Revisiting the definition of dyslexia

Catts, Hugh W.; Terry, Nicole Patton; Lonigan, Christopher J.; Compton, Donald L.; Wagner, Richard K.; Steacy, Laura M.; Farquharson, Kelly; Petscher, Yaacov

doi:10.1007/s11881-023-00295-3

Cited by 10 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 119 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, screening for low word reading performance can help identify both students at risk of developmental dyslexia, as well as students at risk of later reading difficulties due to other causes. Additionally, Catts et al (2024) argue that using word reading as an outcome in dyslexia and reading screening studies is easily operationalisable, and hence comparable, as well as particularly suitable for educational settings like the one of this study.…”

Section: Operationalising Reading Difficultymentioning

confidence: 96%

Differences in Reading Screening Accuracy by Percentile Cutoff and English Proficiency: Feature Selection and Group-wise Prediction Evaluation

Siebert,

Bell,

Gutierrez

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This exploratory predictive study investigates our capacity to predict risk of developing reading difficulties based on a battery of tasks tapping into commonly used reading screening constructs. A key question pertains to the extent to which we can predict fairly and with equal accuracy for native English-speakers (EO) and emerging multilinguals (English learners [ELs] with sufficient English-proficiency to participate in English screening). This prediction exercise takes place in a linguistically diverse sample, over different prediction intervals (end of same and subsequent academic year), and across a range of percentile cut-offs (1st-25th) defining reading difficulty.Specifically, using a sample of 1,692 kindergarteners and first-graders from 24 schools across 13 Californian public school districts, we (a) identified the most important reading screening tasks for a range of percentile cut-offs defining ‘risk’ using random forest feature selection; (b) built a series of logisitic regression classifiers; and (c) evaluated these models’ performances for ELs and EO students spearately. When risk is defined as performance below the tenth percentile or higher, the same tasks generally surface as most important predictors of later word reading difficulty (letter naming and sounds for kindergarten; word and non-word reading for first graders), though with different relative importance for EO vs EL students and for the different prediction intervals. Though most models can be optimised to exceed sensitivity and specificity values of .80, classification accuracy is higher for EO students, especially for two-year predictions. Though models meeting conventionally used minimum accuracy requirements for both the EO and EL groups can be produced, more work is needed to achieve truly linguistically equitable (i.e., equally accurate) screening. We discuss the implications and feasibility of universal reading screening using English screening tasks in linguistically diverse populations.

show abstract

Section: Operationalising Reading Difficultymentioning

confidence: 96%

Differences in Reading Screening Accuracy by Percentile Cutoff and English Proficiency: Feature Selection and Group-wise Prediction Evaluation

Siebert,

Bell,

Gutierrez

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The prevalence of dyslexia varies significantly across the world, which could be explained by differences in diagnostic criteria [6], as well as the general underdiagnosis of Youth 2024, 4 the condition globally [7]. The global prevalence has been estimated at 10% [8]; however, this varies widely between countries. Wagner et al (2020) [1] reported that 10-12% of children in English-speaking countries have dyslexia, although this might vary depending on the severity and presence of symptoms needed for diagnosis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive Psychology Interventions to Increase Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy, and Confidence and Decrease Anxiety among Students with Dyslexia: A Narrative Review

Abu Omar,

Kirkman,

Scott

et al. 2024

Youth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dyslexia is classed as a neurobiological difficulty and is referred to as a Specific Learning Disability (SPLD) that primarily affects reading, writing, working memory (WM), and organisational skills. Positive psychology interventions (PPIs) have been found to increase self-esteem, self-efficacy, and confidence and lower anxiety among students with dyslexia. Therefore, to summarise the current evidence on PPIs, a narrative review was undertaken. The review synthesised the findings from six studies that investigated PPIs for dyslexic individuals across various education settings. Four key themes emerged: (1) characteristics and effectiveness of PPIs, (2) level of education, (3) gender differences, and (4) PPIs differences in Western and Eastern countries. The analysis revealed that group interventions in secondary schools positively impacted self-esteem and social skills among dyslexic pupils, while the efficacy of sunflower therapy for dyslexic children showed inconclusive results on academic performance but potential psychological benefits. Socioemotional wellbeing programmes for dyslexic children yielded mixed outcomes, with temporary increases in self-esteem post-programme. Mindfulness meditation demonstrated promise in improving reading accuracy and attention functions in adults with dyslexia. Positive psychology group interventions effectively enhanced subjective wellbeing, academic self-concept, and achievement among dyslexic children. Early interventions showed promise in improving coping strategies, perceived control, and overall wellbeing among students with dyslexia. This review highlights the potential benefits of diverse interventions across different educational settings, emphasising the importance of early support and targeted interventions for individuals with dyslexia.

show abstract

Special Educational Needs and Disability tribunals: Dyslexia, scientific validity and equity

Elliott,

Stanbridge,

Branigan

2024

British Educational Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the operation of the English Special Educational Needs and Disability tribunal system in relation to children who present with a dyslexia diagnosis. It identifies a number of significant weaknesses; in particular, the absence of clear diagnostic criteria capable of differentiating such children from large numbers of other struggling readers. It then explains why it is inappropriate to identify particular cognitive processes as indicating the presence of dyslexia, as distinct from a broader reading difficulty. The paper subsequently explores the erroneous nature of claims about specialised dyslexia teaching and resourcing that, while often asserted with confidence by some privately funded assessors, are not supported by the scientific literature. It is argued that the tribunal system is an inappropriate method for reconciling the competing needs of a diagnosed dyslexic subgroup in relation to the wider population of struggling readers, estimated to be 20% of the school population.

show abstract

Revisiting the definition of dyslexia

Cited by 10 publications

References 119 publications

Differences in Reading Screening Accuracy by Percentile Cutoff and English Proficiency: Feature Selection and Group-wise Prediction Evaluation

Differences in Reading Screening Accuracy by Percentile Cutoff and English Proficiency: Feature Selection and Group-wise Prediction Evaluation

Positive Psychology Interventions to Increase Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy, and Confidence and Decrease Anxiety among Students with Dyslexia: A Narrative Review

Special Educational Needs and Disability tribunals: Dyslexia, scientific validity and equity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About