ArticleAnnals of dyslexia2024
Dyslexia in the twenty-first century: a commentary on the IDA definition of dyslexia.
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 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Experiences of Student Nurses With Dyslexia in Clinical Practice in the United Kingdom: A Literature Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Emerging technologies and neuroscience-based approaches in dyslexia: a narrative review toward integrative and personalized solutions.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Dispelling Myths and Misunderstandings About Defining and Remediating Dyslexia.Dyslexia (Chichester, England) · 2026Review
- Thoughts on the Definition of Dyslexia.Annals of dyslexia · 2026Article
- Predicting Risk for Reading Difficulty among Spanish-English Speaking Students: Classification Accuracy of Kindergarten Oral Language and Early Literacy.Contemporary school psychology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In offering a commentary upon the IDA definition, we address its main components in turn. While each is technically accurate, we argue that, when taken together, the definition, or more accurately, the use to which it is often put, becomes problematic. We outline different current conceptions of dyslexia and conclude that the operationalisation of the definition for diagnostic purposes often results in scientifically questionable diagnoses and inadvertently leads to significant educational inequity. We propose a simpler definition that describes the primary difficulty, avoids reference to causal explanation, unexpectedness, and secondary outcomes, and redirects practitioner and policymaker focus to the importance of addressing and meeting the needs of all struggling readers.
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.