The purpose of this special issue is to showcase current research on language abilities in persons with dyslexia. Although dyslexia is most often defined as a word-level reading and spelling disorder rooted in phonology, a large and growing body of evidence shows that the language difficulties of dyslexia extend well beyond phonology and are too often overlooked in research and practice. The articles in this issue (a) examine how broader oral language has and has not been accounted for in dyslexia research and policy, (b) characterize the language profiles of children with dyslexia with and without co-occurring developmental language disorder (DLD), (c) trace early language markers and subtypes that precede and predict reading difficulty, and (d) consider practical tools for detecting language vulnerability and for tailoring intervention to it within populations with reading and language difficulty. Read together, these contributions converge on a single message: dyslexia is best understood as a language learning disability, and assessment and instruction that ignore broader oral language risk leaving the needs of many children unmet. Universal screening, evaluation, and intervention for children with or at risk for dyslexia should routinely include measures of and stimulation for all components of oral language.
This pilot study examined the underexplored reading and spelling skills of children with auditory processing disorder (APD). Based on previous research linking auditory and phonological deficits, it was hypothesized that children with APD experiencing literacy difficulties would exhibit a phonological vulnerability profile of dyslexia-dysorthographia (DD), characterized by phonological awareness impairments. Nineteen school-aged children with APD, seen in rehabilitation centers specialized in communication, were assessed with a test battery measuring auditory, reading, and spelling skills as well as cognitive vulnerability factors (e.g., phonological awareness, lexical orthographic memory). Among these participants, four performed within normal limits on the reading and spelling tasks or did not exhibit difficulties related to a DD. The other fifteen participants exhibited difficulties similar to those of children with DD, with thirteen showing results associated with a mnesic vulnerability profile, characterized by lexical orthographic memory deficits, and two showing a mixed profile, combining phonological and mnesic vulnerabilities. Findings of this pilot study highlighted a high rate of reading and spelling difficulties among these children. Their difficulties were not comparable to those seen in children with the phonological vulnerability profile, but with a mnesic profile, suggesting that auditory processing difficulties do not always lead to this profile of DD. These preliminary findings need to be extended to larger samples from various clinical settings to clarify interactions between auditory processing, cognitive vulnerability factors, and written language skills.
This study aimed to examine the extent to which pretest measures predicted response to an early reading intervention for children at risk for dyslexia. Predictors were studied in both first-language (L1) speakers and second-language (L2) learners. The pretest measures assessed various reading-related abilities, including pronunciation accuracy. Data from the experimental group in a trial of a reading intervention of 76 sessions for first-grade students at risk for dyslexia were analyzed. Outcomes were examined for 101 participants, including 68 L1 speakers and 33 L2 learners of Danish, based on their posttest performance on reading of words and non-words. Pretest measures of decoding, letter knowledge, letter-sound knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, vocabulary, and pronunciation accuracy were evaluated as predictors of reading outcomes. The strongest predictors of children's reading outcomes were phonological awareness, letter knowledge, letter-sound knowledge, and pronunciation accuracy. A relatively good classification of children with subsequent poor or adequate response to the intervention could be obtained based on pretest measures of letter-sound knowledge and pronunciation accuracy. Pronunciation accuracy added uniquely to the prediction of overall variance in reading outcomes for L1 speakers and L2 learners and to the correct early classification of children as poor or adequate responders. The results suggest that an acceptable level of prediction of at-risk children's response to early reading intervention can be obtained by means of a few pre-intervention measures. This study provides evidence for the added predictive value of a measure of pronunciation accuracy for L1 speakers and L2 learners.
This meta-analysis investigates the effectiveness of dyslexia-friendly fonts, such as OpenDyslexic and Dyslexie, on improving reading performance among dyslexic students. Dyslexic students face considerable challenges in digital reading, which impacts their academic performance, particularly in subjects with high reading demands. While specialized fonts have been proposed as potential solutions, research findings are inconsistent. This meta-analysis synthesizes data from 15 empirical studies (91 effect sizes; N = 688) examining whether these specialized fonts offer significant improvements in reading performance in dyslexic readers compared to standard fonts like Times New Roman and Arial. Using a random-effects model, the results indicate that dyslexia-friendly fonts have no consistent or reliable effect on reading performance in terms of speed or accuracy. The overall effect size was negligible, g = -0.04, 95
Some children are slower than average to acquire early spoken language milestones. Little is known about how this heterogeneity in expressive language impacts later childhood language and reading outcomes in children with dyslexia. We investigated oral language and reading differences in 63 children with dyslexia aged 8–12 years, comparing those with (35
