FIFTEEN EMPIRICAL STUDIES CONCERNED WITH THE ROLE WHICH NEUROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION PLAYS IN THE TEACHING AND IMPROVEMENT OF READING ARE ANALYZED. FOLLOWING A REVIEW OF DELACATO'S THEORY OF NEUROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION, EACH OF THE STUDIES IS PRESENTED WITH ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE DATA AND WITH IMPLICATIONS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED OR CONTRARY TO THOSE DRAWN BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS. EACH STUDY IS ANALYZED IN DETAIL AS TO THE MANNER OF SELECTION OF SUBJECTS (THE SUBJECTS WHO PARTICIPATED IN ALMOST ALL OF THE EXPERIMENTS REPORTED IN THIS PAPER COULD NOT BE CHARACTERIZED AS SERIOUSLY NEUROLOGICALLY DISORGANIZED), THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DATA, EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT, AND THE IMPLICATIONS DRAWN FROM THE REPORTED RESULTS. THE AUTHOR IS GENERALLY CRITICAL OF THE STUDIES FOR THEIR LACK OF ADHERENCE TO ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS FOR EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN. HIS CONCLUSION IS THAT ALL THE EMPIRICAL RESEARCH REPORTED THUS FAR HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE COGENT EVIDENCE THAT D.H. DELACATO'S THERAPY HAS AN EFFECT ON THE READING OF NORMAL SUBJECTS. IN REVIEWING STUDIES WHICH CONTAIN INFORMATION ON THE CORRELATION OF NEUROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION AND CERTAIN VARIABLES, THE AUTHOR FINDS THAT MEASURES OF NEUROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION ARE MORE HIGHLY CORRELATED WITH MEASURES OF NONVERBAL INTELLIGENCE THAN THEY ARE WITH MEASURES OF READING ACHIEVEMENT. THE FIFTEEN STUDIES ARE ALL TAKEN FROM EXPERIMENTS REPORTED IN THREE VOLUMES WRITTEN BY DECACATO AND LISTED IN THE 35-ITEM BIBLIOGRAPHY. (TM)