A new definition of dyslexia is needed to more accurately describe the learning disorder and give those struggling with dyslexia the specific support they need.
A new definition of dyslexia is needed to more accurately describe the learning disorder and give those struggling with dyslexia the specific support they require, says new research.
Dyslexia has had several different definitions over the years and this murky and complicated history means it can be a postcode lottery for children who may have dyslexia, or those who have been diagnosed but can’t access the support they need.
The first step to fixing this issue, new research has argued, is to redefine dyslexia and adopt the new definition across the UK.
The research was conducted by the University of Birmingham, the SpLD Assessment Standards Committee (SASC), Kings College London, and the University of Oxford. It is published today (25 February) in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
Julia Carroll, Professor of Psychology in Education at the University of Birmingham who led the study, said: “There has not been a new attempt to define dyslexia since the Rose Review in 2009. The review provided a definition and argued for specialist teachers to help identify and support dyslexia. Despite the Rose definition significantly influencing practice, it has gathered criticism over the last 15 years and has not been universally accepted.
“In addition to this, there is no clear universal pathway for the assessment of children with dyslexia in England, Wales and Northern Island, and the process for identifying learning needs and interventions can vary massively from place to place. Adopting a universal definition for dyslexia is the first step to improving support for children experiencing the challenges of dyslexia.”
Our new definition retains the idea of difficulties with reading and spelling relative to age, ability, or educational expectations. However, it is less focused on English speakers and children. In line with evidence, we highlight that phonological processing has a causal link to dyslexia, but that other factors also play an important role in explaining variability in presentation.
The researchers brought together 58 international experts in dyslexia, including academics, specialist teachers, educational psychologists, and individuals with dyslexia, to vote on whether they agreed with several key statements about dyslexia. The statements covered six key sections: the definition of dyslexia, intellectual abilities and dyslexia, the etiology of dyslexia, co-occurrence with other disorders, the changing impact of dyslexia over a lifespan, and common misconceptions.
42 statements received a consensus of more than 80% and were accepted by the group. They were then used to create the new definition of dyslexia.
By not having a universal process to identify and support people with dyslexia, we are letting down so many of our children and young people. If the government is serious about improving SEND provision in schools, then updating and standardising the definition and assessment for dyslexia should be a priority.
Professor Carroll continued: “A definition of a learning disorder such as dyslexia, should allow researchers and practitioners to consistently establish what should, or should not be considered ‘dyslexia’, what the boundaries to diagnosis should include and what elements are important in assessment. Our new definition retains the idea of difficulties with reading and spelling relative to age, ability, or educational expectations. However, it is less focused on English speakers and children. In line with evidence, we highlight that phonological processing has a causal link to dyslexia, but that other factors also play an important role in explaining variability in presentation. We also note the high rates of co-occurrence between dyslexia and other developmental difficulties.”
In a second study from the same group, published in the Dyslexia Journal, the researchers examined ways to improve dyslexia assessments which start with the new definition. The process agreed upon by the expert panel fell into four main steps once a child has presented with difficulties in reading, spelling or writing fluency that affect daily functioning:
The study argues that, along with the standard definition, there should be a national statutory pathway to dyslexia assessment following this process.
Professor Carroll concluded: “Dyslexia is a complex learning disorder that can look different from person to person. It can have lasting impacts on education and then on working life if not identified and addressed properly. By not having a universal process to identify and support people with dyslexia, we are letting down so many of our children and young people. If the government is serious about improving SEND provision in schools, then updating and standardising the definition and assessment for dyslexia should be a priority.”
Professor of Psychology in Education
Professor Julia Carroll has a psychology background, and is interested in how psychological knowledge can support effective education, particularly for individuals with special educational needs
