一、维基百科
Here's a Wikipedia article about Glenn Doman's institute. His method was mostly for treating children with mental disability, but looks like his method was considered oversimplified and outdated, and discredited by many established institutions. That brings doubt to his method on "well children"---healthy children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Institutes_for_the_Achievement_of_Human_Potential
二、亚马逊网站
In my opinion, whether a method works shouldn't be judged based on what the promoters say, but on the opinions of the people who have tried it. Doman's book on teaching infant reading is not a top seller and doesn't get a lot of reviews. That means it is not the most popular method. Looks like it works for at least some children, but i don't think it should be the only method used. Please look at the book reviews, and especially the one-star reviews and the comment on them. (Becareful，sometimes the reviewers are shills for the book they try to sell). http://www.amazon.com/Teach-Your-Baby-Gentle-Revolution/dp/0757001882/ref=pd_ts_b_48?ie=UTF8&s=books
三、伪科学？
From some more reading, Doman's institution was considered "obscure", the method considered pseudo-scientific, "fringe" , the American Academy of Pediatrics issued statements against it 3 times. They don't have reliable evidence the method works, and the results were not replicated.
Here's some potential source material found via Google Books:
Controversial Therapies for Developmental Disabilities: Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice By John W. Jacobson, Richard M. Foxx, James Anton Mulick Published by Routledge, 2005 ISBN 080584192X, 9780805841923 505 pages
Psychomotor patterning pp 67–68
Psychomotor patterning is a classic example of an intervention that was pseudoscientific in nature and became a prevalent fad treatment in homes, schools, and community services. Patterning, as it was generally known, involved a series of exercises through which children (and some adults) with mild to more severe mental retardation or cerebral palsy engaged, or were possibly guided through, movements of the head and limbs. It was claimed that these movements recapitulated the prenatal and postnatal movements of a young child (Committee on Children with Disabilities, 1999). Proponents maintained that these movements could improve the neurological organization (i.e., structure and functioning) of the central nervous system and enhance intellectual performance. Broadly stated, the underlying premise is that recapitulation of these movements will alter the structure of a typical child. No convincing evidence of these effects has ever been presented, and convincing evidence has been presented that it produces no appreciable benefits (Cummins, 1992; MacKay, Gollogly, McDonald, 1986; Sparrow & Zigler, 1978). There are periodic resurgences of patterning and belief in its utility (Bridgman, Cushen, Cooper, & Williams, 1985), and in response to this, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued statements on patterning and its lack of benefits in 1968, 1982, and 1999. The periodic nature of these statements reflects the continuing need to inform practitioners in health care and educational and developmental services about the findings that this intervention is of of little use, because many practitioners are unfamiliar with past fad treatments of questionable value.
Patterning evidences many classic attributes of fad interventions as well. It is based on interpretations of the impact of intervention on neurological organization, except that there is no research evidence of beneficial neurological change resulting from patterning, and they hypothesized changes are not consistent with known aspects of nervous system organisation (AAP, 1999, Novella, 1996). Thus, though the basis for the intervention could be claimed to be theoretical in nature, engendering the appearance of scientific rationale, the theory itself is groundless. Patterning is very time-consuming, entailing hours of activities daily for intervals of months or even years, thus displacing or preventing participation in services or therapies with demonstrated ameliorative benefits (see Warren & Mosteller, 1993, for a discussion of ethical concerns), and decreasing the changes that parents will have contact with professionals aware of the related research. A second classic feature is that the underlying rationale for the theory is neurological (this is perhaps a lingering legacy of Seguin's invocation of, and strong emphasis on, physiological factors). A third classic feature is that proponents of the intervention persist in promoting its use despite convincing evidence that it is implausible and ineffective. Patterning was long promoted by the Institute for Applied Human Potential, which today as the Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential still operates an Internet page (at www.iahp.org), and which has offices or operations, and offers training for therapists in Brazil, France, Italy, Japan, Mexico, and Spain. Participants in training are limited to parents or immediate adult family members of children with brain injuries, who are unlikely to have knowledge of disconfirming research and so may be culled into adopting these interventions for their children.
Bridgman GD, Cushen W, Cooper DM, Williams RJ The evaluation of sensorimotor-patterning and the persistence of belief. British Journal of Mental Subnormality. 1985; 31:67–79.
Cummins RA Coma arousal and sensory stimulation: an evaluation of the Doman-Delacato approach. Aust Psychol. 1992; 27:71-77
MacKay D.N., Gollogly, J., & McDonald, G. (1986). The Doman-Delacato methods, I: The principles of neurological organisation. British Journal of Mental Subnormality, 32, 3–19.
Novella, S. (1996). Psychomotor Patterning. The Connecticut Skeptic, 1(4), 6. Available from www.quackwatch.com.
Sparrow, S., & Zigler, E. (1978). Evaluation of a patterning treatment for retarded children. (PDF) Pediatrics, 62, 137–150. PMID 693151.
Warren, K.S., & Mosteller, F (Eds.). (1993). Doing more good than harm: The evaluation of health care interventions. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.作者: 超级妞妞的妈妈 时间: 2009-6-16 16:25
相信杜曼就去杜曼，不相信就停止，我觉得没什么必要讨论