| Revision as of 23:28, 20 June 2007 editReadingResearch (talk | contribs)9 editsm Formatting← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:43, 7 August 2024 edit undoPacificTech (talk | contribs)1 editm →HistoryTag: Visual edit | ||
| (296 intermediate revisions by 95 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Fast ForWord''' is a computer-based reading program with limited evidence of effectiveness, created by Scientific Learning Corporation. It is based on a theory about the cognitive abilities of children with language and literacy learning difficulties. | |||
| ==Overview== | |||
| == Research == | |||
| '''Fast ForWord''' is a family of ] products intended to enhance cognitive skills of children, especially focused on developing "phonological awareness" (discussed below). It appears to be marketed as a therapy for children with a broad range of reading problems, and perhaps other cognitive disorders as well . Fast ForWord software was developed and is commercially distributed by Scientific Learning Corporation , which became a public company in 1997. | |||
| A systematic review which focused on high quality randomised controlled trials did not find any positive benefit of the intervention.<ref name="Strong2011rev">{{cite journal|vauthors=Strong GK, Torgerson CJ, Torgerson D, Hulme C|date=March 2011|title=A systematic meta-analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the 'Fast ForWord' language intervention program|journal=J Child Psychol Psychiatry|volume=52|issue=3|pages=224–35|doi=10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02329.x|pmc=3061204|pmid=20950285}}</ref> A more general review of "Brain Training" programs noted:<ref name="Simons2016rev">{{cite journal|last1=Simons|first1=DJ|last2=Boot|first2=WR|last3=Charness|first3=N|last4=Gathercole|first4=SE|last5=Chabris|first5=CF|last6=Hambrick|first6=DZ|last7=Stine-Morrow|first7=EA|title=Do "Brain-Training" Programs Work?|journal=Psychological Science in the Public Interest |date=October 2016|volume=17|issue=3|pages=103–86|pmid=27697851|doi=10.1177/1529100616661983}}</ref> | |||
| {{blockquote|In summary, the evidence cited by Scientific Learning Corporation provides little compelling evidence for the effectiveness of Fast ForWord as a tool to improve language processing or other aspects of cognition. Studies showing benefits typically included interventions that lacked any control group, and those with a control comparison group generally showed little evidence for differential improvements. The only randomized controlled trial provided no evidence for differential improvements, even on measures tapping similar aspects of auditory language processing.}} | |||
| Probably the most distinctive feature of Fast ForWord is the use of computerized drills in which children identify computer-generated speech sounds (although the latest versions of the product apparently includes others kinds of computerized training as well). In the speech-sound drills, the training program starts off with sounds that have been slowed down and have artificially exaggerated differences, to make the task easier. As the learner progresses, these differences are reduced, and the task is made more challenging. The premise of this approach is that the drills help students with a wide range of language problems develop enhanced phonological awareness, and that this enhanced awareness will have numerous benefits for their language functioning, including especially reading. The method of utilizing exaggerated differences in training a person to tell two things apart is commonly referred to in psychology as "fading"; fading has been widely used beginning in the 1950s in many areas of behavioral research and treatment, including animal learning (e.g., Lawrence, 1952), behavioral therapy of retarded individuals (e.g., Irvin & Bellamy, 1977), and problems with perception of speech sounds (e.g., Jamieson & Morosan, 1989). | |||
| The research literature on Fast ForWord was reviewed by ], an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education’s ]. Positive effectiveness ratings and improvement indices were found for alphabetics, reading fluency, comprehension, and English language development.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web|date=August 2010|title=What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report Adolescent Literacy Fast ForWord|url=https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_fastfw_083110.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=September 28, 2006|title=What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report English Language Learners Fast ForWord Language|url=https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/WWC_Fast_ForWord_092806.pdf}}</ref> However, the quality of evidence included in these reviews has come under criticism, as it included reports that had not undergone peer review and that were produced by the company marketing the intervention.<ref name="McArthur2008">{{cite journal|last1=McArthur|first1=GM|date=2018|title=Does What Works Clearinghouse Work? A Brief Review of Fast ForWord®|journal=Australasian Journal of Special Education|volume=32|issue=1|pages=101–107|doi=10.1080/10300110701845953}}</ref> | |||
| ==Efficacy of Fast ForWord== | |||
| ⚫ | == History == | ||
| The efficacy of Fast ForWord for the broad population of children with reading problems--for which it is currently being marketed--has not been well established, and the most methodologically rigorous studies seem to call the efficacy into question. | |||
| The Fast ForWord products evolved from the theory of a number of scientists, including ], Bill Jenkins, ], and Steven L Miller. This team started the Scientific Learning Corporation in 1996. The company created Fast ForWord.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_ffw_031913.pdf|title=What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report Beginning Reading Fast ForWord|date=March 2013}}</ref> The theory was that some children who have language and literacy learning difficulties may have problems rapidly processing sounds, a following theory that cognitive training can improve auditory processing, and a final theory that this training will generalize to improve learning skills beyond those in the training tasks. Despite this, the program has not demonstrated an ability to improve learning skills.<ref name="Simons2016rev"/> | |||
| '''Randomized Controlled Trials''' | |||
| There is a general consensus among scientists and statisticians that drawing inferences about the effectiveness of an intervention requires ] with appropriate outcome measurements. In this kind of study, individuals are randomly assigned to receive an intervention, or to receive whatever would be the conventional treatment. the outcome measure must be a set of pre-defined measures that assess the severity of the complaints for which treatment is being administered. This is the basis of the FDA's evaluation of new drugs, and is generally viewed as the "gold standard" for any kind of intervention research. Optimally, such a trial should be run with the so-called ] procedure, which helps to prevent drop-outs from obscuring the results of the study. | |||
| Several studies have been published that have evaluated Fast ForWord using randomized controlled trial designs. In 2004, Cecelia Rouse and Alan Krueger from Princeton University published a study | |||
| of Fast ForWord in a large urban school in the Northeast. Their sample consisted of 374 students who scored in the bottom 20% on the state's reading test. They found that although certain aspects of the children's language skills were slightly improved, "it does not appear that these gains translate … into actual reading skills" (Rouse & Krueger, 2004, p. 2). | |||
| A second, and larger, randomized study was carried out by Geoffrey Borman and James Benson, now at the University of Wisconsin School of Education. These investigators studied 415 second and seventh graders performing far below national reading standards. Students randomly assigned to receive Fast ForWord treatment did not show statistically significant improvement in most of the reading measures examined, although there were a few small gains for certain subgroups. | |||
| While there have been several positive results reported with Fast ForWord from randomized designs, these do not appear to constitute randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of Fast ForWord as a reading intervention for "garden-variety" reading problems encountered in a school. | |||
| Scientific Learning Corporation's website reports one study that used a randomized design involving 208 elementary school students. This study found that Fast ForWord treatment enhanced performance on the Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA) | |||
| However, the study does not establish whether these changes on the TOPA test translate into improvements in reading problems or other language-related dysfunctions. The report also does not state whether any measures of reading were given, and if so, whether any positive results were found. | |||
| The Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, which maintains a website that reviews interventions in many different areas , classifies Fast ForWord as "ineffective" based on the results described above. | |||
| '''Non-Randomized Studies''' | |||
| The Scientific Learning Corporation website lists many dozens of studies with positive results that do not use the "gold standard" randomized designs, but instead compare children's performance before and after treatment. For example, in a study on Australian speech therapy students, the average improvement was from the 14th to the 32nd percentile. These kinds of studies have little scientific credibility, because even without treatment, children with reading problems will normally show some degree of improvement over time. Such improvements could result both from maturation and from other experiences in and out of the classroom (which might even include other treatments or tutoring provided on top of the therapy being evaluated). Without an untreated control group, there is no basis for judging how much improvement would occur even if the treatment itself were ineffective. | |||
| In early studies that pre-dated the commercial development of Fast ForWord, Merzenich et al. (1996) and Tallal et al. (1996) reported that 8-16 hours of training using Fast ForWord produced "1.5 to two years of progress in reading skills", according to Tallal, quoted in Newsweek (Begley & Check, 2000). | |||
| ==Marketing and Cost of Fast ForWord== | |||
| The Scientific Learning Corporation website does not appear to state what specific diagnostic indications the product is being marketed for. The search engine keywords listed on the website ] include "improve reading scores improve reading skills" which suggests that the intended market may be children with virtually any sort of reading problem. Indeed, it may be being marketed for almost any child with a language or cognitive problem, because the website also describes results involving "pervasive developmental disorders" (autism) and English language learners. | |||
| The Scientific Learning Corporation does not list the current cost of Fast ForWord on its website. One reseller's website in 2001 estimates the cost to a school district at $38,000 for 50 children, and Rouse and Krueger (2004) provide a similar estimate. | |||
| ⚫ | ==History |
||
| The Fast ForWord products evolved from the work of a number of scientists, including ] and Bill Jenkins at the ], and ] and ] at ]. | |||
| The founders of the Scientiifc Learning Corporation have impressive scientific credentials. Michael Merzenich, who is a member of the ] and is also the Chief Scientific Officer for ], and Bill Jenkins (currently Senior Vice President of Product Development at Scientific Learning) are internationally known for their research on brain plasticity, which is the concept that the brain changes as we learn new skills. Paula Tallal is currently co-director of the ] at Rutgers and an active participant on many scientific advisory boards and government committees for both developmental language disorders and learning disabilities. She has published over 150 papers on the topic of language and learning and is the recipient of national and international honors. Steven Miller, currently Senior Vice President of Research at Scientific Learning, has extensive experience in organizing clinical research studies and conducting longitudinal studies of children who have language and reading problems. | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| ==External links == | |||
| Begley, S., & Check, E. (2000). Rewiring your gray matter. Newsweek, Jan 1, 63. | |||
| * {{Official website}} | |||
| Borman, G. D., & Rachuba, L. T. (2001). Evaluation of the Scientific Learning Corporation's Fast ForWord computer-based training program in the Baltimore city public schools. A Report Prepared for the Abell Foundation, August. | |||
| Irvin, L. K., & Bellamy, G. T. (1977). Manipulation of stimulus features in vocational-skill training of severely retarded individuals. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 81, 486-491. | |||
| Lawrence, D. H. (1952). The transfer of a discrimination along a continuum. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 45, 511-516. | |||
| Merzenich, M. M., Jenkins, W. M., Johnston, P., Schreiner, C., Miller, S. L., & Tallal, P. (1996). Temporal processing deficits of language-learning impaired children ameliorated by training. Science, 271, 77-81. | |||
| Rouse, C. E., and Krueger, A. B. (2004). Putting computerized instruction to the test: a randomized evaluation of a "scientifically based" reading program. Economics of Education Review, 23, 323-338. | |||
| {{Brain training programs}} | |||
| Tallal, P., Miller, S. L., Bedi, G., Byma, G., Wang, X., Nagarajam, S. ., Schreiner, C., Jenkins, W. M., & Merzenich, M. M. (1996). Language comprehension in language-learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech. Science, 271, 81-84. | |||
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Fast Forword}} | |||
| ==Links to Fast ForWord Manufacturer== | |||
| ] | |||
| * | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| * | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:43, 7 August 2024
Fast ForWord is a computer-based reading program with limited evidence of effectiveness, created by Scientific Learning Corporation. It is based on a theory about the cognitive abilities of children with language and literacy learning difficulties.
Research
A systematic review which focused on high quality randomised controlled trials did not find any positive benefit of the intervention. A more general review of "Brain Training" programs noted:
In summary, the evidence cited by Scientific Learning Corporation provides little compelling evidence for the effectiveness of Fast ForWord as a tool to improve language processing or other aspects of cognition. Studies showing benefits typically included interventions that lacked any control group, and those with a control comparison group generally showed little evidence for differential improvements. The only randomized controlled trial provided no evidence for differential improvements, even on measures tapping similar aspects of auditory language processing.
The research literature on Fast ForWord was reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse, an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences. Positive effectiveness ratings and improvement indices were found for alphabetics, reading fluency, comprehension, and English language development. However, the quality of evidence included in these reviews has come under criticism, as it included reports that had not undergone peer review and that were produced by the company marketing the intervention.
History
The Fast ForWord products evolved from the theory of a number of scientists, including Michael Merzenich, Bill Jenkins, Paula Tallal, and Steven L Miller. This team started the Scientific Learning Corporation in 1996. The company created Fast ForWord. The theory was that some children who have language and literacy learning difficulties may have problems rapidly processing sounds, a following theory that cognitive training can improve auditory processing, and a final theory that this training will generalize to improve learning skills beyond those in the training tasks. Despite this, the program has not demonstrated an ability to improve learning skills.
References
- Strong GK, Torgerson CJ, Torgerson D, Hulme C (March 2011). "A systematic meta-analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the 'Fast ForWord' language intervention program". J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 52 (3): 224–35. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02329.x. PMC 3061204. PMID 20950285.
- ^ Simons, DJ; Boot, WR; Charness, N; Gathercole, SE; Chabris, CF; Hambrick, DZ; Stine-Morrow, EA (October 2016). "Do "Brain-Training" Programs Work?". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 17 (3): 103–86. doi:10.1177/1529100616661983. PMID 27697851.
- ^ "What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report Beginning Reading Fast ForWord" (PDF). March 2013.
- "What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report Adolescent Literacy Fast ForWord" (PDF). August 2010.
- "What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report English Language Learners Fast ForWord Language" (PDF). September 28, 2006.
- McArthur, GM (2018). "Does What Works Clearinghouse Work? A Brief Review of Fast ForWord®". Australasian Journal of Special Education. 32 (1): 101–107. doi:10.1080/10300110701845953.
External links
| Brain training programs | |
|---|---|
