Methods to Establish Subtypes of Developmental Dyslexia

Genard, Nathalie; Mousty, Philippe; Alegría, Jesús; Leybaert, Jacqueline; Morais, José

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-2772-3_10

Cited by 37 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the proportion of hard phonological and surface dyslexics was consistently across studies almost the same (15% vs. 17% in Castles & Coltheart, 1993;9% vs. 12% in Stanovich et al, 1997; 10% in both cases in Manis et al, 1996). A similar result was observed in the latency-based French study (16% vs. 19%, respectively, in Sprenger-Charolles et al, 2000), but not in the accuracy-based French studies, where the percentage of hard phonological dyslexics was found to be lower than that of hard surface dyslexics (3% vs. 23% in Génard et al, 1998;10% vs. 19% in Sprenger-Charolles et al, 2000).…”

Section: Results Of Multiple-case Studiessupporting

confidence: 54%

“…Among English dyslexics, the proportion of soft phonological profiles was high (38% in Castles & Coltheart according to Stanovich et al's 1997 analyzes;29% in Manis et al, 1996;25% in Stanovich et al, 1997), and the proportion of soft surface profiles was low (1 to 5%). Among French dyslexics, the proportion of soft phonological profiles was also higher than that of soft surface profiles: 39% vs. 10% in the latency-based study (Sprenger-Charolles et al, 2000), 8% vs. 0% in the accuracy-based study (Génard et al, 1998).…”

Section: Results Of Multiple-case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…More recently, five multiple-case studies were carried out, three with English-speaking dyslexics (Castles & Coltheart, 1993;Manis, Seidenberg, Doi, McBride-Chang, & Peterson, 1996;Stanovich, Siegel, & Gottardo, 1997) 1 and two with French-speaking dyslexics (Génard, Mousty, Content, Alegria, Leybaert, & Morais, 1998;Sprenger-Charolles et al, 2000). Two methods were used to analyze the results: the classical method and the regression method.…”

Section: Results Of Multiple-case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, in the accuracy-based English studies, soft phonological profiles were either more prevalent than soft surface profiles (55% vs. 30%, Castles & Coltheart, 1993), or almost equally prevalent (33% vs. 29%, Manis et al, 1996;25% vs. 22%, Stanovich et al, 1997). In French, results varied depending on the measure used: in the accuracy-based study, soft phonological profiles were the least prevalent (4% vs. 56%, Génard et al, 1998) whereas, in the latency-based study, soft phonological profiles were the most prevalent (52% vs. 32%, Sprenger-Charolles et al., 2000).…”

Section: Results Of Multiple-case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reliability and prevalence of an atypical development of phonological skills in French-speaking dyslexics

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, conducted with French-speaking children, we examined the reliability (group study) and the prevalence (multiple-case study) of dyslexics' phonological deficits in reading and reading-related skills in comparison with Reading Level (RL) controls. All dyslexics with no comorbidity problem schooled in a special institution for children with severe reading deficits were included in the study (N = 15; Chronological Age [CA]: 111 +8 months; RL: 80 +3 months). For the group study, the 15 dyslexics were matched pairwise on reading level, non-verbal IQ, and gender to 15 younger RL controls (CA: 85 +4 months). For the multiple-case study, the RL control group included 86 average readers (CA: 83 +4 months; RL: 85 +5 months). To assess the relative efficiency of the sublexical (or phonological) and lexical reading procedures, we relied on two comparisons: pseudowords vs. high-frequency regular words (the comparison mainly used in languages with a shallow orthography); and pseudowords vs. high-frequency irregular words (the comparison mainly used with English-speaking dyslexics), pseudowords and irregular words being either short or long. The dyslexics' skills in the domains supposed to explain their reading deficit were also examined: phonemic awareness, phonological short-term memory and rapid naming. In the group study, the dyslexics lagged behind the RL controls only when they were required to read long pseudowords. The results of the multiple-case study indicated that the prevalence of this deficit was high (the accuracy scores of all but 2 of the 15 dyslexics being more than 1 SD below the RL control mean), and that deficits in phonemic awareness were more prevalent (7 cases) than deficits in phonological memory (1 case) and in rapid naming (2 cases). Three unexpected results were observed in the group study: the difference between regular words and pseudowords (to the detriment of pseudowords) was not greater for the dyslexics; the difference between irregular words and pseudowords (to the benefit of pseudowords) was more significant for the RL controls; and there were no significant differences between the groups in reading-related skills. To explain these results, the severity of the dyslexics' reading deficit and the remediation they have benefited from must be taken into account. In addition, the fact that the outcomes of the comparison between pseudoword vs. regular or irregular word reading were not the same will make it possible to understand some discrepancies between studies carried out either in English or in a language with a shallower orthography (French, for instance).

show abstract

Section: Results Of Multiple-case Studiessupporting

confidence: 54%

Section: Results Of Multiple-case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Results Of Multiple-case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Results Of Multiple-case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reliability and prevalence of an atypical development of phonological skills in French-speaking dyslexics

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Seis de los estudios revisados utilizaron la lectura de palabras regulares e irregulares como indicadores de la dependencia de cada una de las dos rutas de lectura. Entre estos estudios, cuatro utilizaron sólo la exactitud: los tres estudios en inglés más uno de los tres estudios franceses (Génard et al, 1998). Los otros dos estudios franceses utilizaron tanto la exactitud como la velocidad.…”

Section: Prevalencia De Los Subtipos De Dislexiaunclassified

Subtipos de dislexia en lenguas que difieren en la transparencia ortográfica: inglés, francés y español

Sprenger-Charolles¹

2011

PSYWRIT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La existencia de perfiles disociados en la dislexia evolutiva (como perfiles fonológicos con un déficit selectivo de la ruta fonológica de lectura y perfiles superficiales con un déficit selectivo de la ruta léxica de lectura) versus perfiles mixtos (con ambos déficits) sigue siendo una cuestión teórica y clínica de gran interés junto con la cuestión de la prevalencia de estos perfiles y la variación de esta prevalencia en diferentes lenguas. Los resultados más fiables son los obtenidos mediante el método clásico: (1) el perfil predominante es el perfil mixto; (2) la prevalencia de los perfiles disociados difiere dependiendo de la lengua y la medida utilizada, lo perfiles fonológicos son más frecuentes en los estudios en inglés basados en la exactitud que los realizados en francés o en español y son menos frecuentes con medidas de exactitud que con medidas de velocidad en los estudios en francés y en español. Estos últimos resultados probablemente reflejan un problema de medida, ya que es fácil utilizar la ruta fonológica en las ortografías transparentes: en estos casos, se debe utilizar la velocidad para detectar déficit fonológicos. Estos resultados no son consistentes con la idea de que se pueden detectar subtipos de dislexia evolutiva claramente delimitados.Palabras clave: Dislexia evolutiva; Subtipos; profundidad ortográfica¸ dislexia fonológica; dislexia superficial; perfil mixto; habilidades de lectura a nivel de la palabra; latencia de la respuesta vocal.The existence of dissociated profiles in developmental dyslexia (the phonological profile with a selective deficit of the phonological reading route, and the surface profile with a selective deficit of the lexical reading route) versus mixed profiles (with both deficits) remains a major theoretical and clinical issue, along with the prevalence of these profiles and the variation in that prevalence across languages with different degrees of orthographic transparency. These issues are examined in a review of studies conducted in English, French and Spanish in which subtyping was established using either the classical method or the regression method. The most reliable results were those obtained with the classical method: (1) the most prevalent profile is the mixed profile; (2) the prevalence of dissociated profiles differs across languages and measures, phonological profiles being more frequent in the accuracy-based English studies than in the accuracy-based French and Spanish studies, and less frequent in the accuracy-based than in the latency-based French and Spanish studies. These last findings probably reflect a measurement issue, as it is easy to use the phonological reading route in transparent orthographies: in these cases, reading speed must be used to detect phonological deficits.These results are not consistent with the idea that clear-cut subtypes can be detected in developmental dyslexia. ISSN 1989-3809 DOI: 10.5231/psy.writ.2011.1707 Laboratoire Psychologie de la Perception, CNRS & Université Paris Descartes, France Subtipos de dislexia en le...

show abstract

The cognitive deficits responsible for developmental dyslexia: Review of evidence for a selective visual attentional disorder

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is strong converging evidence suggesting that developmental dyslexia stems from a phonological processing deficit. However, this hypothesis has been challenged by the widely admitted heterogeneity of the dyslexic population, and by several reports of dyslexic individuals with no apparent phonological deficit. In this paper, we discuss the hypothesis that a phonological deficit may not be the only core deficit in developmental dyslexia and critically examine several alternative proposals. To establish that a given cognitive deficit is causally related to dyslexia, at least two conditions need to be fulfilled. First, the hypothesized deficit needs to be associated with developmental dyslexia independently of additional phonological deficits. Second, the hypothesized deficit must predict reading ability, on both empirical and theoretical grounds. While most current hypotheses fail to fulfil these criteria, we argue that the visual attentional deficit hypothesis does. Recent studies providing evidence for the independence of phonological and visual attentional deficits in developmental dyslexia are reviewed together with empirical data showing that phonological and visual attentional processing skills contribute independently to reading performance. A theoretical model of reading is outlined in support of a causal link between a visual attentional disorder and a failure in reading acquisition.

show abstract

Methods to Establish Subtypes of Developmental Dyslexia

Cited by 37 publications

References 12 publications

Reliability and prevalence of an atypical development of phonological skills in French-speaking dyslexics

Reliability and prevalence of an atypical development of phonological skills in French-speaking dyslexics

Subtipos de dislexia en lenguas que difieren en la transparencia ortográfica: inglés, francés y español

The cognitive deficits responsible for developmental dyslexia: Review of evidence for a selective visual attentional disorder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About