 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
In relation to chiropractic treatments with applied kinesiology, I am in charge of evaluating children with various learning disabilities or speech problems (stuttering, dyslexia, speech impairments, or learning difficulties with reading, spelling or grammar.)
Evaluating instrumental and perceptive factors
The evaluation takes place in two visits: first the individual will be evaluated before the treatment starts; he will be re-evaluated at the completion of his treatments.
The first evaluation will permit us to define elements which will confirm the clinical results on one side, and give the patient personal insight on the other side.
This evaluation consists of twenty criteria chosen in relation to two different parameters:
1) The existing correlation between the elements tested and the difficulties the patient shows.
2) The re-testing possibilities offered by the tests.
These tests essentially concern the instrumental factors (spatial organization and orientation, right - left notion; temporal structuration; grapho-perceptive organization) together with the perceptive factors (visual and auditory perception.) We know that learning and/or speech disabilities are frequently connected with a deficiency of perceptive and/or instrumental factors. These disabilities can exist without any impairment of the sensorial organ itself, as is the most frequent situation in the population we are dealing with here. The disturbance, when it exists, is located at the level of the treatment of information; it is obviously essential to objectivate the integrity of the periphery receptor organs, therefore the absence of pathology, prior to talking about instrumental impairment.
Concrete case
In order to illustrate the above description, let us describe a real case: Let's call him F, 11 years old. He is immediately a cooperative subject but very shy; he is staring at his feet and seems very uneasy and sad. His mother describes him as a very slow child showing many learning difficulties, having concentration and memorization problems but demonstrating a lot of imagination.
The evaluation shows the following information: visual perceptive organization, spatial organization and structuration are very weak. Along the same line, auditory perception is significantly lower than average; he also has evidence of numerous deaf-sound confusions as well in reading as in written reproduction of logatomes; the right -left notion is not integrated; temporal integration is lower than average; auditory memory reveals itself poorly efficient as well at the level of immediate evocation as of the mnesic load. This patient otherwise has a good potential.
Upon re-evaluation we can objectivate significant improvement in these different fields. Now, F has average or superior results in all the tests (see graph). It is also important to notice that some instrumental or perceptive factors keep a positive evolution for several months after the completion of treatment. The general attitude of F is very different, he is willingly chatting, looking into the eyes of the person he is facing, and is joyful. To the results, we can add the considerations of the mother: F is more sure of himself and more confident about school material; reading is faster and comprehension of information is better which of course positively modifies school grades. His working rhythm is faster and he is taking a more tonic attitude in class. Finally F has a more open conception of the world.
F himself gives the same comments, adding that he remembers things better and enjoys school more.
The time between the two evaluations has been four months.
This before and after evaluation is a highly useful too which should be more systematically used in order to better qualify and quantify the results of any supposed therapeutic approach, whichever it may be.
Brigitte Evans
logopédiste
