ArticleDyslexia (Chichester, England)2026
Consensus Without Clarity for Dyslexia Identification: A Commentary on Holden et al.
Article in Dyslexia (Chichester, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Debating the Delphi View of Dyslexia: A Response to Metsala, Morsanyi and Colleagues.Dyslexia (Chichester, England) · 2026Article
- Consensus Without Clarity for Dyslexia Identification: A Commentary on Holden et al.Dyslexia (Chichester, England) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Holden et al. (2025) conducted a Delphi study to establish consensus on how to define, identify, and assess dyslexia, with the definitional component primarily reported by Carroll et al. (2025). Although Holden et al. aim to provide guidance for practitioners, we have concerns about the study's methodology, the reinforcement of IQ testing and discrepancy-based approaches, a focus on cognitive processing difficulties, and an over-reliance on clinical judgement. We argue that their approach ultimately complicates rather than clarifies dyslexia assessment and introduces barriers to equitable identification and intervention. Instead, we advocate for an approach that prioritises direct evaluation of word reading accuracy and fluency difficulties, eliminating reliance on cognitive assessments, family history, and response to instruction as diagnostic criteria.
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.