Effectiveness of individualized education program for slow learners
http://www.100md.com
《美国医学杂志》
Biostatistics Unit, Department of Basic Principles, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005, India
The study[1] to evaluate the effectiveness of an individualized education program for children with scholastic backwardness needs reinterpretation on the grounds of external validity. This interesting study may be viewed more as a descriptive study containing some spirit of case report studies. Considering the group as sample and generalizing the findings to larger population may raise certain issues requiring attention.
The study based on small number of subjects (n=18) inspite of inclusion and exclusion criteria contains some element of heterogeneity like, presence of 12 slow learner children and 6 having mild mental retardation in the sample. Age varied from 8 to 12 years, which should have been kept narrower, as normally, an 8 year old child studies in class 2 or 3, while at age 12, in class 6 or 7. These might be some of the reasons of observing no change in scores of 6 children after training program.
It may be natural to expect that individualized education improves scholastic ability of a normal as well as weak child. Aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular 2-month module of individualized training program. As the sample is not a random sample, the study requires random allocation of subjects into intervention group and control group for comparison. Pre and post measurements should be done in both the groups and if between the groups comparison of mean difference of pre and post observations using (say) unpaired 't' test, results are statistically significant, it may be concluded that the intervention training program has potential of improving the scholastic ability. As there is no control group, therefore, though there is significant improvement after 2-month training program, it may not be argued that this is only due to intervention. Other inherent uncontrolled factors might have also played the role. Further, Chi square test for testing association might have been a better choice in such situation instead of paired 't' test for testing the significance of mean difference.
Keeping in view the statistical limitations of the study, the words 'prove' and 'can' in first sentence of first paragraph under Discussion ("The findings of the present study prove that academic functioning of children who are slow learners can improve significantly if they are given individualized education") seem unfit. Similarly, first sentence of second paragraph under Results ("67% (12) of children had significant improvement in their academic functioning, as evidenced by the outcome of the final test paper") requires clarification.
References
1. Krishnakumar P, Geeta MG, Palat R. Effectiveness of Individualized Education Program for slow learners. Indian J Pediatr 2006; 73 : 135-137.(Singh Girish)
The study[1] to evaluate the effectiveness of an individualized education program for children with scholastic backwardness needs reinterpretation on the grounds of external validity. This interesting study may be viewed more as a descriptive study containing some spirit of case report studies. Considering the group as sample and generalizing the findings to larger population may raise certain issues requiring attention.
The study based on small number of subjects (n=18) inspite of inclusion and exclusion criteria contains some element of heterogeneity like, presence of 12 slow learner children and 6 having mild mental retardation in the sample. Age varied from 8 to 12 years, which should have been kept narrower, as normally, an 8 year old child studies in class 2 or 3, while at age 12, in class 6 or 7. These might be some of the reasons of observing no change in scores of 6 children after training program.
It may be natural to expect that individualized education improves scholastic ability of a normal as well as weak child. Aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular 2-month module of individualized training program. As the sample is not a random sample, the study requires random allocation of subjects into intervention group and control group for comparison. Pre and post measurements should be done in both the groups and if between the groups comparison of mean difference of pre and post observations using (say) unpaired 't' test, results are statistically significant, it may be concluded that the intervention training program has potential of improving the scholastic ability. As there is no control group, therefore, though there is significant improvement after 2-month training program, it may not be argued that this is only due to intervention. Other inherent uncontrolled factors might have also played the role. Further, Chi square test for testing association might have been a better choice in such situation instead of paired 't' test for testing the significance of mean difference.
Keeping in view the statistical limitations of the study, the words 'prove' and 'can' in first sentence of first paragraph under Discussion ("The findings of the present study prove that academic functioning of children who are slow learners can improve significantly if they are given individualized education") seem unfit. Similarly, first sentence of second paragraph under Results ("67% (12) of children had significant improvement in their academic functioning, as evidenced by the outcome of the final test paper") requires clarification.
References
1. Krishnakumar P, Geeta MG, Palat R. Effectiveness of Individualized Education Program for slow learners. Indian J Pediatr 2006; 73 : 135-137.(Singh Girish)