RESUMEN
In this study, we wonder how to compare the improvement in visual perceptual skills (by using the test of visual perceptual skills, TVPS) in children with dyslexia after two visual training types (a new immersive rehabilitation therapy called MoveR, and the classical vision therapy). Thirty-nine children with dyslexia were enrolled in the study. They were split into two groups (G1 and G2) matched in IQ (intelligence quotient), sex, and age. Children of the group G1 underwent to MoveR training while children of the group G2 underwent to visual training. TVPS scores of four subtests were assessed twice before and 6 months after the two different types of training (MoveR or visual). MoveR training is an immersive therapy to reinforce visual discrimination, visual attention, saccadic/vergence system and spatial orientation. Visual therapy is based by training different types of eyes movements (horizontal, vertical and oblique pursuits and saccades, convergence and divergence movements), reading task and some exercise for improving eyes-head coordination. Each training type lasted 30 min a day, five days a week, for two weeks. Before training, the TVPS scores of the four subtests measured were statistically similar for both groups of children with dyslexia (G1 and G2). After training, both group of children (G1 and G2) improved the TVPS score of the four subtests assessed; however, such improvement reached significance in G1 only. We conclude that MoveR training could be a more useful tool than classical visual training to improve visual perceptual abilities in dyslexic children. Follow up studies on a larger number of dyslexic children will be necessary in order to explore whether such improvement persists over time and its eventual implication in reading or other classroom's activities.
RESUMEN
The current study was a preliminary investigation that aimed to compare the performance of eyewitnesses with and without a brain injury on two target-absent line-up procedures: a simultaneous procedure and a sequential procedure with confidence ratings. A 2 × 2 design (N = 25) was employed, where both brain-injured (n = 15) and non-brain-injured (n = 10) participants were shown a short video of a non-violent crime taking place before taking part in either a simultaneous or sequential target-absent line-up. Participants' general cognitive abilities and memory recall accuracy were also measured. Results found no significant differences in false identification rates between brain-injured and non-brain-injured witnesses. It was also found that participants with a greater memory accuracy were in fact more likely to make a false identification. The implications and limitations of the study are discussed.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is no validated generic tool to measure Doctor-Patient-Communication (DPC) in a context of acute conditions. OBJECTIVE: To create and validate such a scale in a real population. MATERIALS AND METHOD: We performed a systematic review of validated DPC scales available in English. From these, using a theoretical model based on a multidisciplinary approach, we selected pertinent items that met the inclusion criteria and included them in a simple questionnaire. This tool based on a synthesis of the literature was then validated in a prospective study in two hospital emergency departments. RESULTS: We found 22 pertinent questionnaires and scoring systems. From these, we extracted items and built a scale based on 15 questions with graded responses (Likert from 1 to 4). The mean time for questionnaire completion was 3 minutes. We included 189 adults and adolescents in the study and analyzed complete responses to the questionnaire by 149 patients, gathered over the phone one week after their consultation. The scale had high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.89) and good external validity. Two questions were removed due to redundancy giving a scale based on 13 questions. CONCLUSIONS: We have created an easy-to-use and validated generic questionnaire to assess DPC in a context of acute conditions, usable both in clinical research and in routine practice.