NeuroLinks or Fast forward?

seeker

Tue, Jan 26 2016, 12:17 am

I think I posted earlier in this thread but I don't have time to go sifting through the whole thing, I just want to weigh in on the last page which happened today.

In full disclosure, I am a provider for some methods that supplement learning, including Fast ForWord. I work with children who have a variety of learning difficulties, I make a point of trying to investigate any methods that may be of interest to them, and when I find something I like that is not hard to integrate into my practice, I adopt it. I don't push any agenda and I turn away more clients than I accept because I would rather help a person access the right kind of help than waste their time and money (and often the time is a bigger investment than the money) on something that is a poor fit. Numerous imamother members have contacted me in this capacity and can confirm that I know my limitations and simply try to share information.

I have not seen any third-party research on the program that NeuroLinks uses so I can't report on that. Personally I would not use it for my child because it demands a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money, so while I am not saying that the program isn't good or doesn't work, and the reasoning about it seems sound enough, I would spend that amount of time and money only with a very well-established specialist.

Fast ForWord does have strong third-party research including some peer-reviewed published studies. It has been shown to be effective in certain measures, notably including similar brain-scan changes to other effective reading interventions. It is not necessarily better than working with a GOOD reading specialist/program and/or speech therapist (for auditory processing and phonological issues.) However that does make it a good choice for people who may not have access to good reading and speech therapy. Consider that a full course of Fast ForWord could cost about $1000 which would probably get you about 10 hours with a reading specialist, which is not enough time to see the same level of progress. Plus, it can be done from home and in remote locations. That's just one factor that goes into deciding whether Fast ForWord is an appropriate option for a specific child, I would look at other things too such as what they've done already, what the child's current functioning, strengths, and weaknesses are, what other help is available to them, etc.
(and @SLP amother, it does include phonics)

In summary, I would say that the best thing is personal, one-to-one work with someone really good, but programs such as fast forword can be a good supplement to that, and in the absence of a proven expert interventionist, it provides better quality control than a random tutor has.

Another point I want to make is that if someone does something like vision therapy and it does not result in total reading improvement, it doesn't mean that the vision therapy was a scam. It may just mean that there were more or other factors interfering with the child's reading. Maybe there are fraudulent vision therapists out there too, but I do know kids who were helped by vision therapy and even more who were only helped by the combination of vision and other therapies because there were multiple pieces to their puzzle. I don't think I personally know any miracle stories of "couldn't read before, reading perfectly after" for vision therapy but there is a phenomenon of "it was harder before and easier after" which is not unimportant.

To momesq sounds like dyslexia. Were your private tutors and P3 providers well-versed in specific methods for dyslexia? If she is still getting P3 then I highly recommend looking for a more specialized provider. Go back to the DOE and get her IEP changed to specify that her service should be provided by a reading specialist. You may want to get an advocate for that. And if you're requesting a reading specialist by P3 (which is actually called P4 now but everyone's still saying P3 so whatever) then be prepared to also advocate for enhanced rate because otherwise you'll never find one. Solid methods include Orton-Gillingham, Wilson Reading Program (an offshoot of OG), Lindamood-Bell has a great name, and I've heard good things about this Ribowsky but I don't know that her technique has internationally researched recognition like the others do. Don't know, doesn't mean not. And yes I would consider giving ffw a try if it's practical for you because as I said above it can possibly net similar results in an easier-to-access way. You said "no processing issue," can I assume that means you've had auditory processing ruled out by a specialist? If you don't want to shell out big bucks for that go to a university like SUNY or Touro. (btw the reason the OG people would say their program would for sure work is because it is one of the top proven methods for treating reading disabilities. But I don't know if your OG tutor was really well trained or just took a workshop or two. I also don't know how often and intensively she worked with you. Even though it is known to work it can take a really long time for some people. And nothing has a 100% success rate.)