This commentary reviews some of the issues involved in the definition of reading disability and demonstrates how definitions can influence the conclusions reached by a review. In particular, the discrepancy definition of reading disability is shown to be logically flawed. Data from a large unbiased sample show that there are no significant differences between boys and girls in the incidence of reading difficulties.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
British Psychological Society. (1999). Working Party of the Division of Educational and Child Psychology of the British Psychological Society. In Dyslexia, literacy, and psychological assessment. Leicester, UK: Author .
2.
Chiappe, P., Siegel, L.S., & Gottardo, A. (2002). Reading-related skills of kindergartners from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics , 23, 95— 116.
3.
Chiappe, P., Siegel, L.S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of reading skills: A longitudinal study. Scientific Study of Reading, 6, 369—400.
4.
Ellis, A.W. (1984). Reading, writing, and dyslexia: A cognitive analysis . London: Erlbaum.
5.
Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Rourke, B.P., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (1992). The validity of discrepancy-based definitions of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 25, 555—561.
6.
Flynn, J.M., & Rahbar, M.H. (1994). Prevalence of reading failure in boys compared with girls. Psychology in the Schools, 31, 66—71.
7.
Gersons-Wolfensberger, D.C.M., & Ruijssenaar, W.A.J.J.M. (1997). Definition and treatment of dyslexia: A report by the Committee on Dyslexia of the Health Council of the Netherlands. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 209—213.
8.
Lesaux, N.K. & Siegel, L.S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 25, 1005—1019.
9.
Liederman, J., Kantrowitz, L., & Flannery, K. (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.
10.
Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia . Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1—14.
11.
Pennington, B. (1994). Genetics of learning disabilities. Journal ofChild Neurology, 10, 69—71.
12.
Share, D.L., & Silva, P.A. (2003). Gender bias in IQ-discrepancy and post-discrepancy definitions of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 36, 4—14.
13.
Shaywitz, S.E., Escobar, M.D., Shaywitz, B.A., Fletcher, J.M., & Makuch, R. (1992). Evidence that dyslexia may represent the lower end of a normal distribution of reading ability. New England Journal of Medicine, 326, 145—150.
14.
Siegel, L.S. (1988a). Definitional and theoretical issues and research on learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 21, 264—270.
15.
Siegel, L.S. (1988b). Evidence that IQ scores are irrelevant to the definition and analysis of reading disability. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 202—215.
16.
Siegel, L.S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469—478, 486.
17.
Siegel, L.S. (1990). IQ and learning disabilities: R. I. P. In H. L. Swanson & B. Keogh (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Theoretical and research issues (pp. 111—128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
Siegel, L.S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 618—629.
19.
Siegel, L.S. (1993a). Alice in IQ land or why IQ is still irrelevant to learning disabilities. In R. M. Joshi & C. K. Leong (Eds.), Reading disabilities: Diagnosis and component processes (pp. 71—84). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
20.
Siegel, L.S. (1993b). The development of reading. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 24, pp. 63—97). San Diego: Academic Press.
21.
Siegel, L.S. (2003). IQ-discrepancy definitions and the diagnosis of LD: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 2—3.
22.
Stanovich, K.E. (1989). Has the learning disabilities field lost its intelligence?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 487—492.
23.
Stanovich, K.E. (1999). The sociometrics of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 350—361.
24.
Vellutino, F.R. (1991). Bridging the gap between cognitive and neuropsychological conceptualisations of reading disability. Learning and Individual Differences, 3, 181— 203.
25.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Lyon, G.R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers. More evidence against the IQ—achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disbilities, 3, 223—238.
26.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, M., & Sipay, E.R. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601—638.
