Genetic Etiology of Reading Difficulties in Boys and Girls

Wadsworth, Sally J.; DeFries, John C.

doi:10.1375/183242705774860196

Cited by 10 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to the results of Hawke et al (2006), Wadsworth and DeFries (2005) observed a trend toward higher heritability for females (h g 2 = 0.63) than for males (h g 2 = 0.53) prior to grouping by age, but this difference also was not significant (p > 0.3). Moreover, the estimated opposite-sex DZ genetic correlation was 0.5, suggesting that the same genetic factors are influencing reading difficulties in boys and girls.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…It has also been suggested that females may be less susceptible to environmental factors such as teaching methods and socioeconomic status (Geschwind, 1981), and that genetic influences may be more important as a cause of reading difficulties in females than in males (DeFries & Gillis, 1993;Stevenson, 1992). However, recent studies that have examined the genetic influences of reading difficulties in males and females have obtained mixed results (Harlaar et al, 2005;Hawke, Wadsworth, & DeFries, 2006;Wadsworth & DeFries, 2005). Harlaar et al (2005) recently analyzed data from children participating in a large, longitudinal twin study in England and Wales that suggested that genetic influences might be more important as a cause of reading difficulties in males than females.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subsequently, Wadsworth and DeFries (2005) analyzed data from identical, same-sex fraternal, and opposite-sex fraternal twin pairs in the Colorado Twin Study using the model-fitting implementation of the DeFries-Fulker multiple regression analysis (Purcell & Sham, 2003). Similar to the results of Hawke et al (2006), Wadsworth and DeFries (2005) observed a trend toward higher heritability for females (h g 2 = 0.63) than for males (h g 2 = 0.53) prior to grouping by age, but this difference also was not significant (p > 0.3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Etiology of reading difficulties as a function of gender and severity

et al. 2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To test the hypothesis that the etiology of reading difficulties may differ for males and females in more severely impaired samples, reading performance data from monozygotic (MZ), same-sex dizygotic (DZ ss ), and opposite-sex dizygotic (DZ os ) twin pairs were analyzed using a model-fitting implementation of the DeFries-Fulker (DF) model (Purcell & Sham, 2003, Behavior genetics, 33, 271-278). Five non-independent samples were selected using cut-offs of )1 (N = 737 pairs), )1.5 (N = 654), )2 (N = 468), )2.5 (N = 335), and )3 (N = 198) standard deviations (s) below the mean composite reading score of control twins. Male/female gender ratios for children with reading difficulties were significantly higher than 1.0 for all five samples and increased as a function of severity (viz., 1.15, 1.17, 1.40, 1.61, and 1.88, respectively). When the DF model was fit to the data, estimates of heritability (h g 2 ) and shared environmental influences (c g 2 ) were not significantly different for males and females in any of the groups. Consequently, the most parsimonious model that provided a good fit to the data at all five levels of severity equated the heritabilities and shared environmental influences for males and females, and fixed the DZ os coefficient of genetic relatedness at 0.5. Thus, these results provide no evidence for a differential etiology of reading difficulties as a function of gender in more severely impaired samples, and suggest that the same genetic and environmental influences contribute to reading difficulties in males and females, irrespective of severity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Etiology of reading difficulties as a function of gender and severity

et al. 2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, their study did not investigate word recognition and spelling measures separately, or analyze data from opposite-sex twins to test for qualitative sex differences. In contrast, Wadsworth and DeFries (2005) did test for qualitative sex differences with a composite measure of reading as well as word recognition in a CLDRC sample and found no significant qualitative sex differences. Although this sample also overlaps with the present sample, which suggests that it would be unlikely that we would find qualitative sex differences, the spelling measures were not investigated separately.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Word Recognition and Spelling Deficits as a Function of Age

et al. 2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous twin studies have suggested a possible developmental dissociation between genetic influences on word recognition and spelling deficits, wherein genetic influence declined across age for word recognition, and increased for spelling recognition. The present study included two measures of word recognition (timed, untimed) and two measures of spelling (recognition, production) in younger and older twins. The heritability estimates for the two word recognition measures were .65 (timed) and .64 (untimed) in the younger group and .65 and .58 respectively in the older group. For spelling, the corresponding estimates were .57 (recognition) and .51 (production) in the younger group and .65 and .67 in the older group. Although these age group differences were not significant, the pattern of decline in heritability across age for reading and increase for spelling conformed to that predicted by the developmental dissociation hypothesis. However, the tests for an interaction between genetic influences on word recognition and spelling deficits as a function of age were not significant.

show abstract

“…Finally, there are numerous studies that find no significant sex-effects in various measures of reading and math (e.g. Davis et al Behav Genet 2008;Hart et al 2013;Wadsworth and DeFries 2005).…”

Section: Sex Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Literacy and Numeracy Performance in Australian School Children in Grades 3, 5, 7, and 9

Grasby

Coventry²,

Byrne

et al. 2016

Behav Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the extent to which genes and the environment contributed to variation in and covariation among reading, spelling, grammar and punctuation, writing, and numeracy in Australian school children in Grades 3, 5, 7, and 9. Heritability was generally high: reading .58-.71 (excepting Grade 5 girls), spelling .68-.78; grammar and punctuation .52-.66, writing .39-.52, and numeracy .39-.79. Boys' performance varied more than girls in spelling and numeracy, and the common environment was a greater influence in girls than boys in Grade 3 numeracy and Grade 5 reading. Independent pathway models showed similar genetic and environmental structures at each grade with approximately one third to one half of the variation in each domain due to genes that influenced all domains. The covariation among the domains was largely mediated by genes. Results suggest substantial uniformity in the environmental factors influencing these academic domains.

show abstract

Genetic Etiology of Reading Difficulties in Boys and Girls

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Etiology of reading difficulties as a function of gender and severity

Etiology of reading difficulties as a function of gender and severity

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Word Recognition and Spelling Deficits as a Function of Age

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Literacy and Numeracy Performance in Australian School Children in Grades 3, 5, 7, and 9

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About