Identifying dyslexia at the university: assessing phonological coding is not enough

Dyslexia in the twenty-first century: a commentary on the IDA definition of dyslexia

In offering a commentary upon the IDA definition, we address its main components in turn. While each is technically accurate, we argue that, when taken together, the definition, or more accurately, the use to which it is often put, becomes problematic. We outline different current conceptions of dyslexia and conclude that the operationalisation of the definition for diagnostic purposes often results in scientifically questionable diagnoses and inadvertently leads to significant educational inequity. We propose a simpler definition that describes the primary difficulty, avoids reference to causal explanation, unexpectedness, and secondary outcomes, and redirects practitioner and policymaker focus to the importance of addressing and meeting the needs of all struggling readers.

Tracking reading skills and reading-related skills in dyslexia before (age 5) and after (ages 10-17) diagnosis

This study had three goals: to examine the stability of deficits in the phonological and lexical routes in dyslexia (group study), to determine the prevalence of dyslexia profiles (multiple-case study), and to identify the prediction of phonemic segmentation and discrimination skills before reading acquisition on future reading level. Among a group of 373 non-readers seen at age 5, 38 students were subsequently diagnosed as either consistent dyslexic readers (18 DYS) or consistent typical readers (20 TR). Their phonological and lexical reading skills were assessed at ages 10 and 17 and their phonemic segmentation and discrimination skills at age 5. In comparison with TR of the same chronological age (CA-TR), individuals with dyslexia demonstrated an impairment of the two reading routes, especially of the phonological reading route. In the comparison with younger TR (age 10) of the same reading level (RL-TR), only a deficit of the phonological route is observed. In the multiple-case study, the comparisons with CA-TR showed a prevalence of mixed profiles and very few dissociated profiles, whereas the comparison with RL-TR resulted mostly in two profiles depending on the measure: a phonological profile when accuracy was used and a delayed profile when speed was used. In addition, the correlations between early phonemic segmentation and discrimination skills (age 5) and later reading skills (age 17) were significant, and in the group of individuals with dyslexia, early phonemic segmentation skills significantly predicted these later reading skills. Phonological reading deficits are persistent and mainly caused by early phonemic impairments.