ArticleAnnals of dyslexia2024
Do we really need a new definition of dyslexia? A commentary.
Article in Annals of dyslexia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Random Number Generation in Adults With Dyslexia: Further Evidence of Dyslexia-Related Executive Function Difficulties.Dyslexia (Chichester, England) · 2026Article
- Thoughts on the Definition of Dyslexia.Annals of dyslexia · 2026Article
- Identifying dyslexia-consistent reading profiles in mild intellectual disability: cluster-derived severity gradients and severity-calibrated classification rules.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Article
- Arithmetic performance in children with typical and impaired literacy skills.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Self-Reported Dyslexia Traits as Positive Predictors of Self-Reported Cognitive Failures in the Workplace.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We provide a commentary on current debates about the definition of dyslexia. We agree with others that dyslexia is best thought of as a dimensional disorder with the best established causal risk factor being a deficit in phonological processing. Dyslexia is particularly common in children from families with a history of dyslexia and in children with preschool language difficulties. We argue that definitions may differ depending upon their purpose. Traditional discrepancy definitions may be useful for research purposes, but when considering the provision of educational services discrepancy definitions are not useful since all children with reading difficulties require reading intervention regardless of their level of IQ.
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.