Well, it would do if the paper was any good, anyway… So, here’s a short break from our usual Patrick Holford coverage to note that Dore have put out a new research paper (PDF) by David Reynolds, Roy Rutherford and Wenjuan Zhang. The Jackson Wells PR company are presenting this as having found that Dore “greatly improves motor and cognitive functions in people presenting with dyslexia”. However, Table 1 in the paper (p. 7) actually shows that Dore did not bring a statistically significant improvement in Dyslexia Screening Test (DST) scores for clients presenting with a mild/borderline risk of dyslexia. This means that a lot of potential Dore clients risk spending a lot of money – and a lot of time doing Dore exercises – despite the fact that Dore’s own research does not show their treatment significant improvement in DST test scores, let alone a ‘cure’.
Now, as suggested above, I don’t think this research paper was any good. The new brainduck blog has done an excellent job of taking apart the Dore paper: among a number of serious flaws, there was no control group, the paper denies that the attention given during Dore treatment constitutes ‘special attention’ for children, and the paper does not give an adequate review of the academic literature on dyslexia. However, if you live by crap research, you die by crap research: if Dore believe that the research paper is credible, why don’t they act on what it finds and tell clients with a mild/borderline DST score that Dore is unsuitable for them?
Dore shouldn’t be able to have it both ways. If you promote poor quality research when it appears to show benefits from your treatment, you shouldn’t just ignore the research when it shows no benefit for some potential clients.