Two subtypes of dyslexia (phonological, visual) have been under debate in various studies. However, the number of symptoms of dyslexia described in the literature exceeds the number of subtypes, and underlying relations remain unclear. We investigated underlying cognitive features of dyslexia with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. A sample of 446 students (63 with dyslexia) completed a large test battery and a large questionnaire. Five factors were found in both the test battery and the questionnaire. These 10 factors loaded on 5 latent factors (spelling, phonology, short-term memory, rhyme/confusion, and whole-word processing/complexity), which explained 60% of total variance. Three analyses supported the validity of these factors. A confirmatory factor analysis fit with a solution of five factors (RMSEA = .03). Those with dyslexia differed from those without dyslexia on all factors. A combination of five factors provided reliable predictions of dyslexia and nondyslexia (accuracy >90%). We also looked for factorial deficits on an individual level to construct subtypes of dyslexia, but found varying profiles. We concluded that a multiple cognitive deficit model of dyslexia is supported, whereas the existence of subtypes remains unclear. We discussed the results in relation to advanced compensation strategies of students, measures of intelligence, and various correlations within groups of those with and without dyslexia.
AnsB.CarbonnelS.ValdoisS. (1998). A connectionist multi-trace model of polysyllabic word reading. Psychological Review, 105, 678–723.
2.
BaddeleyA. D. (1986). Working memory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
BaddeleyA. D. (1990). Human memory. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
BaddeleyA. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.
5.
BaddeleyA. D. (2002). Is working memory still working?European Psychologist, 7, 85–97.
6.
BaddeleyA. D. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208.
7.
BlomertL.MittererH.PaffenC. (2004). In search of the auditory, phonetic, and/or phonological problems in dyslexia: Context effects in speech perception. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1030–1047.
8.
BlomertL.WillemsG. (2010). Is there a causal link from a phonological awareness deficit to reading failure in children at familial risk for dyslexia?Dyslexia, 16, 300–317.
9.
BoetsB.Op de BeeckH.VandermostenM.ScottS.GillebertC.MantiniD. . . . GhesquièreP. (2013). Adults with dyslexia show intact but less accessible neural representations of speech sounds. Science, 342, 1251–1254.
BosseM.-L.TainturierM. J.ValdoisS. (2009). Influence of the visual attention span on child reading performance: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 230–253.
12.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
13.
CastlesA.ColtheartM. (1993). Varieties of developmental dyslexia. Cognition47, 149–180.
14.
ColtheartM.RastleK.PerryC.LangdonR.ZieglerJ. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.
15.
De GrootA. M. B.DannenburgL.Van HellJ. G. (1994). Forward and backward word translation by bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 600–629.
16.
De JongP. F. (1998). Working memory deficits of reading disabled children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 75–96.
17.
De JongP. F.Van der LeijA. (1999). Specific contributions of phonological abilities to early reading acquisition: Results from a Dutch latent variable longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 450–476.
18.
Di FilippoG.ZoccolottiP. (2012). Separating global and specific factors in developmental dyslexia. Child Neuropsychology, 18, 356–391.
19.
FacoettiA.CorradiN.RuffinoM.GoriS.ZorziM. (2010). Visual spational attention and speech segmentation are both impaired in preschoolers at familial risk for developmental dyslexia. Dyslexia, 16, 226–239.
20.
FacoettiA.TrussardiA. N.RuffinoM.LorussoM. L.CattaneoC.GalliR. . . . ZorziM. (2009). Multisensory spatial attention deficits are predictive of phonological decoding skills in developmental dyslexia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1011–1025.
21.
HolopainenL. (2002). Development in reading and reading related skills: A follow-up study from pre-school to the fourth grade (Unpublished dissertation). University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland.
22.
KramerD.VorstH. C. M. (2007). Communicatievragenlijst voor de opsporing van dyslectische leerlingen [Communication questionnaire for the identification of dyslexic students] (Unpublished thesis). University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
23.
LachmannT.GeyerT. (2003). Letter reversals in dyslexia: Is the case really closed? A critical review and conclusions. Psychology Science, 45, 53–75.
24.
Le JanG.Le Bouquin-JeannèsR.CostetN.TrolèsN.ScalartP.PichancourtD.FauconG.GombertJ.-E. (2011). Multivariate predictive model for dyslexia diagnosis. Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 1–20.
25.
MarinusE.De JongP. F. (2010). Variability in the word-reading performance of dyslexic readers: Effects of letter length, phoneme length and digraph presence. Cortex, 46, 1259–1271.
26.
McCarthyJ. H.HoganT. P.CattsH. W. (2012). Is weak oral language associated with poor spelling in school-age children with specific language impairment, dyslexia or both?Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 26, 791–805.
27.
MenghiniD.FinziA.BenassiM.BolzaniR.FacoettiA.GiovagnoliS. . . . VicariS. (2010). Different underlying neurocognitive deficits in developmental dyslexia: A comparative study. Neuropsychologia, 48, 863–872.
PenningtonB. F. (2006). From single to multiple deficit models of developmental disorders. Cognition, 101, 385–413.
30.
RamusF.AhissarM. (2012). Developmental dyslexia: The difficulties of interpreting poor performance, and the importance of normal performance. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29(1–2), 104–122.
31.
RamusF.SzenkovitsG. (2008). What phonological deficit?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 129–141.
32.
RavenJ. C.CourtJ. H.RavenJ. (1979). A manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Tests. London, UK: H. K. Lewis.
33.
SavageR.LaversN.PillayV. (2007). Working memory and reading difficulties: What we know and what we don’t know about the relationship. Educational Psychological Review, 19, 185–221.
34.
Schulte-KörneG.BruderJ. (2010). Clinical neuropsychology of visual and auditory processing in dyslexia: A review. Clinical Neuropsychology, 121, 1794–1809.
35.
SiegelL. S. (2008). Morphological awareness skills of English language learners and children with dyslexia. Topics of Language Disorders, 28, 15–27.
36.
SnowlingM.DawesP.NashH.HulmeC. (2012). Validity of a protocol for adult self-report of dyslexia and related difficulties. Dyslexia, 18, 1–15.
37.
SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.). (2005). The science of reading: A handbook. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
38.
TamboerP.VorstH. C. M.OortF. J. (2014). Identifying dyslexia in adults: An iterative method using the predictive value of item scores and self-report questions. Annals of Dyslexia, 64, 34–56.
39.
VaessenA.BlomertL. (2010). Long-term cognitive dynamics of fluent reading development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105, 213–231.
40.
VidyasagarT. R.PammerK. (2010). Dyslexia: A deficit in visuo-spatial attention, not in phonological processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 57–63.
41.
World Health Organization. (2008). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (10th rev., 2nd ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
42.
ZieglerJ. C.BertrandD.TothD.CsépeV.ReisA. (2010). Orthographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross-language investigation. Psychological Science, 21, 551–559.
43.
ZieglerJ. C.CastelC.Pech-GeorgelC.GeorgeF.AlarioF.-X.PerryC. (2008). Developmental dyslexia and the dual route model of reading: Simulating individual differences and subtypes. Cognition, 107, 151–178.
44.
ZieglerJ. C.GoswamiU. (2006). Becoming literate in different languages: Similar problems, different solutions. Developmental Science, 9, 429–453.
