Extensive research indicates that there are more boys than girls who are struggling readers, although considerable variation in gender ratios has been reported as a result of a lack of consensus in defining and measuring poor reading. The purpose of this study was to establish stable and consistent gender ratios for poor reading using a single definition and measure Australia-wide. The National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) is the first large-scale assessment to assess all students across Australia on the same measure, at the same time. By defining poor reading as scoring in the lowest band, gender ratios computed for Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 ranged from 1.44 to 1.68. Gender ratios decreased when a less stringent definition was applied. Gender ratios for poor performance in writing, spelling, punctuation and grammar, and numeracy are also reported.
AaronP.G.JoshiR.M.GoodenR.BentumK.E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 67–84.
2.
BadianN.A. (1999). Reading disability defined as a discrepancy between listening and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study of stability, gender differences and prevalence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 138–148.
3.
BakerD.P.GoeslingB.LetendreG.K. (2002). Socioeconomic status, school quality, and national economic development: Across-national analysis of the ‘Heyneman—Loxley effect’ on mathematics and science achievement. Comparative Education Review, 46, 291–312.
4.
BeamanR.WheldallK.KempC. (2006). Differential teacher attention to boys and girls in the classroom. Educational Review, 58, 339–366.
5.
BerningerV.W.NielsenK.H.AbbottR.D.WijsmanE.RaskindW. (2008). Gender differences in severity of writing and reading disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 151–172.
6.
Bowyer-CraneC.SnowlingJ. (2005). Assessing children's inference generation: What do tests of reading comprehension measure?British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(13), 189–201.
7.
BradleyR.H.CorwynR.F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399.
8.
BradleyS.DracaM.GreenC.LeevesG. (2007). The magnitude of educational disadvantage of indigenous minority groups in Australia. Journal of Population Economics, 20, 547–569.
9.
BurtL.HolmA.DoddB. (1999). Phonological awareness skills of 4-year-old British children: An assessment and developmental data. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 34, 311–335.
10.
ClementsA.M.RimrodtS.L.AbelJ.R.BlanknerJ.G.MostofskyS.H.PekarJ.J.DencklaM.B.CuttingL.E. (2006). Sex differences in cerebral laterality of language and visuospatial processing. Brain and Language, 98, 150–158.
11.
CoutinhoM.J.OswaldD.P.BestA.M. (2002). The influence of sociodemo-graphics and gender on the disproportionate identification of minority students as having learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 49–59.
12.
CuttingL.E.ScarboroughH.S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277–300.
13.
DoddB.HolmA.HuaZ.CrosbieS. (2003). Phonological development: A normative study of British English-speaking children. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17, 617–643.
14.
FlanneryK.A.LiedermanJ.DalyL.SchultzJ. (2000). Male prevalence for reading disability is found in a large sample of Black and White children free from ascertainment bias. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6, 433–442.
15.
FlussJ.ZieglerJ.C.WarszawskiJ.DucotB.RichardG.BillardC. (2009). Poor reading in French elementary school: The interplay of cognitive, behavioral, and socioeconomic factors. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 30, 206–216.
16.
FrancisD.J.FletcherJ.M.StuebingK.K.LyonG.R.ShaywitzB.A.ShaywitzS.E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–108.
17.
FriendA.OlsonR.K. (2008). Phonological spelling and reading deficits in children with spelling disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 90–105.
18.
HalpernD.F.LaMayM.I. (2000). The smarter sex: A critical review of sex differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 229–246.
19.
HawkeJ.L.OlsonR.K.WillcutE.G.WadsworthS.J.DeFriesJ.C. (2009). Gender ratios for reading difficulties. Dyslexia, 15, 239–242.
20.
HawkeJ.L.WadsworthS.J.DeFriesJ.C. (2005). Genetic influences on reading difficulties in boys and girls: The Colorado twin study. Dyslexia, 12, 21–29.
21.
HudsonR.F.HighL.OtaibaS. Al (2007). Dyslexia and the brain: What does current research tell us?The Reading Teacher, 60, 506–515.
22.
HydeJ.S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.
23.
JohnsonS. (1996). The contribution of large-scale assessment programmes to research on gender differences. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2, 25–49.
24.
KatusicS.K.ColliganR.C.BarbaresiW.J.SchaidD.J.JacobsenS.J. (2001). Incidence of reading disability in a population-based birth cohort, 1976–1982, Rochester, MN. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 76, 1081–1092.
25.
KeenanJ.M.BetjemannR.S.OlsonR.K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300.
26.
LevyF.HayD.A.BennettK.S.McStephenM. (2005). Gender differences in ADHD subtype comorbidity. Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 368–376.
27.
LiedermanJ.KantrowitzL.FlanneryK. (2005). Male vulnerability to reading disability is not likely to be a myth: A call for new data. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 109–129.
28.
LimbrickL.WheldallK.MadelaineA. (2008). Gender ratios of reading disability: Are there really more boys than girls who are low-progress readers?Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 13, 161–179.
29.
LimbrickL.WheldallK.MadelaineA.(in press). Why do more boys than girls have a reading disability? A review of the evidence. Australian Journal of Special Education.
30.
LohmanD.F.LakinJ.M. (2009). Consistencies in sex differences on the Cognitive Abilities Test across countries, grades, test forms, and cohorts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 389–407.
31.
LynnR.MikkJ. (2009). Sex differences in reading achievement. Trames, 13, 3–13.
32.
MachinS.PekkarinenT. (2008). Global sex differences in test score variability. Science, 322, 1331–1332.
33.
MarksG.N. (2008). Accounting for the gender gaps in student performance in reading and mathematics: Evidence from 31 countries. Oxford Review of Education, 34, 89–109.
34.
MartinA.J. (2004). School motivation of boys and girls: Differences of degree, differences of kind, or both?Australian Journal of Psychology, 56, 133–146.
35.
MilesT.R.HaslumM.N.WheelerT.J. (1998). Gender ratio in dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 27–55.
36.
MillsK.A. (2008). Will large-scale assessments raise literacy standards in Australian schools?Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31, 211–225.
37.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (MCEETYA) (2008a). 2008 National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy: Achievement in Reading, Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy. Canberra: Author. Retrieved 2 February 2009 from http://www.naplan.edu.au/verve/_resources/2ndStageNationalReport_18Dec_v2.pdf
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (MCEETYA) (2008c). National Literacy and Numeracy Assessments May 2008: NAPLAN Reporting Scales. Canberra: Author. Retrieved 2 February 2009 from http://www.naplan.edu.au/verve/_resources/NAPLAN_Reporting_Scales.pdf
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (MCEETYA) (2008e). NAPLAN Sample Questions. Canberra: Author. Retrieved 2 February 2009 from http://www.naplan.edu.au/test_samples/test_samples.html
42.
MucherahW.YoderA. (2008). Motivation for reading and middle school students' performance on standardized testing in reading. Reading Psychology, 29, 214–235.
43.
NationK.SnowlingM. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skill. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 359–370.
44.
OlsonR.K. (2002). Dyslexia: Nature and nurture. Dyslexia, 8, 143–159.
45.
Pereira-LairdJ.DeaneF.P.BunnellJ. (1999). Defining reading disability using a multifaceted approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 59–71.
46.
PickleM.J. (1998). Historical trends in biological and medical investigations of reading disabilities: 1850–1915. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 625–635.
47.
PriorM. (2009). Early language and reading skills in Indigenous children in Australia. Learning Difficulties Australia Bulletin, March, 15–16.
48.
PriorM.SansonA.SmartD.OberklaidF. (1995). Reading disability in an Australian community sample. Australian Journal of Psychology, 47, 32–37.
49.
RutterM.CaspiA.FergussonD.HorwoodL.J.GoodmanR.MaughanB.MoffittT.E.MeltzerH.CarrollJ. (2004). Sex differences in developmental reading disability: New findings from 4 epidemiological studies. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 2007–2012.
50.
SavageR.CarlessS. (2004). Predicting curriculum and test performance at age 7 years from pupil background, baseline skills and phonological awareness at age 5. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 155–171.
51.
ShareD.L.SilvaP.A. (2003). Gender bias in IQ-discrepancy and post—discrepancy definitions of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 4–14.
52.
ShaywitzB.A.ShaywitzS.E.PughK.R.ConstableR.T.SkudlarskiP.FulbrightR.K.BronenR.A.FletcherJ.M.ShankwellerD.P.KatzL.GoreJ.C. (1995). Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language. Nature, 373, 607–609.
53.
ShaywitzS.E.ShaywitzB.A.FletcherJ.M.EscobarM.D. (1990). Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls: Results of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 22, 998–1002.
54.
SiegelL.S.SmytheI.S. (2005). Reflections on research on reading disability with special attention to gender issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 473–477.
55.
SloaneF.C.KellyA.E. (2003). Issues in high-stakes testing programs. Theory into Practice, 42, 12–17.
56.
SmartD.PriorM.SansonA.OberklaidF. (2001). A six-year follow-up from early primary school to secondary school. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 45–53.
57.
SofieC.A.RiccioC.A. (2002). A comparison of multiple methods for the identification of children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 234–244.
58.
SoodakL.C. (2000). Performance assessments and students with learning problems: Promising practice or reform rhetoric?Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16, 257–280.
59.
StevensonJ. (1992). Identifying sex differences in reading disability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 307–326.
60.
StrandS.DearyI.J.SmithP. (2006). Sex differences in Cognitive Abilities Test scores: A UK national picture. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 463–480.
61.
WheldallK.LimbrickL. (2010). Do more boys than girls have reading problems?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(2).
62.
WillcuttE.G.PenningtonB.F. (2000). Comorbidity of reading disability and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Differences by gender and subtype. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 179–191.
63.
WrightS.F.FieldsH.NewmanS.P. (1996). Dyslexia: Stability of definition over a 5 year period. Journal of Research in Reading, 19, 46–60.
