Research studies on dyslexia: participant inclusion and exclusion criteria

Lopes, João A.; Gomes, Cristina Maria da Silva; Oliveira, Célia; Elliott, Julian

doi:10.1080/08856257.2020.1732108

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This important point becomes particularly evident when the nature and characteristics of the participants involved in such studies are analyzed. Lopes, Gomes, Oliveira, and Elliott (2020) analyzed 800 studies of dyslexia, across all scientific disciplines, that had been undertaken over the past two decades and found that clear criteria for participant recruitment were rarely made explicit. In general, dyslexia was used as a catchall term to describe poor readers (and sometimes spellers) rather than a specific and clearly delineated subgroup.…”

Section: Why Is Scientific Knowledge Treated So Unscientifically?mentioning

confidence: 99%

It’s Time to Be Scientific About Dyslexia

Elliott

2020

Reading Research Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tha author argues that despite the vast proliferation of scientific research, our understanding of dyslexia is marked by serious weaknesses of conceptualization, definition, and operationalization that are not only unscientific but also result in impoverished practice in schools, social inequity in both understanding and provision for many struggling readers, and ultimately, reduced life chances for millions of students worldwide. Key to this problem is the inconsistency of the use of the term dyslexia in both scientific research and clinical and educational practice. Four different, common conceptions of dyslexia are outlined, and the implications that each of these have for work with struggling readers are discussed. Whereas it is often claimed that scientific understandings, derived from genetics, neuroscience, and cognitive science, enable clinicians to validly identify, from within a larger group of poor readers, those individuals with dyslexia, the author shows this to be not only misleading but also potentially deleterious to broader inclusive practice. The author argues that the seemingly scientifically based construction of the dyslexic individual, often buoyed by vested interests, typically favors more socially privileged students and often undermines attempts to identify and help all of those who struggle to learn to read. Common responses by proponents to challenges to the dyslexia construct are outlined and discussed. In conclusion, the author argues that scientists, researchers, clinicians, and educators have a responsibility to address and confront the real‐world consequences of much science but little wisdom in the field of reading disability.

show abstract

Section: Why Is Scientific Knowledge Treated So Unscientifically?mentioning

confidence: 99%

It’s Time to Be Scientific About Dyslexia

Elliott

2020

Reading Research Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also presumed that children with SLI or dyslexia have been given adequate learning opportunities to acquire developmentally appropriate language and reading skills (Bishop, 2006;Leonard, 2014). However, the operationalization of these exclusionary criteria is challenging and has varied over time in studies of both disorders (Lopes et al, 2020;Reilly et al, 2014).…”

Section: Defining Sli and Dyslexiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Still, the relations between verbal and nonverbal cognitive skills remain of interest to researchers involved in the study of language, reading, and other learning disorders (Archibald et al, 2019;Durant et al, 2019;Justice et al, 2017;Korpipä et al, 2017;Peng et al, 2019). Studies of SLI and dyslexia frequently apply nonverbal IQ cutoffs as part of their exclusionary criteria (Gallinat & Spaulding, 2014;Lopes et al, 2020). These cutoffs have been particularly important for studies aimed at understanding causal mechanisms of language or reading impairment (Leonard, 2020;Rice, 2020).…”

Section: Nonverbal Intelligencementioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting Reading Achievement in Children With Developmental Language Disorders: What Can We Learn From Research on Specific Language Impairment and Dyslexia?

Adlof

2020

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Specific language impairment (SLI; see also developmental language disorder) and dyslexia are separate, yet frequently co-occurring disorders that confer risks to reading comprehension and academic achievement. Until recently, most studies of one disorder had little consideration of the other, and each disorder was addressed by different practitioners. However, understanding how the two disorders relate to each other is important for advancing theories about each disorder and improving reading comprehension and academic achievement. The purpose of this clinical focus article is to integrate research on SLI and dyslexia as well as advocate for the consideration of comorbidities in future research and clinical practice. Method The first section reviews definitions as well as inclusionary and exclusionary criteria for SLI and dyslexia. The second section reviews research demonstrating that SLI and dyslexia are different disorders that often co-occur. Studies examining language, working memory, and academic achievement in children with separate versus co-occurring SLI and dyslexia are reviewed. The final section compares and contrasts school identification frameworks for children with SLI and dyslexia and considers the potential benefits of incorporating broad language skills into response to intervention (RTI) assessment frameworks. Conclusions Children with weak language skills are at a high risk of experiencing reading problems, but language difficulties are often hidden from view. Directly addressing language skills within school RTI frameworks can help improve the identification and treatment of children with SLI and dyslexia as well as support improved reading comprehension and academic achievement for all students. Presentation Video https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13063793

show abstract

“…The cooperation between parent, child and kindergarten teacher is perhaps the most important success factor in early detection and intervention. However, as pointed out by Lopes, Gomes, Oliveira, and Elliott (2020), teachers are seldom involved, although they are the ones closest to see how the child performs and progresses and should hence be the first to observe problems. Likewise, parents are seldom involved, except as acceptors for clinical evaluation and consent authorities for their children to participate in research projects (Abd Rauf, Ismail, Balakrishnan, & Haruna, 2018).…”

Section: Finding Early Predictors Of Dyslexiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In all developmental research, sampling is a challenge. In longitudinal dyslexia studies, this problem has been dealt with in different ways (Lopes et al, 2020). One way has been to base samples on well-established risk groups such as clinically referred children with developmental language impairment as reported by Elbro, Dalby, and Maarbjerg (2011).…”

Section: Sample Selection and Developmental Trajectoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kindergarten screening tools filled out by parents and teachers targeting dyslexia. Predictions and developmental trajectories from age 5 to age 15 years

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Research studies on dyslexia: participant inclusion and exclusion criteria

Cited by 20 publications

References 62 publications

It’s Time to Be Scientific About Dyslexia

It’s Time to Be Scientific About Dyslexia

Promoting Reading Achievement in Children With Developmental Language Disorders: What Can We Learn From Research on Specific Language Impairment and Dyslexia?

Kindergarten screening tools filled out by parents and teachers targeting dyslexia. Predictions and developmental trajectories from age 5 to age 15 years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About