Information overload...on available programs

I was fortunate to have an evaluator who suggested LMB and OT. OT does much of the same work as other programs, but not in such an intensive manner. (Most people couldn’t afford too much intensity at $45/30 min - at least we couldn’t). I would talk to Objective people (parents/profs perhaps :0) - who have no “vested interest” in the program, but plenty in the child.

You might start with a psychologist in private practice who will sit down with you and review current testing and help you develop a roadmap of what skills to work on and THEN look at options/costs of how to get there. I am not conviced that spending thousands of dollars on commericial programs is the best or only way to go. Many of these alternative therapies are not well researched. You can start here from LD in Depth and On Line Resources. You can start by drawing up a chart of your child’s age, grade level, cognitive and academic level, strengths and weaknesses and having this at your fingertips when people recommend a particular program or therapy for your child….see if it makes sense.

It is very hard to decide. I don’t think many experts know about ALL the programs available. Most will just point you towards the programs they know about.

Leah is right the best place to look is to the parents who have been there. You are in a very good place for that. Best parents anywhere are right here on this board.

You need to decide if your child has a visual, auditory or motor problem first or some combination of all of those. Different programs work better for different things.

If you tell the parents here about your child you might find someone who has experienced a similar problem and found help for it.

I personally don’t think the expensive center programs are always better than some of the very cheap programs that can be done at home. You just have to decide if you have more time or more money.

All of these are good suggestions, but I have just one more: make sure you ask providers whether there are randomized, double-blind studies demonstrating the effectiveness of these programs for the kinds of difficulties your child has. That is the best way to evaluate any treatment. Anecdotal evidence, such as case studies or the personal experiences of others should be taken into account, but such evidence is considered by scientists to be far less reliable.

Andrea

If you search under Fruerstein methods you can find thousands of references to benefits of cognitive enhancement.

Unfortunately his approach is not available to most of the general public. Many of these modern programs such as PACE and Audiblox have a basis in his original work.

Phonographix and lindamood bell have a very sound scientific basis. I don’t think many will question the scientific proof that lack of phonemic awareness is a major contributor to reading problems.

Prof Stein and his collegues at oxford university have done some amazing work to support the need to acquire binocular vision in order to read adequately.

If you want information on occupational therapy or speech therapy the best places to look are in pubmed. Pubmed is a medical database used by physicians. I have found the eric database to be a little light on references to medical research that address learning deficits.

The interactive metronome people have studies on their site.

So certainly take the time to research each intervention. Just take into account that some of these programs may be based on some very good science that is not directly linked in any of the literature. I takes quite a bit of understanding of all the issues to sort this out.

I myself am still learning.

I have the same problem as Linda. I have read all the research on each website and the issue is that most programs claim to do multiple things. Certainly PACE claims to improve, auditory processing, short term memory, speed, analytical proceesing, and I don’t know what else. If you hear results, you will find out that maybe 2 out of the 5 things they claim to do, was actually improved. I am looking for a program that will improve visual processing. Any Idea on which of these programs work best for that specific issue.

If you are only looking for visual processing, you may want to consider Audiblox. It’s very inexpensive and easy to implement on your own (don’t need to go to a provider).

You may also want to get ahold of the Linguisystems Catalog - they have a bunch of material that addresses all kinds of issues. $20+ kind of ranges

I trust educational testing and research about as much as I trust pharmaceutical research. Remember Phen-fen?? Remember the food pyramid? With the right team and money you can prove or disprove anything. Research is important, but it needs to go hand in hand with experience.

Typically you would first get a developmental vision evaluation to check visual efficiency skills (focusing speed, convergence, etc.). If there are deficits in visual efficiency, you would want to do vision therapy as a first corrective step. Once VT has done everything it can for visual efficiency skills, you would follow up with either Audiblox or PACE to develop visual processing skills (visual sequencing, short-term memory, etc.).

Any limitation in the area of visual efficiency skills will limit how much you can develop visual processing skills. For this reason, it’s a very good idea to get a developmental vision eval before investing a lot of time (and, perhaps, money) into training visual processing skills.

Even this particular area is not simple, because severe auditory problems can interfere with vision. If a child has both visual and auditory processing problems, you would probably want to address the auditory issues first — probably with a therapy that involves bodywork, such as NeuroNet, or some other form of occupational therapy.

Chris

Chris is right. If there is an underlying vision problem get that corrected first. Then go after the visual processing. I really agree with DEA that audiblox is very good for this type of problem. I think it is more specific to this area than PACE. This makes it a good fit for my son who doesn’t have any remaining auditory difficulties after phonographix.

I think it does a good job of improving visual memory, visual sequencing, visual spatial relations. I believe that any child will do better in school by becoming a better visual learner.

www.medscape.com. PubMed is also good: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query/static/clinical.html

Just wanted to clarify that PACE would not be a bad option for visual processing - it’s just that it’s expensive and you pay for more than just the visual processing piece. PACE was developed by a DO. The original versions of PACE were geared specifically for visual processing and they sold to DO’s who offered VT. When I went to get trained, there were several DO’s in my class with their office staff getting certified on the product. Dr. Gibson (PACE founder) recommended that you do VT first before PACE.

However, if you only want to address visual processing, Audiblox is a good choice because it’s so inexpensive. You really don’t have much to lose - except for your time. Plus, Audiblox addresses a couple other areas.

I was not real happy with Audiblox - but my child had a big auditory processing deficit and I felt it did not address it well. We cruised thru the visual exercises within a month. I didn’t like the reading component, but I felt there were other good aspects of the program.

My daughter has been through LMB programs, LIPS and Cloud nine math. It helped her tremondously.

But these other programs ( Fast Forward, Pace etc) sound more like a “cure” then an adaptation.

“I am not conviced that spending thousands of dollars on commericial programs is the best or only way to go.”

This is my gut feeling too…but I keep sasking myself “what if…”

“You need to decide if your child has a visual, auditory or motor problem first or some combination of all of those.”

Good specific advice, thanks!

So true it is those anecdoto stories that seem so convincing that sometimes and other times are very helpful…this adds to the confusion .

Wow thanks for narrowing down my search for me and pointing me in the right direction…

Good point!

thanks for summarizinf the PACE results.

I feel the same way KEN but then I second guess myself and wonder where the experience is going to come from if we don’t give it a try. (at our expense, which seems unfair)

Good advice…
(But on a side note…I have already paid for a full psychoeducational evaluation ($!,000) and an auditory processing evaluation ($300)…I just get a little frustrated that now I should go for a visual pr. evaluation. This stuff is only available privately in Canada. How ever there are no indictions of visual processing problems so it may be best to rule that out.))

YOu are the second person to suggest this…it mutst be a good link. Thanks