All the five objectives of the study have been well enunciated as follows: 1. To identify children with learning disabilities. 2. To find the prevalence rate of   reading/learning disabled children. 3. To design an intervention programme. 4. To study the impact of the intervention programme in remediating the reading difficulties among children with learning disabilities. 5. To find out the difference between Level-I and Level-II of DTRD.

The hypothesis of the study has been well formulated in the directional form on the bases of the objectives of the study and the review of the related literature.

A sample of 40 subjects in the age group 8-10 years of grade IV was purposively selected from three English Medium schools of Panipat town in Haryana. The sample seems to be adequate and representative.

All the tools used for the study, namely, the mean of the previous achievement scores of the last three terminals, Teacher’s Observation Checklist, Malin’s Intelligence Test for Indian Children ( MISIC) and the Diagnostic Test for Reading Disorders ( DTRD), and the Treatment tool based on the items listed in DTRD are quite suitable and appealing.

The study has employed a compatible pre-test post-test Experimental Research design involving three operational stages as identification, treatment and post-testing.

Descriptive statistics- mean, SD, and inferential statistics‘t’-ratio were employed for data analysis.

The study is quite revealing as follows: 1. The prevalence rate of learning disability in reading among grade IV students has been found to be 8.68%. This rate varies from 8.29% to 9.60%. 2. The intervening program in the remediation of reading difficulties among children with learning disabilities has been found to be effective in improving reading skills. 3. The intervention program was found effective with respect to Sound Symbol Association (S SA). 4. The intervention program did not have significant effect so far as Blending of Sound (BS) is concerned. 5. The intervention program was found effective with respect to Phonic Analysis (PA). 6. The intervention program was not found to be effective with respect to Visual Conditioning (VC). 7. The intervention program was found effective with respect to Semantic Closure (SC). 8. The intervention program was found effective with respect to Lexical Processing (LP). 9. The intervention program was found effective with respect to Language Internalization (LI). 10. The intervention program was not found to be effective with respect to Copy Writing (CW). 11. The intervention program was found to be effective with respect to Grapheme Phoneme Association (GPA). 12. The intervention program did not have any effect with respect to Verbal Phonetic Coding (VPC). 13. The intervention program was found to be effective with respect to Phonemic Synthesis (PS). 14. The intervention program was found to be effective with respect to Verbal Visual Correspondence (VVC). 15. The intervention program was not found to be effective with respect to Verbal Memory (VM). 16. The intervention program was found to be effective with respect to Listening Comprehension (LC). 17. The intervention program had made significant impact so far as Reading Comprehension- Aloud (RCA) is concerned. 18.The intervention program was found to be effective with respect to Reading Comprehension-Silent (RCS). 19. It has been found that the control group had better performance at Level-I than at Level-II on DTRD in pre-test. 20. The control group was found to have better ability at Level-I than at Level-II on DTRD in post-test. 21. It has been found that the experimental group had better performance at Level-I than at Level-II on DTRD in pre-test. 22. It has been found that the experimental group had better performance at Level-I than at Level-II on DTRD in post-test.