Reply to Fiedorowicz.

We appreciate the fact that Fiedorowicz has chosen to comment on our review of Reading disabilities (see record 2007-03865-001) because this provides us with an opportunity to expand on some of our previous remarks. However, since these positive features already had received coverage in the review by Goodacre (1982), and since over two-thirds of the book dealt with the authors' own research (which was not discussed in any depth by Goodacre), we chose to restrict ourselves mainly to concerns raised by this research. Our response will have the same focus. To begin with, there are a number of misleading statements in Fiedorowicz's letter that distort both the tone and the content of our review. Fiedorowicz contends, contrary to the conclusion that we reached in our review, that "distinct neuropsychological profiles were determined corresponding to each subtype." The second issue raised by Fiedorowicz deals with our concern about the construct validity of the various test items employed in this investigation. The third issue in Fiedorowicz's letter centres on the interpretation of the results reported by Doehring et al. for the Type S subjects. The last issue of any substance in this letter has to do with the label "oral reading deficit" given by the authors to the Type O subjects. In addition to these four issues there is one final point that we believe also merits a reply. In referring rather pessimistically to the matter of treatment in our review, we were merely repeating comments made by the authors themselves in Chapter 11. Because this review was written in August 1983, we were of course unaware of the information in the paper cited by Fiedorowicz, which was not presented until February 1984. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)