From the Guidelines
There is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of specific training in addition to magnification for reading rehabilitation, as stated in the 2023 study published in Ophthalmology 1. The current state of research on reading interventions is characterized by a lack of high-quality evidence, with most studies having a high risk of bias or being of low certainty.
- The van Nispen et al review, cited in the 2023 study 1, found a small but significant effect on vision-related quality of life, but the evidence was rated as low certainty due to risk of bias.
- A large randomized trial, the EFFECT Trial, mentioned in the same study 1, found that eccentric viewing training did not significantly improve reading, fixation, or task ability.
- A systematic review of 25 articles and 18 abstracts related to biofeedback training for rehabilitation, also referenced in the 2023 study 1, did not identify high-quality evidence, with only one trial using a randomized control design. The lack of effective reading interventions is further complicated by the heterogeneity of training methods and the need for sound research design, including randomization, clear definitions of training methods, and adequate sample size.
- As noted in the 2023 study 1, further research is required to identify effective and optimal interventions, highlighting the need for more rigorous and well-designed studies in this area. Therefore, based on the current evidence, no specific training in addition to magnification can be recommended for reading rehabilitation, as stated in the 2023 study published in Ophthalmology 1.
From the Research
Lack of Reading Interventions
- There is evidence to suggest that some reading interventions may not be effective in improving reading outcomes for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities 2.
- A meta-analysis found that Orton-Gillingham reading interventions did not statistically significantly improve foundational skill outcomes, such as phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, and spelling 2.
- Similarly, there were no significant differences in vocabulary and comprehension outcomes for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities 2.
Existing Research on Reading Interventions
- Some studies have found that structured phonetic-instruction training programs with heavy emphasis on the alphabetic system, drill and repetition, and multisensory methods can facilitate reading development in students with dyslexia 3.
- A review of 14 meta-analyses and systematic reviews found that explicit and systematic intervention focusing on the code and meaning dimensions of reading and writing can improve foundational code-based reading skills 4.
- However, more research is needed to understand the specific instructional routines and components that provide more robust effects on students' ability to comprehend and individual differences in response to interventions 4.
Gaps in Research on Reading Interventions
- There is a need for more high-quality, rigorous research with larger samples of students with word-level reading disabilities to fully understand the effects of Orton-Gillingham interventions 2.
- Additional research is needed to identify the conditions under which early reading interventions are most effective in response to intervention contexts 5.
- Further study is required to determine the criteria for determining intervention responsiveness and the effects of fully implemented response to intervention frameworks 5.