Last fall, Gimpy, a blogger in the U.K., wrote a scathing diatribe against learning disability profiteers, and a second post blasting the Davis Dyslexia Method. A woman Abigail Marshall, who is the Davis Dyslexia Association's webmistress in the U.S., responded to Gimpy's second post.
A civil conversation ensued in A response to Abigail Marshall and the Davis Dyslexia Association International.
I have two distinct objections to the Davis Method:
- Ronald Davis came up with the method in 1980, before the publication of objective research (using brain-imaging technology) on the neurocognitive roots of dyslexia were widely known. (mid-1990s). He did not alter or change his Method based on new research, and the implications of the new research have been misrepresented by the Davis Dyslexia Association (also see here, Brain Research and Dyslexia)
- While the Davis Method has been offering "treatment" since 1982, no independent, objective evaluations of efficacy of the Davis Method have ever been performed, or has the efficacy of the Davis Method ever been evaluated compared to other approaches to remediating dyslexia, such as the variations of the Orton-Gillingham approach or Rave-O
To summarize: The Davis Method has no basis in what we now know about the neurocognitive nature of reading, and has no evidence of efficacy. Any educator or educational therapist recommending the Davis Method for remediation of dyslexia is behaving unethically.
As John Wills Lloyd wrote:
However, it seems to me that failing to make clear statements about the tenability of erroneous ideas is, in itself, a failure to serve as a provider of useful information. In the the absence of clear evidence that Treatment X is beneficial and presence of substantial evidence that Treatment X is actually harmful, I consider it important to advocate that parents, educators, and clinicians not use Treatment X. Indeed, as an advocate for kids and their families, isn’t it my duty to call “Bologna” when I’m confronted with unsubstantiated and disconfirmed hypotheses?
I don't think the Davis Method is "actively harmful" -- except to the parents' wallet, and the child's time and expectations. But there is another sense in which it is damaging -- the totally unfounded "explanation" of dyslexia gets in the way of a more sophisticated and nuanced view of each dyslexic child's strengths and weaknesses.
Update: I, like Gimpy, believe that the people associated with the Davis Dyslexia Correction Method are motivated by " a genuine desire to help dyslexic people" and that they believe in the validity and efficacy of what they are doing.
But "belief" isn't enough. Data is necessary.
What would get me to change my mind about the Davis Method? A randomized, controlled study, with a sufficiently large number of participants, with pre- and post-treatment reading measures, comparing (a) a known program training phonological processing and decoding skills such as the one used in this study (b) the Davis Method and (c) no interventions, that showed that the Davis Method was superior in improving reading, as measured by the pre- and post-treatment measures.
Recent Comments