The dyslexia debate continues

Psychologist

Volumn 18, Issue 12, 2005, Pages 728-730

  Elliott, Julian ^a   Jenkins, John H ^b   Snowling, Maggie ^c   Thompson, James ^b  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 28444463697     PISSN: 09528229     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (7)

1. British Psychological Society (1999). Dyslexia, literacy and psychological assessment. Report of a working party of the Division of Educational and Child Psychology. Leicester: Author.
2. SENCO-Forum (2005). Points from the SENCO-Forum: Is it dyslexia? British Journal of Special Education, 32(2), 165.
3. Snowling, M.J. & Hulme, C. (2003).A critique of claims from Reynolds, Nicolson and Hambly (2003) that DDAT is an effective treatment for reading problems - 'Lies, damned lies and (inappropriate) statistics?' Dyslexia:An International Journal of Research and Practice, 9, 1-7.
4. Stein, J.F. (2003). Evaluation of an exercise-based treatment for children with reading difficulties. Dyslexia:An International journal of Research and Practice, 9, 124-126.
5. Morton, J. (2004). Understanding developmental disorders:A cognitive modelling approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
6. Morton, J. & Frith, U. (1995). Causal modelling. In D. Cicchetti & D.J. Cohen (Eds.) Manual of developmental psychopathology. New York: Wiley.
7. Yule, W., Rutter, M., Berger, M. & Thompson, J. (1974). Over-and under-achievement in reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 44, 1-12.