Response to intervention as an identification strategy of the risk for dyslexia.

There was no control group, so the gains after the 12 sessions could not be separated from normal development, school learning, or repeated testing. The 30 children were all referred to a neuropsychological centre for school difficulties, so the results may not apply to children identified in ordinary classrooms. The cut-off for low response was chosen by the authors and may not work the same way in other schools or languages. The paper classifies a risk profile, not a confirmed dyslexia diagnosis, and some children with attention or language signs were not excluded. The programme combined phonics, multisensory work, oral language, and reading and writing practice, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated.

The supplied text states financial support from CNPq and AFIP. It also says NANI is supported by AFIP and academically linked to UNIFESP.

Do not read the post-intervention gains as proof that this programme caused improvement, because there was no control group and the children were not compared with an untreated group. Also, the 12 children were classified as at risk for dyslexia, not confirmed as having dyslexia.