{"title":"No Evidence of Creative Benefit Accompanying Dyslexia: A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Florina Erbeli, Peng Peng, Marianne Rice","doi":"10.1177/00222194211010350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research on the question of creative benefit accompanying dyslexia has produced conflicting findings. In this meta-analysis, we determined summary effects of mean and variance differences in creativity between groups with and without dyslexia. Twenty studies were included (<i>n</i> = 770 individuals with dyslexia, <i>n</i> = 1,671 controls). A random-effects robust variance estimation (RVE) analysis indicated no mean (<i>g</i> = -0.02, <i>p</i> = .84) or variance (<i>g</i> = -0.0004, <i>p</i> = .99) differences in creativity between groups. The mean summary effect was moderated by age, gender, and creativity domain. Compared with adolescents, adults with dyslexia showed an advantage over nondyslexic adults in creativity. In addition, a higher proportion of males in the dyslexia group was associated with poorer performance compared with the controls. Finally, the dyslexia group showed a significant performance disadvantage in verbal versus figural creativity. Regarding variance differences, they varied across age and creativity domains. Compared with adults, adolescents showed smaller variability in the dyslexia group. If the creativity task measured verbal versus figural or combined creativity, the dyslexia group exhibited smaller variability. Altogether, our results suggest that individuals with dyslexia as a group are no more creative or show greater variability in creativity than peers without dyslexia.</p>","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"55 3","pages":"242-253"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/00222194211010350","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211010350","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
Abstract
Research on the question of creative benefit accompanying dyslexia has produced conflicting findings. In this meta-analysis, we determined summary effects of mean and variance differences in creativity between groups with and without dyslexia. Twenty studies were included (n = 770 individuals with dyslexia, n = 1,671 controls). A random-effects robust variance estimation (RVE) analysis indicated no mean (g = -0.02, p = .84) or variance (g = -0.0004, p = .99) differences in creativity between groups. The mean summary effect was moderated by age, gender, and creativity domain. Compared with adolescents, adults with dyslexia showed an advantage over nondyslexic adults in creativity. In addition, a higher proportion of males in the dyslexia group was associated with poorer performance compared with the controls. Finally, the dyslexia group showed a significant performance disadvantage in verbal versus figural creativity. Regarding variance differences, they varied across age and creativity domains. Compared with adults, adolescents showed smaller variability in the dyslexia group. If the creativity task measured verbal versus figural or combined creativity, the dyslexia group exhibited smaller variability. Altogether, our results suggest that individuals with dyslexia as a group are no more creative or show greater variability in creativity than peers without dyslexia.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Learning Disabilities (JLD), a multidisciplinary, international publication, presents work and comments related to learning disabilities. Initial consideration of a manuscript depends upon (a) the relevance and usefulness of the content to the readership; (b) how the manuscript compares to other articles dealing with similar content on pertinent variables (e.g., sample size, research design, review of literature); (c) clarity of writing style; and (d) the author"s adherence to APA guidelines. Articles cover such fields as education, psychology, neurology, medicine, law, and counseling.