ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Characterization of reading processes in Brazilian adolescents: development of criteria for identifying students at risk for dyslexia.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Reading processes in Brazilian pre-adolescent and adolescent students are scarcely investigated, and it is essential to identify gaps and possible dyslexic students that have not yet been determined. Therefore, the objective of this study was to characterize the reading processes in adolescents and develop criteria to identify Brazilian students at risk for dyslexia in middle school. Methods: Two hundred six students participated in the study, divided into four groups: 55 students (6th grade), 54 students (7th grade), 46 students (8th grade), and 51 students (9th grade). Initially, they were assessed collectively in the Evaluation of the Reading Processes Test. Criteria were developed, and the students were classified in relation to their reading performance as no risk, low risk (LR) and high risk (HR) for dyslexia. Only students who presented low or high risk were assessed individually, that is, 84 students. These were evaluated separately and classified in relation to accuracy and reading speed, meeting the criteria for risk for dyslexia. Finally, they were classified into phonological, visual and undefined profiles. Results: The collective phase revealed 27.3% LR and 12.7% with HR in GI, 29.6% with LR and 25.9% with HR in 7th grade, 23.9% with LR and 13% with HR in 8th grade, and 23.5% with LR and 5.9% with HR in 9th grade. As for profiles, 34.6% met the criteria for phonological profile, 23.8% for visual profile, 2.4% for mixed profile, and 39.3% of students did not fit the established profile criteria. Conclusion: Assessments are necessary for this population, as evidenced by the indication of students at risk for dyslexia who have not yet been diagnosed. Finally, the study reinforces the idea of the heterogeneous nature of dyslexia in pre-adolescent and adolescent students.
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.