 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
||||
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following is an analysis of student pre and post training test data from numerous clinical offices across the United States and Canada. All these students participated in either the VIP (a pre-PACE pilot program) or PACE processing and cognitive training programs. These programs were 10 weeks in length consisting of 30 hours of one-on-one training and prescribed home activities. The PACE program in now based on 72 hours of one-on-one training over a period of 12 weeks.
In compiling this report we used all the data provided from the offices that made their data available at the time of this report. This report is not meant to be highly statistical or scientific, but is written to provide the average lay person information regarding the past results of the PACE program. We believe the pre/post test results demonstrate the remarkable improvement in learning skills brought about by the PACE program. The fact that the results are similar in different locations with numerous trainers supports the fact that these results are reproducible. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The TONI-2 (Test Of Nonverbal Intelligence) and the NSI, a subtest from the SOI-LA (Structure of Intelligence - Learning Abilities Test), were used to evaluate the impact of the training program on the higher cognitive skills of reasoning, problem solving, and logic. It should be noted that there were no training activities that were similar to these tests therefore the results are due to the transfer of the underlying skills being trained.
The following are the changes in IQ (TONI-2) for those students that had an IQ below 100 prior to training.
For those students whom initial IQ (TONI-2) was at or above 100, the following changes were noted.
For those students, with initial performance on the NSI (logic and reasoning) of the SOI-LA two years or more below their age, the following changes were noted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To determine the overall average change in skills that were significantly deficient we have average the change of those test scores that were two or more years below age. The results are listed below:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Two tests (a modified Groffman tracking test and the visual matching subtest of the Woodcock - Johnson Cognitive Test Battery) were used to determine the impact of the training on attention. Listed below are the average changes in the test in years on those students who had tested two or more years below their age.
On the ACTeRS Attention profile, a subjective measurement of attention, completed by parents in four of the above locations, improvement ranged between 18 and 37.5 percentiles compared to a control group (didn't receive training) change of 6 percentiles. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Four tests were use to determine processing speed. The average change for these four tests for students two or more years below age is listed below.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Four tests were use to determine visual processing skills. The average change for these four tests for students two or more years below age is listed below.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Auditory processing training procedures were added in late 1995 to the PACE program, therefore the data is limited. However, in the first four students who participated in those procedures, the average gain in the seven tests scores (which were below grade level) was an increase of 5.9 grades! (See Cognitive Changes Reflected by the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Ability. See 1997 for followup results.).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For those students, with initial performance two years or more below their age on the short term visual memory subtest of the SOI-LA, the following changes were noted:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
One office used three subtests from the SOI-LA to evaluate the effects of the training on comprehension. The tests used were the CMR (ability to see relations between ideas or meaning of words), CMU (vocabulary and verbal concepts) and the ESC (ability to classify symbolic information).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Changes reflected by the |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In 1995, some of the offices providing the processing and cognitive training started using the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Ability to evaluate change in cognitive skills. Although at the time of this report only four students had completed the pre- and post-tests, the results support the exceptional changes noted in the other test instruments and are included for your review.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comparison of a Control (no training) and |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The PACE training program was developed and expanded within a clinical setting. Therefore, the bulk of the data collected is of a clinical nature and not designed with a rigid study in mind. However, two offices did run a small control study, which showed that those students who were not trained displayed little or no change in processing and cognitive skills after 10 weeks. Those students who were trained showed a 2.2 and 2.8 average gain in skills.
PS = Processing Speed; SA = Selective Attention; RF = (letter) Reversal Frequency; FIXV= Calling out a vertical column of numbers (processing speed); FIXH = Calling out a horizontal row of numbers (processing speed); TRCK = Tracking a line with other lines present (processing speed and selective attention);WJ3 = Visual matching from the Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Test Battery (processing speed); RFRQ = Reversal frequency test from Gardner |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Business Plan | How it Works | Testimonials | Contact us | FAQ | Home
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||