[Concentrating on weaknesses or compensating by strengths? Comparison of 2 strategies for remediation of children with comprehensive reading-spelling disorder]. / An Schwächen üben oder durch Stärken ausgleichen? Vergleich zweier Strategien in der Förderung von Kindern mit einer umschriebenen Lese-Rechtschreib-Schwäche.

Our study compares the efficiency and acceptance of two different methods of treating dyslexia in children. The first method addresses the most commonly encountered deficits in sequential processing. It relies primarly upon the "Kieler Lese-Rechtschreibaufbau". The second proceeds from the child's relative resources with regard to simultaneous processing as described by Kaufman. Training materials are those prescribed by Kaufman. Normally gifted primary school third-graders were trained in two groups (n = 13 and n = 12) and achieved a mean SIF score of SW = 101 on the K-ABC. As expected, the children scored significantly lower on the SED scale (SW = 95) than on the SGD scale (SW = 105). At the beginning of the respective training program their spelling ability fell 1.5 SD below the class mean. One year of regular weekly one-hour training according to the simultaneous processing method was significantly more successful than training in sequential processing, whereas girls improved significantly more than boys regardless of the method used. Acceptance of the methods did not vary. This result requires careful consideration and should be replicated in younger samples such as first- and second-graders in the early stages of learning to read and write, and/or in children whose dyslexia is more severe than that encountered in the current sample. It underscores that determination of an adequate method of remediation entails more than the mere identification of the underlying deficits.