Prevalence and Reliability of Phonological, Surface, and Mixed Profiles in Dyslexia: A Review of Studies Conducted in Languages Varying in Orthographic Depth

Abstract

The influence of orthographic transparency on the prevalence of dyslexia subtypes was examined in a review of multiple-case studies conducted in languages differing in orthographic depth (English, French, and Spanish). Cross-language differences are found in the proportion of dissociated profiles as a function of the dependent variables (speed or accuracy), the classification method (classical vs. regressionbased methods), and the control sample (chronological age vs. reading level controls). The classical method results in a majority of mixed profiles, whereas the regression-based method results in a majority of dissociated profiles. However, the regression-based method appears to result in less reliable subtypes within and between languages. Finally, reading-level comparisons revealed that the phonological subtype reflects a deviant developmental trajectory across all languages, whereas the surface subtype corresponds to a delayed developmental trajectory. The resultsCorrespondence should be sent to Liliane Sprenger-Charolles, Laboratoire Psychologie de la Perception (

Word and pseudoword reading in children with specific speech and language impairment

“…This apparent mismatch is similar to a result found in dyslexic children (25%-39% of phonological profiles, Sprenger-Charolles et al, 2011). Such a discrepancy may indicate that most children with 2SLI have a deficit, albeit mild, in pseudoword reading.…”

“…The second method, multiple case analysis, fills this gap by identifying reading-disorder subtypes and their prevalence (Castles & Coltheart, 1993;Manis, Seidenberg, Doi, McBride-Chang, & Petersen, 1996;Sprenger-Charolles, Siegel, Jimé nez, & Ziegler, 2011). This has led to the identification of three reading profiles.…”

Longitudinal Stability of Phonological and Surface Subtypes of Developmental Dyslexia

“…Children with phonological dyslexia are very poor at reading pseudowords, but have relatively spared exception word reading, while children with surface dyslexia show the opposite pattern. Numerous studies across languages have documented that substantial percentages of children with dyslexia meet criteria for either phonological or surface dyslexia (Castles & Coltheart, 1993; Jimenez, Rodriguez, & Ramirez, 2009; Manis, Seidenberg, Doi, & McBride-Chang, 1996; Olson, Kliegl, Davidson, & Foltz, 1985; Sprenger-Charolles, Cole, Lacert, & Serniclaes, 2000; Sprenger-Charolles, Siegel, Jimenez, & Ziegler, 2011; Stanovich, Siegel, & Gottardo, 1997; Ziegler et al, 2008). However, very little research has investigated whether children identified as belonging to one subtype or another continue to exhibit that pattern over time.…”

Getting to the bottom of orthographic depth

“…The relationship between orthography and phonology is considered to vary as a continuum (e.g., Frost et al, 1987;Goswami, Gombert, & de Barrera, 1998;Seymour et al, 2003;Sprenger-Charolles, Siegel, Jiménez, & Ziegler, 2011). This implies that a given orthography can be classified along a single scale.…”

“…Conversely, both approaches classified French as a predictable orthography − even compared to Dutch and German. In previous work on orthographic depth, French has often been described as an intermediate orthography (Goswami et al, 1998;Paulesu et al, 2001;Seymour et al, 2003;Sprenger-Charolles et al, 2011). The French orthography, therefore, shows the importance of distinguishing between the two concepts, as a failure to do so provides a different picture.…”