had dyslexia, two had developmental coordination disorder, and one had ADHD. The Dyslexia Screening Test identified some of the remaining children as 'at risk,' but the majority of children did not have severe difficulties. A follow-up to this study was published in Dyslexia in 2006, and the authors report significant improvements in writing, reading, and comprehension, as well as ADHD attention skills, after re-evaluating the students. Studies on efficacy with the target clinical groups have yet to be replicated in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and where control data are available, the evidence of gains in literacy associated with the Dore programme needs to be further validated. Research Of the treatment The Dore Programme treatment has been studied and continues to be the subject of further research. The study by Reynolds et al. has been challenged. For example, a control group was included only for a subset of assessments, and not for follow up; little information was provided on the test scores or treatment status of children in the experimental group who were not followed up. The two authors of the research defended it as showing significant and maintained gains in coordination after treatment. A number of papers published in the British Dyslexia Association's journal have found the apparently independent academic research Dore initially offered in support of the treatment to be the subject of some debate. According to an article published in the Times Educational Supplement in 2004, many of Britain's foremost academics maintain that the results need to be replicated. Into early claims The UK's Independent Television Commission and Ofcom upheld complaints made about a 2002 news item on British television in which Sir Trevor McDonald hailed DDAT as a "breakthrough in the treatment of dyslexia." It repeated this decision about a later item on Richard & Judy, and found a television commercial made by DDAT to be in breach of Advertising Standards Code Rules for creating a false impression of the medical evidence, and implying that professional medical advice and support would be part of the treatment. In all these cases, however, they stated that: "the ITC does not express, nor does it seek to express, any view whatsoever on DDAT as an organisation or the relative efficacy of its treatment for dyslexia, neither of which was the subject of this finding." The complaints were mainly about claims that this was new and pioneering research when many elements