A tale of two studies on auditory training in children: A response to the claim that 'discrimination training of phonemic contrasts enhances phonological processing in mainstream school children' by Moore, Rosenberg and Coleman (2005).
A tale of two studies on auditory training in children: A response to the claim that 'discrimination training of phonemic contrasts enhances phonological processing in mainstream school children' by Moore, Rosenberg and Coleman (2005).
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/dys.1470
复制
发表时间：
2014-05
期刊：
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Halliday, Lorna F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Halliday, Lorna F.
在之前的文章中，摩尔，罗森伯格和科尔曼（大脑和语言，2005年，94，72-85）报道的证据表明，在主流儿童的语音意识显着改善后，6小时暴露于市售的音素辨别训练计划，但不是在对照组。在一项后续研究中，我们未能复制这一发现，尽管使用了几乎相同的培训计划（Halliday，Taylor，Millward，&摩尔，Journal of Speech，Language，and Hearing Research，2012，55，168-181）。本文直接比较了两项研究的方法和结果，试图解释差异的发现。它报告说，摩尔等人（2005）的训练组在训练后的语音意识方面的改善比Halliday等人（2012）的训练组明显更大。然而，Halliday等人（2012）的对照组在语音意识方面的改善明显大于摩尔等人（2005）的对照组。本文的结论是，在随机化，盲法，实验人员熟悉和培训和控制组的治疗的差异促成了两项研究的不同结果。结果表明，过多的因素可以有助于训练效果，并强调了设计良好的随机对照试验在评估给定干预措施的有效性方面的重要性。© 2014作者。出版社：John Wiley & Sons，Ltd.
In a previous article, Moore, Rosenberg and Coleman (Brain and Language, 2005, 94, 72-85) reported evidence for significant improvements in phonological awareness in mainstream children following 6 h of exposure to a commercially available phoneme discrimination training programme, but not in a control group. In a follow-up study, we failed to replicate this finding, despite using an almost identical training programme (Halliday, Taylor, Millward, & Moore, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 2012, 55, 168-181). This paper directly compares the methods and the results of the two studies, in an effort to explain the discrepant findings. It reports that the trained group in Moore et al. (2005) showed significantly greater improvements in phonological awareness following training than the trained group in Halliday et al. (2012). However, the control group in Halliday et al. (2012) showed significantly greater improvements in phonological awareness than the control group in Moore et al. (2005). The paper concludes that differences in the randomization, blinding, experimenter familiarity and treatment of trained and control groups contributed to the different outcomes of the two studies. The results indicate that a plethora of factors can contribute to training effects and highlight the importance of well-designed randomized controlled trials in assessing the efficacy of a given intervention. © 2014 The Authors. Dyslexia published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
25
作者：
Amitay, Sygal;Irwin, Amy;Moore, David R.
通讯作者：
Moore, David R.
DOI：
10.3758/bf03193525
发表时间：
2005-05-01
期刊：
PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Amitay, S;Hawkey, DJC;Moore, DR
通讯作者：
Moore, DR
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Pokorni, JL;Worthington, CK;Jamison, PJ
通讯作者：
Jamison, PJ
DOI：
10.1044/1092-4388(2005/049
发表时间：
2005-06-01
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Cohen, W;Hodson, A;Watson, J
通讯作者：
Watson, J
DOI：
10.1044/0161-1461.3001.108
发表时间：
1999-01-01
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Diehl, SF
通讯作者：
Diehl, SF