The Diagnosis and Treatment of Reading and/or Spelling Disorders in Children and Adolescents

Background: 3–11% of children and adolescents suffer from a reading and/or spelling disorder. Their poor written-language skills markedly impair their scholastic performance and are often associated with other mental disorders. A great deal of uncertainty still surrounds the question of the appropriate methods of diagnosis and treatment.

Methods: We systematically searched for pertinent publications in databases and literature reference lists, summarized the evidence in six tables, and examined some of it in a meta-analysis. Recommendations were developed in a consensus conference.

Results: A reading and/or spelling disorder should only be diagnosed if performance in these areas is below average. It should be determined whether an attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorder, or disorder of arithmetical skills is also present. Reading and spelling performance should be reinforced with systematic instruction about letter-sound and sound-letter correspondences, letter-syllable-morpheme synthesis, and sound-syllable-morpheme analysis (g’ = 0.32) (recommendation grade A). Spelling ability responds best to spelling-rule training (recommendation grade A). Irlen lenses, visual and/or auditory perceptual training, hemispheric stimulation, piracetam, and prism spectacles should not be used (recommendation grade A).

Conclusions: Evidence- and consensus-based guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of reading and/or spelling disorders in children and adolescents are now available for the first time. Reading and spelling abilities should be systematically and comprehensively reinforced, and potential comorbid disorders should be sought and treated appropriately. The efficacy of many treatments now in use has not been documented; if they are to be used in the future, they must be tested in randomized, controlled trials. For adult sufferers, adequate diagnostic instruments and therapeutic methods are not yet available.

Worldwide, some 3–11% of children and adolescents have a reading and/or spelling disorder (1–3). The ICD-10 distinguishes between combined reading and spelling disorder (prevalence: 8%) and isolated spelling disorder (prevalence: 7%). Isolated reading disorder (prevalence: 6%), which has so far not been included in the ICD-10, is similarly common (1). Reading disorder is characterized by many errors made during quiet reading and reading out loud of words, by noticeably slowed-down reading speed and impaired reading comprehension. This affects all school subjects, foreign languages or even the understanding of mathematical tasks (4). In spelling disorder, massive difficulties arise when children start learning to write. These include learning the relation between sound and letters and orthographically correct spellings of word components and complete words (5). In combined reading and spelling disorder, the symptoms of reading disorder and spelling disorder occur in combination.

Children with reading and spelling disorder are often seen in outpatient healthcare services—for example, in pediatric practices or public health services—for psychosomatic symptoms, such as headaches or stomach aches, nausea, and lack of motivation/drive. If children or adolescents repeatedly experience failures at school, the may develop severe fear of failure and negative self-conception of their own ability. The comorbidity with externalizing and internalizing disorders is correspondingly high (6). Some 20% of children and adolescents with a reading disorder develop an anxiety disorder, but depression and conduct disorders are also common (7–10). Untreated and without specific support, reading and spelling disorder often results in failure at, or absenteeism from school, with grave consequences for professional education and training and for psychological wellbeing in adulthood (11–13).

The diagnosis of reading and spelling disorder is inconsistent in medical and psychological/psychotherapeutic practice. This is partly based on different methodological approaches, diagnostic criteria, and testing methods. As far as treatment is concerned, a vast arsenal of different treatment methods is available that often have been evaluated not at all or only to an unsatisfactory degree (15). For this reason, the effectiveness of support methods and the fitness for purpose, reliability, and validity of any diagnostic approach should be evaluated urgently, in order to be able to derive clear instructions and recommendations for clinical practice.

To this end, the German Association for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie, Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie, DGKJP) has presided over the development of an evidence based and consensus based (S3) clinical practice guideline for the diagnostic evaluation and treatment of children and adolescents with reading and spelling disorder.

Method

For the recommendations, comprehensive systematic literature searches of several databases were undertaken (PubMed, PsycInfo, ERIC, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, ProQuest) (Figure 1). Where possible the data thus identified were evaluated by means of meta-analysis. The literature search included all publications up to and including April 2015. As far as we are aware, no new randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews were published between that time and the publication of the guidelines. We searched the databases PSYNDEX and Testzentrale. The identified literature was checked independently by two assessors for inclusion and exclusion criteria. eBox 1 shows the inclusion criteria. All included studies were evaluated with regard to their methodological quality by using the checklists of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and assigned an evidence level by using the scheme of the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) (16).

Figure 1

Flow chart showing the literature search and selection for the overall area of treatment

eBox 1

Overview of inclusion criteria according to the research question

In order to assess the methodological quality of the psychometric tests for capturing reading and spelling ability, we used an abbreviated version of the DIN 33430 Screen V2 checklist 1 (17). No evidence level was assigned. We assessed the manuals on the basis of central quality criteria (18), which had to have been implemented in the diagnostic testing methods (eBox 2). In a consensus meeting that was moderated by a neutral party, the participating specialty societies voted (eBox 3) in a structured manner for each recommendation. Agreement of >95% was regarded as strong consensus, 75–95% as consensus, and 50–57% as majority agreement.

eBox 2

Central quality criteria for assessing tests

eBox 3

Participating organizations

Diagnostic evaluation

For the diagnostic evaluation, three different diagnostic criteria are used in clinical practice that are based on the ICD-10 (19), which yield different prevalence rates of the disorder: the age/grade intelligence quotient (IQ) discrepancy criterion. The crucial question is which criterion or which combination of these criteria should be used in future to make a diagnosis. Since no empirical evidence was found regarding the different therapeutic effects, the course of the disorder, or heritability between children and adolescents, in whom a diagnosis of reading/spelling disorder was made on the basis of a discrepancy in terms of age/grade or IQ (www.kjp.med.uni-muenchen.de/forschung/leitl_lrs.php, evidence table for the purpose of diagnostic evaluation), none of the criteria is to be put to preferential use. One of the three criteria should therefore be used to base a diagnosis on. For the IQ discrepancy criterion, it needs to be ensured for making a diagnosis that below-average achievements apply in terms of reading and spelling ability. This means that the discrepancy from the age or grade should be at least one standard deviation (SD) (Table 1). Regarding psychometric testing methods, no criteria were available on the basis of which the instruments could have been compared. The guideline recommends which testing methods should be preferred in order to assess reading and/or spelling ability (eTable 1).

Table 1

Diagnostic criteria conform to guideline recommendations

eTable 1

Recommended methods for testing reading and spelling performance

In addition to the appropriate diagnostic instruments, a detailed developmental, family, and school history should be taken, as well as a neurological and internal examination, an intelligence test, and a differential diagnostic examination with the aim of excluding ocular vision disorders or auditory perception and processing disorders (20).

Differential diagnosis

If children or adolescents report blurred vision, sudden/rapid-onset tiredness, and headaches after reading for prolonged periods, as well as an increase in symptoms during the course of the school day, an eye-related reading disorder should be considered, which can have different causes:

• Refractive anomalies (refractive error), hyperopia (farsightedness)
• Latent and intermittent strabismus (heterophoria)
• Hypo-accommodation (reduced ability for accommodation to near distance)
• Convergence insufficiency.

The latter two disorders often occur in tandem (21). The recommended diagnostic approach is summarized in eTable 2. 6.7% of a population of primary school children with reading and spelling disorder were found to have ocular problems that may have caused the reading difficulties (22).

eTable 2

Diagnostic evaluation by ophthalmologist and orthoptic optician in differential diagnosis of reading and/or spelling disorder versus eye-related reading disorder (modified from [e53])

Peripheral hearing problems that may permanently impair language/speech acquisition and the acquisition of writing skills are additional important differential diagnoses. These can be subcategorized into conductive hearing loss, sensorineural hearing loss, and combined hypoacusis (23). The guideline recommends the following methods for diagnosing hearing problems in schoolchildren:

• Impedance audiometry with stapedius reflex measurement in order to assess the ventilation mechanism of the middle ear
• Otoacoustic emissions to test auditory cell function
• Determining hearing threshold levels by means of air and bone conduction.

An auditory disorder is to be regarded as relevant for speech where bilateral hearing loss (>25 dB in the ear with better hearing) has been present for more than three months or permanently in the main speech frequency range (between 500 and 4000 Hz). Even in low-grade hearing loss, schoolchildren display notable difficulties in distinguishing sounds, which is a basic condition for acquiring spelling/writing language skills.

Providing support

The guideline focuses on assessing the multitude of methodologically and substantially different therapeutic options regarding their effectiveness in treating reading and spelling disorder. In addition to symptom-specific approaches that directly target the reduced reading and spelling ability and their precursor skills and the so-called causal therapies, which support basic functions such as auditory and visual perception, medication treatments and a number of esoteric and alternative medical approaches exist.

A meta-analysis showed an improvement in reading and spelling performance only for symptom-specific approaches. Accordingly, these approaches are recommended for treating such disorders. The included studies and results of the meta-analysis are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Results of the meta-analysis

Reading performance can best be developed by using the systematic instructions of letter-sound correspondences and letter-syllable- and morpheme synthesis (g’ = 0.32; 95% confidence interval [0.18; 0.47]) (24). Spelling performance is most effectively improved by using the systematic instructions of sound-letter correspondences, exercises analyzing sounds, syllables, and morphemes ((g’ = 0.34; [0.06; 0.61]) and by applying a training procedure to enable the acquisition and generalization of orthographic regularities (24–27). Figure 2 shows relevant examples. Furthermore, the reading performance of children and adolescence with a reading disorder can be improved by presenting texts in large print (≥ 14 pt) and wider space between letters, words, and lines (≥ 2.5 pt) (28). Reading materials for affected students should therefore be selected accordingly.

Figure 2

Examples of evidence based methods

The effectiveness of auditory or visual perception and processing training programs (g’ = 0.39; [–0,07; 0.84]) (e1–e3), medication (g’ = 0.13; [–0.07; 0.32]), and Irlen lenses (g’ = 0.316; [–0.01; 0.64]) (e1–e3) was not confirmed by the meta-analysis (24). Controlled studies (e4–e6) have not shown any benefit for the effectiveness of neuropsychological hemisphere-specific stimulation training compared with no treatment. Alternative approaches (homeopathy, acupressure, osteopathy, and kinesiology), food supplements, visual biofeedback, motor exercises and occlusion therapy (eTable 3) did not increase reading and spelling performance in affected children (e7–e11).

eTable 3

Overview of non-symptom-oriented intervention methods without or with lacking evidence

No evidence to date has shown that prism spectacles improve spelling/writing performance. Prism correction is used in heterophoria, but this does not explain the symptoms of reading and spelling disorder. The concept of visual angle defects should be distinguished from heterophoria, as this concept arises only once testing conditions have been used that are in accordance with the H J Haase measurement and correction methodology. Prisms are used when a fixation disparity has been noted. The aim is to allow the eyes as comfortable a visual angle as possible. This method for determining the fixation disparity is very controversial, and the entire methodology proposed by H J Haase is scientifically not accepted (e12, e13).

Support setting

The guideline includes recommendations on treatment initiation, treatment duration, therapists’ qualifications, and the support setting (support given to individuals or small groups).

Affected children should receive support from their first school year, as an early start is more effective than a start from the second to sixth year (recommendation grade A) (29).

Support measures should be implemented in individual group settings or small groups settings (≤ five persons) (recommendation grade A). No differences in effectiveness have been identified between interventions administered in individual sessions or group sessions (24). However, in order to make a decision about the support setting, existing comorbidities and the severity of the disorder should be considered.

The therapist’s profession affects the effectiveness of the intervention. When measures were initiated by teachers and the study authors, the effectiveness of the support reached significance. When fellow pupils, parents, and university students administered the intervention, its effectiveness was not unequivocally confirmed (24, 30). For this reason, the interventions should be implemented by experts in reading and spelling development and its promotion (recommendation grade A).

Furthermore, a longer duration of the intervention is associated with a greater improvement in reading and/or spelling performance (24, 31). Children and adolescents with a reading and spelling disorder should therefore receive support for as long as it takes to reach an ability to read and spell that enables them to participate in public life in an age-appropriate way (clinical consensus point). In most cases this means several years of intense support and treatment, which is, however, often not provided because the healthcare system has no provision for funding it. For this reason, the prospects for young persons with reading and spelling disorder in terms of a scholastic development that matches their aptitude and talent and for psychosocial integration into society are lower than for their peers.

Comorbidities

The role of comorbidities for the effectiveness of therapeutic methods in the setting of reading and spelling disorder has thus far been underestimated. These comorbidities often include anxiety disorders, depressive symptoms, hyperkinetic disorder or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and absenteeism from school, and conduct disorders in adolescents. ADHD is four times more common in children and adolescents with reading and spelling disorder, and the prevalence in children whose reading and spelling disorder has already been diagnosed is 8–18% (7, 9, 32).

Furthermore, a notably increased prevalence of anxiety disorders (20%) and depressive disorders (14.5%) was found in young persons with reading and spelling disorder. The risk for being found to have an anxiety disorder in existing reading and spelling disorder is quadrupled. For social phobia, there are indications that the risk increases sixfold (7, 9, 10).

The comorbid occurrence of reading and spelling disorder and specific disorder of arithmetical skills is significantly increased. The prevalence rate was between 20% and 40% in children who had already been diagnosed with reading and spelling disorder. The risk of a disorder of arithmetical skills is increased by four to five times (33). The prevalence of both disorders in the total population is 3–8% (33–37).

Studies investigating the language performance of children and adolescents with reading and spelling disorder have shown a significant accumulation of expressive and/or receptive language disorder in children and adolescents with reading and spelling disorder, but reliable prevalence rates cannot be derived (38, 39).

In sum, for a diagnosis of reading and spelling disorder, the comorbidities should be determined and included in the treatment plan.

Figure 3 shows the evidence based approach to diagnosis and support.

Figure 3

Algorithms of guideline-conform diagnostic evaluation and treatment

A need for action and research

A clear need for action and research exists in the areas of diagnosis and treatment of reading and spelling disorder.

Many testing procedures used in the diagnostic evaluation were not included in the guideline recommendations because they were of insufficiently low methodological quality. The reliable and valid ascertainment of precursor skills for the early detection of reading and spelling disorder is impossible by means of the tests currently available. Standardized spelling tests that can be used for the entire school year are lacking in Germany. Many tests can be used only at certain time intervals in the course of a school year because of their standardization. Reading tests for adolescents and adults do not exist in Germany; a diagnosis in these age groups is therefore almost impossible.

As far as treatment is concerned, a substantial need exists for research in the form of randomized controlled trials, for all interventional approaches and methods (40).

Hardly any prevalence studies are available from German-speaking countries that have collected data on comorbidities in reading and spelling disorder. High-quality studies have been published for this topic only in the context of specific disorder of arithmetical skills (1, 33). In the studies, regionality is of particular importance for the generalizability of the results to one’s own situation, because of different diagnostic approaches and criteria, as well as environmental conditions. Furthermore, prevalence estimates of developmental disorders of scholastic skills should always be undertaken on the basis of unselected samples, as this is the only way in which to avoid biases.

Using the S3 guideline in clinical practice

The guideline should be used in all clinical, outpatient, and inpatient settings where children and adolescents with school-related problems and associated psychosomatic symptoms or psychological disorders are seen. However, the guideline also provides recommendations for the diagnostic evaluation and treatment in the children's eye care center, in ear, nose, and throat practices, and in the pediatric audiological examination for the diagnostic evaluation of children with hearing, reading, and spelling problems. The provision of targeted support interventions in reading and spelling disorder is currently not covered by the statutory health insurers, which means that those affected have to fund their own treatment. The support methods on offer are multifarious and confusing; their effectiveness is unclear. Methods whose effectiveness is unclear or lacking should not be used. The guidelines provide clear therapeutic recommendations whose implementation helps save costs and avoid serious psychosocial stress resulting from insufficient/unsatisfactory therapy.

Acknowledgement
The guideline development was funded primarily by the Bundesverband Legasthenie und Dyskalkulie [BVL, German Dyslexia and Dyscalculia Association] and the German Association for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy (DGKJP). We thank all our colleagues and organizations involved in the development of the guideline. Special thanks go to Stefan Haberstroh for his work at the editorial office and support in administrative tasks.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists.

Manuscript received on 18 December 2015, revised version accepted on
14 January 2015.

Translated from the original German by Birte Twisselmann, PhD.

Corresponding author
Prof. Dr. med. Gerd Schulte-Körne
Klinik und Poliklinik für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie,
Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie
Klinikum der Universität München
Nussbaumstraße 5a
80336 München

@Supplementary material
For eReferences please refer to:
www.aerzteblatt-international.de/ref1616

eBox, eTables:
www.aerzteblatt-international.de/16m0279

References

1. Moll K, Kunze S, Neuhoff N, Bruder J, Schulte-Körne G: Specific learning disorder: prevalence and gender differences. PloS One 2014; 9: e103537

2. Katusic SK, Colligan RC, Barbaresi WJ, Schaid DJ, Jacobsen SJ: Incidence of reading disability in a population-based birth cohort, 1976–1982, Rochester, Minn. Mayo Clin Proc 2001; 76: 1081–92

3. Smythe I, Everatt J, Salter R: International book of dyslexia: a guide to practice and resources. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons 2004

4. Schulte-Körne G, Remschmidt H: [Dyslexia—Symptomatology, diagnosis, etiology, long-term outcome and therapy]. Dtsch Arztebl 2003; 100: C333–C8

5. Schulte-Körne G: The prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of dyslexia. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010; 107: 718

6. Schulte-Körne G: Mental health problems in a school setting in children and adolescents. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2016 (in press).

7. Bäcker A, Neuhäuser G: Internalisierende und externalisierende Syndrome bei Lese- und Rechtschreibstörungen. Prax Kinderpsychol K 2003; 52: 329–37.

8. Carroll JM, Maughan B, Goodman R, Meltzer H: Literacy difficulties and psychiatric disorders: evidence for comorbidity. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2005; 46: 524–32

9. Goldston DB, Walsh A, Mayfield Arnold E, et al.: Reading problems, psychiatric disorders, and functional impairment from mid- to late adolescence. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2007; 46: 25–32

10. Willcutt E, Pennington B: Psychiatric comorbidity in children and adolescents with reading disability. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2000; 41: 1039–48

11. Schulte-Körne G (ed.): Elternratgeber Legasthenie. München: Knaur; 2004.

12. Schulte-Korne G, Deimel W, Jungermann M, Remschmidt H: Follow-up of a sample of children with reading-spelling disorders in adulthood. Z Kinder Jugendpsychiatr Psychother 2003; 31: 267–76

13. Esser G, Wyschkon A, Schmidt MH: Was wird aus Achtjährigen mit einer Lese-Rechtschreibstörung? Ergebnisse im Alter von 25 Jahren. Z Kinder Jugendpsychiatr Psychother 2002; 31: 235–42.

14. Schulte-Körne G, Galuschka K: Lese- und/oder Rechtschreibstörung bei Kindern und Jugendlichen, Diagnostik und Behandlung. S3-Leitlinie AWMF-Register-Nr. 028/044. www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/028-044.html (last accessed on 2 September 2015).

15. Ise E, Dolle K, Pixner S, Schulte-Körne G: Effektive Förderung rechenschwacher Kinder. Eine Metaanalyse. Kind Entw 2012; 21: 181–92

16. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM): Levels of evidence working group. The 2011 Oxford Levels of Evidence. www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653 (last accessed on 17 December 2013).

17. Kersting M: Qualität in der Diagnostik und Personalauswahl - der DIN-Ansatz: Göttingen: Hogrefe 2008.

18. Galuschka K, Rothe J, Schulte-Korne G: Die methodische Beurteilung und qualitative Bewertung psychometrischer Tests am Beispiel aktueller Verfahren zur Erfassung der Lese- und/oder Rechtschreibleistung. Z Kinder Jugendpsychiatr Psychother 2015; 43: 317–34

19. Dilling H, Mombour W, Schmidt MH (eds.), Weltgesundheitsorganisation, Schulte-Markwort E: Internationale Klassifikation psychischer Störungen. ICD-10 Kapitel V (F). Klinisch-diagnostische Leitlinien. 6. Auflage. Bern: Hans Huber 2008

20. Schulte-Körne G: Spezifische Lernstörungen. Z Kinder Jugendpsychiatr Psychother 2014; 42: 369–74

21. Schäfer W: Augenärztliche Hilfen bei Legasthenie. In: Bundesverband für Legasthenie, (ed.): Legasthenie, Bericht über den Fachkongress. Hannover: Ostfriesische beschützende Werkstätten 1995; 84–93.

22. Motsch S, Mühlendyck H: Frequency of reading disability caused by ocular problems in 9-and 10-year-old children in a small town. Strabismus 2000; 8: 283–5

23. Zahnert T: The differential diagnosis of hearing loss. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011; 108: 433–44

24. Galuschka K, Ise E, Krick K, Schulte-Körne G: Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PloS One 2014; 9: e89900

25. Kirk C, Gillon GT: Integrated morphological awareness intervention as a tool for improving literacy. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2009; 40: 341–51

26. Berninger VW, Winn WD, Stock P, et al.: Tier 3 specialized writing instruction for students with dyslexia. Read Writ 2008; 21: 95–129

27. Ise E, Schulte-Körne G: Spelling deficits in dyslexia: evaluation of an orthographic spelling training. Ann Dyslexia 2010; 60: 18–39

28. Zorzi M, Barbiero C, Facoetti A, et al.: Extra-large letter spacing improves reading in dyslexia. PNAS 2012; 109: 11455–9

29. Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Stahl SA, Willows DM: Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 2001; 71: 393–447

30. Ise E, Engel RR, Schulte-Körne G: Was hilft bei der Lese-Rechtschreibstörung? Ergebnisse einer Metaanalyse zur Wirksamkeit deutschsprachiger Förderansätze. Kind Entw 2012; 21: 122–36

31. McArthur G, Eve PM, Jones K, et al.: Phonics training for English-speaking poor readers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 12: CD009115

32. Sexton CC, Gelhorn HL, Bell JA, Classi PM: The co-occurrence of reading disorder and ADHD: epidemiology, treatment, psychosocial impact, and economic burden. J Learn Disabil 2012; 45: 538–64

33. Landerl K, Moll K: Comorbidity of learning disorders: prevalence and familial transmission. J Clin Child Psychol 2010; 51: 287–94

34. von Aster M, Schweiter M, Zulauf MW: Rechenstörungen bei Kindern: Vorläufer, Prävalenz und psychische Symptome. Z Entwickl Padagogis 2007; 39: 85–96

35. Lewis C, Hitch GJ, Walker P: The prevalence of specific arithmetic difficulties and specific reading difficulties in 9- to 10-year old boys and girls. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1994; 35: 283–92

36. Badian NA: Persistent arithmetic, reading, or arithmetic and reading disability. Ann Dyslexia 1999; 49: 45–70

37. Dirks E, Spyer G, van Lieshout ECDM, de Sonneville L: Prevalence of combined reading and arithmetic disabilities. J Learn Disabil 2008; 41: 460–73

38. McArthur GM, Hogben JH, Edwards VT, Heath SM, Mengler ED: On the ‘specifics' of specific reading disability and specific language impairment. J Clin Child Psychol 2000; 41: 869–74

39. Catts HW, Adlof SM, Hogan TP, Weismer SE: Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders? J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48: 1378–96

40. Groth K, Hasko S, Bruder J, Kunze S, Schulte-Koerne G: Interventionseffekte bei Lese-Rechtschreibstörung: Evaluation von zwei Förderkonzepten unter besonderer Betrachtung methodischer Aspekte. Lernen und Lernstörungen 2013; 2: 161–75

e1. Given BK, Wasserman JD, Chari SA, Beattie K, Eden GF: A randomized, controlled study of computer-based intervention in middle school struggling readers. Brain Lang 2008; 106: 83–97

e2. Hook P, Macaruso P, Jones S: Efficacy of Fast ForWord training on facilitating acquisition of reading skills by children with reading difficulties—A longitudinal study. Ann Dyslexia 2001; 51: 73–96

e3. Berwanger D, von Suchodoletz W: Erprobung eines Zeitverarbeitungstrainings bei Kindern mit Lese- Rechtschreibschwierigkeiten. Z Kinder Jugendpsychiatr Psychother 2004; 32: 77–84

e4. Lorusso ML, Facoetti A, Bakker DJ: Neuropsychological treatment of dyslexia: Does type of treatment matter? J Learn Disabil 2011; 44: 136–49

e5. Bakker DJ, Vinke J: Effects of hemisphere-specific stimulation on brain activity and reading in dyslexics. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1985; 7: 505–25

e6. Robertson J: Neuropsychological intervention in dyslexia: two studies on British pupils. J Learn Disabil 2000; 33: 137–48

e7. Bull L: Sunflower therapy for children with specific learning difficulties (dyslexia): a randomised, controlled trial. Complement Ther Clin Pract 2007; 13: 15–24

e8. Kairaluoma L, Närhi V, Ahonen T, Westerholm J, Aro M: Do fatty acids help in overcoming reading difficulties? A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effects of eicosapentaenoic acid and carnosine supplementation on children with dyslexia. Child Care Health Dev 2009; 35: 112–9

e9. McPhillips M, Hepper PG, Mulhern G: Effects of replicating primary-reflex movements on specific reading difficulties in children: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. Lancet 2000; 355: 537–41

e10. Liddle E, Jackson G, Jackson S: An evaluation of a visual biofeedback intervention in dyslexic adults. Dyslexia 2005; 11: 61–77

e11. Stein JF, Richardson AJ, Fowler MS: Monocular occlusion can improve binocular control and reading in dyslexics. Brain 2000; 123: 164–70

e12. Kommerell G: Wann ist eine Prismenverordnung sinnvoll? Ophthalmologe 2014; 111: 283–92

e13. Gerling J, de Paz H, Schroth V, Bach M, Kommerell G: Ist die Feststellung einer Fixationsdisparation mit der Mess-und Korrektionsmethodik nach H.-J. Haase (MKH) verlässlich? Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2000; 216: 401–11

e14. Lenhard W, Schneider W: ELFE 1–6. Ein Leseverständnistest für Erst- bis Sechstklässler. In: Hasselhorn M, Marx H, Schneider W (eds.): Deutsche Schultests. Göttingen: Hogrefe 2006

e15. Schneider W, Schlagmüller, M: Lesegeschwindigkeits- und Verständnistest (LGVT-R 5–13) Göttingen: Hogrefe 2016.

e16. Bäuerlein K, Lenhard W, Schneider W: LESEN 6–7. Lesetestbatterie für die Klassenstufen 6 –7. In: Hasselhorn M, Schneider W, Trautwein U (eds.): Hogrefe Schultests. Göttingen: Hogrefe 2012.

e17. Bäuerlein K, Lenhard W, Schneider W: LESEN 8–9. Lesetestbatterie für die Klassenstufen 8 –9. In: Hasselhorn M, Schneider W, Trautwein U (eds.): Hogrefe Schultests. Göttingen Hogrefe 2012.

e18. Schneider W, Blanke I, Faust V, Küspert P: WLLP-R, Würzburger Leise Leseprobe – Revision. Göttingen: Hogrefe 2011.

e19. Stock C, Schneider W: DERET 1–2+. Deutscher Rechtschreibtest für das erste und zweite Schuljahr. In: Hasselhorn M, Marx H, Schneider W (eds.): Hogrefe Schultests. Göttingen: Hogrefe 2008.

e20. Stock C, Schneider W: DERET 3–4+. Deutscher Rechtschreibtest für das dritte und vierte Schuljahr. In: Hasselhorn M, Marx H, Schneider W (eds.): Hogrefe Schultests. Göttingen: Hogrefe 2008.

e21. May P: HSP 1–10 Hamburger Schreib-Probe. Diagnose orthographischer Kompetenz. Hamburg: vpm 2012.

e22. Moll K, Landerl K: SLRT-II Lese- und Rechtschreibtest. 2 nd edition; Weiterentwicklung des Salzburger Lese- und Rechtschreibtests. Göttingen: Hans Huber 2010.

e23. Birkel P: Weingartener Grundwortschatz Rechtschreib-Test für erste und zweite Klassen – WRT 1+. Göttingen: Hogrefe 2007.

e24. Birkel P: Weingartner Grundwortschatz; Rechtschreib-Test für zweite und dritte Klassen. Göttingen: Hogrefe 2007.

e25. Birkel P: Weingartener Grundwortschatz Rechtschreib-Test für dritte und vierte Klassen – WRT 3+. Göttingen: Hogrefe 2007.

e26. Birkel P: WRT 4+ Weingartener Grundwortschatz Rechtschreib-Test für vierte und fünfte Klassen. Göttingen: Hogrefe 2007.

e27. Tacke G: Flüssig lesen lernen: Übungen, Spiele und spannende Geschichten. 1. und 2. Klasse: Lehrerband mit Arbeitsblättern. Flüssig lesen lernen: Übungen, Spiele und spannende Geschichten; ein Leseprogramm für den differenzierenden Unterricht, für Förderkurse und für Freiarbeit; Klasse 1 und 2 der Grundschule: Hamburg: Auer 2009.

e28. Dummer-Smoch L, Hackethal R: Kieler Leseaufbau: Handbuch und Übungsmaterialien, Ausgabe D-Druckschrift. Kiel: Veris Verlag; 2007.

e29. Reuter-Liehr C: Lautgetreue Lese-Rechtschreibförderung. Bochum: Winkler 2008.

e30. Stock C, Schneider W: Phonit: Ein Trainingsprogramm zur Verbesserung der phonologischen Bewusstheit und Rechtschreibleistung im Grundschulalter. In: Hasselhorn M, Schneider W (eds.): Hogrefe Förderprogramme. Göttingen: Hogrefe 2011

e31. Kargl R, Purgstaller C: Morphemunterstütztes Grundwortschatz-Segmentierungstraining. Göttingen: Hogrefe 2010.

e32. Schulte-Körne G, Mathwig F: Das Marburger Rechtschreibtraining: ein regelgeleitetes Förderprogramm für rechtschreibschwache Kinder. Bochum: Winkler 2009.

e33. González MdRO, Espinel AIG, Rosquete RG: Remedial interventions for children with reading disabilities: speech perception—An effective component in phonological training? J Learn Disabil 2002; 35: 334–42

e34. Sanchez E, Rueda MI: Segmental awareness and dyslexia: Is it possible to learn to segment well and yet continue to read and write poorly? Read Writ 1991; 3: 11–8

e35. Bhattacharya A, Ehri L: Graphosyllabic analysis helps adolescent struggling readers read and spell words. J Learn Disabil 2004; 37: 331–48

e36. Lovett MW, Lacerenza L, Borden SL, Frijters JC, Steinbach KA, De Palma M: Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: Combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to improve outcomes. J Educ Psychol 2000; 92: 263–83

e37. Lovett MW, Ransby MJ, Hardwick N, Johns MS, Donaldson SA: Can dyslexia be treated? Treatment-specific and generalized treatment effects in dyslexic children's response to remediation. Brain Lang 1989; 37: 90–121

e38. Lovett MW, Steinbach KA: The effectiveness of remedial programs for reading disabled children of different ages: Does the benefit decrease for older children? Learn Disabil Q 1997; 20: 189–210

e39. Lovett MW, Warren-Chaplin PM, Ransby MJ, Borden SL: Training the word recognition skills of reading disabled children: treatment and transfer effects. J Educ Psychol 1990; 82: 769–80

e40. Heikkilä R, Aro M, Närhi V, Westerholm J, Ahonen T: Does training in syllable recognition improve reading speed? A computer-based trial with poor readers from second and third grade. Sci Stud Read 2013; 17: 398–414

e41. Jiménez J, Hernández-Valle I, Ramírez G, et al.: Computer speech-based remediation for reading disabilities: the size of spelling-to-sound unit in a transparent orthography. Span J Psychol 2007; 10: 52–67

e42. O'Shaughnessy TE, Swanson HL: A comparison of two reading interventions for children with reading disabilities. J Learn Disabil 2000; 33: 257–77

e43. Kirk C, Gillon GT: Integrated morphological awareness intervention as a tool for improving literacy. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2009; 40: 341–51

e44. Ryder JF, Tunmer WE, Greaney KT: Explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemically based decoding skills as an intervention strategy for struggling readers in whole language classrooms. Read Writ 2008; 21: 349–69

e45. Tressoldi PE, Lonciari I, Vio C: Treatment of specific developmental reading disorders, derived from single- and dual-route models. J Learn Disabil 2000; 33: 278–85

e46. Lovett MW, Borden SL, Warren-Chaplin PM, Lacerenza L, DeLuca T, Giovinazzo R: Text comprehension training for disabled readers: an evaluation of reciprocal teaching and text analysis training programs. Brain Lang 1996; 54: 447–80

e47. Murphy CF, Schochat E: Effect of nonlinguistic auditory training on phonological and reading skills. Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica. IALP 2011; 63: 147–53.

e48. Törmänen MRK, Takala M: Auditory processing in developmental dyslexia: an exploratory study of an auditory and visual matching training program with Swedish children with developmental dyslexia. Scand J Psychol 2009; 50: 277–85

e49. Wilsher C, Bennett D, Chase C, et al.: Piracetam and dyslexia: effects on reading tests. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1987; 7: 230–7

e50. DiIanni M, Wilsher CR, Blank M, et al.: The effects of piracetam in children with dyslexia. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1985; 5: 272–8

e51. Mitchell C, Mansfield D, Rautenbach S: Coloured filters and reading accuracy, comprehension and rate: a placebo-controlled study. Percept Mot Skills 2008; 106: 517–32

e52. Robinson GL, Foreman PJ: Scotopic sensitivity/Irlen syndrome and the use of coloured filters: a long-term placebo-controlled study of reading strategies using analysis of miscue. Percept Mot Skills 1999; 88: 35–52

e53. Trauzettel-Klosinski S, Schäfer WD, Klosinski G: Legasthenie: Physiologie des Lesevorgangs, Lese-Rechtschreibschwäche, okuläre Lesestörung. Ophthalmologe 2002: 99; 208–29