Evolving Concepts of Dyslexia and Their Implications for Research and Remediation

Abstract

Aspects of dyslexia definitions are framed as a contrast between the past and the future, focusing on implications for research and remedial education, highlighting assumptions that bias or limit research or clinical practice. A crucial development is evident in understanding dyslexia, moving from its conceptualization as a discrete identifiable condition toward the realization of continuity with the general population with no clear boundaries and no qualitative differences. This conceptual evolution amounts to a transition from considering dyslexia to be some entity that causes poor reading toward considering the term dyslexia to simply label poor reading performance. This renders obsolete any searches for abnormalities and directs efforts toward understanding reading skill as a multifaceted domain following a complex multifactorial developmental course.

It’s Time to Be Scientific About Dyslexia

“…In this article, I have identified four broadly different conceptions of the dyslexia construct that are currently in use. Dyslexia 1 (a word‐level difficulty) relates to an understanding that most researchers, and many practitioners, appear to be slowly gravitating toward (Protopapas, 2019). Here, a diagnosis identified on the basis of cognitive testing is not required, merely the presence of a severe and persistent decoding difficulty (albeit excluding those with significant intellectual and sensory disabilities or some who are non‐native language speakers).…”

Categorical and Dimensional Diagnoses of Dyslexia: Are They Compatible?

“…Clinicians should take into account various parameters for all of the children in gray areas of the distribution, the most important one being whether the child appears to need additional assistance, or not. This idea is captured in this quote from Protopapas (2019) :…”

“…As a general guideline, a diagnosis should become less likely the higher the score in the gray area, but what procedures should the clinicians follow to make a decision for children with an unclear outcome? As Protopapas (2019) notices, a paradigmatic change on the treatment of dyslexia as a continuum must rely on the sensitivity of the clinicians performing the assessment. Clinicians should take into account various parameters for all of the children in gray areas of the distribution, the most important one being whether the child appears to need additional assistance, or not.…”

“…The reasons for using an arbitrary cut-off point are cultural and sociological, rather than scientific. It is necessary to get diagnoses (yes/no answers) in order for children to receive or not receive clinical assistance ( Protopapas, 2019 ). Countries, which fairly differ in their regulations, need to develop policies that are available to children with a diagnosis and unavailable to children without a diagnosis ( Stannard and Huxford, 2007 ).…”

“…First, it does not lead to a faithful representation of the population ( Pennington, 1995 ): A binary diagnosis of dyslexia may offer the illusion of a binary distribution of performance in children, with some children falling fairly low in the distribution (and thus obtaining a diagnosis), and the majority of children performing fine. However, a large number of children actually perform close to this arbitrary boundary, suggesting the presence of reading difficulties that are not “severe enough” to receive attention ( Elliott and Gibbs, 2008 ; Barbiero et al, 2012 ; Protopapas, 2019 ). This is the case, for example, of UK5 and UK28 in the current study.…”