SynthesisNew directions for child and adolescent development2019
Combining Old and New for Better Understanding and Predicting Dyslexia.
Synthesis in New directions for child and adolescent development, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A model-based meta-analytic examination of specific reading comprehension deficit: how prevalent is it and does the simple view of reading account for it?Annals of dyslexia · 2021Pooled it
- Dyslexia Polygenic Index and Socio-Economic Status Interaction Effects on Reading Skills in Australia and the United Kingdom.Behavior genetics · 2025Article
- The Home Literacy Environment and Reading Development of Children With and Without Learning Disabilities.Developmental science · 2025Article
- Review
- A Bayesian Probabilistic Framework for Identification of Individuals with Dyslexia.Scientific studies of reading : the official journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading · 2023Article
- How the Science of Reading Informs 21st-Century Education.Reading research quarterly · 2020Article
- Early Identification of Children with Dyslexia: Variables Differentially Predict Poor Reading Versus Unexpected Poor Reading.Reading research quarterlyArticle
- The Prevalence of Dyslexia: A New Approach to Its Estimation.Journal of learning disabilitiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite decades of research, it has been difficult to achieve consensus on a definition of common learning disabilities such as dyslexia. This lack of consensus represents a fundamental problem for the field. Our approach to addressing this issue is to use model-based meta-analyses and Bayesian models with informative priors to combine the results of a large number of studies for the purpose of yielding a more stable and well-supported conceptualization of reading disability. A prerequisite to implementing these models is establishing informative priors for dyslexia. We illustrate a new approach for doing so based on the known distribution of the difference between correlated variables, and use this distribution to determine the proportion of poor readers whose poor reading is unexpected (i.e., likely to be due to dyslexia) as opposed to expected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.