ArticleDyslexia (Chichester, England)2025
Validation and Reliability of the Dyslexia Adult Checklist in Screening for Dyslexia.
Article in Dyslexia (Chichester, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding the experience of adults with dyslexia: a quantitative and qualitative analysis.Annals of dyslexia · 2026Article
- Article
- Self-Reported Dyslexia Traits as Positive Predictors of Self-Reported Cognitive Failures in the Workplace.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Validity of the Comprehensive Learning Test for Diagnosis of Specific Reading or Mathematical Disorders.Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2025Article
- Modality Matters: Evidence for the Benefits of Speech-Based Adaptive Retrieval Practice in Learners with Dyslexia.Topics in cognitive science · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dyslexia is a language-based neurobiological and developmental learning disability marked by inaccurate and disfluent word recognition, poor decoding, and difficulty spelling. Individuals can be diagnosed with and experience symptoms of dyslexia throughout their lifespan. Screening tools such as the Dyslexia Adult Checklist allow individuals to self-evaluate common risk factors of dyslexia prior to or in lieu of obtaining costly and timely psychoeducational assessments. Although widely available online, the Dyslexia Adult Checklist has yet to be validated. The purpose of this study was to validate this Checklist in a sample of adults with and without dyslexia using both univariate and multivariate statistical approaches. We hypothesised that the Dyslexia Adult Checklist would accurately distinguish between individuals with a self-reported diagnosis of dyslexia (n = 200) and a control group (n = 200), as measured by total scores on the screening tool. Results from our sample found the Dyslexia Adult Checklist to be valid (Cronbach's α = 0.86), and reliable (sensitivity = 76%-91.5%, specificity = 80%-88%). Compared to the originally proposed cut-off score of 45, given the higher sensitivity rate and negative predictive value, we recommend researchers and clinicians use a cut-off score of 40 to indicate possible mild to severe symptoms of dyslexia when using the Dyslexia Adult Checklist.
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.