Robin van Rijthoven

59 Response to phonics through spelling intervention 3 the phonics through spelling intervention outcomes to be robust across differences in phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, and verbal working memory. Method Participants Participants were Dutch children diagnosed with dyslexia who received an in-service phonics through spelling intervention in a clinic for assessment and intervention of learning difficulties among children with learning difficulties. For the purpose of this study, 99 files of Dutch children were collected from the clinic. Due to missing data and different instruments, a sample of 54 children (37 boys and 17 girls) with Dutch as their first language was selected for this study. Themeanageof thisgroupofchildrenatthestartof theassessmentwas8.97years(SD = .96). Childrenwere in grade 2 (n = 17), grade 3 (n = 24), grade 4 (n = 9), grade 5 (n = 3), and grade 6 (n = 1). Out of the group of 54 children, 17 children attended the same class an extra year. All children had perceptual cognitive capacities within the normal range (M = 103.70, SD = .15). However, since there was variation in perceptual cognitive capacities, this variable was included as a control variable in the analysis. Parents gave active consent to use the data collected during the intervention for research purposes. Procedure The current study was based on existing data collected by a clinic for assessment and intervention for children with learning disorders. Between 2009 and 2013, data were filed in this clinic. All children had been referred to this clinic by their parents and teachers. The assessment and intervention were performed following the standardized Dutch Protocol Dyslexia Diagnostics and Treatment (Blomert, 2006). The following procedures were followed: Assessment started with parents and teacher filling in questionnaires about current problems and the child’s development. Afterward parents were invited for an interview at the clinic. Both the questionnaires and the interview were in order to rule out other explanations for reading and spelling problems, such as general learning problems or specific influential events during the child’s development with impact on learning progress. Furthermore, by means of the questionnaires teachers had to prove constant weak performances for 1.5 years (word reading scores below 10th percentile or below 15th percentile combined with spelling scores below 10th percentile) for these children notwithstanding systematic and well-defined reading and spelling instruction in the classroom. This should be supplemented with in-class extended instruction time, combinedwithindividual intervention(i.e., remedial teaching) for 10to12weeks.All children were tested during two consecutive mornings (9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. including breaks)