ArticleScientific studies of reading : the official journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading2023
A Bayesian Probabilistic Framework for Identification of Individuals with Dyslexia.
Article in Scientific studies of reading : the official journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards a Consensus for Dyslexia Practice: Findings of a Delphi Study on Assessment and Identification.Dyslexia (Chichester, England) · 2025Article
- Dyslexia in the twenty-first century: a commentary on the IDA definition of dyslexia.Annals of dyslexia · 2024Article
- Revisiting the definition of dyslexia.Annals of dyslexia · 2024Article
- Comparing Children With and Without Learning Disabilities on Their Home Literacy Environment and Its Association With Pre-Reading Skills.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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Bayesian-based models for diagnosis are common in medicine but have not been incorporated into identification models for dyslexia. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate Bayesian identification models that included a broader set of predictors and that capitalized on recent developments in modeling the prevalence of dyslexia. Method: Model-based meta-analysis was used to create a composite correlation matrix that included common predictors of dyslexia such as decoding, phonological awareness, oral language, but also included response to intervention (RTI) and family risk for dyslexia. Bayesian logistic regression models were used to predict poor reading comprehension, unexpectedly poor reading comprehension, poor decoding, and unexpectedly poor decoding, all at two levels of severity. Results: Most predictors made independent and substantial contributions to prediction, supporting models of dyslexia that rely on multiple rather than single indicators. RTI was the strongest predictor of poor reading comprehension and unexpectedly poor reading comprehension. Phonological awareness was the strongest predictor of poor decoding and unexpectedly poor decoding, followed closely by family risk. Conclusion: Bayesian-based models are a promising tool for implementing multiple-indicator models of identification. Ideas for improving prediction and implications for theory and practice are discussed.
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.