Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42289863›Full record

ArticleDyslexia (Chichester, England)2026

Beyond Spelling: Oral and Written Expository Discourse Skills in Adolescents With Dyslexia.

Helena Oliv, Anna Eva Hallin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dyslexia (Chichester, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Helena OlivDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Division of Speech and Language Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1392-240X
Anna Eva HallinDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Division of Speech and Language Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1342-9223

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Students with dyslexia may produce shorter written texts with poorer content and less complex language than peers, but it remains unclear whether such differences reflect increased writing effort associated with dyslexia or co-occurring non-phonological language difficulties. Therefore, this study compared oral and written discourse skills in Swedish adolescents (11-16 years old) with dyslexia (n = 16) and typical development (n = 37). Each participant explained a sport or game of their choice-first orally and, on a later occasion, in writing. Samples were analysed for productivity, syntactic complexity, linguistic and spelling accuracy and content. No significant group differences were found in either task apart from spelling. Across groups oral samples had higher linguistic accuracy, more words and more content than written samples. The results indicate that the spelling and decoding abilities that characterise dyslexia are not associated with poorer content, productivity, complexity or accuracy of written or oral samples and highlight the importance of a thorough oral language evaluation when students present with written language difficulties beyond spelling. Future studies should compare discourse skills in adolescents with dyslexia only, dyslexia with co-occurring developmental language disorder/DLD and DLD only, to further investigate the role of non-phonological language skills in oral and written discourse production.

Indexed as

DyslexiaReadingWritingAdolescentChildFemaleHumansMaleSwedenadolescentsdyslexiaexpository discoursemodality differencesspellingwriting

Identifiers

PMID42289863
PMCPMC13265841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.