Annals of Dyslexia最新文献

Two decades after the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) adopted the 2002 consensus definition of dyslexia, this special issue of the Annals of Dyslexia revisits that definition in light of advances in scientific understanding and evolving needs. Through contributions from leading researchers and interdisciplinary teams, the issue examines the strengths and limitations of the definition as it has been applied in research, policy, and practice. Key themes emerged, which included reconsidering the need to include the neurobiological basis of dyslexia in the definition, the intersection of literacy challenges and mental health, and the role of context in shaping how dyslexia is defined. Contributors to this special issue also reflected on how the definition serves different audiences, including educators, policymakers, and families. As the IDA embarks on a thoughtful reassessment of the 2002 definition, this collection of articles offers insights to guide the path forward, ensuring the definition remains a robust tool for research, identification, intervention, and advocacy in the coming years.

Reading proficiency is important because it has life-long consequences and influences success in other academic areas. Many students with behavior problems are poor readers and many students with learning disabilities have more behavior problems than their typical peers. We conducted a correlational meta-analysis to examine the association between reading and externalizing behavior in students ages 5–12. We identified 33 studies that reported 88 effect sizes. Using a random-effects linear regression model with robust variance estimation, we found a significant, negative correlation (r= −0.1698, SE = 0.01, p < 0.0001) between reading and externalizing behavior. We tested several moderators related to measurement and sample characteristics. We found that rater type, behavior dimension (e.g., aggression), time between longitudinal measurement points, age of the sample, and percentage male of the sample moderated the relation between reading and behavior. Whether the reading assessment measured comprehension or word reading and socioeconomic status of the sample did not moderate the relation. Understanding the association between reading and externalizing behavior has implications for disability identification and intervention practices for children in elementary school. Future research should examine shared cognitive factors and environmental influences that explain the relation between the constructs.

The purpose of this longitudinal study was to examine the development of spelling in a large sample (N = 503, boys: N = 219) of Greek-speaking children with (N = 41) and without (N = 462) reading difficulties. Children were initially tested in Grades 2–4 and then at five consecutive measurement points over a 3-year period, focusing on how initial reading ability, grade, and gender may moderate the rate of spelling growth. Individual growth curve modeling revealed continuous growth of spelling performance in the total sample, although the growth rate decreased over time for children first tested in Grades 3–4. Spelling growth rate was also significantly slower among children with reading difficulties between Grades 2–4 and 3–5. The two reading groups displayed similar growth rates between Grades 4 and 6. Spelling growth rates did not vary significantly with gender. Overall, our study highlights the persistence of spelling difficulties even after 6 years of systematic teaching in children with reading difficulties. The severe and persistent spelling deficits of Greek-speaking children with reading difficulties may be attributed to the rich morphological system of the Greek language, the intermediate Greek orthographic transparency (in the direction of writing), and their limited experience with print.

In offering a commentary upon the IDA definition, we address its main components in turn. While each is technically accurate, we argue that, when taken together, the definition, or more accurately, the use to which it is often put, becomes problematic. We outline different current conceptions of dyslexia and conclude that the operationalisation of the definition for diagnostic purposes often results in scientifically questionable diagnoses and inadvertently leads to significant educational inequity. We propose a simpler definition that describes the primary difficulty, avoids reference to causal explanation, unexpectedness, and secondary outcomes, and redirects practitioner and policymaker focus to the importance of addressing and meeting the needs of all struggling readers.

Dyslexia, characterized by word reading and spelling deficits, has historically been viewed through a medical model of disability. However, a countermovement has emerged, emphasizing the strengths and abilities of neurodiverse individuals, including those with dyslexia. The concept of neurodiversity, which was initially introduced to help inform understanding of a mild form of autism, has expanded to include dyslexia. The expansion has occurred alongside a similar portrayal of dyslexia as an advantage that comes with specific gifts, creating a positive stereotype. While intended to empower individuals with dyslexia, the translation of the concept of neurodiversity to dyslexia in this way can inadvertently stigmatize and isolate those who do not fit this positive stereotype of dyslexia. This review, following a perspective review article format, synthesizes existing literature on the purported gifts of dyslexia and the implications of both negative and positive stereotypes on the well-being of individuals with dyslexia. The findings of this review underscore the importance of dispelling myths about dyslexia and advocating against the use of stereotypes, both negative and positive, in portraying dyslexia. Doing so will help remove the harmful effects of stigmatization, stereotype threat, and the potential of a fixed mindset inherent to being stereotyped.

This commentary article describes the results of a Delphi Method discussion between an interdisciplinary team of state dyslexia policy implementers. The authors argue that the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) definition of dyslexia from 2001 skews toward the perspectives of the research community, inadvertently creating implementation challenges for school practice. The article describes how the authors reached this determination; why they believe Vaughn et al.’s (Annals of Dyslexia, 2024) proposed definition marks an improvement over the 2001 IDA definition; and the need for continued support in the dyslexia policy implementation process, including knowledge dissemination efforts and updates to other relevant policy documents. This collaboration between policymakers, educators, and researchers contributes to the special issue by considering how the definition of dyslexia is situated in policy and practice. In so doing, it addresses a longstanding gap in academic research on how policy implementers understand and use the IDA definition.