The thing about looking at the Dore research on their website is that they repeatedly mis-represent their findings. For example, they use percentages to express ‘improvement’ in ordinal data. It’s like lining a class up from shortest to tallest, then saying that the 5th tallest is twice as tall as the 10th tallest. Percentages sound nice & science-y, & they look dramatic, but they just aren’t an appropriate way to talk about that sort of data.

BTW, looking at you earlier ‘compare & contrast’ post on Dore, I’d strongly suggest this excellent Australian documentary:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1994872.htm
After it was aired, Dore Australia had 50% fewer people sign up. It really is the best 45 minutes you could spend on an introduction to the area. Unusually, it also gives free full-text access to most of the most relevant research papers: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1997868.htm

Gimpy’s linked to just about everything from the blogs covering Dore in this post: http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/dore-clients-are-unlikely-to-recieve-refunds-more-media-coverage-and-a-collection-of-links/

The Australian ‘Administrators report to Creditors’ on this page is also revealing, though in financial-ese: http://www.woodgateco.com.au/creditor.php

Finally, ‘Translucent Science’ was set up by some of the bloggers involved, for the purpose of communicating with the mainstream media since Dore’s collapse: http://translucentscience.com/

We have links to Dore journal articles from this site with some contextual comments.
http://iconpartnership.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/compare-and-contrast/#more-27

Or go direct
http://www.dore.co.uk/Research/DoreResearch.aspx

This is something many journalists have not done, or they have not understood what they were reading, or they have not cared.