Dyslexia is a literacy disorder affecting the efficient acquisition of reading and writing skills. The disorder is neurobiological in origin. Due to its developmental nature, longitudinal studies of dyslexia are of essence. They are, however, relatively scarce. The present study took a longitudinal approach to cortical connectivity of brain imaging data in reading tasks in children with dyslexia and children with typical reading development. The participants were followed with repeated measurements through Pre-literacy (6 years old), Emergent Literacy (8 years old) and Literacy (12 years old) stages, using Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM) when analysing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. Even though there are a few longitudinal studies on effective connectivity in typical reading, to our knowledge, no studies have previously investigated these issues in relation to dyslexia. We set up a model of a brain reading network involving five cortical regions (inferior frontal gyrus, precentral gyrus, superior temporal gyrus, inferior parietal lobule, and occipito-temporal cortex). Using DCM, connectivity measures were calculated for each connection in the model. These measures were further analysed using factorial ANOVA. The results showed that the difference between groups centred on connections going to and from the inferior frontal gyrus (two connections) and the occipito-temporal cortex (three connections). For all five connections, the typical group showed stable or decreasing connectivity measures. The dyslexia group, on the other hand, showed a marked up-regulation (occipito-temporal connections) or down-regulation (inferior frontal gyrus connections) from 6 years to 8 years, followed by normalization from 8 years to 12 years. We interpret this as a delay in the dyslexia group in developing into the Pre-literacy and Emergent literacy stages. This delay could possibly be detrimental to literacy development. By age 12, there was no statistically significant difference in connectivity between the groups, but differences in literacy skills were still present, and were in fact larger than when measured at younger ages.

Research on dyslexia has largely centred on reading. The aim of this study was to assess the writing of 13 children with and 28 without dyslexia at age 11 years. A programme for keystroke logging was used to allow recording of typing activity as the children performed a sentence dictation task. Five sentences were read aloud twice each. The task was to type the sentence as correctly as possible, with no time constraints. The data were analysed from a product (spelling, grammar and semantics) and process (transcription fluency and revisions) perspective, using repeated measures ANOVA and t-tests to investigate group differences. Furthermore, the data were correlated with measures of rapid automatic naming and working memory. Results showed that the group with dyslexia revised their texts as much as the typical group, but they used more time, and the result was poorer. Moreover, rapid automatic naming correlated with transcription fluency, and working memory correlated with the number of semantic errors. This shows that dyslexia is generally not an issue of effort and that cognitive skills that are known to be important for reading also affect writing.

The aim of this study was to find valid neurocognitive precursors of literacy development in first language (L1, Norwegian) and second language (L2, English) in a group of children during their Pre‐literacy, Emergent Literacy and Literacy stages, by comparing children with dyslexia and a typical group. Children who were 5 years old at project start were followed until the age of 11, when dyslexia was identified and data could be analysed in retrospect.The children's neurocognitive pattern changed both by literacy stage and domain. Visuo‐spatial recall and RAN appeared as early precursors of L1 literacy, while phonological awareness appeared as early precursor of L2 English. Verbal long term memory was associated with both L1 and L2 skills in the Literacy stage. Significant group differences seen in the Pre‐literacy and Emergent literacy stages decreased in the Literacy stage.The developmental variations by stage and domain may explain some of the inconsistencies seen in dyslexia research. Early identification and training are essential to avoid academic failure, and our data show that visuo‐spatial memory and RAN could be suitable early markers in transparent orthographies like Norwegian. Phonological awareness was here seen as an early precursor of L2 English, but not of L1 Norwegian. © 2015 The Authors. Dyslexia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

In this study of third grade school children, we investigated the association between writing process measures recorded with key stroke logging and the final written product. Moreover, we examined the cognitive predictors of writing process and product measures. Analyses of key strokes showed that while most children spontaneously made local online revisions while writing, few revised previously written text. Children with good reading and spelling abilities made more online revisions than their peers. Two process factors, transcription fluency and online revision activity, contributed to explaining variance in narrative macrostructural quality and story length. As for cognitive predictors, spelling was the only factor that gave a unique contribution to explaining variance in writing process factors. Better spelling was associated with more revisions and faster transcription. The results show that developing writers’ ability to make online revisions in creative writing tasks is related to both the quality of the final written product and to individual literacy skills. More generally, the findings indicate that investigations of the dynamics of the writing process may provide insights into the factors that contribute to creative writing during early stages of literacy.

Dichotic listening (DL) taps information on the brain's language laterality, processing, and attention. Research has shown that DL responses in dyslexia deviate from the typical pattern. Here, effects of DL training and its correspondence to rapid naming (RAN) and digit span (DS) in typical children and children with dyslexia were assessed. Three groups of third graders participated: two training groups, control training (CT) and dyslexia training (DT), and a control group that received no training (control no training, CnT). All took part in testing pretraining and posttraining. DL measures were on laterality, response scores, and attention. The three groups showed different response patterns: minor changes in CnT, change in all measures in CT, and some changes in DT. RAN and DS scores correlated significantly with some of the DL measures, especially with the attention scores. Our findings support arguments that brain architecture for language in dyslexia is lateralised in the same way as in children without dyslexia. However, the ability to modulate attention during DL is weaker in dyslexia than in typically developing children. A training‐induced normalisation of lateralisation was observed in free recall in the dyslexia group, which suggests that DL training may be a promising intervention approach.

The concept of early 'efforts' has led to discussions for and against introducing language assessment for all kindergarten children. Evidence-based kindergarten screening tools completed by close caregivers could solve this controversy as the children themselves would only be indirectly involved. The aim of this study was to see whether the scores of such early screening tools aiming at developmental dyslexia could predict school marks of literacy competence 10 years later, and to see whether these screening tools would reveal different dyslexia trajectories. The study is part of the Bergen Longitudinal Dyslexia Study, and the results from individual testing are reported elsewhere. Here, the caregivers' views isolated from the rest of the study are focused. Three tools were used: the RI-5, a questionnaire assessing the risk of dyslexia; the TRAS, a non-standardized observation tool of children's communication skills; and the CCC-2, a questionnaire assessing Developmental Language Disorders. Screening was performed at age 5 (TP1), age 11, (TP2) and age 15 (TP3). At TP2, when dyslexia was identified, 13 children formed the dyslexia group, and the rest formed the control group. At TP3, the RI-5 and CCC-2 turned out to be predictive of literacy competence as measured by school marks. Developmental trajectories were seen through the regroupings and

Language and literacy skills are essential for education, school achievements, work and social conditions. Some studies indicate an elevated incidence of problems with language and literacy in the prison population, potentially contributing to increased risks of maladjustment and recidivism. In general, the bulk of research on language and literacy has been directed towards children and adolescents. This study aimed to map the extent of the literature on language and literacy disorders in the adult prison population over the past 20 years, and what it reveals about the prevalence and nature of these disorders in prisoners. In total, 18 studies were identified. Of these, the majority (15) investigated literacy. The three studies investigating language all reported an elevated prevalence in the population. The literacy studies were altogether less clear, due to differences in theoretical approach and methods. In terms of the nature of the disorders, many studies assessed the behavioral level only. Results are discussed in terms of theoretical approaches, as well as recommendations for research, assessment, and intervention.

Artikkelen gir en bred teoretisk gjennomgang av fenomenet dysleksi, sett fra symptomnivå, kognitivt nivå, biologisk nivå og miljønivå ut fra et multifaktorielt perspektiv. Videre diskuterer den hvordan lese- og skriveprosessen kan sees som sammensatt av flere kognitive delprosesser, og hvordan en slik forståelse kan bidra til å forklare at barn og voksne med dysleksi viser ulike vanskeprofiler. Artikkelen fremhever også viktigheten av å alltid ta utviklingsaspektet med i betraktning, om det er på teoretisk nivå eller i mer praktisk-pedagogisk sammenheng ved utredning og intervensjon. I videreførelsen av dette diskuteres det såkalte dysleksiparadokset, nemlig at mange barn med dysleksi i dag identifiseres så seint i utviklingsløpet at det optimale vinduet for intervensjon er passert, selv om det finnes instrumenter for tidlig vurdering av risiko. Det konkluderes med å understreke behovet for en vurdering av risiko for dysleksi allerede i barnehagealder, men at dette kan og må gjøres på en måte som ikke er belastende for barna.