USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
http://faculty.neu.edu.cn/cc/zhangyf/papers/How-to-Lie-with-Statistics
Just read chapter 1
Description
EEC 600 is a course designed to prepare special education teachers to understand and use research to inform decision making in choosing curriculum and instructional interventions. Additionally, students will learn principles governing single-subject and action research in classroom or small group settings.
Required Materials
American Psychological Association. (2009). Concise rules of APA style. Author: Washington D.C.
Creswell, J. W. (20
1
5). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Huff, D. (1954). How to lie with statistics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Recommended Materials
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th Ed.). Washington D.C.: Author.
Course Goals:
1. Demonstrate the ability to critically analyze research articles to determine their relative contribution to scientific and educational practice
2. Describe the importance of controlling threats to internal and external validity in research studies
3. Identify key elements in research studies that support high internal validity.
4. Describe the importance of external validity and the limits of poor external validity on generalization of findings
5. Explain the purpose and limitations of correlational research
6. Describe the difference between parametric and non-parametric tests of statistical significance
7. Recognize and describe elements of experimental group and single-subject research.
8. Explain what is meant by statistical significance and quickly determine whether a researcher reports statistical significance
9. Explain the difference between statistical and practical significance of research studies
10. Describe commonly used tests of statistical significance and match the test with the correct ways of reporting statistical significance
11. Describe the purpose and characteristics of experimental and applied research
1
12. Use APA Style appropriately to communicate ideas in writing
13. Effectively use the specialized vocabulary of research
14. Interpret basic descriptive and inferential statistics
15. Identify major sections and purposes of a research report
16. Discuss substantive issues and methodological considerations for conducting and using research in special education
Course Requirements
Readings and Quizzes
Readings are a critical part of this class. You will be expected to have read the articles and materials that are distributed in class. In addition, you will need to read the articles that you choose as the basis for your introduction and literature review. You will do individual or group work during most classes and you will need to rely on your readings for that evening. Failure to prepare will inhibit your participation in these discussions and workshops and will undoubtedly affect your grade.
Overview of Assignments
·
Personal Introduction and Statement of Research Interests (5%)
Students will craft an introduction and statement of research interests. The statement will include information about your program, current employment/career goals, and areas of interest. Additional details and examples will be provided. This is due the third week of class.
· Human Subjects Module Completion (5%)
Students will complete the Human Subjects Training Course. The course includes Human Subject Research, Information Privacy, and Responsible Research modules. Complete the Human Subject Research at https://phrp.nihtraining.com/ This is due by the third week of class.
· Search Procedures (10%)
Students will use a collaboratively developed organizer to complete a search of the literature using applicable databases, ancestral searches, and hand searches of journals to locate articles for the intervention paper. Additional assignment details and a rubric will be provided.
· Weekly Quizzes (20%)
For the first nine weeks of the class, we will start each class with a quiz. It will be a combination of short answer and multiple-choice. There will be a mixture of questions from How to Lie and from the textbook. The quizzes will only last 15 minutes, and will be open note. These will count for 25% of your grade.
· Literature Review, Synthesis, or Mini Meta-Analysis (20%)
Students will complete a comprehensive review of an intervention. A literature review, synthesis, or meta-analysis will be developed adhering to applicable standards. Students have the option to work in research teams. If students choose to work in teams, they must agree upon author order and complete documentation of individual contributions to the work. While there is no required page limit, a 15 to 20 page paper is typical.
Additional details, and a rubric will be provided.
In order to maximize your learning and success in this course, the instructor is available to review drafts of any assignments prior to the due date for submission. The goal in doing this is to provide guidance in terms of the content of the assignment, not to edit writing mechanics. Drafts must be sent via email at least three days prior to the assignment due date to allow sufficient time to provide constructive feedback in a timely manner.
· Research Presentation (10%)
Students will create a presentation based on their literature review, synthesis, or meta- analysis. Some presentation options include KeyNote, Power Point®, Prezi®, or professional poster. Additional information and a rubric will be provided.
· Participation (15%)
You will be expected (demanded) to participate in discussions and questions as we move through the semester. This is 15% of your grade-TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.
· Final Paper (15%)
Putting it all together. APA formatted paper including statement, question, literature review, methodology, and proposal.
· Weekly Readings
I. PROBLEM
1. What is the problem?
2. What is the significance of the problem?
3. What are the variables, Dependent and Independent?
II. HYPOTHESIS, SAMPLE, INSTRUMENTS, DESIGN
1. What is/are the hypothesis/es?
2. How was the sample selected? Is it likely to be unbiased? Why or why not?
3. Are the instruments appropriate? Why or why not?
4. What is the design of this study? Is it the best design possible for testing the hypotheses? Why or why not?
III. DATA, METHOD, RESULTS, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Describe the data used to test the hypotheses.
2. What method of analysis was used?
3. What did the Researcher conclude from the results of this study? Are the conclusions warranted by the results?
4. Can you point to any generalizations, implications, recommendations, and/or further research needs that were not discussed by the author?
5. What do you think of this study in general and why? That is, do you think the study is good/bad, important/not important, interesting/not interesting, makes sense/does not make sense? Would you act on basis of it? Why?
THE MAJOR COURSE PROJECT & PRODUCT
Your major assignment in this course is to write a research proposal or grant application that demonstrates your mastery of the course content. This assignment consists of three of the five major parts of a scholarly article, thesis, or dissertation.
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Methodology
Research Proposal Assignment: Students will prepare an original proposal for a study relative to your own topic of interest. Students should use the criteria for critique of research articles to prepare your proposal. Your proposal will be assesses in terms of suitability for topic, focus of the research question, defensibility of the design, and scholarly writing. Instructor will provide a rubric with additional criteria.
Each step of this process will require you to have an increasingly developed vocabulary and skill in writing. It’s not necessarily as linear as it appears. There will be a lot of back and forth editing as you move through the process and gain greater understanding of the task.
Basic Components of the Assignment
Below you will find the basic tasks necessary to complete this project. There are “micro- steps” in between, but this will give you an idea of the flow of the course.
1. Identify a narrow topic of interest
2. Define the problem (This is the “so-what” question.) Why is what you want to study important? What are the issues that make this topic important?
3. Search the literature for articles on your topic.
You will find many different kinds of scholarly writing. When you’re doing the problem statement and introduction you can use what I call “talk pieces,” but for the actual literature review I want you to stick to data-based empirical studies (group or single- subject) unless you have my expressed permission to deviate from this.
4. Review the literature on the topic – You will analyze the articles you choose based on a theme or question. The goal here is to synthesize your findings rather than to do a study-by-study report. At this point you will also determine a theoretical framework to use as the basis for your study.
a. You should have a minimum five studies to draw from. In emerging fields there may be fewer available. I’ll guide you if this is the case. The review should focus on previous research as it pertains to your study. Some examples of types of studies you will find are:
i. Experimental Group Research
ii. Single Subject Research
iii. Correlational Research
iv. Case Studies
v. Qualitative Studies
vi. Others as approved by me
5. End your review with research questions/hypotheses appropriate for your study.
6. Develop an appropriate methodology (e.g., survey, group or single- subject experiment, interviews, etc.) to answer your research questions following the outline that we work on in class.
Academic Integrity
· Students in this course are expected to exhibit academic integrity at all times. Be aware that plagiarism is presenting someone else’s work as your own. Whether the act is deliberate or unintentional is irrelevant. You must take great care to give credit to an author when you borrow either exact words or ideas. Generally, if you use four or more words in a row you should use quotation marks and a proper citation. The instructor reserves the right to submit your work to Turnitin®, or similar plagiarism detection services, for an integrity assessment as needed. All papers are required to demonstrate Turnitin scores or they WILL NOT be read.
· Copyright rules also apply. Use of graphics or data must also be cited, giving credit to the sources. This material includes but is not limited to journal articles, books, popular press articles, e-mail (don’t cite or forward someone else’s e-mail without permission), newsgroup material, and information from websites. Even if you give credit, you must get permission from the original source to use any data, graphic, or material that you did not create.
· Any attempt to circumvent the integrity of the testing process or otherwise evade the fullest demands of class assignments in an unethical manner constitutes cheating. This can mean looking on another student’s exam, consulting notes or books during an exam unless specifically permitted by the instructor, stealing an exam and circulating it among other students, or text messaging in class during an exam, all constitute forms of academic dishonesty that amount to cheating. Any offense wholly or partially touching the above definition constitutes cheating for the purposes of this class.
· Academic dishonesty will not be tolerated. Any act of academic dishonesty may result in earning a “0” in the course. All acts of academic dishonesty will be reported to the applicable program coordinator and department chair.
· We will use person-first language in our class discussions and written assignments (and ideally in our professional practice). Please refer to “Guidelines for Non-Handicapping Language in APA Journals”
http://www.apastyle.org/disabilities.html.
We will also strive to replace the term “Mental Retardation” with “Intellectual Disabilities” in our oral and written communication in accordance with terminology choices in the disability community.
· Please note that your Ship email will be used exclusively for this course: Please activate, clean out, and forward your Ship email to your most-checked account.
· Students with Disabilities
If you have a disability that may require special consideration and/or modifications, please provide documentation from the Office of Disability Services. Provide suggestions for assistance to maximize class participation, completion of assignments,
etc., by the second-class meeting or schedule a meeting with the professor immediately. Since this is a course taught by a special education professor, my hope is that I teach in such a way that will maximize everyone’s opportunity to learn.
· Shippensburg University faculty supports a safe campus environment for all. No one on this campus has the right to threaten you or make you feel intimidated in any way. More specifically, unwanted advances, harassment, aggressive or violent behavior, and sexual assault will not be tolerated. A comprehensive list of reporting options and support services, including confidential resources, can be found at
www.ship.edu/no_more/.
· APA Style and Formatting
All work should be submitted using APA style. If you are unfamiliar with APA, it would benefit you to purchase the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.) or to access one of the Internet sites that provides a summary of this information. All work produced outside of class must be typed unless otherwise noted.
http://www.psywww.com/resource/apacrib.htm
is offered as a companion to the APA style manual. However, it should not be considered a substitute for directly consulting the APA manual, 6th edition for standard of procedures for applying APA style.
COURSE OUTLINE / CALENDAR
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please note that this syllabus serves as a guideline for the course and is subject to change as necessary. It is the student’s responsibility to check email for updates regularly. Course readings should be completed on or before the readings date indicated.
January 23 First Class/Introduction
January 30 Process of Conducting Research
Quiz One on Chapter One and Huff-One
February 6 Identifying a Research Problem
Quiz Two on Chapter Two and Huff-Two
*Personal Statement of Research Due
*Human Subjects Statement Due
February 13 Reviewing the Literature
Quiz Three on Chapter Three and Huff-Three, APA Quiz
February 20 Specifying a Purpose
Quiz Four on Chapter Four and Huff-Four
February 27 Collecting Quantitative Data
Quiz Five on Chapter Five/six and Huff-Five
March 6 Analyzing and Interpreting Qualitative Data Quiz Six on Chapter Seven/Eight and Huff-Six
March 13 Spring Break
March 20 Reporting and Evaluating Research
Quiz Seven on Chapter Nine and Huff-Seven Literature Review Due
March 27 Open
April 3 Experimental and Correlational Designs
Quiz Eight on Chapters 10/11 and Huff-Eight
April 10 Single Subject Research Designs Quiz Nine on Huff Nine/Ten
April 17 Open
April 24 Presentations
May 1 Final Project Due
Grading
This course is by nature a formative course. You will at times feel like nothing makes sense, but hopefully by the end you will see how it all fits together. There is no perfect understanding of this content. The purpose is to work together to understand and use research as part of your ongoing work and to prepare you to take further research courses in the future.
You will be graded on your willingness to integrate recommended changes, your ability to improve your writing ability, and your ability to think critically. Ultimately, grades will depend on how well you demonstrate the competencies stated in the course objectives.
Final Grades for this course will be determined as follows: A – Exceeds expectations
B – Meets expectations fully
C – Meets expectations at a minimal level D – Does not meet expectations
F – Fails to attain even minimal competency in the subject matter
The Process of Conducting Research
12
You should be able to:
■ Define and describe the importance of educational
research
■ Describe the six steps in the process of research
■ Identify the characteristics of quantitative and
qualitative research in the six steps
■ Identify the type of research designs associated with
quantitative and qualitative research
■ Discuss important ethical issues in conducting
research
■ Recognize skills needed to design and conduct
research
13
What Is Research?
■ The researcher poses a question.
■ The researcher collects data to answer
the question.
■ The researcher presents an answer to
the question.
14
Importance of Research
■ Reason 1: Research adds to our
knowledge.
■ Addresses gaps in knowledge
■ Expands knowledge
■ Replicates knowledge
■ Adds voices of individuals to knowledge
15
Importance of Research (cont’d)
■ Reason 2: Research helps improve
practice.
■ Educators gain new ideas for their job.
■ Educators gain new insights into approaches.
■ Educators can connect with other educators.
16
Importance of Research (cont’d)
■ Reason 3: Research helps inform policy
debates.
■ Research allows people to weigh different
perspectives on issues.
■ Research enables people to make informed
decisions regarding policy.
17
Problems with Research Today
■ Contradictory or vague findings
■ Questionable data
■ Unclear statements about the intent
of the study
■ Lack of full disclosure of the data
collection procedure
■ Inarticulate rendering of the
research problem
18
The Process of Research
Identify the
Research Problem
Review the
Literature
Report
and
Evaluate Research
Specify a
Research
Purpose
Collect
Data
Analyze and
Interpret
Data
19
The Process of Research:
Identify the Research Problem
■ Specify a problem
■ Justify a problem
■ Suggest a need to study the problem for
audiences
110
The Process of Research:
Review the Literature
■ Locate resources
■ Books
■ Journals
■ Electronic resources
■ Choose resources to include in the
review
■ Summarize the literature in a written
report
111
The Process of Research:
Specify a Research Purpose
■ Identify the purpose statement
■ The major intent of the study
■ The participants in the study
■ The site of the study
■ Narrow the purpose statement to
research questions
112
The Research Process:
Collect Data
■ Determine the data collection method
■ Select the individuals to study
■ Obtain permissions
■ Design data collection instruments and
outline data collection procedures
■ Gather data
113
The Research Process:
Analyze and Interpret Data
■ Take the data apart to look at individual
responses
■ Represent the data in tables, figures, and
pictures
■ Explain conclusions from the data that
address the research questions
114
The Research Process:
Report and Evaluate Research
■ Report research
■ Determine the audience for the report
■ Structure the report
■ Write the report sensitively and accurately
■ Evaluate research
■ Assess the quality of research using recognized
standards in a discipline
■ Standards can come from the academic
community, school districts, or federal or state
agencies
115
RESEARCH PROCESS
Research Problem
Research Questions
Literature Review
Quantitative Research Qualitative Research
Research Designs
Quantitative Designs
-Experimental
-Correlational
-Survey
Combined Designs
-Mixed methods
-Action research
Qualitative Designs
-Grounded theory
-Ethnography
-Narrative
Sampling Instruments Data Analysis Interpretation
Discussion, Conclusions, Limitations, Future Research
116
The Major Characteristics of Quantitative
Research
■ Describe a research problem through trends and
relationships
■ Provide a major role for the literature to suggest
questions and justify the research problem
■ Create purpose statements, research questions,
and hypotheses that are specific, narrow,
measureable, and observable
117
The Major Characteristics of Quantitative
Research (cont’d)
■ Collect numeric data from a large number of
people using instruments
■ Analyze data for trends, group comparisons, and
relationships among variables
■ Write the research report using standard, fixed
structures and an objective, unbiased approach
118
The Major Characteristics of Qualitative Research
■ Explore a problem through obtaining a
detailed understanding of a central
phenomenon
■ Have the literature justify the problem and
play a minor role
■ State the purpose and research questions in
a general, open-ended way
119
The Major Characteristics of Qualitative Research
(cont’d)
■ Collect data from a small number of
participants
■ Analyze the data using text analysis to obtain
detailed descriptions and themes
■ Write the research report using flexible and
emerging structures and incorporating the
researchers’ subjective reflexivity and bias
120
Similarities Between Quantitative and Qualitative Research
■ Both forms of research follow the six
steps in the process of research
■ Both forms of research have
introductions that establish the
importance of the research problem
■ Both forms of research use interviews
and observations
121
Differences Between Quantitative and Qualitative Research
■ Quantitative data collection is more
closed-ended; qualitative data collection
is more open-ended
■ Quantitative data analysis is based on
statistics; qualitative data analysis is
based on text or image analysis
■ Quantitative reporting has a set
structure; qualitative data reporting is
more flexible
122
Factors in Deciding to Use Quantitative or
Qualitative Research
■ Match type of research to your research
problem
■ Fit type of research to your audiences
■ Relate type of research to your
experiences and training
123
Quantitative Designs and Uses
Experimental
Research
Correlational
Research
Survey
Research
Explaining whether an
intervention influences
an outcome for one
group as opposed to
another group
Associating or
relating variables
in a predictable
pattern for one
group of
individuals
Describing trends for
the population of
people
Intervention
Research
Nonintervention
Research
124
Qualitative Designs and Uses
Ethnographic
Research
Grounded Theory
Research
Narrative
Research
Exploring the shared
culture of a group
Exploring
common
experiences of
individuals to
develop a theory
Exploring individual
stories to describe
the lives of people
125
Combined Designs and Uses
Mixed Methods
Research
Action
Research
Combining quantitative and
qualitative data to understand and
explain a research problem better
Using quantitative and
qualitative data for individuals
to study problems that they face
in their setting
126
Important Ethical Issues in Conducting
Research
■ Learn about the procedures involved in
applying for approval from your campus
institutional review board
■ Recognize guidelines from professional
associations
■ Use ethical practices throughout research
■ Use respectful data collection procedures
■ Show respect to audiences who read and use
research study information
127
Skills Needed for Research
■ Curiosity to solve puzzles
■ Long attention spans
■ Library and computer resource skills
■ Writing and editing skills
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298901711
The effect of a specialized dyslexia font,
OpenDyslexic, on reading rate and accuracy
Article in Annals of Dyslexia · March 2016
DOI: 10.1007/s11881-016-0127-1
CITATIONS
0
READS
62
2 authors, including:
Jessica Wery
Elon University
16 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Jessica Wery on 21 March 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
1 23
Annals of Dyslexia
An Interdisciplinary Journal of Th
e
International Dyslexia Association
ISSN 0736-9387
Ann. of Dyslexia
DOI 10.1007/s11881-016-0127-1
The effect of a specialized dyslexia font,
OpenDyslexic, on reading rate and
accuracy
Jessica J. Wery & Jennifer A. Diliberto
1 23
Your article is published under the Creative
Commons Attribution license which allows
users to read, copy, distribute and make
derivative works, as long as the author of
the original work is cited. You may self-
archive this article on your own website, an
institutional repository or funder’s repository
and make it publicly available immediately.
The effect of a specialized dyslexia font, OpenDyslexic,
on reading rate and accuracy
Jessica J. Wery1 & Jennifer A. Diliberto2
Received: 21 October 2015 /Accepted: 19 February 2016
# The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract A single-subject alternating treatment design was used to investigate the extent to
which a specialized dyslexia font, OpenDyslexic, impacted reading rate or accuracy compared
to two commonly used fonts when used with elementary students identified as having
dyslexia. OpenDyslexic was compared to Arial and Times New Roman in three reading tasks:
(a) letter naming, (b) word reading, and (c) nonsense word reading. Data were analyzed
through visual analysis and improvement rate difference, a nonparametric measure of
nonoverlap for comparing treatments. Results from this alternating treatment experiment show
no improvement in reading rate or accuracy for individual students with dyslexia, as well as
the group as a whole. While some students commented that the font was Bnew^ or Bdifferent^,
none of the participants reported preferring to read material presented in that font. These results
indicate there may be no benefit for translating print materials to this font.
Keywords Decoding.Dyslexia.Fluency.Font.Learningdisabilities.OpenDyslexic.Reading
Introduction
An estimated 15–20 % of English-speaking school-aged children experience difficulty learn-
ing to read (International Dyslexia Association (IDA), 2007; Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz,
2003). Within the USA, the prevalence rate of dyslexia is estimated to be between 10 and 15 %
(Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007; Eden & Moats, 2002). Since its discovery, dyslexia
has been highly researched and debated (Washburn, Binks‐Cantrell, & Joshi, 2013).
Ann. of Dyslexia
DOI 10.1007/s11881-016-0127-1
* Jessica J. Wery
jwery@elon.edu
Jennifer A. Diliberto
jdil@email.unc.edu
1 School of Education, Elon University, 2105 Campus Box, Elon, NC 27244, USA
2 School of Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB#3500, 201F Peabody, Chapel
Hill, NC 27599-3500, USA
Researchers in a variety of disciplines, including medicine, psychology, and education, have
contributed to our understanding of dyslexia, as well as the methods and interventions that are
effective for students with this disability.
Several authorities have put forth definitions of dyslexia. IDA has adopted the definition of
dyslexia published by Lyon et al. (2003):
Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological in origin. It is characterized
by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and
decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological
component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities
and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may
include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can
impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge (p.2).
Dyslexia is also included within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA,
2004), within Bspecific learning disability (SLD)^, one of the 13 disability categories. The
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V; American Psychiatric
Association, 2013) includes dyslexia within Blearning disorder.^ Unfortunately, the inconsis-
tency in terminology and the lack of one universally agreed upon definition of dyslexia has
caused some confusion among special educators, administrators, and parents. However, most
agree that dyslexia is a distinct type of SLD that presents in a difficulty with phonological
coding (Shaywitz et al., 2004; Snowling, 2009).
As reading and writing have become increasingly crucial for success in and out of school,
students with dyslexia are often at-risk for academic failure, lower reading self-efficacy
(Burden, 2008), and lower self-esteem (Alexander-Passe, 2006) as well as an increased risk
of dropping out of school (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2006). Due to the potential for
poor school and post-school outcomes, teachers, parents, and advocates often feel desperate to
locate and employ accommodations and interventions to help students with dyslexia read.
Recently, two specialized typefaces or fonts BOpenDyslexic^ (OD; Gonzalez, 2012) and
BDyslexie^ (Boer, 2008) have been developed that purport to increase readability for those
with dyslexia. These fonts differ from the other, more traditional fonts because the letters have
been designed to have thicker or Bheavier^ lines near the bottom of the letters (See Fig. 1). The
typeface developers of these fonts claim that this Bheaviness^ prevents the letters from turning
upside down for readers with dyslexia, and makes it easier for people with dyslexia to
distinguish individual letters while reducing reading errors and the effort it takes to read text
(http://www.studiostudio.nl/en/information/).
Perhaps, the typeface developers developed this font based on the same misconception that
dyslexia is characterized by letter reversals, what is commonly held by teachers (Washburn et al.,
2013). However, four decades of research on dyslexia suggests reading difficulties stem from more
basic deficits in alphabetic and phonological coding are the probable causes of the disorder rather
than visual, semantic, or syntactic deficits (Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004).
Despite this erroneous foundation, these newly designed fonts have captured public attention
across the world. National Public Radio, Scientific American, and eschool news (http://www.
eschoolnews.com/2015/09/04/dyslexia-online-font-593/comment-page-1/#comment-230792)
have featured interviews with one of the developers, and several websites contain numerous
testimonials touting the benefits of the specialized fonts. Additionally, many of these websites
highlight these testimonials on social media sites such as Facebook, heightening its visibility.
J.J. Wery, J.A. Diliberto
Today, the U.S. Department of Education places an increased emphasis on greater rigor in
educational research (Institute of Educational Sciences, 2010), and legislative mandates call for
the use of research-based practices in schools (NCLB, 2001; ESRA, 2002; IDEIA, 2004).
These legal and policy changes as well as calls from the research academy (e.g., Horner et al.,
2005; Gersten et al., 2005) further movements for evidence-based interventions, practices, or
treatments in the field of special education (Odom, 2009; Odom et al., 2005), thus highlighting
the importance of investigations into the efficacy of specialized fonts. Yet, no empirical
research could be identified that investigated the effectiveness of the font with English readers,
and very little research exists on its effectiveness in readers of other languages.
Extant research
Two studies have investigated the effect of specialized fonts used with students with
dyslexia. Rello and Baeza-Yates (2013) measured eye-tracking recordings of Spanish
readers with dyslexia (aged 11–50) and found that OD did not significantly improve
reading time nor shorten eye fixation. In her master’s thesis, de Leeuw (2010) compared
Arial and Dyslexie with 21 Dutch students with dyslexia and found Dyslexie did not lead
to faster reading, but may help with some dyslexic-related errors. To date, no peer-
reviewed research studies report the use of a Bdyslexia-friendly^ font with English-
speaking and English-reading students. Thus, research is needed to determine the effec-
tiveness of a dyslexia-friendly font on reading rate and accuracy in English-speaking
students identified with dyslexia prior to its widespread use.
Therefore, the purpose of the current investigation is to determine the effectiveness of a
specialized dyslexia font on reading speed and accuracy on three reading tasks: (a) letter
naming, (b) word reading, and (c) nonsense word reading. These three types of reading tasks
were selected based on their strong correlation to reading achievement and ability to measure
both reading accuracy and speed. The independent variables compared were the fonts (a) Arial,
a san serif font; (b) Times New Roman (TNR), a serif font; and (c) OD, a specialized dyslexia
font. Here, Arial and TNR both commonly used fonts are baseline conditions 1 and 2,
respectively. OD is the treatment condition.
Fig. 1 OpenDyslexic font.
Source: BBC.com
The effect of specialized font, OpenDyslexic
Method
The current investigation utilized a single-subject alternating treatment design to determine the
differences among three separate fonts within three reading tasks in elementary school students
identified with dyslexia. Single-subject research is considered a rigorous, scientific experi-
mental methodology used to establish evidence-based practices. The purpose of single-subject
designs is to document functional relationships between independent and dependent variables
thus focusing on practical significance as an outcome (Horner et al., 2005). Single-subject
research data is typically compared systematically thought visual representations within and
across conditions of a study using graphic representations (Alberto & Troutman, 2009).
Setting and participants
Students attending a K-12 independent urban school for students with dyslexia and
related disorders, located in the southeast USA, participated in this study, with a total
school enrollment of 160. Students who were invited to participate were those who were
(a) of elementary age, (b) with confirmed and current diagnoses of dyslexia (or a specific
learning disability in the areas of phonological processing or decoding based on psycho-
educational assessments conducted by an outside evaluator required for admission to the
school), (c) with normal vision, and (d) no comorbid diagnoses (e.g., attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, autism). Of the 13 students who were identified and invited, 12
returned, signed parental consent forms and participated in this study. Table 1 provides
information about the age, grade, gender, ethnicity, and lexile levels of the participants.
Of students that participated in the study, seven were female and five were male. Three
students were in third grade, three in fourth grade, two in fifth grade, and four were in
sixth grade. Their lexile levels ranged from 120 to 1137. The probes created by the
authors were based on the lower lexile scores of the participants.
Table 1 Participants
Pseudonym Age Grade Sex Race/ethnicity Lexile
Randy 12–4 6th M C 450–600
Steve 12–8 6th M C 250–400
Chris 12–5 6th M C 900–10
50
Elizabeth 12–5 6th F C 800–950
Kelly 11–6 5th F C 500–6
60
Audrey 10–11 5th F C 987–1137
Michael 10–7 4th M C 500–650
Bethany 10–4 4th F C 339–489
Jake 10–2 4th M C 250–400
Ellen 9–0 3rd F C 120–350
Lilly 10–4 3rd F A 159–309
Madison 10–4 3rd F C 519–669
M male, F female, A Asian, C Caucasian
J.J. Wery, J.A. Diliberto
Measures/dependent variables
Within single case research design, dependent variables should be selected for their social
significance (Horner et al., 2005). Therefore, three types of reading tasks were selected because
of their strong correlation to reading achievement and sensitivity to both reading accuracy and
speed: (a) letter naming (Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs, Bouton, & Caffrey, 2011), (b) real word
decoding, and (c) nonsense word decoding (Nunes, Bryant, & Barros, 2012; Kendeou, van den
Broek, White, & Lynch, 2009). Further, these tasks directly measure the anecdotal claims made
by the font developers. The letter-naming probes acted as a measure of rapid automatic naming
and letter identification in isolation. The real word list provided a measure of word reading or
decoding and the nonsense word list allowed for a measure of sound-symbol correspondence that
was free from effects of previous reading learning and memorization. A measure of reading
comprehension was not selected because reading comprehension can be influenced by many
other reading and executive functioning skills unrelated to decoding of print.
Stimulus material Three sets of research-created probes were created, one set for each
reading task: (a) letter-naming, (b) real word decoding, and (c) nonsense word decoding
(See Fig. 2). The letter-naming probes contained a list of randomly ordered upper and
lowercase letters. The real word list contained phonetically regular one- and two-syllable
words. The nonsense word list contained nonreal words following typical orthographic
patterns. From each set, seven randomly ordered lists were generated. Each list was then
printed in each of the three fonts (Arial 12, OD 10, TNR 12). The nominal font sizes varied in
order to keep the physical size of the font consistent across probes. Each list consisted three
columns of double-spaced rows and was printed on standard white copy paper.
Fig. 2 Probe examples: letter naming in TNR, words in OD, and nonsense words in Arial
The effect of specialized font, OpenDyslexic
Procedure
For each session, participants read a letter-naming list, a real word list, and a nonsense word
list each for one minute. If a student hesitated for 4 s, he or she was prompted to skip that item
and move to the next one. A digital timer with an audible alarm/bell was used to time each 1-
min reading session. The researchers recorded student responses on identical observer copies
of the student probes. A random-number calculator (Microsoft Excel) was used in order to
randomize the font sequence to ensure the order of presentation did not affect the decoding rate
or accuracy.
Inter-observer agreement Each session was audio-recorded. Later, a graduate student not
familiar with the research question compared the researcher-marked observer copy to the audio
recording. Inter-observer agreement was calculated with the following formula: agreements/
(agreements+disagreements). Inter-observer agreement was conducted on at least 96 % of all
administrations with a median agreement of 100 % (range=99.3–100 %) for letter naming,
100 % (range=of 98.2–100 %) for real word reading, and 100 % (range=of 97.9–100 %) for
nonsense word reading.
Experimental design
This study utilized an alternating treatment design (ATD), a form of single-subject
research, to investigate the effects of the specialized dyslexia font, OD, compared to
Arial and Times New Roman fonts on reading accuracy and speed in elementary-aged
readers with dyslexia. ATD is an ideal design for comparing the effects of two or more
treatments in applied research, and can identify the presence or absence of a causal
relationship between the independent variable (e.g., font type) and a change in the
dependent variable (e.g., reading speed and accuracy (Smith, 2012). ATDs control for
internal threats to validity related to inter-subject variability by essentially dividing each
participant into multiple identical participants receiving each treatment (Martella, Nelson,
& Marchand-Manella, 1999). Further, ATDs that include random assignment of treatment
order and replication across multiple participants rule out rival hypotheses, resulting in
elegant control of internal threats to validity (Horner et al., 2005).
Data analysis
The results of this study were analyzed through visual analysis, as well as nonparametric
statistical analysis.
Visual analysis was used to evaluate the outcomes of this study. A positive effect is present
when there is (a) a consistent level, trend, and variability within each phase or condition; (b) an
immediate effect, proportion of overlap, consistent data across phases, and projected patterns
of the dependent variable to determine the presence of an intervention effect; and (c) absence
of anomalies within the data (e.g., sudden changes in level or trend).
While visual analysis has been shown to be effective in detecting large, practically
important and clinically significant participant outcomes, it can be insensitive to smaller effects
(Glass, 1997; Parsonson & Baer, 1992). Therefore, we also conducted statistical tests to
identify and summarize the effect of each font.
J.J. Wery, J.A. Diliberto
Because the data did not meet the parametric assumptions (e.g., parametric assumptions of
normally distributed data, homogeneity of variance of the residuals, and the independence of
the distribution of the residuals; Campbell, 2004; West & Hepworth, 1991; Hersen & Barlow,
1976), a nonparametric effect size calculation was used. Distribution-free nonparametric
models are not impeded by these parametric assumption violations (Parker & Vannest,
2009) and are a measure of practical significance (Parker, Vannest, & Brown, 2009).
While there are several nonparametric methods for calculating effect size for SCDs,
improvement rate difference (IRD) was selected for use here because it is an intuitive approach
that makes use of established effect sizes (e.g., Phi, Cohen’s Kappa and Cramer’s V). IRD is
the difference in improvement rates between baseline and treatment phases (Parker et al.,
2009) and is commonly used in medical research under the terms Brisk difference^ or Brisk
reduction^ (Vannest, Harrison, Temple-Harvey, Ramsey, & Parker, 2010). Confidence inter-
vals and p values for IRD can also be calculated using commonly available statistics modules.
The strengths of IRD for single case research are described at length in Parker et al. (2009).
IRD is calculated by finding the difference between the improvement rate in baseline and
the improvement rate in treatment. The improvement rate is for each phase is the number of
Bimproved data points^ divided by the total data points in that phase. In a treatment phase, an
improved data point is any point that exceeds all data points in the baseline phase. Within a
baseline phase, an improved data point is one that ties or exceeds any points in the treatment
phase. IRD is then calculated from these two independent proportions. For this analysis we
used the online calculator (Relative Risk and Risk Difference Confidence Intervals, version
1.0, Buchan, 2004; available at http://www.phsim.man.ac.uk/risk/Default.aspx).
The maximum score is 100 % IRD and occurs when there is no overlap between treatment
and baseline. A 50 % IRD, or chance levels of improvement, occurs when half of the scores
overlap between phases. A negative IRD score occurs when the treatment deteriorates below
baseline levels (Parker et al., 2009).
Confidence intervals were also calculated around IRD to provide a measure of confidence,
so that we can conclude with 95 % confidence that the true difference between the two
conditions (Arial vs OD, TNR vs OD) lies within the calculated interval.
Results
Eleven of the 12 students completed each of the three reading task probes (i.e., letter-naming,
word reading, and nonsense word reading). One male student was removed from the nonsense
word reading on the second day of data collection because his articulation patterns interfered
with accurate scoring. His nonsense word reading results were not included in this analysis.
Visual analysis
The whole group data and graphs were evaluated by the visual analysis procedures described
above. For both measures (i.e., speed and accuracy) of each reading task (i.e., letter naming,
word reading, and nonsense word reading), the visual analysis of the data does indicate an
overall increasing trend over time, as one would expect with the effect of practice (see Figs. 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). However, no individual trend line for any of the specific fonts demonstrated a
stronger increasing trend than any other. Further, the significant amount of overlap between
each of the individual font data lines indicates that no one font lead to significantly better or
The effect of specialized font, OpenDyslexic
worse reading accuracy or speed. Further, individual student graphs and data were also
analyzed to investigate individual effects, none of which demonstrate a positive effect (Please
contact the first author for copies of individual student graphs).
Effect size calculation
IRD Arial, OD, and TNR were evaluated to determine if differences between the font in area
of reading fluency and accuracy for each of the reading tasks (See Tables 2 and 3). The
confidence intervals take into account the number of participants and observations, describe
how reliable survey results are, and provide a range within which the parameter is likely to
lie.On measures of reading fluency, OD produced negative results, or decreased students’
outcomes compared to both Arial and TNR, on all three reading tasks (i.e., letter naming, word
decoding, nonsense word decoding). ES ranged from −88.65 %, CI95 [−94.45, −77.57] Arial
compared to OD on word reading, to −49.65 %, CI95 [−63.33, −32.98] Arial compared to OD
on letter naming.
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
L
et
te
rs
p
er
M
in
ut
e
Session
Overall Letter Naming Fluency
Arial Dyslexie Times New Roman
Fig. 3 Overall average letter naming fluency (letters correct per minute). Accuracy
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
P
er
ce
nt
C
or
re
ct
Session
Overall Letter Naming Accuracy
Arial Dyslexie Times
Fig. 4 Overall average letter
naming accuracy (letters correct/
total attempts)
J.J. Wery, J.A. Diliberto
On measures of reading accuracy, OD also produced negative results, or decreased
students’ outcomes compared to both Arial and TNR, on all three reading tasks (i.e., letter
naming, word decoding, nonsense word decoding). ES ranged from −73.53 %, CI95 [−83.38,
−59.28] TNR compared to OD on word reading, to −63.62 %, CI95 [−74.96, −48.66] TNR
compared to OD on letter naming.
Based on visual and statistical analysis, there is Bno evidence^ of OD having a positive
effect on reading speed or accuracy.
While not the focus of this study, it is interesting to note that there appears to be no
practically significant difference between the use of TNR and Arial fonts, even though some
have opined a preference for one of the other (British Dyslexia Association, n.d).
Discussion
The development of the OD font may have been developed as the result of a common
misunderstanding of dyslexia. Many new teachers believe dyslexia is caused by a deficit in
visual perception (Allington, 1982; Bell, McPhillips, & Doveston, 2009; Hudson, High, & Al
Otaiba, 2007; Wadlington & Wadlington, 2005; Washburn, Joshi, & Binks, 2011a, Washburn,
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
W
or
ds
p
er
M
in
ut
e
Session
Overall Word Reading Fluency
Arial Dyslexie Times New Roman
Fig. 5 Overall average reading
fluency (words correct per minute)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
P
er
ce
nt
C
or
re
ct
Session
Word Reading Accuracy
Arial Dyslexie Times New Roman
Fig. 6 Overall average reading accuracy (letters correct/total attempts)
The effect of specialized font, OpenDyslexic
Joshi, & Binks-Cantrell, 2011b; Washburn et al., 2013), which may have originated in a very
early use of the term Bword blindness^ (Das & Das, 2009) and perpetuated by the fact that
many students with dyslexia have letter reversals. While some with dyslexia do report
difficulty with vision, there is little evidence to support that this is related to dyslexia
(Christenson, Griffin, & Taylor, 2001; Fletcher, Foorman, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 1999). In
fact, emerging readers commonly reverse letters as they consolidate and make sense of the
sound-symbol system (Adams, 1998).
With the poor outcomes and personal struggles associated with dyslexia, teachers and
parents are eager to find interventions to improve reading outcomes. Consequently, people in a
variety of fields are seeking to help find solutions. However, to truly meet the needs of students
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
N
on
se
ns
e
W
or
d
pe
r
M
in
ut
e
Session
Overall Nonsense Word Reading Fluency
Arial Dyslexie Times New Roman
Fig. 7 Overall average nonsense word reading fluency (pseudo-words correct per minute)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
P
er
ce
nt
C
or
re
ct
Session
Overall Nonsense Word Reading Accuracy
Arial Dyslexie Times New Roman
Fig. 8 Overall average nonsense word reading accuracy (pseudo-words correct/total attempts)
J.J. Wery, J.A. Diliberto
who struggle to learn to read, they need to be provided interventions that are empirically
proven to be effective. Given the press and popular support of using a specialized font as a
remedy for dyslexia, it is critical to highlight that results from this study failed to identify any
positive effect for using it. Currently, there is no documentation to support a specialized font is
an evidence-based practice. Teachers, administrators, and parents need to be aware of the lack
of empirical data supporting any positive effects of OD on reading before altering all written
material into a dyslexia-friendly font. If fact, using a font with claims to improve reading for
individuals with dyslexia without evidence to support this claim could result in further
frustrations by teachers, parents, and individuals with dyslexia when no difference is observed
after changing fonts used. Teachers and other practitioners need to be able to discriminate
between those interventions that have been empirically shown to be effective from those that
have not. While some may conclude that an intervention that fails to produce a positive effect
may not do good, but probably does not do harm, others disagree.
Inert interventions may in fact cause other forms of harm, in depriving resources (time and
financial) away from those interventions that have demonstrated efficacy. While the interven-
tion studied here, a freely available font, does not have costs associated with purchasing it,
there are financial and time cost associated with downloading it and transferring print materials
to the new font. That time and resource could be use on other interventions that are more likely
to improve students’ reading ability. Further, the use of unsubstantiated interventions can
impact the credibility of the profession, and lead to the public losing trust in special educators
(Lilienfeld, Lynn, & Lohr, 2015).
Finally, the most harm may come when students who have already experienced significant
struggle and academic failures related to learning to read, have yet another experience with
Table 2 Fluency effect (correct letters or words per minute)
Reading task Contrast IRD ES (%) 95 % Confidence interval
Letter naming Arial vs OD −49.65 % −63.33, −32.98
TNR vs OD −67.73 % −73.60, −46.17
Word reading Arial vs OD −88.65 % −94.45, −77.57
TNR vs OD −82.81 % −90.01, −71.74
Nonsense word reading Arial vs OD −69.70 % −79.90, −55.74
TNR vs OD −77.24 % −85.99, −64.10.
OD OpenDyslexic, TNR Times New Roman
Table 3 Accuracy effect (correct/total attempts)
Reading task Contrast IRD ES (%) 95 % Confidence interval
Letter naming Arial vs OD −68.18 % −78.64, −54.10
TNR vs OD −63.62 % −74.96, −48.66
Word reading Arial vs OD −53.89 % −67.52, −36.70
TNR vs OD −73.53 % −83.38, −59.28
Nonsense word reading Arial vs OD −67.19 % −78.28, −52.02
TNR vs OD −75.81 % −85.09, −61.90
OD OpenDyslexic, TNR Times New Roman
The effect of specialized font, OpenDyslexic
failure when they are not able to read significantly better in a font designed to do so. A
repeated failure experience can further damage students’ self-efficacy and academic self-
esteem. Instead, students with dyslexia need well-qualified teachers and interventionists,
who can skillfully implement intensive instruction (Moats, 2009). This intensive systematic
intervention is likely to include direct multisensory instruction in the areas of phonological
awareness, phonics, and fluency (Mather & Wendling, 2012; Shaywitz, 2003; Snowling &
Hulme, 2012) that is both sequential and cumulative, and taught to automaticity (Moats, 2009).
Limitations and future research
While all three reading tasks were selected because of their sensitivity to small changes, and
nonsense word reading was selected because it reduces the influence of memorization, we did
not measure comprehension of connected text—the end goal of reading. However, this study
failed to find any positive effect of the specialized dyslexia font on the reading accuracy and
speed, we can assume it will also have no effect on reading comprehension, this study did not
directly measure that variable.
While single case research designs are empirical research designs, multiple independent
studies with similar results are needed to deem any intervention or practice to be Bevidence-
based^ (Kratochwill et al., 2010) Future research is needed to verify the results of this study.
While OD has not been shown to be an effective intervention for students with dyslexia,
that is not to say the field should not continue to search for and develop new and innovative
ways to improve outcomes for students. Since students with dyslexia are already behind their
nondisabled peers in regards to reading achievement, it become more critical that educators use
interventions empirically proven to be effective. Educators cannot waste time with interven-
tions having no empirical support. Our children do not need to experience another failure.
Compliance with ethical standards
Funding We received no financial support in conducting this research.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and repro-
duction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
References
Adams, M. (1998). Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Alberto, P.A., & Troutman, A. C. (2009). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. Pearson.
Alexander-Passe, N. (2006). How dyslexic teenagers cope: an investigation of self-esteem, coping and depres-
sion. Dyslexia, 12, 256–275.
Allington, R. L. (1982). The persistence of teacher beliefs in facets of the visual perceptual deficit hypothesis. The
Elementary School Journal, 82, 351–359.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
Bell, S., McPhillips, T., & Doveston, M. (2009). How do teachers in Ireland and England conceptualise dyslexia?
Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 171–192.
Boer, C. (2008). Dyslexie font retrieved from http://www.dyslexiefont.com/
J.J. Wery, J.A. Diliberto
British Dyslexia Association (n.d.). Typefaces for dyslexia. Retrieved from http://bdatech.org/what-technology/
typefaces-for-dyslexia/
Buchan, I. (2004). Relative risk and risk difference confidence intervals, version 1.0.Public Health Informatics at
The University of Manchester/ http://www.phsim.man.ac.uk/risk/Default.aspx
Burden, R. (2008). Is dyslexia necessarily associated with negative feelings of self-worth? A review and
implications for future research. Dyslexia, 14(3), 188–196.
Campbell, J. M. (2004). Statistical comparison of four effect sizes for single-subject designs. Behavior
Modification, 28, 234–246. doi:10.1177/0145445503259264
Christenson, G. N., Griffin, J. R., & Taylor, M. (2001). Failure of blue-tinted lenses to change reading scores of
dyslexic individuals. Optometry, 71, 627–633.
Das, J. P., & Das, J. P. (2009). Reading difficulties and dyslexia: an interpretation for teachers. SAGE Publications.
de Leeuw, R., (2010). Special font for dyslexia? Retrieved from http://essay.utwente.nl/60474/
Eden, G., & Moats, L. (2002). The role of neuroscience in the remediation of students with dyslexia. Nature
Neuroscience, 5, 1080–1084.
Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA). (2002).
Fletcher, J. M., Foorman, B. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Conceptual and methodological
issues in dyslexia research: a lesson for develop mental disorders. In H. Tager-Flugsberg (Ed.),
Neurodevelopmental disorders (pp. 271–306). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: from identification to
intervention. New York: Guilford.
Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., & Caffrey, E. (2011). The construct and predictive validity
of a dynamic assessment of young children learning to read: implications for RTI frameworks. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 44, 339–347.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality
indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional
Children, 71(2), 149–164.
Glass, G. V. (1997). Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5, 1–22.
Gonzalez, A. (2014). OpenDyslexic: a font. Retrieved from http://opendyslexic.org/
Hersen, M., & Barlow, D. H. (1976). Single case experimental designs: strategies for studying behavior change.
New York: Pergamon Press.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-
subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children,
71(2), 165–179.
Hudson, R. F., High, L., & Al Otaiba, S. (2007). Dyslexia and the brain: what does current research tell us? The
Reading Teacher, 60, 506–515.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. 20 U. S. C. §1400 et seq. (2004).
Institute of Educational Sciences. (2010).
International Dyslexia Association. (2007). Dyslexia basics. Retrieved October 21, 2007 from http:// www.
interdys.org/ewebeditpro5/upload/Dyslexia_Basics_FS_-_final_81407
Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early
elementary school: the independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101, 765–778. doi:10.1037/a0015956
Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J. J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D., & Shadish, (2010).
What works clearinghouse: single-case designs technical documentation.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., & Lohr, J. M. (2015). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology, (2nd ed.).
Guilford Press.
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14.
Martella, R., Nelson, J. R., & Marchand-Manella, N. (1999). Research methods: learning to become a critical
research consumer. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Mather, N., & Wendling, B. (2012). Essentials of dyslexia: assessment and intervention. New York: Wiley.
Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and Writing, 22(4), 379–399.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Barros, R. (2012). The development of word recognition and its significance for
comprehension and fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 959–973.
Odom, S. L. (2009). The tie that binds: evidence-based implementation, science, and early intervention. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 53–61.
Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in
special education: scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.
Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K. J. (2009). An improved effect size for single case research: non-overlap of all pairs
(NAP). Behavior Therapy, 40, 357–367. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006
The effect of specialized font, OpenDyslexic
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., & Brown, L. M. (2009). The improvement rate difference for single case research.
Exceptional Children, 75, 135–150.
Parsonson, B. S., & Baer, D. M. (1992). The visual analysis of data, and current research into the stimuli
controlling it. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: new
directions for psychology and education (pp. 15–40). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Rello, L., & Baeza-Yates, R. (2013). Good fonts for dyslexia. In Proceedings of the 15th International ACM
SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (p. 14). ACM.
Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming Dyslexia. 53–58. Published by Alfred A.
Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Blachman, B., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Skudlarski, P., et al. (2004).
Development of left occipito-temporal systems for skilled reading in children after a phonologically-based
intervention. Biological Psychiatry, 55, 926–933.
Smith, J. D. (2012). Single-case experimental designs: a systematic review of published research and current
standards. Psychological Methods, 17(4). doi:10.1037/a0029312
Snowling, M. J. (2009). Changing concepts of dyslexia: nature, treatment and co-morbidity. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 609–618.
Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2012). Annual research review: the nature and classification of reading
disorders—a commentary on proposals for DSM-5. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53,
593–607.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special
Education Programs. (2006). 26th annual (2004) report to congress on the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Author.
Vannest, K. J., Harrison, J. R., Temple-Harvey, K., Ramsey, L., & Parker, R. I. (2010). Improvement rate
differences of academic interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Remedial and
Special Education. doi:10.1177/0741932510362509
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia):
what have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 2–40.
Wadlington, E. M., & Wadlington, P. L. (2005). What educators really believe about dyslexia. Reading
Improvement, 42, 16–33.
Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Binks-Cantrell, E. S. (2011). Are preservice teachers prepared to teach
struggling readers? Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 21–43.
Washburn, E., Joshi, R. M., & Binks, E. (2011). Teacher knowledge of basic language concepts and dyslexia.
Dyslexia, 17, 165–183.
Washburn, E. K., Binks-Cantrell, E. S., & Joshi, R. (2013). What do preservice teachers from the USA and the
UK know about dyslexia? Dyslexia, 20(1), 1–18.
West, S. G., & Hepworth, J. T. (1991). Statistical issues in the study of temporal data: daily experiences. Journal
of Personality, 59, 609–662.
J.J. Wery, J.A. Diliberto
View publication statsView publication stats
