Our previous 1-year evaluation (Kershner, Cummings, Clarke, Hadfield, & Kershner, 1986) of the school-based Tomatis Program (LTP) failed to support its purported remedial effectiveness. Children with learning disabilities (LD) had been assigned randomly to an LTP plus direct instruction group or to a placebo group receiving only direct instruction. The purpose of the present study was to address the argument that favorable treatment effects of such process-oriented, neuropsychological training programs may occur over a longer span of time. Retesting the original sample one year after cessation of treatment revealed only a single group effect; the placebo children were superior on the Seashore Rhythm test, a measure of auditory discrimination. These results more firmly substantiate our earlier negative conclusions. But, more importantly, the longitudinal achievement gains observed in both groups of children, irrespective of their original treatment assignment, strongly support the efficacy of less exotic currently available remedial procedures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BergmanI.Warr-LeeperG. (1981). Critical appraisal of the Tomatis method: Theory and application. Toronto: Ontario Speech and Hearing Association.
2.
BessaiF.CozacF. (1980, February). Gains of fifth and sixth grade readers from in-school tutoring. The Reading Teacher, 567–570.
CoxA. (1984). Structures and techniques — multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
5.
CummingsR. (1985). An evaluation of the Tomatis Listening Training ProgramUnpublished doctoral thesis, University of Toronto.
6.
ForellE.HoodJ. (1985). A longitudinal study of two groups of children with early reading problems. Annals of Dyslexia, 35, 97–116.
7.
GalaburdaA.ShermanG.RosenG.AboitizF.GeschwindN. (1985). Developmental dyslexia: Four consecutive patients with cortical anomalies. Annals of Neurology, 18, 222–227.
8.
GillinghamA.StillmanB. (1956). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling and penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Services.
9.
GittelmanR. (1985). Controlled trials of remedial approaches to reading disability. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 26, 843–846.
10.
GordonH. (1983). The learning disabled are cognitively right. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 3, 29–39.
11.
GuentherW. (1964). Analysis of variance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12.
HammillD.LarsenS. (1983). Test of Written Language. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
13.
HornW.O'DonnellJ.VitulanoL. (1983). Long-term follow-up studies of learning-disabled persons. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 542–555.
14.
JastakJ.JastakS. (1978). Wide Range Achievement Test. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
15.
JonesF. (1988). Ear damage repaired with sound. Toronto Star, May 31, p. E1.
16.
KassC. (1964). Auditory Closure Test. In OlsonJ.OlsenJ. (Eds.), Validity studies on the ITPA (pp. 36–42). Madison, WI, Photo.
17.
KershnerJ.CummingsR.ClarkeK.HadfieldA.KershnerB. (1986). Evaluation of the Tomatis Listening Training Program with learning disabled children. Canadian Journal of Special Education, 2, 1–32.
18.
KimballO. (1973). Development of norms for Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory: Grades four through eightUnpublished doctoral thesis, Northern Illinois University.
19.
KirkpatrickT. (in process). LD subtypes, real or illusory?Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Toronto.
20.
KoppitzE. (1971). Children with learning disabilities: A 5 year follow-up studyNew York: Grune and Stratton.
21.
MonroeM.ShermanE. (1966). Monroe Sherman Diagnostic Reading and Aptitude Tests. Santa Barbara, CA: M. Monroe & E. Sherman.
22.
OlsonC. (1976). On choosing a test statistic in MANOVA. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 579–586.
23.
Ontario Psychological Association. (1984). A review of the Tomatis method. Toronto: Author.
24.
ReitanR. (1983). Test of Verbal Fluency. Indianapolis: Indiana Univ. Med. Center, Neuropsychological Laboratory.
25.
ReitanR.DavidsonL. (1974). Clinical neuropsychology: Current status and applications. Washington, DC: Windston & Sons.
26.
RosenbergB.GaierE. (1977). The self-concept of the adolescent with learning disabilities. Adolescence, 48, 489–498.
27.
ShortE.FeagansL.McKinneyJ.AppelbaumM. (1986). Longitudinal stability of LD subtypes based on age and IQ achievement discrepancies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 214–225.
28.
SiegelL. (1984). On the adequacy of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT): A reply to Snart, Dennis, and Brailsford. Canadian Psychology, 25, 73–74.
29.
SiegelL. (1986). Phonological deficits in children with a reading disability. Canadian Journal of Special Education, 2, 45–54.
30.
SiegelL.HeavenR. (1986). Defining and categorizing learning disabilities. In CeciS. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities, Vol. 1 (pp. 95–121). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
SmythJ. (1986). A report to the board of education of the Regina School Division No. 4: The Tomatis Listening Program. Saskatchewan: Regina School Board.
32.
SwansonH. (1988). Toward a metatheory of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 196–209.
33.
TomatisA. (1978). Education and dyslexia. France-Quebec: Les Editions.
34.
TorgesenJ. (1977). Memorization process in reading disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 571–578.
35.
WechslerD. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.
36.
WilliamsJ. (1980). Teaching decoding with an emphasis on phoneme analysis and phoneme blending. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 1–15.
37.
WinerB. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: Academic Press.
38.
ZarskeJ. (1982). Neuropsychological intervention approaches for handicapped children. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 15, 66–75.
