ArticleAnnals of dyslexia2025
Language skills of adults with dyslexia in English as a foreign language: proposal of a language spontaneity deficit hypothesis.
Article in Annals of dyslexia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developmental dyslexia is characterized by reading and writing deficits that persist into adulthood. However, the mechanisms underlying these deficits appear to affect several language domains negatively. The present study aims to investigate how 18 native Spanish-speaking adults with developmental dyslexia perform different language tasks in English as a foreign language. For this purpose, reading and oral comprehension were performed along with written and oral production tasks by adults with dyslexia and their control peers. The results suggest that Spanish adults with dyslexia need more time to read English texts, and their reading comprehension is significantly worse than that of the control group. In written production, differences from the control group were found in the number of spelling errors. In addition, the oral productions showed differences in semantic errors, lexical diversity, and sentence complexity. Interestingly, the group differences for all measures were greater for the oral than for the written production tasks, leading to the hypothesis that this population is negatively affected by the spontaneity of the situation. In terms of practical implications, it seems important to provide special support for adults with dyslexia not only for written language learning but also for oral language learning in English.
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.