pre-test -4.57
-5
-5.45
Post-test
-8 -10 -9.84 -12
Graph 11
Graph 11 shows the performances (expressed in z points) of all the subjects in the Non-Words Reading Test. The z points refer to the time in seconds.
Non-Words Reading_z Points_Errors 1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 0.69
0.55
0.29
0.39
0 -1 -2
-0.33 -0.74
-0.68 -1.52 -1.93
-1.45 -1.52
-1.69
-1.29
Pre-test Post-test
-3 -4
-3.36 -3.6
-4.14
-5 Graph 12
Graph 12 shows the performances (expressed in z points) of all the subjects in the Non-Words Reading Test. The z points refer to the errors.
Graphs 11 and 12 show the z points relating to the times and errors for the performances by the subjects in the Non-Words Reading Test.
An improvement in the reading of non-words was noted both in the case of subjects with reading disorders that are predominantly phonological and with reading disorders that are predominantly non-phonological. In some cases (subjects 7 and 8) there was also an improvement in the reading speed. In another case (subject 3), there was no increase in the reading speed. In other cases, there was a slight deterioration in the reading speed, which was however amply compensated for by the decrease in the number of errors; the slight increase in the time and the notable decrease in errors could be explained by the fact that the children are starting to break down each word more in order to read it correctly, and are therefore taking a bit more time (subjects 2, 4, 5 and 6). Subject 1’s speed increased by about 2 standard deviations, and the correctness dropped by about 1 standard deviation; therefore there was some improvement.
CONCLUSIONS From these initial preliminary data it emerged that the most substantial changes occurred in relation to reading non-words, particularly regarding errors. This fact could support the initial hypothesis that Listening Therapy using the Tomatis Method acts primarily at phonological level. Given that improvements occurred both in the case of subjects with reading disorders predominantly in phonological terms, and in the case of subjects with reading disorders predominantly in lexical terms, and given that the Tomatis Method seems to act at phonological level (as there were improvements primarily, but not only, in terms of the correctness of reading of non-words), these preliminary data could support the hypothesis which asserts that what forms the basis of reading disorders is predominantly a phonological problem (Snowling, 2000). As far as the reading speed is concerned, there was a greater improvement in the reading of the MT Extract; in this test, after treatment, over half of the subjects achieved better performances than what we expected without treatment. It is emphasised that throughout the treatment the children clocked up a total of about 4 hours of reading, while the rest of the treatment was focused on passive listening to filtered and unfiltered words. In our view, it would be appropriate, in the case of children with reading disorders, if more hours were spent on the Active Spoken Language Phase, and especially more hours of reading, with provision also being made for the possibility of each child receiving a course of personalised reading in which, based on the type of errors most commonly made by the child, the subject is made to read and listen to lists of words compiled on an ad hoc basis for him or her.
Acknowledgements: Special thanks to Dr Patrizio Emanuele Tressoldi of the University of Padua, who supervised the research; Dr Erwin Demichiel, Director of the Psychology Department at the Merano Health Clinic, and to the Academic Director, Dr Riccò Antonio, who authorised this research. Also, thanks to all the teachers at the Galileo Galilei School, Merano, who directly or indirectly collaborated with the research.
Bibliography
Brizzolara et al. (1999): Memoria di lavoro fonologica e difficoltà di apprendimento della lingua scritta nei bambini con disturbo specifico di linguaggio, Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo, Vol. 3, pp. 465-88.
Bisiacchi P.S., Cendron M., Gugliotta M., Tressoldi P.E. & Vio C. (2005): BVN Batteria di valutazione neuropsicologica per l’età evolutiva, Erickson, Trent. Cornoldi C., Colpo G. (1998): Prove di lettura MT per la Scuola Elementare-2, Organizzazioni Speciali, Florence.
Sartori G., Job R. & Tressoldi P.E. (1995): Batteria per la Valutazione della Dislessia e Disortografia Evolutiva, Organizzazioni Speciali, Florence.
Snowling, M.J. (2000): Dyslexia, Blackwell, Oxford (2nd ed.).
Tressoldi, P.E., Stella, G., Faggella, M. (2001): The development of reading speed in Italians with dyslexia: a longitudinal study, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 67-78.