ABSTRACT Developmental dyslexia is characterized by difficulties in reading and impairments in cognitive functions. It has also been linked to dysfunction of the brain regions involved in verbal and visuospatial processing. Although some research suggests individuals with dyslexia may rely on visuospatial strategies to compensate for their verbal difficulties, other studies have reported contradictory findings on visuospatial abilities. This study compared the cognitive performance of 11 poor readers and 15 typical readers across two verbal and four visuospatial tasks. Additionally, the strategies employed by each group to complete these cognitive tasks were explored. While poor readers showed worse performance across all verbal and visuospatial tasks than typical readers, there was no significant group difference in strategy use. Moreover, verbal cognitive inefficiencies were associated with reading difficulties. Poor readers' cognitive challenges, despite no difference in the strategies employed, highlight the importance of addressing both verbal and visuospatial difficulties in dyslexia.
ABSTRACT This study investigates assessment of Specific Learning Disorders (SLD) in Twice‐Exceptional (TE) children, gifted children (GC) who also present SLD, in oral and written language domains. Applying the standard threshold for identification (< 7th percentile) to GC often results in the assessment and identification of SLD in the TE population, thereby limiting access to appropriate support. The objective was to determine which language tests effectively identify SLD in TE children and establish optimal threshold values. The prospective study included 301 children 7–16 years, divided into three groups: GC without SLD ( n = 71), TE children ( n = 114), and non‐gifted children with SLD ( n = 116). Language test performances were compared across groups, and Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analyses were employed to optimize test sensitivity and specificity in the TE group. TE children performed better than the SLD group but worse than GC without disorders. At standard thresholds, text reading and spelling tests showed the highest sensitivity, which significantly improved when CART‐derived decision thresholds (62nd and 38th percentiles) were applied, while maintaining satisfactory specificity. Results indicate that standard thresholds lead to under‐identification of SLD in GC, and that adjusted thresholds enhance identification accuracy. These findings should generalize to similarly complex languages, such as English.
ABSTRACT This study investigated the sociolinguistic background and the cognitive and literacy profiles of heritage bilingual (HB) children with specific learning disorders (SLD) in reading and spelling or typical development (TD) in comparison with their monolingual peers. About 454 primary school children were included and divided into four groups: HBs with SLD ( n = 108) or TD ( n = 70), and monolinguals with SLD ( n = 106) or TD ( n = 170). Children completed tasks assessing nonverbal IQ, working memory, processing speed, nonword repetition, listening comprehension, and literacy skills, including word, nonword, and text reading and spelling, and reading comprehension. Parents provided information on language history and socioeconomic status (SES). Results showed comparable sociolinguistic profiles across groups, with greater heritage language maintenance in the HB‐TD group. SES primarily predicted performance on tasks with higher lexical demands and nonverbal IQ. Once SES was considered, language background only influenced spelling tasks. Interaction effects indicated a stronger influence of SES in HBs. At the phenotypic level, HBs and monolingual children with SLD showed comparable profiles, with an SLD‐specific disadvantage for HBs emerging only in nonword spelling. These findings underscore the importance of SES in assessing HB children and promoting the home language in clinical populations.
The present study examined neurocognitive differences in visual word processing between children with reading difficulties (RD) and chronological-age-matched controls (CA) using event-related potentials (ERPs) during a lexical decision task. Participants were Grade 3 and Grade 6 children (ages 7.6-12.1 years) who were required to discriminate real words from orthographically similar pseudowords. ERP analyses focused on the N200 and N400 components, which are thought to reflect early stages of visual word processing and later processes involved in lexical access and stimulus evaluation. The results showed that the Grade 3 RD group exhibited significantly higher Ν200 amplitudes than their CA controls, suggesting less efficient early processing of the presented stimuli. However, no differences in the N200 were observed between the Grade 6 groups. Children with RD in both grades exhibited reduced N400 amplitudes compared to their counterparts, suggesting differences in the neural processes supporting word recognition. These findings contribute to a clearer understanding of the temporal dynamics of written word processing in children with RD in transparent orthographies and highlight the value of ERP measures for examining neurocognitive mechanisms underlying reading development.
Despite a strong base of scientifically supported research on dyslexia, pervasive misunderstandings continue, particularly in the United States, where state legislation, instructional practices and parent advocacy intersect in ways that influence how dyslexia is identified and treated. Historical misinterpretations about the aetiology and characteristics of dyslexia, evolving definitions of dyslexia and differing ideological beliefs about how to operationalize identifying dyslexia in schools all contribute to uncertainty surrounding what dyslexia is and is not. Misunderstandings have led to a host of fad and pseudoscientific treatments for dyslexia that are unsupported by scientifically based reading research. Misinformation about dyslexia continues to be shared by well-intentioned, but uninformed, advocates. Disinformation about dyslexia is also shared with education stakeholders for monetary gain. This article draws on scientifically based reading research to (a) illuminate current understandings and misunderstandings about dyslexia, (b) support evidence-based treatments, (c) dispel fad and pseudoscientific treatments and (d) highlight areas needing additional research.
