Description
Write a summary of the article in APA Format (Citations from the article required)Write an opinion of the article’s viewpoint. Using citations includes how the article relates to the powerpoints includedYour article summary and review should not be longer than four pages
Unformatted Attachment Preview
FROM THE EDITORS
Understandings and
Misunderstandings About Dyslexia:
Introduction to the Special Issue
Nathan H. Clemens
ABSTRACT
Sharon Vaughn
The purpose of this special issue was to provide a forum for contemporary
research and thoughtful discourse about dyslexia. Scholars from several
disciplines contributed articles that advance our understanding of dyslexia
with regard to early identification, genetic and neural bases, assessment,
instruction and intervention and educators’ perspectives. In this article, we
introduce the special issue, discuss current evidence and highlight persistent
misunderstandings associated with dyslexia.
Department of Special Education and
The Meadows Center for Preventing
Educational Risk, The University of Texas
at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
O
Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2)
pp. 181–187 | doi:10.1002/rrq.499
© 2023 International Literacy Association.
ver the past decade, and certainly within the last 5 years, there
has been considerable momentum around passing legislation
aimed at identifying and improving outcomes for individuals
with dyslexia world-wide (Mather et al., 2020). In the United States,
more than 42 states now have dyslexia-specific laws or policies in
place and most of the remaining states have dyslexia-related laws in
development. These laws vary in their scope but often include the following: (a) requirements related to early screening for youngsters
with or at-
risk for dyslexia, (b) prescribing requirements within
teacher preparation programs for future teachers related to knowledge and skills for teaching individuals with dyslexia, (c) describing
schools’ obligations to provide evidence-based interventions for students with dyslexia, or (d) guidelines for professional development
for current teachers related to dyslexia.
The surge of attention toward dyslexia is not the result of recent
discoveries or new evidence from the reading research community.
Rather, it has been driven primarily by an extraordinary grassroots
movement of parent advocacy organizations, led by caregivers who
seek effective instructional supports, rights and protections for their
children who they perceive were not adequately recognized or taught.
For example, Gabriel (2019) analyzed written testimony submitted to
the Connecticut state legislature regarding dyslexia legislation. Many
of the parents and students who testified described unsuccessful experiences with the reading instruction provided in their local schools
and stated that it was not until they sought out reading instructional
support, either through private tutoring or private schools, that they
reported having successful reading outcomes.
Despite the legislative momentum around dyslexia, the notion
of “dyslexia” may still be considered both a misunderstood and ill-
defined construct. Like many other health impairments that occur
along a continuum (e.g., anxiety, depression, autism, obesity),
181
182 | Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2)
some of the misconceptions that are currently part of state
policies and implemented in schools.
Overview of the Special Issue
The purpose of this special issue was to provide a forum
for contemporary research and thoughtful discourse
about dyslexia, how it is assessed, and what elements of
instruction are most effective. We considered scholars
from across the world and the many disciplines that contribute to an understanding of significant word-reading
difficulties.
The result, we believe, is a set of articles that advance
our understanding of dyslexia in multiple ways. The first
area pertains to identification and assessment-
related
issues. Wagner and Lonigan, in a series of studies, investigated methods of early identification of expected versus
unexpected reading difficulties with children as early as
preschool. Church and colleagues reviewed the state of the
science in neural and genetic research, and how the current evidence underscores the importance of early intervention and a structured, explicit approach to reading
instruction. Examining genetic transmission more specifically, Khanolainen and colleagues compared parents’ self-
reports of their own history of reading difficulties and
direct skill assessments of their reading skills in predicting
their children’s reading difficulties in samples in which
there was risk for familial transmission of dyslexia, and
samples that were not preselected.
Assessment plays a critical role in supporting students
with dyslexia, and papers in this special issue examined the
assessment of reading skills with clear implications for
intervention. With kindergarten students, Kim and Petscher
investigated the extent to which spelling and vocabulary
assessment, in addition to word reading, improved the
identification of risk for reading difficulties measured in
grade 2. Steacy and colleagues used dominance analysis to
advance research on “set for variability”—the ability to flexibly adjust pronunciations of partially or inaccurately
decoded words—
by examining the degree to which it
explains unique variance in word reading above other well-
established predictors, such as phonological awareness.
There remains a need to further establish and refine
our knowledge of best practices in instruction and intervention, and this special issue includes a set of systematic
research reviews that summarized current knowledge of
effective instruction and intervention approaches for students with or at risk for dyslexia. Dyslexia support begins in
general education, and from this lens, Shanahan reviewed
research on core instruction (i.e., tier 1) for students with
dyslexia and other reading difficulties, which included a
review of 32 meta analyses. In a meta-analysis of 53 studies
representing 6053 students, Hall and colleagues investigated the overall effects of supplemental interventions for
students with or at-risk for dyslexia, and the elements of
interventions associated with stronger outcomes. Al Otaiba
19362722, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rrq.499 by Miami Dade College, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
determining the specific criteria and cut-point for the
diagnosis of dyslexia is challenging. Although estimates of the prevalence of dyslexia have ranged from
high as 20% (Shaywitz, 2003), most studies indicate
prevalence rates below 10% (Rutter et al., 2004; Yang
et al., 2022). A lack of universally accepted cut-points
and identification methods for dyslexia has raised
issues about how to justify diagnosis and treatment.
We argue that these definitional and diagnostic issues
prevail in education and medicine and are not justification for the position that the construct of dyslexia
does not exist, but rather that the population of individuals with dyslexia will vary based on how the criteria for diagnosis are applied. We appreciate the
position that the label “dyslexia” may not be reliably
defined or categorically differentiated from subgroups
of poor readers referred to as “reading disabled” or
“significant reading difficulties” (Elliott, 2020; Elliott
& Grigorenko, 2014). We do not quibble with this
view and recognize that the term “dyslexia” has typically been reserved for a medical diagnosis of intractable reading difficulties. However, many terms in
medicine, education, and clinical psychology have
adjusted over time. The critical feature from our perspective is not the label, but the clear criteria for identification and the utilization of appropriate practices
to prevent or remediate the difficulty.
Dyslexia (i.e., word-level reading disability) is the
most commonly identified specific learning disability
and can be conceptualized as significant and persistent
difficulties reading and spelling words. These difficulties
are considered “unexpected” because they occur despite
receiving reading instruction that is effective for most
children and are not explained by other factors known
to cause difficulties in learning to read, such as disabilities with vision or hearing, or lack of familiarity with the
language of the text. Contemporary perspectives view
dyslexia as the result of an interplay among genetic,
neuropsychological, and environmental factors and
maintain that instruction plays critical preventative and
remedial roles (e.g., Catts & Petscher, 2022; Fletcher
et al., 2019). We, as well as others (e.g., Catts & Hogan,
2021; Elliott, 2020; Fletcher et al., 2019; Miciak &
Fletcher, 2020; Vaughn et al., 2023), believe that dyslexia
is best identified through an approach that considers
students’ responsiveness to generally effective instruction and intervention.
Dyslexia is recognized around the world and is represented across written languages (Grigorenko, 2001;
Mather et al., 2020). Despite the widespread use of the
term, the lack of agreement on how to best identify and
support students with dyslexia has influenced how legislators, educational stakeholders, and caregivers conceptualize screening, assessment and intervention for students
with significant difficulties in reading—and help explain
A Continued Need for Evidence-Based
Perspectives and Recommendations
Although the advocacy and legislation surrounding dyslexia are based on valid concerns and good intentions, the
movement is not without some unintended consequences
and potential pitfalls. Misunderstandings regarding what
dyslexia represents lead to confusion and disagreement
about its underlying causes, how to assess and identify it,
and how to intervene. For example, mandating that
schools conduct dyslexia-specific screening and implement dyslexia-
specific intervention on top of existing
screening and intervention practices, which often serve
the same purpose and are already implemented in many
elementary schools, has the potential to further fragment
services in under-resourced schools that already struggle
to implement effective instruction and intervention. Persistent myths and misunderstandings held by policy-
makers also risks mandating certain instructional
approaches with inadequate evidence of superiority over
other types of programs, or requiring that intervention be
delivered by staff with a special dyslexia-specific credential. Therefore, in addition to the comprehensive findings
provided by the studies in this issue, we offer a brief
description of current understandings and persistent misunderstandings surrounding dyslexia.
1. Screening risk for dyslexia can often be readily
integrated into existing reading screening
approaches. Many of the approaches that are currently in place at the state and district level for
screening and identifying students with or at risk
for significant reading problems are also useful for
screening and identifying students with dyslexia.
For example, The Primary Reading Inventory has
been in use since the late 1990s and is based on
extensive research and sophisticated analyses for
identifying students in kindergarten and first grade
who are at risk for dyslexia (Foorman et al., 1998).
Measures of phonological awareness (Wagner &
Lonigan, this issue) and alphabetic knowledge (i.e.,
letter names and sounds) administered in kindergarten are often the most indicative of risk for dyslexia (Schatschneider & Torgesen, 2004), and have
long been part of tools such as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and others (see the Academic Screening Tools Chart
maintained by the National Center on Intensive
Intervention: intensiveintervention.org). Additional research will likely reveal how screening
accuracy can be improved (e.g., Catts & Petscher,
2022), such as consideration of parents’ history of
reading difficulties (Khanolainen et al., this issue).
However, layering additional measures or procedures onto already psychometrically sound screening approaches is unnecessarily burdensome for
already thinly-stretched school resources.
2. Intervene early. Although students with dyslexia
can make gains at any age (Hall et al., this issue;
Lovett et al., 2012), early grade levels provide the
best opportunities to make gains more quickly
than when students are older (Wanzek &
Vaughn, 2007). Lovett et al. (2017), for example,
demonstrated that students with significant reading difficulties demonstrated stronger outcomes
when provided intervention in first or second
grade compared with third grade. Early screening
and intervention provide opportunities for targeting reading needs and reducing the likelihood of
long-term reading difficulties. Formal identification of dyslexia in kindergarten and first grade is
problematic because dyslexia is defined by difficulties with word reading, a skill that cannot be reasonably expected for most students until the
middle of first grade at the earliest. However, risk
factors for word-level reading difficulties can be
identified as early as kindergarten entry (e.g.,
Bishop & League, 2006; O’Connor & Jenkins, 1999),
and an instruction model focused on identifying
risk for dyslexia allows students to be provided
with supplemental, preventative interventions
when they have the greatest likelihood for success
(Catts & Hogan, 2021; Catts & Petscher, 2022).
3. Dyslexia has a familial and genetic association.
There is a higher rate of dyslexia in families with a
familial history of dyslexia—as high as 45% in most
studies (Kearns et al., 2019). As with most disorders
that have a hereditary influence, dyslexia stems
Understandings and Misunderstandings About Dyslexia: Introduction to the Special Issue | 183
19362722, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rrq.499 by Miami Dade College, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
and colleagues also synthesized research on interventions
for students with reading difficulties by synthesizing the
findings of 14 meta-
analyses and systematic literature
reviews on interventions for elementary students with
reading difficulties and disabilities. Conclusions of these
systematic reviews point to the importance of explicit code-
focused instruction across levels of instructional intensity,
which may be delivered in whole-class, small-group, or 1:1
configurations. Just as important as the conclusions these
reviews offer on what works, all three identified areas that
subsequent studies should address in determining what
elements of interventions are most effective, what conditions moderate these effects, and the student skill profiles
for which certain interventions are most effective.
Finally, any discussion about dyslexia would be remiss
without considering the voices of educators. In this issue,
Dymock and Nicholson surveyed teachers and school
leaders in New Zealand, which revealed important insight
on educators’ support for students with dyslexia, but also
gaps in their preparation and resources provided by their
schools.
4. Multisensory instruction is not the only approach
to teaching students with dyslexia. Multisensory
instruction is most often associated with the Orton-
Gillingham approach to intervention (OG;
Gillingham & Stillman, 1960, 1997), which routinely involves teaching using the engagement of
students’ visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic
responses. There are several elements to the OG
approach, including explicit and systematic phonics instruction; however, the multisensory emphasis is a feature that distinguishes it from other
programs. OG has historically been viewed as a
preferred intervention for dyslexia, as it has been
commonly recommended by advocates, appeared
prominently in case law, and is used in many specialized schools for dyslexia (Bhat et al., 2000; Rose
& Zirkel, 2007). However, systematic reviews have
indicated no statistically significant advantage of
multisensory instruction compared with other
approaches or that it is necessary for intervention
for dyslexia (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006; Stevens
et al., 2021). In their meta-analysis in this special
issue, Hall and colleagues observed that programs
categorized as multisensory were not more
184 | Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2)
effective than other programs. We recognize that
some multisensory programs, as well as other
intensive interventions, have been beneficial to
some students with dyslexia. There are many systematic approaches to improving reading outcomes for students with dyslexia, but the most
common characteristic of effective programs is the
use of explicit instruction in phonics (Al Otaiba et
al., this issue; Shanahan, this issue). Research also
indicates benefits for integrating spelling instruction within reading instruction (Graham &
Santangelo, 2014). The benefits of spelling instruction are likely due to the interdependent relationship and common foundation of spelling and word
reading (Ehri, 2000).
5. Students with dyslexia need much more than
opportunities to read books to resolve their reading problem. All students benefit from increased
opportunities to read a variety of text levels and
types. A lack of opportunities to practice reading
for a student with underlying reading difficulties
can lead to widening achievement gaps with
typically-achieving readers. However, dyslexia is
not originally caused by a lack of exposure to reading or lack of practice with it, and additional reading practice on its own is an inadequate approach
to improving their reading outcomes. Combined
with explicit code-
focused instruction, many
opportunities to read words and text are necessary
for reading development, and students with reading difficulties often need more exposure to words
to learn them compared with typically developing
readers (Share, 2008).
6. Dyslexia is not caused by impairments in vision
or visual processing. Although correlational evidence has observed that dyslexia is associated with
reduced visual processing and perception, other
studies indicate that visual processing deficits are
likely the result of less exposure to and experience
reading that is common in dyslexia, rather than a
cause of it (e.g., Olulade et al., 2013). The notion
that dyslexia is caused by visual processing problems is the basis for several other misunderstandings about dyslexia and instruction:
a. Students with dyslexia are not identified
because they see letters and words backward
or text that are mixed up. One of the oldest and
most persistent myths regarding individuals
with dyslexia is that they see and write letters
and words backward, upside down, or mixed
up. Many young children reverse letters and
make decoding and spelling errors when beginning reading and writing, and with instructional
practice and feedback, this issue is remedied.
19362722, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rrq.499 by Miami Dade College, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
from a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors (Catts & Petscher, 2022; Fletcher et
al., 2019; Olson et al., 2017; Peterson &
Pennington, 2015). Oral language, phonological
processing, and rapid automatized naming, processes thought to underlie the core word-reading
deficits in dyslexia, have evidence of genetic transmission (Grigorenko, 2001; Petrill et al., 2006;
Snowling & Melby-Lervåg, 2016). As Khanolainen
and colleagues (this issue) investigated, identifying
parent histories of reading difficulties may offer
opportunities for early identification of risk for dyslexia. However, the language and literacy supports
available in one’s home environment and at school
has considerable power to mitigate underlying
genetic factors (Catts & Petscher, 2022).
Considering reading development more generally,
a child’s early language and literacy exposure and
experiences in the home between birth and age 5
play a significant role in subsequent reading
achievement. For example, based on their review,
Snowling and Melby-
Lervåg (2016) noted that
aspects of the child’s environment can serve as protective factors that mitigate risk for children with
underlying phonological processing difficulties. We
reiterate that familial risk is complex, and can vary
on an individual basis—for some children, dyslexia
occurs despite a very strong home language and literacy environment. There is never one cause of
dyslexia.
c. Colored lenses or overlays are not associated
with improved reading for students with dyslexia. Although the use of colored lenses and
overlays continues to be recommended by
some professionals, there is no evidence to support their effectiveness in improving reading
skills (e.g., Hyatt et al., 2009; Ritchie et al., 2011).
d. Special dyslexia-specific fonts do not improve
reading skills. Creators of special fonts such as
“Dyslexie” or “OpenDyslexic” claim that text
written in these fonts is more comfortable to
read and improves reading accuracy and fluency for individuals with dyslexia. However,
several studies have observed that reading text
written in dyslexia-
specific fonts affords no
benefits compared with text written in traditional fonts, such as Arial or Times New Roman
(Galliussi et al., 2020; Kuster et al., 2018; Wery
& Diliberto, 2017). Furthermore, Kuster et
al. (2018) found that individuals with dyslexia
actually preferred reading text in traditional
fonts compared with Dyslexie. The idea that a
dyslexia-specific font improves reading is based
on the same problematic notion that dyslexia is
a visual-processing problem, which is also the
basis for vision therapies and colored overlays.
7. “Brain training” does not improve reading outcomes for students with dyslexia. Some approaches
to improving reading skills claim that they can
“retrain” the brain to result in improved learning
outcomes. Examples include “educational kinesiology,” marketed as Brain Gym® (Dennison, 2006;
Dennison & Dennison, 1994), which was developed
from earlier methods such as neurological and psychomotor “repatterning” (Doman, 1968). However,
there is no evidence that these therapies benefit
individuals’ reading skills (Hyatt, 2007). Other
examples include therapies that claim to be able to
reverse dyslexia by “rewiring” the brain
(Books, 2013). Developers of computer-
based
working memory training programs have also
claimed that improving working memory leads to
improved reading skills for individuals with reading
difficulties; however, studies have not found evidence to support the benefits of working memory
training on reading or other academic skills
(Maehler et al., 2019; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016).
8. Many educators need knowledge about how to
provide evidence-based screening, assessment,
instruction, and interventions for students with
dyslexia. Research has documented that many
educators need greater knowledge and skills for
better identifying and teaching students with dyslexia and other reading problems (Bos et al., 2001;
Cunningham et al., 2004; Spear-
Swerling &
Brucker, 2004). Students in teacher preparation
programs have been observed to have a similar
degree of knowledge about dyslexia as students in
architecture (White et al., 2020), and many teachers perceive that they lack the confidence to teach
students who are identified with dyslexia (Dymock
& Nicholson, this issue; Worthy et al., 2018).
9. Dyslexia, like many conditions, operates on a
continuum in which the severity can be represented as mild to severe. Dyslexia does not look
precisely the same for all learners and the range of
reading difficulties as a result of dyslexia also varies. There is no biological marker, single test, or
test score that reliably identifies dyslexia.
10. Many students with dyslexia display difficulties
with spelling and handwriting. Students with dyslexia often have difficulties not only with reading
words but also spelling and writing words. However,
difficulties spelling and writing words do not necessarily mean a student has dysgraphia, a condition
that involves significant difficulties in writing
(McBride & Rui En Cheah, 2021). Reading and
spelling words share a foundation of common skills,
which is why reading and spelling difficulties co-
occur so often. Effective instructional approaches
target word reading, spelling, and writing.
11. “Certified language therapists” or other specially
credentialed teachers are not the only individuals
capable of providing effective reading interventions for students with dyslexia. At present, there
are no laws in the United States that require
dyslexia-specific credentials or certifications to provide intervention to students with dyslexia. With
access to evidence-based practices and programs,
educators with all levels of training are prepared to
meet the needs of students with dyslexia. For example, a meta-analysis by Jones et al. (2021) observed
that paraprofessionals can provide reading interventions that result in meaningful improvements
for students with reading difficulties.
Understandings and Misunderstandings About Dyslexia: Introduction to the Special Issue | 185
19362722, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rrq.499 by Miami Dade College, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
b. Vision therapy is not an effective approach for
students with dyslexia. The faulty idea that dyslexia is a result of a vision disorder led to recommendations that dyslexia could be remediated
through vision therapy or training. Many vision
training approaches exist and have not been
associated with improvements in reading for
individuals with dyslexia, and are not endorsed
or recommended by groups such as the American
Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of
Ophthalmology, and American Association for
Pediatric Ophthalmology (Lueder et al., 2009).
In closing, we initially launched this special issue on
dyslexia for Reading Research Quarterly with editors Drs.
Amanda Goodwin and Robert Jimenez, and acknowledge
their support for this important topic. Our intent is that
these papers enhance the practical knowledge and scientific discourse of assessment and intervention for students
with dyslexia, prompt new research questions, and reaffirm a commitment to evidence-based practices. Many
misunderstandings around dyslexia have interfered with
educators successfully identifying and providing support
to students with dyslexia and their families. This special
issue of Reading Research Quarterly aims to take steps to
remedy these misunderstandings.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no known conflicts of interest to
disclose.
Acknowledgement
Authorship of this article was supported by the Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education,
through Grant R324A200209 (Nathan Clemens, PI) and
Grant R324A190072 (Sharon Vaughn, PI) to The University of Texas at Austin. The opinions expressed are those
of the authors and do not represent the views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.
REFERENCES
Bhat, P., Rapport, M. J. K., & Griffin, C. C. (2000). A legal perspective
on the use of specific reading methods for students with learning
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(4), 283–297. https://
doi.org/10.2307/1511350
Bishop, A. G., & League, M. B. (2006). Identifying a multivariate
screening model to predict reading difficulties at the onset of kindergarten: A longitudinal analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly,
29(4), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035552
Books, P. (2013). Reversing dyslexia: Improving learning & behavior
without drugs. Square One Publishers.
Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001).
Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice educators
186 | Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2)
about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51(1), 97–120.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-001-0007-0
Catts, H., & Hogan, T. (2021). Dyslexia: An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of diagnosis and treatment. The Reading League
Journal, 2(1), 6–13.
Catts, H. W., & Petscher, Y. (2022). A cumulative risk and resilience
model of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(3), 171–184.
Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J.
(2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge
calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1),
139–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-004-0007-y
Dennison, P. E. (2006). Brain gym and me: Reclaiming the pleasure of
learning. Edu-Kinesthetics Incorporated.
Dennison, P. E., & Dennison, G. E. (1994). Brain gym® teacher’s
edition—Revised. Edu-Kinesthetics.
Doman, C. H. (1968). The diagnosis and treatment of speech and reading problems. Thomas.
Ehri, L. C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a
coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 19–36. https://doi.
org/10.1097/00011363-200020030-00005
Elliott, J. G. (2020). It’s time to be scientific about dyslexia. Reading
Research Quarterly, 55, S61–S75.
Elliott, J. G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). The dyslexia debate (No. 14). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139017824
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2019). Learning
disabilities: From identification to intervention. The Guilford Press.
Foorman, B. R., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C. D., Chen, D.
T., Mouzaki, A., Schatschneider, C., Wristers, K., & Taylor, R. H.
(1998). Texas primary reading inventory (1998th ed.). Center for
Academic and Reading Skills and University of Houston.
Gabriel, R. E. (2019). Converting to privatization: A discourse analysis
of dyslexia policy narratives. American Educational Research Journal, 57, 305–338. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219861945
Galliussi, J., Perondi, L., Chia, G., Gerbino, W., & Bernardis, P. (2020).
Inter-letter spacing, inter-word spacing, and font with dyslexia-
friendly features: Testing text readability in people with and without
dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 70, 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11881-020-00194-x
Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. (1960). Remedial training for children
with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Educators’ Publishers Service.
Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. W. (1997). The Gillingham manual.
Educators.
https://eps.schoolspecialty.com/eps/media/site-resou
rces/downloads/program-overviews/s-og_manual.pdf
Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make
students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-
analytic
review. Reading and Writing, 27(9), 1703–1743. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0
Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Developmental dyslexia: An update on genes,
brains, and environments. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 42(1), 91–125. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0021963001006564
Hyatt, K. J. (2007). Brain gym®: Building stronger brains or wishful
thinking? Remedial and Special Education, 28(2), 117–124. https://
doi.org/10.1177/07419325070280020201
Hyatt, K.J., Stephenson, J., & Carter, M. (2009). A review of three controversial educational practices: Perceptual motor programs, sensory integration, and tinted lenses. Education and Treatment of
Children, 32(2), 313–342.
Jones, B. T., Erchul, W. P., & Geraghty, C. A. (2021). Supplemental
reading interventions implemented by paraprofessionals: A meta-
analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 58(4), 723–741.
Kearns, D. M., Hancock, R., Hoeft, F., Pugh, K. R., & Frost, S. J. (2019).
The neurobiology of dyslexia. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(3),
175–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918820051
19362722, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rrq.499 by Miami Dade College, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
12. Classroom teachers can do much to remedy dyslexia. Classroom teachers may be the most important and valuable resource f
