Display options
Cite
Arnold LE, Barnebey N, McManus J, et al. Prevention by specific perceptual remediation for vulnerable first-graders. Controlled study and follow-up of lasting effects. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1977;34(11):1279-94doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1977.01770230021001.
Arnold, L. E., Barnebey, N., McManus, J., Smeltzer, D. J., Conrad, A., Winer, G., & Desgranges, L. (1977). Prevention by specific perceptual remediation for vulnerable first-graders. Controlled study and follow-up of lasting effects. Archives of general psychiatry, 34(11), 1279-94. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1977.01770230021001
Arnold, L E, et al. "Prevention by specific perceptual remediation for vulnerable first-graders. Controlled study and follow-up of lasting effects." Archives of general psychiatry vol. 34,11 (1977): 1279-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1977.01770230021001
Arnold LE, Barnebey N, McManus J, Smeltzer DJ, Conrad A, Winer G, Desgranges L. Prevention by specific perceptual remediation for vulnerable first-graders. Controlled study and follow-up of lasting effects. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1977 Nov;34(11):1279-94. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1977.01770230021001. PMID: 263808.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on
Full text links
Silverchair Information Systems

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1977 Nov;34(11):1279-94. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1977.01770230021001.

Prevention by specific perceptual remediation for vulnerable first-graders. Controlled study and follow-up of lasting effects.

Archives of general psychiatry

L E Arnold, N Barnebey, J McManus, D J Smeltzer, A Conrad, G Winer, L Desgranges

PMID: 263808 DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.1977.01770230021001

Abstract

In a pretest-posttest design with two matched control groups, 86 first-graders screened as vulnerable to academic failure and behavioral decompensation were each assigned to one of three groups: (1) channel-specific perceptual stimulation, (2) regular academic tutoring (contact controls), or (3) no contact. On most measures, including perceptual and achievement tests and behavior ratings by teachers, group 1 showed more improvement than either of the control groups. Several of these differences were significant (P less than .05, two-tailed). In general, the two control groups came closer to each other than to group 1. With no further intervention, follow-up one year later showed more dramatic significance. On every measure, group 1's improvement surpassed that of the control groups, and diverged from them even more than at posttest; this divergence was significant on most measures. Group 1 improved significantly (P less than .05 to P less than .01) in reading, IQ, and three behavior scales, while both control groups showed only deterioration on these measures. Group 1 gained five IQ points on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, while the controls lost five. On the Davids Scale, group 1 improved significantly (P less than .01) to "probably not hyperkinetic," while both control groups deteriorated to "probably hyperkinetic." The hypothesized mechanism of group 1's behavioral superiority at follow-up was its significant (P less than 0.1) reading improvement, with secondary emotional benefits.

Cited by

MeSH terms

Publication Types

LinkOut - more resources