ArticleBehavioral sciences & the law
Differences in Immediate and Delayed Suggestibility Among Children With Dyslexia and Controls.
Article in Behavioral sciences & the law. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between dyslexia and suggestibility in children, and the extent to which this relationship is accounted for by performance on Word Tasks. Participants comprised 95 children with dyslexia and 109 controls. All participants completed the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS 2), which measures immediate and delayed suggestibility 1 week apart, five different Word Tasks, and a test of non-verbal intelligence. Overall, the findings indicate a nuanced relationship between dyslexia and different components of suggestibility as measured by the GSS 2. This relationship is substantially mediated by poor verbal recall and difficulties in identifying absurd or implausible story content. This represents a novel contribution to scientific literature. The implications for interview practice are significant: special caution is required when interviewing children with "pure" dyslexia, as the absence of co-morbid neurodevelopmental conditions does not preclude vulnerability during investigative interviewing or witness testimony.
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.