For languages other than English there is a lack of empirical evidence about the cognitive profile of students entering higher education with a diagnosis of dyslexia. To obtain such evidence, we compared a group of 100 Dutch-speaking students diagnosed with dyslexia with a control group of 100 students without learning disabilities. Our study showed selective deficits in reading and writing (effect sizes for accuracy between d = 1 and d = 2), arithmetic (d≈1), and phonological processing (d>0.7). Except for spelling, these deficits were larger for speed related measures than for accuracy related measures. Students with dyslexia also performed slightly inferior on the KAIT tests of crystallized intelligence, due to the retrieval of verbal information from long-term memory. No significant differences were observed in the KAIT tests of fluid intelligence. The profile we obtained agrees with a recent meta-analysis of English findings suggesting that it generalizes to all alphabetic languages. Implications for special arrangements for students with dyslexia in higher education are outlined.

To have a clearer idea of the problems students with dyslexia may face during their studies, we compared writings of 100 students with dyslexia and 100 age matched control students in higher education. The aim of this study was to compare the writing of young adults with dyslexia and young adults without dyslexia. The study was carried out in Belgium with writers of Dutch. First, we studied the number and type of spelling errors, the quality of the texts produced, the use of words, and the handwriting, both in a précis writing task (writing a summary of an informative text) and in a dictation task (sentence writing). Our results showed medium to large effect sizes for spelling errors: d = .93 for morphosyntactic spelling errors, d= .55 for memory-related spelling errors, and a medium effect size for punctuation and capitalization errors, d = .40. Second, experts who were blind to the aims of the study were asked to judge the quality of the writing of both groups based on transcriptions that were free from spelling errors. The quality of the texts produced was judged lower for students with dyslexia than for the controls, d = .61 for text structure and d = .56 for agreeability, even though the number and types of words used by both groups were very much the same. There was no significant difference in the quality of the handwriting, d = .15. Given that remedial teaching has been shown to be effective for essay-writing skills, educational support along these lines may be helpful for students with dyslexia.Keywords: adult dyslexia -dictation -précis writing -spelling -writingBeyond spelling: The writing skills of students with dyslexia in higher education A non-negligible percentage of students in mainstream higher education have learning difficulties (Hatcher, Snowling, & Griffiths, 2002). Because they are expected to reach the same objectives as their peers, it is important for them to know how they can optimize their performance and for education authorities to have information about which types of support are helpful and justifiable. For instance, students with dyslexia are known to have spelling problems in addition to reading difficulties (Callens, Tops, & Brysbaert, in press;Swanson & Hsieh, 2009). Because written reports form the basis of many student assessments and evaluations (Farmer, Riddick, & Sterling, 2002) and because poor spelling is likely to influence marking, it is reasonable to provide these students with text-processing software that has a built-in spelling checker (Desoete, Brysbaert, Tops, Callens, De Lange, & Van Hees, 2010;Goldberg, Russell, & Cook, 2003). At the same time, it would be good to know whether the quality of spelling-corrected essays and summaries is equivalent for students with dyslexia as for controls, or whether this is another challenge students with dyslexia should take into account. Hayes and Flower (1980) proposed an influential cognitive model of skilled adult writing, analysing different components of the writing process and their interaction. In this model th...

An increasing number of students with dyslexia enter higher education. As a result, there is a growing need for standardized diagnosis. Previous research has suggested that a small number of tests may suffice to reliably assess students with dyslexia, but these studies were based on post hoc discriminant analysis, which tends to overestimate the percentage of systematic variance, and were limited to the English language (and the Anglo-Saxon education system). Therefore, we repeated the research in a non-English language (Dutch) and we selected variables on the basis of a prediction analysis. The results of our study confirm that it is not necessary to administer a wide range of tests to diagnose dyslexia in (young) adults. Three tests sufficed: word reading, word spelling and phonological awareness, in line with the proposal that higher education students with dyslexia continue to have specific problems with reading and writing. We also show that a traditional postdiction analysis selects more variables of importance than the prediction analysis. However, these extra variables explain study-specific variance and do not result in more predictive power of the model.

In this study we focused on the spelling of high-functioning students with dyslexia. We made a detailed classification of the errors in a word and sentence dictation task made by 100 students with dyslexia and 100 matched control students. All participants were in the first year of their bachelor’s studies and had Dutch as mother tongue. Three main error categories were distinguished: phonological, orthographic, and grammatical errors (on the basis of morphology and language-specific spelling rules). The results indicated that higher-education students with dyslexia made on average twice as many spelling errors as the controls, with effect sizes of d ≥ 2. When the errors were classified as phonological, orthographic, or grammatical, we found a slight dominance of phonological errors in students with dyslexia. Sentence dictation did not provide more information than word dictation in the correct classification of students with and without dyslexia.

Whitney and Cornelissen hypothesized that dyslexia may be the result of problems with the left-to-right processing of words, particularly in the part of the word between the word beginning and the reader's fixation position. To test this hypothesis, we tachistoscopically presented consonant trigrams in the left and the right visual field (LVF, RVF) to 20 undergraduate students with dyslexia and 20 matched controls. The trigrams were presented at different locations (from -2.5° to + 2.5°) in both visual half fields. Participants were asked to identify the letters, and accuracy rates were compared. In line with the predictions of the SERIOL (sequential encoding regulated by inputs to oscillations within letter units) model of visual word recognition, a typical U-shaped pattern was found at all retinal locations. Accuracy also decreased the further away the stimulus was from the fixation location, with a steeper decrease in the LVF than in the RVF. Contrary to the hypothesis, the students with dyslexia showed the same pattern of results as did the control participants, also in the LVF, apart from a slightly lower accuracy rate, particularly for the central letter. The latter is in line with the possibility of enhanced crowding in dyslexia. In addition, in the dyslexia group but not in the control group the degree of crowding correlated significantly with the students' word reading scores. These findings suggest that lateral inhibition between letters is associated with word reading performance in students with dyslexia.

We examined whether academic and professional bachelor students with dyslexia are able to compensate for their spelling deficits with metacognitive experience. Previous research suggested that students with dyslexia may suffer from a dual burden. Not only do they perform worse on spelling but in addition they are not as fully aware of their difficulties as their peers without dyslexia. According to some authors, this is the result of a worse feeling of confidence, which can be considered as a form of metacognition (metacognitive experience). We tried to isolate this metacognitive experience by asking 100 students with dyslexia and 100 matched control students to rate their feeling of confidence in a word spelling task and a proofreading task. Next, we used Signal Detection Analysis to disentangle the effects of proficiency and criterion setting. We found that students with dyslexia showed lower proficiencies but not suboptimal response biases. They were as good at deciding when they could be confident or not as their peers without dyslexia. They just had more cases in which their spelling was wrong. We conclude that the feeling of confidence in our students with dyslexia is as good as in their peers without dyslexia. These findings go against the Dual Burden theory (Krüger & Dunning, 1999), which assumes that people with a skills problem suffer twice as a result of insufficiently developed metacognitive competence. As a result, there is no gain to be expected from extra training of this metacognitive experience in higher education students with dyslexia.

BackgroundThe present study investigated differences in reading and spelling outcomes in Dutch and English as a second language (ESL) in adolescents with a high familial risk of dyslexia, of whom some have developed dyslexia (HRDys) while others have not (HRnonDys), in comparison to a low familial risk control group without dyslexia (LRnonDys). This allowed us to investigate the persistence of dyslexia in the first language (L1) and the effect of dyslexia on the second language (L2), which has, in this case, a lower orthographic transparency. Furthermore, the inclusion of the HRnonDys group allowed us to investigate the continuity of the familial risk of dyslexia, as previous studies observed that the HRnonDys group often scores in between the HRDys and LRnonDys group, and whether these readers without reading deficits in Dutch, have more reading difficulties in ESL.MethodsThe data of three groups of adolescents were analyzed; 27 LRnonDys, 25 HRdys 25 HRnonDys. The mean age was 14;1 years; months, and 37 were male. All were native speakers of Dutch, attended regular secondary education (grade 7–10), and were non-native speakers of English. Using MANOVA the groups were compared on Dutch and English word reading fluency (WRF), spelling and vocabulary, Dutch pseudoword and loanword reading fluency, phonological awareness (PA), rapid automatized naming (RAN), and verbal short term and working memory. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare English and Dutch WRF, spelling and vocabulary directly within the three groups.ResultsThe analyses revealed that the HRDys group had a deficit in both reading and spelling in Dutch and ESL. They also performed poorer than the LRnonDys group on all other measures. Effect sizes were especially large for pseudoword reading and the reaction times during the PA task. The HRnonDys group scored generally poorer than the LRnonDys group but this difference was only significant for Dutch pseudoword reading, PA reaction times and verbal short term memory. In general the HRDys and HRnonDys group scored similar in Dutch and English, except for English WRF where the HRDys group scored slightly better than expected based on their Dutch WRF.DiscussionThere was a high persistence of dyslexia. Adolescents with dyslexia had large impairments in reading and spelling, and reading related measures, both in Dutch and ESL. Despite high inter-individual differences, an overall three-step pattern was observed. Adolescents in the HRnonDys group scored in between the HRDys and LRnonDys group, supporting the polygenetic origin of dyslexia and the continuity of the familial risk of dyslexia. The lower orthographic transparency did not have a negative effect on L2 reading, spelling and vocabulary, both in the HRnonDys and HRDys group. The latter group performed slightly better than expected in L2, which may be a result of the massive exposure to English and high motivation to use English by adolescents.

BackgroundFew studies are available about the personality profile of higher education students with dyslexia and to which extent this could be any different from their non-dyslexic peers.Aims and Sample(s)To obtain empirical evidence, we compared the personality profile of a group of 100 Dutch-speaking students with dyslexia with that of a control group of 100 students without learning disabilities.MethodsThe NEO-PI-R based on the Big Five in personality research was used.Results and ConclusionsOur study showed no differences in the personality between both groups. This agrees with a recent meta-analysis of English findings (Swanson & Hsieh, 2009), suggesting that students with dyslexia do not perceive themselves differently than their non-dyslexic peers. Practical implications and directions for future research are considered.