At that time, I couldn't find any evidence for such a short OG intervention and if the intervention sticks. All evidence was for 2 year programs. DD simply went through the two year program at lightening speed. Hence, I looked at LMB as an analogous model to what we'd experienced.
She's maintained her gains for 2+ years, and continued to progress in her spelling skills.
Thanks Geofizz - it's so nice to see some real evidence! And I hadn't seen any studies on "sticking", so this is really useful. And reassuring.
I've been through the clearinghouse a few times looking to see if there's anything under "writing" for which there is even the teeniest smidge of evidence. Haven't found one yet, alas... Any luck yourself?
There does seem to be universal agreement that OG-type remediation works - and that it's the only thing that works for dyslexia. While LMB, Barton, Wilson et al all have their differences, I haven't seen anything that suggests any one is inherently superior. From what I can see, as long as it's OG-based it has the same potential for success? You look like you've found some better research, so I'd love to know what else you've found.
The program we're using is also an OG-based, and I think is reasonable in terms of content/ approach. The real issue is that when we are doing it ourselves, we can only follow the script, not adapt as needed. We have no expertise to pick up on red flags, divert where necessary, and add, substitute or speed up as warranted. Or, as Pemberly noted, catch other issues. So that's definitely where you want the professionals to come in. (I'm noticing as I surf that Barton seems to be the preferred approach around here. Our schools use yet another OG variation created by our regional children's hospital).
