dyslexia research paper thesis

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia research: a bibliometric analysis.

• 1 Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital/West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
• 2 Department of Periodical Press and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
• 3 Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

Background: Citation analysis is a type of quantitative and bibliometric analytic method designed to rank papers based on their citation counts. Over the last few decades, the research on dyslexia has made some progress which helps us to assess this disease, but a citation analysis on dyslexia that reflects these advances is lacking.

Methods: A retrospective bibliometric analysis was performed using the Web of Science Core Collection database. The 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia were retrieved after reviewing abstracts or full-texts to May 20th, 2021. Data from the 100 top-cited studies were subsequently extracted and analyzed.

Results: The 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia were cited between 245 to 1,456 times, with a median citation count of 345. These studies were published in 50 different journals, with the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America” having published the most ( n = 10). The studies were published between 1973 and 2012 and the most prolific year in terms of number of publications was 2000. Eleven countries contributed to the 100 top-cited studies, and nearly 75% articles were either from the USA ( n = 53) or United Kingdom ( n = 21). Eighteen researchers published at least two different studies of the 100 top-cited list as the first author. Furthermore, 71 studies were published as an original research article, 28 studies were review articles, and one study was published as an editorial material. Finally, “Psychology” was the most frequent study category.

Conclusions: This analysis provides a better understanding on dyslexia and may help doctors, researchers, and stakeholders to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of classic studies, new discoveries, and trends regarding this research field, thus promoting ideas for future investigation.

Introduction

Dyslexia is a common learning disorder that affects between 4 and 8% of children ( 1 – 3 ), and often persists into adulthood ( 4 , 5 ). This neurodevelopmental disorder is characterized by reading and spelling impairments that develop in a context of normal intelligence, educational opportunities, and perceptual abilities ( 4 , 6 ). Reading and spelling abilities can be affected together or separately. The learning abilities of children with dyslexia are significantly lower than those of their unaffected pairs of the same age. Generally, difficulties begin to show during the early school years. Dyslexia is a complex multifactorial disorder whose etiology has not been fully elucidated, and it has caused great social and economic burdens. Over the last few decades, the research on dyslexia has made some progress. For example, some studies have shown that dyslexia has a strong genetic background that can affect brain anatomy ( 7 , 8 ) and function ( 9 , 10 ). But a citation analysis on dyslexia that reflects these advances is lacking.

The publication of study results in scientific journals is the most effective strategy to disseminate new research findings. A high number of citations can indicate the potential of a paper to influence the research community and to generate meaningful changes in clinical practice ( 11 ). Citation analysis is a type of quantitative and bibliometric analytic method designed to rank papers based on their citation counts. The latest and up-to-date research findings on dyslexia are well-reflected in recent scientific papers ( 12 ), particularly in the most cited ones ( 13 , 14 ). By analyzing the most cited studies, especially the 100 top-cited studies, we can gain better insight into the most significant advances made in the field of dyslexia research over the course of the past several decades ( 15 ). This retrospective bibliometric approach has been used for many other diseases, such as diabetes ( 16 ), endodontics ( 17 ), cancer ( 18 ). However, to date, no bibliometric analyses have been conducted in the field of dyslexia. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to analyze the 100 top-cited studies in the field of dyslexia.

Materials and Methods

Search method and inclusion criteria.

This retrospective bibliometric analysis was conducted using the Web of Science Core Collection database. The Web of Science Core Collection is a multidisciplinary database with searchable authors and abstracts covering a vast science journal literature ( 19 ). It indexes the major journals of more than 170 subject categories, providing access to retrospective data between 1945 and the present ( 20 ). On May 20th, 2021, we conducted an exhaustive literature retrieval, regardless of the country of origin, publication year, and language. The only search term used was “dyslexia” and the search results were sorted by the number of citations.

Article Selection

Two authors independently screened the abstracts or full-texts to identify the 100 top-cited articles about dyslexia. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Only studies that focused on dyslexia were included in subsequent analyses. Studies that only mentioned dyslexia in passing were excluded.

Data Extraction

The final list of the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia was determined by total article citation counts. We extracted the following data for each article: title, authors, journal, language, total citation count, publication year, country, journal impact factor, type of article, and Web of Science subject category. If the reprint author had two or more affiliations from different countries, we used the first affiliation as the country of origin. If one article was listed in more than one subject category, the first category was selected. If one article had more than one author, we selected the first-ranked author as the first author and the last-ranked author as the last-author.

Data Analysis

SPSS 11.0 (Chicago, IL, USA) was used to count the frequency. We analyzed the following data: citation count, year of publication, country, the first author, journal, language, type of study, and Web of Science subject category.

Citation Analysis

The 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia based on total citations are listed in Table 1 . The total citation count for these 100 articles combined was 42,222. The total citation count of per study ranged from 245 to 1,456 times, with a median citation count of 345. Only 3 studies were cited more than 1,000 times, and the rest of the studies were cited between 100 and 1,000 times. The title of the top-cited study, which also had the largest mean citation per year count ( n = 91), was “Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory,” which was published by Ziegler et al. in Psychological Bulletin in 2005 ( 21 ). The second top-cited study, which also had the second-highest mean citation per year count ( n = 80), was published by Vellutino et al. ( 22 ). In addition, we also identified the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia based on mean citation per year, whose results were shown in Supplementary Table 1 .

Table 1 . The 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia based on total citations.

The different journals of the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia and their associated impact factors are listed in Table 2 . The 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia were published in 50 different journals, with the top three in frequency being “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America” ( n = 10), “Brain” ( n = 6), and “Journal of Educational Psychology” ( n = 6).

Table 2 . Journals of the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia.

The journal with the highest total citation count was “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.” However, the highest average citation count per study belonged to the journal “Psychological Bulletin.” The journal impact factors of the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia ranged from 1.315 to 74.699. Of the 100 top-cited studies, 29 were published in a journal with an impact factor greater than 10. The standard “CNS” journals, with the exception of “Cell,” “Nature,” and “Science” published 2 and 3 studies, respectively. Regarding the top four medical journals, while the “New England Journal of Medicine” and “Lancet” published 2 studies each, no top-cited study was published by the “Journal of the American Medical Association” or the “British Medical Journal.”

Language and Year of Publication

The 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia were all published in English and were published between 1973 [by Boder et al. ( 23 )] and 2012 [by Norton et al. ( 24 ) and Peterson et al. ( 25 )] ( Table 3 ). The most productive years were 2000, 2001 and 2003, with 9, 8 and 8 published articles, respectively. The year of 2003 had the most total citations with a total count of 3,788 and an average citation count per study of 474.

Table 3 . Publication year of the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia.

Countries and Authors

Eleven countries contributed articles to the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia ( Table 4 ). Most of the articles were from the USA ( n = 53), United Kingdom ( n = 21), Canada ( n = 7), and France ( n = 6). In addition, the USA had the highest total citation count (23,129), and Italy had the highest average citation count per study (665).

Table 4 . Countries of the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia.

As shown in Table 5 , there were 18 first-authors and 13 last-authors who published more than one of the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia. Among them, Shaywitz SE published the most top 100 articles ( n = 7) on dyslexia as the first author, followed by Galaburda AM ( n = 3) and Pugh KR ( n = 3). And for the last author, 8 studies of the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia research were published by Shaywitz BA who was the most productive.

Table 5 . Authors with at least two first-author or last-author publications in the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia.

Publication Type and Web of Science Subject Categories

As shown in Table 6 , there were 71 studies in the form of an original research article, 28 studies in the form of a review article, and one study in the form of an editorial material publication. The total citation counts for each publication type were 27,812, 13,899, and 511, respectively. Although the type of original research article had the highest total citation count, it had the lowest average citation count per study. In addition, a total of 12 Web of Science subject categories were extracted. Among them, “Psychology” was the most frequent category associated with studies [35], followed by “Clinical Neurology” [15], and “Multidisciplinary Sciences” [15], “Neurosciences” [12], and “Education” [6]. Consistent with the number of studies, the subject categories of “Psychology” and “Clinical Neurology” also had the highest total citation counts (15,683 and 6,427, respectively). The “Behavioral Sciences” subject category had the highest average citation count.

Table 6 . Type of study and subject categories for the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia.

Although retrospective bibliometric approach has been conducted in many other diseases, to our knowledge, no citation analyses have examined publications on dyslexia. Therefore, this study is the first comprehensive analysis summarizing several features of the most influential studies on dyslexia. It has been suggested that a highly cited study can be considered as a milestone study in a related field and has the potential to generate meaningful changes in clinical practice ( 26 ). We believe that the present analysis of the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia may be beneficial to the research community for the following reasons. First, the present study not only provides a historical projection of the scientific progress with regards to dyslexia research, but it also shows associated research trends and gaps in the field ( 27 ). Second, our findings provide critical quantitative information about how both the classic studies and recent advancements in the field have improved our understanding of dyslexia ( 28 ). Third, the present analysis may help journal editors, funding agencies, and reviewers critically evaluate studies and funding applications ( 28 ).

Our analysis discovered that the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia were published in 50 different journals. This may reflect the fact that the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia were very multidisciplinary in nature, unlike the top studies of other fields (e.g., psoriatic arthritis) where there is a more inherent researcher bias for journal selection ( 29 ). Of the 100 top-cited studies, 29 were published in a journal with an impact factor >10, and 62 studies were published in journal with an impact factor >5. However, there were only five studies published in the standard “CNS” journals and only four published in the top four medical journals, which suggests that most dyslexia researchers are more inclined to choose the most influential journals in their respective professional fields when submitting articles ( 30 ). This is in marked contrast with some other fields (e.g. vaccines), where the majority of top-cited articles are published in either the standard “CNS” journals or in the top four medical journals ( 15 ). Several other factors, such as the review turnaround time, likelihood of manuscript acceptance, publication costs, journal publication frequency, will all invariably also affect a researcher's journal selection ( 13 , 20 ).

According to the results of our analysis, nearly 80% of the 100 top-cited studies on dyslexia were published between 1990 and 2005, and the years of 2000 was found to have the most publications. The increase of landmark publications between 1990 and 2005 might reflect an increase in the interest in dyslexia research or that researchers had made some important scientific breakthroughs during this time period. All the top-cited studies on dyslexia were published in English, likely because English is the most commonly used language for knowledge dissemination in the world.

The top countries with regards to total citation count and number of papers in the top 100 list were the USA ( n = 53) and United Kingdom ( n = 21), which accounted for ~75% of the 100 top-cited studies. The USA published the most studies from the list, and this is probably because some of the world's top research centers are located in the USA and likely also the USA receives more research funding ( 31 ). Furthermore, the most prolific first-author (Shaywitz SE) and last-author (Shaywitz BA) were also from the USA. It is also worth mentioning that China had two studies on the top 100 list, which attests to the improvement of our national scientific research community with regards to knowledge dissemination.

In the present study, there were more original research articles ( n = 71) than review articles ( n = 28), but the latter had higher average citation counts per study. These results indicate that even though researchers pay significant attention to new findings on dyslexia, they regularly use information from review articles to convey relevant points in their own papers. We found that “Psychology” was the most frequent subject category associated with the top 100 articles, which indicates that researchers have been working to find effective treatments for people with dyslexia and that research in this field will continue to progress.

Like with other bibliometric analyses, there are some study limitations that should be highlighted. First, the 100 top-cited studies were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection, which might have excluded some top-cited studies from other databases, such as Scopus and Google Scholar. Second, there was no citation data for recently published studies. Third, self-citations might have substantially influenced the results of the citation analysis. Moreover, this was a cross-sectional study, which implies that the identified 100 top-cited studies could change in the future. Despite these limitations, this descriptive bibliometric study could contribute new information about the scientific interest in dyslexia.

In conclusion, the present analysis is the first analysis to recognize the 100 top-cited studies in the field of dyslexia. This analysis provides a better understanding on dyslexia and may help doctors, researchers, and stakeholders to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of classic studies, new discoveries, and trends regarding this research field. As new data continue to emerge, this bibliometric analysis will become an important quantitative instrument to ascertain the overall direction of a given field, thus promoting ideas for future investigation.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author Contributions

YZ and HF designed the study. SZ and YZ acquired the data and performed statistical analyses. SZ, YZ, and HF drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the article and approved the final version of the manuscript.

This study was partly supported by National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University (Z2018B016).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.714627/full#supplementary-material

1. Fortes IS Paula CS Oliveira MC Bordin IA de Jesus Mari J Rohde LA. A cross-sectional study to assess the prevalence of DSM-5 specific learning disorders in representative school samples from the second to sixth grade in Brazil. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2016) 25:195–207. doi: 10.1007/s00787-015-0708-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Landerl K, Moll K. Comorbidity of learning disorders: prevalence and familial transmission. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discipl. (2010) 51:287–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02164.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Castillo A, Gilger JW. Adult perceptions of children with dyslexia in the USA. Ann Dyslexia. (2018) 68:203–17. doi: 10.1007/s11881-018-0163-0

4. Peterson RL, Pennington BF. Developmental dyslexia. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. (2015) 11:283–307. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032814-112842

5. Cavalli E, Colé P, Brèthes H, Lefevre E, Lascombe S, Velay JL. E-book reading hinders aspects of long-text comprehension for adults with dyslexia. Ann Dyslexia. (2019) 69:243–59. doi: 10.1007/s11881-019-00182-w

6. Wang LC, Liu D, Xu Z. Distinct effects of visual and auditory temporal processing training on reading and reading-related abilities in Chinese children with dyslexia. Ann Dyslexia. (2019) 69:166–85. doi: 10.1007/s11881-019-00176-8

7. Skeide MA, Kraft I, Müller B, Schaadt G, Neef NE, Brauer J, et al. NRSN1 associated grey matter volume of the visual word form area reveals dyslexia before school. Brain. (2016) 139:2792–803. doi: 10.1093/brain/aww153

8. Kraft I, Schreiber J, Cafiero R, Metere R, Schaadt G, Brauer J, et al. Predicting early signs of dyslexia at a preliterate age by combining behavioral assessment with structural MRI. NeuroImage. (2016) 143:378–86. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.09.004

9. Neef NE, Müller B, Liebig J, Schaadt G, Grigutsch M, Gunter TC, et al. Dyslexia risk gene relates to representation of sound in the auditory brainstem. Dev Cogn Neurosci. (2017) 24:63–71. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2017.01.008

10. Männel C, Meyer L, Wilcke A, Boltze J, Kirsten H, Friederici AD. Working-memory endophenotype and dyslexia-associated genetic variant predict dyslexia phenotype. Cortex. (2015) 71:291–305. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.06.029

11. Perazzo MF, Otoni ALC, Costa MS, Granville-Granville AF, Paiva SM, Martins-Júnior PA. The top 100 most-cited papers in paediatric dentistry journals: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Paediatr Dentist. (2019) 29:692–711. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12563

12. Daley EM, Vamos CA, Zimet GD, Rosberger Z, Thompson EL, Merrell L. The feminization of HPV: reversing gender biases in US human papillomavirus vaccine policy. Am J Public Health. (2016) 106:983–4. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303122

13. Kolkailah AA, Fugar S, Vondee N, Hirji SA, Okoh AK, Ayoub A, et al. Bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most cited articles in the first 50 years of heart transplantation. Am J Cardiol. (2019) 123:175–86. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.09.010

14. Zhao X, Guo L, Lin Y, Wang H, Gu C, Zhao L, et al. The top 100 most cited scientific reports focused on diabetes research. Acta Diabetol. (2016) 53:13–26. doi: 10.1007/s00592-015-0813-1

15. Zhang Y, Quan L, Xiao B, Du L. The 100 top-cited studies on vaccine: a bibliometric analysis. Hum Vacc Immunother. (2019) 15:3024–31. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2019.1614398

16. Beshyah WS, Beshyah SA. Bibliometric analysis of the literature on Ramadan fasting and diabetes in the past three decades (1989-2018). Diabetes Res Clin Pract. (2019) 151:313–22. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2019.03.023

17. Adnan S, Ullah R. Top-cited articles in regenerative endodontics: a bibliometric analysis. J Endodontics. (2018) 44:1650–64. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.07.015

18. Gao Y, Shi S, Ma W, Chen J, Cai Y, Ge L, et al. Bibliometric analysis of global research on PD-1 and PD-L1 in the field of cancer. Int Immunopharmacol. (2019) 72:374–84. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2019.03.045

19. Yu T, Jiang Y, Gamber M, Ali G, Xu T, Sun W. Socioeconomic status and self-rated health in China: findings from a cross-sectional study. Medicine. (2019) 98:e14904. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014904

20. Yoon DY, Yun EJ, Ku YJ, Baek S, Lim KJ, Seo YL, et al. Citation classics in radiology journals: the 100 top-cited articles, 1945-2012. AJR Am J Roentgenol. (2013) 201:471–81. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.10489

21. Ziegler JC, Goswami U. Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychol Bull. (2005) 131:3–29. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3

22. Vellutino FR, Fletcher JM, Snowling MJ, Scanlon DM. Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades? J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discipl. (2004) 45:2–40. doi: 10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305.x

23. Boder E. Developmental dyslexia: a diagnostic approach based on three atypical reading-spelling patterns. Dev Med Child Neurol. (1973) 15:663–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1973.tb05180.x

24. Norton ES, Wolf M. Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency: implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Ann Rev Psychol. (2012) 63:427–52. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100431

25. Peterson RL, Pennington BF. Developmental dyslexia. Lancet. (2012) 379:1997–2007. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60198-6

26. Van Noorden R, Maher B, Nuzzo R. The top 100 papers. Nature. (2014) 514:550–3. doi: 10.1038/514550a

27. Fardi A, Kodonas K, Gogos C, Economides N. Top-cited articles in endodontic journals. J Endodontics. (2011) 37:1183–90. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.05.037

28. Gondivkar SM, Sarode SC, Gadbail AR, Gondivkar RS, Choudhary N, Patil S. Citation classics in cone beam computed tomography: the 100 top-cited articles. Int J Dentistry. (2018) 2018:9423281. doi: 10.1155/2018/9423281

29. Berlinberg A, Bilal J, Riaz IB, Kurtzman DJB. The 100 top-cited publications in psoriatic arthritis: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Dermatol. (2019) 58:1023–34. doi: 10.1111/ijd.14261

30. Bullock N, Ellul T, Bennett A, Steggall M, Brown G. The 100 most influential manuscripts in andrology: a bibliometric analysis. Basic Clin Androl. (2018) 28:15. doi: 10.1186/s12610-018-0080-4

31. Shadgan B, Roig M, Hajghanbari B, Reid WD. Top-cited articles in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabilit. (2010) 91:806–15. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.01.011

Keywords: dyslexia, bibliometric analysis, top-cited, citation analysis, citation

Citation: Zhang S, Fan H and Zhang Y (2021) The 100 Top-Cited Studies on Dyslexia Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Front. Psychiatry 12:714627. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.714627

Received: 25 May 2021; Accepted: 28 June 2021; Published: 22 July 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Zhang, Fan and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Hong Fan, fanhongfan@qq.com ; Yonggang Zhang, jebm_zhang@yahoo.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Dyslexia, Literacy Difficulties and the Self-Perceptions of Children and Young People: a Systematic Review

• Open access
• Published: 09 November 2019
• Volume 40 , pages 5595–5612, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Rosa Gibby-Leversuch   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1695-877X 1 ,
• Brettany K. Hartwell 2 &
• Sarah Wright   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6500-370X 2  

25k Accesses

25 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This systematic review investigates the links between literacy difficulties, dyslexia and the self-perceptions of children and young people (CYP). It builds on and updates Burden’s ( 2008 ) review and explores how the additional factors of attributional style and the dyslexia label may contribute to CYP’s self-perceptions. Nineteen papers are included and quality assessed. Quantitative papers measured the self-reported self-perceptions of CYP with literacy difficulties and/or dyslexia (LitD/D) and compared these with the CYP without LitD/D. Qualitative papers explored the lived experiences of CYP with LitD/D, including their self-views and how these were affected by receiving a dyslexia diagnosis. Results suggest that CYP with LitD/D may be at greater risk of developing negative self-perceptions of themselves as learners, but not of their overall self-worth. Factors found to be relevant in supporting positive self-perceptions include adaptive attributional styles, good relationships with peers and parents, and positive attitudes towards dyslexia and neurodiversity. In some cases, CYP with LitD/D felt that others perceived them as unintelligent or idle; for these CYP, a diagnosis led to more positive self-perceptions, as it provided an alternative picture of themselves. There is a need for further research to explore the impact of attributional style and the potential for intervention, as well as CYPs’ experiences of diagnosis and the associated advantages or disadvantages.

Similar content being viewed by others

What Norwegian Individuals Diagnosed with Dyslexia, Think and Feel About the Label “Dyslexia”

Dyslexia in the twenty-first century: a commentary on the IDA definition of dyslexia

Do we really need a new definition of dyslexia a commentary, explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

A broad field of dyslexia research exists, some of which has focused on the social and emotional aspects of dyslexia, specifically self-perceptions. Research in this area has revealed mixed findings: some papers indicate that dyslexia is linked with experiences of stigmatisation and lowered self-concept (e.g. Polychroni et al. 2006 ; Riddick 2000 ) whereas others find that dyslexia is not associated with negative self-perceptions (e.g. Burden and Burdett 2005 ) or that the labelling of dyslexia can increase self-esteem (e.g. Gibson and Kendall 2010 ; Solvang 2007 ). Some of the differences in findings can certainly be attributed to the array of definitions and measurement tools used, with some papers conflating self-esteem and self-concept.

Two reviews have looked specifically at LitD/D and self-perceptions: Chapman and Tunmer ( 2003 ) and Burden ( 2008 ). Chapman and Tunmer found that reading self-perceptions develop in response to actual reading performance as early as the first year of school. Burden found that while academic self-concept tended to be lower in CYP with dyslexia, compared to typically achieving peers, this did not necessarily impact on self-esteem. His paper is highly relevant to the current review, however, the majority of papers included were written prior to 2000. Both review papers suggested that attributional style may be an important factor in developing self-perceptions and should be further researched.

This review extends Chapman and Tunmer’s ( 2003 ) and Burden’s ( 2008 ) reviews by looking at literature in the 10 years since, by operationalising self-perception terms and considering the impact of differing definitions of dyslexia. This review imposes definitions on a dataset that uses multiple definitions and terms relating to self-perceptions, one of the weaknesses of the previous literature that was highlighted by Burden’s review.

In addition, this review will evaluate the research within the context of current systems of education and dyslexia assessment, including considering some of the pertinent issues that were not explored in previous reviews: looking beyond within-child factors by exploring the impact of the CYP’s educational setting on their self-perceptions. It has been suggested that there are differences in the self-perceptions of CYP educated in specialist compared to mainstream settings (e.g. Tracey and Marsh 2000 ). Furthermore, researchers have questioned whether the label itself may influence experiences, beliefs and self-perceptions (e.g. Riddick 2000 ) so this is also considered.

Definitions

Definitional confusions have been key to the mixed findings in this area of research and will be addressed in this first section.

Despite the reported prevalence of dyslexia, the diagnostic term itself is not consistently defined in professional, research or social domains (Solvang 2007 ). A wide range of associated terms are also used within Europe (e.g. ‘specific learning disability’ ‘literacy difficulties’) without clear distinction or agreement on what they mean (Elliott and Grigorenko 2014 ). Educational Psychologists (EPs) in Britain often use the BPS definition (British Psychological Society 2005 ):

‘Dyslexia is evident when accurate and fluent word reading and/or spelling develops very incompletely or with great difficulty. This focuses on literacy learning at the ‘word level’ and implies that the problem is severe and persistent despite appropriate learning opportunities. It provides the basis for a staged process of assessment through teaching.’ (p.11).

This definition clearly highlights the importance of appropriate teaching and that dyslexia cannot be a result of inadequate teaching, but is evident when difficulties persist in spite of good teaching. The definition does not make a distinction between dyslexia and other forms of literacy difficulties, or provide a cut-off for what should be considered ‘severe and persistent’. An alternative is the discrepancy definition, which defines dyslexia as reading at a level significantly below what would be expected based on predictions from intelligence scores (Siegel 1992 ). However, this has been largely discredited as it only identifies a certain subset of individuals and lacks empirical validity (Elliott and Grigorenko 2014 ; Snowling 2013 ; Tanaka et al. 2011 ). Despite this, it continues to be used in research (e.g. Novita 2016 ) and perpetuated by organisations such as The International Dyslexia Association (‘Definition of Dyslexia’, n.d.).

For the purposes of this review, the terms dyslexia and literacy difficulties will both be used, but not to imply that they are necessarily distinguishable, only that, in one case, a diagnosis has been given and in another, it has not. In reviewing the research, the terminology used will reflect the paper being discussed. The term ‘literacy difficulties and/or dyslexia’ (LitD/D) will be used to speak generally about children and young people (CYP) who have difficulties with literacy, diagnosed or not.

Self-esteem, self-concept and self-efficacy have been explored by researchers looking at similar constructs, but are not always appropriately defined. As Marsh ( 1990a , 1990b ) pointed out: ‘Self-concept, like many other psychological constructs, suffers in that ‘everybody knows what it is,’ so that researchers do not feel compelled to provide any theoretical definition of what they are measuring’ (p. 79). In order to review and discuss the included papers, the different terminologies are operationalised in Table  1 .

The Current Review

This review investigates the links between literacy difficulties, dyslexia and the self-perceptions of CYP, highlighting their voices and experiences. Five research questions were addressed. The first two aim to update Burden’s ( 2008 ) review and the following three offer novel contributions to a review of this field:

What is the impact of LitD/D on global self-perceptions?

What is the impact of LitD/D on domain-specific self-perceptions?

Does the type of educational setting that a child attends impact on self-perceptions?

How are attributional styles linked with self-perceptions amongst CYP with LitD/D?

Does the dyslexia label influence self-perceptions?

Search Strategy

The papers included in this review were sourced via systematic searching and a manual search of relevant papers (Fig.  1 ). The systematic searches were conducted within three electronic databases: PsychINFO, Web of Science (WoS) and ERIC. Search terms relating to dyslexia, self-perception and attribution were generated based on reading of known papers on these topics (Table  2 ). The databases were searched for papers with titles containing dyslexia AND self-perception terms, then dyslexia AND attribution terms. Only papers published in the English language, between 2000 and 2017, in academic journals were retrieved.

Paper identification and screening process

Additional papers were identified through manual searches, including searching two relevant review articles (Burden 2008 ; Chapman and Tunmer 2003 ). The two review papers themselves were excluded as the majority of papers cited were written prior to the year 2000.

Once papers from the self-perceptions, attributions and manual searches were complete and screened, 48 papers remained, at this point, all of the pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied (Table  3 ). The papers in this review were restricted to studies conducted in Europe due to differences in diagnosis in other parts of the world.

The initial systematic search was conducted on 08-09-2017 and the search for papers including attribution terms was conducted on 13-10-2017 (Table 4 ).

Selected Papers

Data extraction.

The 19 selected papers were reviewed systematically and data were extracted relating to authors, year and country, sample characteristics, design and methods, measures and inclusion criteria, and main relevant findings. The extracted data is detailed in Table  7 .

Quality Assessment

Quality assessment of the qualitative papers was completed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Research Checklist (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme 2017 ). The CASP Checklist was adapted to include two additional criteria relevant to the review question.

Quantitative studies were assessed using a checklist created by the author, based on two well-used checklists; the Downs and Black Checklist (Downs and Black 1998 ) and the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies (National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute 2014 ). A new quantitative checklist was created to ensure that it included questions most appropriate to the cross-sectional methodologies of the included studies, as well as the addition of further items designed specifically to answer the review question. Tables  5 and 6 give the outcome of the quality assessment for each paper (Table 7 ).

The contribution of each individual paper has been considered and assessed for quality. Based on the results of the quality assessment (Tables 5 and 6 ), the authors afford more emphasis and weight to reporting and analysing the findings of higher quality studies.

Qualitative Papers

The majority of papers used individual semi-structured interviews, which allowed researchers to uncover the priorities of participants and be flexible in the topics discussed, meaning that the researcher reduced the impact of their own beliefs and expectations of the research and gathered rich data. However, only two of the studies provided their interview schedules (Gibson and Kendall 2010 ; Glazzard 2010 ), which reduced transparency and replicability.

As a dataset, there were a number of weaknesses. No papers adequately considered the researcher-participant relationship nor reflected on the researcher’s role in data collection and analysis. As many of the participants were children, considering the balance of power and influence of the researcher as an adult is important.

Further weaknesses were apparent in the reporting of procedures and data analysis. Five studies did not provide sufficient description of their data analysis. However, Casserly ( 2013 ) and Singer ( 2005 ) gave detailed descriptions of the frameworks used and the process of coding and drawing out themes. Singer ( 2005 ) also transposed coded data into a numerical system and determined interrater reliability.

Three papers (Burton 2004 ; Casserly 2013 ; Humphrey and Mullins 2002b ) gave adequate consideration to their use of self-perception terms. Armstrong and Humphrey ( 2009 ) looked at individuals’ conception of the self and identity, incorporating a range of self-perceptions, although no definitions were provided. Four papers (Gibson and Kendall 2010 ; Glazzard 2010 ; Singer 2005 ; Stampoltzis and Polychronopoulou 2009 ) discussed self-esteem without providing any definition. Glazzard, and Stampoltzis and Polychronopoulou used a number of self-perception terms interchangeably without explanation.

Six of the eight studies scored >6 out of 12 and all studies were deemed to make a valuable contribution to their area of research and to the review question.

Quantitative Papers

Ten out of 13 papers clearly described the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participation although fewer provided sufficient information on recruitment procedures. Sample sizes ranged from 19 to 242, with some studies analysing data from large comparison groups and others only including CYP with LitD/D.

A wide range of outcome measures were utilised and all papers clearly described these. Five papers gave insufficient evidence to demonstrate the accuracy, validity and reliability of their outcome measures. One of these (Saday Duman et al. 2017 ), used a measure of self-concept (The Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale) that has been criticised by previous researchers for using a composite measure of global self-concept (Bear et al. 2002 ).

The self-perception measures used were almost entirely self-report by CYP. Given that participants in every study had literacy difficulties, any self-report measures needed to be appropriately administered, either orally or with consideration of reading level. However, only three papers (Burden and Burdett 2005 ; Frederickson and Jacobs 2001 ; Lindeblad et al. 2016 ) acknowledged this and reported steps taken to address the issue.

A strength of the dataset is that 10 of the 13 studies provided definitions of their self-perception terms and used them consistently and accurately. In addition to providing definitions, several papers discussed the importance of terminology in detail. However, this was still a weakness in some papers (Polychroni et al. 2006 ; Saday Duman et al. 2017 ; Terras et al. 2009 ).

Burton’s ( 2004 ) intervention study provided a clear and replicable description of the intervention that was carried out, however Saday Duman et al.’s ( 2017 ) intervention was insufficiently described.

On the whole, the quantitative studies provided valuable information to the review question and scored well in terms of quality, with all but 3 studies scoring ≥8 out of 16.

Findings from Papers

The results of the review are discussed in terms of the five research questions.

What is the Impact of LitD/D on Global Self-Perceptions (GSP)?

Seven papers utilised quantitative measures of self-esteem or self-worth, including two papers from Burden’s ( 2008 ) review. In order for useful comparison and conclusions to be made, only measures that fit with the definitions of this review were included.

When drawing conclusions, the results of quality assessment should be considered. The three studies that found no difference in GSP amongst CYP with LitD/D (Frederickson and Jacobs 2001 ; Lindeblad et al. 2016 ; Terras et al. 2009 ) were high and medium scoring papers, whereas the three papers that did detect a difference (Alexander-Passe 2006 ; Humphrey and Mullins 2002b ; Saday Duman et al. 2017 ) were all low scoring. This suggests, especially if taken in conjunction with the findings from Burden’s 2008 review, that LitD/D are not directly linked with lowered GSP in any consistent or predictable way. Two papers suggest that task-based coping styles may be a protective factor in preventing difficulties in specific areas from impacting on overall sense of self-worth (Alexander-Passe 2006 ; Singer 2005 ). Other influencing factors will be considered throughout this review.

Across the seven studies discussed, six different GSP measures were used; both Frederickson and Jacobs ( 2001 ) and Terras et al. ( 2009 ) used the Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter 1985 ) and found no differences in GSP for CYP with LitD/D. The measures used in some studies appeared to have greater construct validity than others, with the Self-Perception Profile’s self-worth scale fitting well with the definition used for this review.

Two of the seven papers reported cross-sectional studies that assessed GSP in groups of children with and without dyslexia. Frederickson and Jacobs ( 2001 ) found no significant differences between scores in each group on their self-worth subscale. However, Humphrey and Mullins ( 2002b ) reported significantly lower global self-concept amongst CYP with dyslexia in mainstream schools, compared with a control group, although not amongst CYP with dyslexia attending specialist provision. However, Humphrey and Mullins’ ( 2002b ) findings are treated with caution as the ‘total self’ scale of the SDQ (Marsh 1990b ) includes accrued scores from responses to domain-specific statements. As GSP is its own distinct aspect of self-perception, it should not be a composite of domain-specific items (Mruk 2006 ). An individual may have low self-perceptions in a specific domain but still view themselves highly in terms of overall self-worth.

Three of the studies assessed GSP by comparing participants with dyslexia to previously gathered data. Terras et al. ( 2009 ) and Lindeblad et al. ( 2016 ) found no discrepancy between participants’ self-reported self-esteem and norm-referenced data, using two different GSP measures. Terras et al.’s findings were also corroborated by parent reports.

Alexander-Passe ( 2006 ) did find differences between 19 adolescent participants with dyslexia and norm-referenced data for self-esteem, depression and coping style. The participants reported below-expected self-esteem; however, this was accounted for entirely by the female participants. The difference in self-esteem and gender seemed to be explained by differences in coping styles: the female participants used more emotion-based coping styles (internalising or externalising behaviours), whereas the male participants used task-based coping (being proactive and persistent), which has previously been associated with more effective coping. Similar effects around coping style were found in Singer’s ( 2005 ) qualitative study: task-based coping methods were found to effectively protect self-esteem.

In Stampoltzis and Polychronopoulou’s ( 2009 ) qualitative research, 9 out of 16 university students reported low self-esteem related to their dyslexia. The remaining seven students did not feel dyslexia affected their self-esteem. Clearly, these are mixed findings in terms of the link between LitD/D and self-worth; individual differences in coping style (emotion-based vs. task-based) may be one factor influencing this link.

Two intervention studies aimed to increase the self-perceptions of CYP with dyslexia; one by directly targeting self-perception (Burton 2004 ) and the other through literacy intervention (Saday Duman et al. 2017 ). Both of these studies reported some positive findings, but both were rated as being of low quality. No real conclusions can be drawn from these two intervention studies; however, further research of this nature could be extremely useful in determining causal links between LitD/D and self-perceptions.

What is the Impact of LitD/D on Domain-Specific Self-Perceptions?

Ten papers used self-perception measures related to specific domains. The most commonly assessed domain was academic self-concept: beliefs about the self in terms of academic performance. These scales had various names (e.g. perceived scholastic competence, school-based self-esteem) but related to the same construct. Generally, research suggests that individuals with dyslexia are less likely than their peers to develop positive self-perceptions in certain domains. These domains relate directly to the difficulties that are typically experienced by CYP with LitD/D: reading, writing and school achievement. Preliminary findings also suggest that CYP with dyslexia may hold lower self-perceptions than CYP who are reading at the same level, but do not have a dyslexia diagnosis (Frederickson and Jacobs 2001 ). Although there appears to be a risk factor associated with LitD/D, an individual’s environment, as well as their personal characteristics and social support, seem to also play an important role.

Many papers utilised other subscales in addition to those relating to academic self-perceptions. Commonly, self-perceptions relating to social/peer acceptance, physical appearance/performance and behaviour were assessed. Findings were mixed, but available evidence suggests that LitD/D is not linked with differences in these other domains.

Novita ( 2016 ) found that children with dyslexia reported significantly lower school-based self-esteem than a control group, with a weak-medium effect size. Similar findings were reported by Alexander-Passe ( 2006 ), Saday Duman et al. ( 2017 ) and Frederickson and Jacobs ( 2001 ), and by Terras et al. ( 2009 ) who compared their participants with dyslexia to norm-referenced data and found significantly poorer perceptions of scholastic competence as rated by children and their parents.

Terras et al. also found that when parents held positive attitudes towards dyslexia and had a good understanding of their child’s difficulties, their children had higher self-esteem. The authors concluded that children’s close relationships, social support and knowledge about their difficulties contributed to psycho-social adjustment and positive self-image.

Five qualitative studies also found that social and family support were integral to coping with dyslexia and maintaining self-esteem (Armstrong and Humphrey 2009 ; Gibson and Kendall 2010 ; Glazzard 2010 ; Singer 2005 ; Stampoltzis and Polychronopoulou 2009 ). Singer found that children whose parents responded more negatively to their emotions about dyslexia were more likely to experience shame, hide their feelings and develop internalising coping styles; they emphasised their powerlessness as a method of protecting self-esteem. Other children demonstrated externalising behaviours that aimed to conceal their feelings of shame or guilt; these children were also less likely to share feelings with parents. On the other hand, children who described their parents as academically and emotionally supportive showed greater desire for self-improvement and experienced fewer negative emotions. Being able to safely discuss feelings with parents seems to be a protective factor in developing more positive self-perceptions and coping styles.

Frederickson and Jacobs ( 2001 ) and Polychroni et al. ( 2006 ) additionally looked at the impact of actual academic performance amongst children with dyslexia and their peers. Frederickson and Jacobs administered word reading tests and used this data to evaluate self-perceptions whilst controlling for actual reading performance. The children with dyslexia were found to be more likely to hold negative self-perceptions of their scholastic competence, even when compared to peers reading with the same level of accuracy, but without dyslexia.

Polychroni et al. ( 2006 ) compared children with dyslexia separately to high and low achieving peers. The children with dyslexia reported significantly more negative self-concepts regarding penmanship/neatness, arithmetic and school satisfaction, when compared with both high and low achieving peers without dyslexia, and regarding reading/spelling and general ability compared to the high achieving peers only. Unfortunately, the authors do not provide information that makes it possible to compare the achievement levels of the different groups; therefore, it is unclear whether the children with dyslexia had comparable achievement to either of the other groups.

Humphrey and Mullins ( 2002b ) was a low quality paper that reported mixed findings, but highlighted slightly lower than average school-based self-concept for children with dyslexia in mainstream schools. In Humphrey’s other paper (Humphrey 2002 ), he used an alternative method of measuring self-perceptions, known as the ‘semantic differential method’ (p.31). This measure reflects the difference between a person’s current self-concept and their ideal self in relation to a number of different constructs, providing the evaluative element of self-esteem. Using this method, Humphrey ( 2002 ) found that, in comparison to children with no learning difficulties, a sample of children with dyslexia in mainstream schools demonstrated significantly lower self-perceptions in the domains of reading, writing, spelling, intelligence, English ability, popularity and importance, but not maths or being hardworking.

A Swedish study (Lindeblad et al. 2016 ), looked at literacy related self-efficacy through a questionnaire designed to assess participants’ beliefs about how they would perform on a specific task (e.g. ‘I can read an email from a friend’) (p.456). Based on standardised literacy assessment, the participants were not performing at the level typically expected, but the GSP of these children had not been negatively impacted. The results of the self-efficacy assessment indicated that the majority of participants felt confident to manage their school work and perceived few, or very few, limitations in their literacy ability. Although this is in contrast with their actual performance, the authors linked the positive self-attitudes of these participants with broader changes in the country towards inclusive schooling and improved attitudes and understanding of dyslexia, perhaps leading students to make fewer peer comparisons and focus more on their own progress.

Does the Type of Educational Setting that a Child Attends Impact Self-Perceptions?

One qualitative and one quantitative study specifically explored the impact of mainstream versus specialist educational settings on the self-perceptions of CYP with dyslexia. There is very little research to be drawn upon to make conclusions about the impacts of different educational settings. However, by comparing mainstream and special settings, Casserly ( 2013 ) provides some useful insight into the factors that were beneficial in terms of improving the self-perceptions of CYP with dyslexia. Given the limited research available, this would be a key area for future explorations.

Humphrey’s research (Humphrey 2002 ; Humphrey and Mullins 2002b ) used two self-report methods and a teacher-report method; the semantic differential method and the questionnaire indicated that CYP with dyslexia in mainstream education held the most negative self-perceptions, whereas CYP in specialist provision held self-perceptions only marginally lower than the control group. However, teacher reports, measuring behavioural manifestations of self-esteem, showed the highest level of maladaptive behaviours to occur in the specialist setting, which both contradicts, and calls in to question the validity of the findings. Humphrey’s qualitative data (Humphrey and Mullins 2002b ) also revealed some themes that seemed to contradict the quantitative findings, with more CYP in the specialist setting than the mainstream setting reporting feeling ‘less intelligent than their peers’ (p.5).

Casserly ( 2013 ) followed 20 participants over four years, during which time all participants moved from mainstream to a specialist dyslexia setting and then back to mainstream. Through interviews with children, their parents and teachers, Casserly found that children generally had low reading self-concept and self-esteem upon entry to their specialist setting, which was increased through the targeted support that they received in their specialist setting and remained good after their return to mainstream.

When asked what they thought had improved their children’s self-perceptions, parents cited the benefits of increased praise and encouragement, teachers’ belief in their child’s ability, making academic progress, positive relationships, and peers with similar difficulties that they could relate to. The teachers reported a long list of strategies and approaches that they felt supported children’s self-perceptions, including teaching them about learning differences, promoting positive attitudes towards literacy and highlighting their strengths. They also cited smaller classes, with more individual attention as well as the benefits of being able to make more favourable peer comparisons.

Casserly discussed social comparison theory as a possible reason for improvements in self-esteem within the specialist settings. However, although social comparisons were mentioned by participants, it could be argued that this ignores the many strategies that were also put in place to support these children in their learning and wellbeing. Self-esteem remained high once they had left the provision and spent a year in mainstream class, even though they still reported finding things more difficult than other children. It may be the case that, due to the specialist provision, the children developed resilience that protected their self-esteem, suggesting that intervention in this area may be useful.

How are Attributional Styles Linked with Self-Perceptions Amongst CYP with LitD/D?

Four quantitative papers measured the attributional styles of CYP with LitD/D and one examined goal orientations, which link with attributions. Four out of five of these studies indicated that children with dyslexia are more likely to make attributions for success and failure that are outside of their control, meaning they have attributional styles that are associated with lower achievement, more negative self-perceptions and less effective approaches to learning. However, this is not always the case and research showed that with the right environment and support, children with dyslexia will make more adaptive attributions, linked to improvements in both performance and self-perceptions (Burden and Burdett 2005 ). Two qualitative papers also showed that some individuals developed a strong sense of determination associated with their dyslexia and adaptive attributional styles. However, Singer ( 2005 ) found that these children were in the minority. At this stage, the causal links are unclear; research into the impact of attribution retraining programmes on the performance and self-perceptions of CYP with dyslexia will help to shed light on this.

Humphrey looked specifically at the attributional styles of CYP with and without dyslexia (Humphrey and Mullins 2002a ) by asking CYP to rank order possible reasons for success or failure in fictional test scenarios. In success scenarios, participants with dyslexia were more likely to attribute their achievement to teacher quality (an external factor) than the children without dyslexia. This was seen as potentially detrimental by the authors, as children would not receive positive self-referential information as a result of their success (p.201). However, the authors were comparing the second most commonly cited reason for success, when, in fact, the most commonly cited reason given by both groups was effort.

In failure scenarios, the control group felt that lack of effort, followed by the difficulty of the test, would be the most likely causes, suggesting a belief that they could succeed on a difficult test in the future if they applied more effort. However, the children with dyslexia cited difficulty of the subject, followed by difficulty of the test as the most likely reasons for failure. As both of these things are outside of the individual’s control, this might imply that they could not control whether they succeeded on a difficult test in the future.

In Pasta et al.’s ( 2013 ) study, the attributional styles of children with SpLD also tended to reflect more emphasis on external, uncontrollable factors such as luck and task difficulty than their equally and higher achieving classmates. Teachers perceived children with SpLD as more dependent than their peers, including those with matched achievement. The authors suggested that this reflects the children’s external LoC and indicates that the children with SpLD underestimated their potential as independent learners.

Correlations between attributional style and test performance showed that the more pupils attributed results to effort (internal LoC), the better they performed and the more pupils attributed results to task difficulty (external LoC), the worse they performed. Emphasising the importance of effort is seen as an adaptive attributional style as it is within the control of the individual and is not fixed. Although the children with SpLD generally had less adaptive attributional styles, those who did have more adaptive styles achieved more highly. This could be an important area for intervention.

In Gibson and Kendall’s ( 2010 ) qualitative research, participants expressed a range of attributional styles relating to their success in school. One participant conveyed feelings of determination to do well in the face of others’ beliefs that they could not overcome their difficulties. Other participants demonstrated resignation at being assigned to lower sets that were perceived as being for less intelligent students. These participants seemed to have their sense of control stripped from them by an educational system that wanted to categorise and restrict them.

Burden and Burdett ( 2005 ) provided valuable insight into the nature of attributional styles amongst CYP with dyslexia by looking at a context in which students with dyslexia were thriving. Questionnaire responses revealed that the majority of students did not demonstrate learned helplessness or perceive themselves as being held back by their dyslexia. These successful pupils believed that effort is essential for success and would enable them to achieve their goals, suggesting strong internal LoC. Responses to certain items indicated that their internal LoC may be a protective factor for good self-esteem. Burden and Burdett concluded that whole-school promotion of personal responsibility and self-worth is essential for producing learners with a positive sense of self.

In Singer’s ( 2005 ) study, 16% of all participants were characterised as having adaptive approaches to protecting their self-esteem, including desire for self-improvement. These children emphasised the importance of effort and belief in their ability to improve, and maintained high levels of self-esteem. Compared with the others in the study, these children showed signs of having developed adaptive attributional styles.

Frederickson and Jacobs ( 2001 ) provided further evidence, finding that children with dyslexia were significantly more likely to make uncontrollable attributions than their peers and that uncontrollable attributions were associated with lower reading scores. Furthermore, children making uncontrollable attributions had significantly lower perceived scholastic competence than those who showed controllable attributions, even after controlling for actual reading accuracy. This was the case for both the children with and without dyslexia. The authors suggested a need for research evaluating the impact of attribution retraining programmes to further explore the causal relationships and practical implications of this research. They also suggested a link with learners’ goal orientations and the effects of learning vs. performance goals on self-perceptions amongst learners with dyslexia.

Goal orientations were explored by Polychroni et al. ( 2006 ): ‘surface’ approaches to learning are characterised by the intention to reproduce learned material for the sake of performance (performance orientation), and a ‘deep’ approaches to learning are characterised by an internal desire to seek meaning (learning orientation) (p.418). In this study, both the children with dyslexia and the children with matched achievement but no dyslexia, reported significantly higher levels of surface approaches than the higher achieving children. Amongst children with dyslexia, there were correlations between having a surface approach and having lower academic self-concept, suggesting that a deep approach to learning could be a protective factor against lowered self-perceptions, as well as being associated with more enjoyment, intrinsic motivation and greater achievement (Watkins 2010 ), making this a potential area for intervention.

Does the Dyslexia Label Influence Self-Perceptions?

Four qualitative papers explored the impact of receiving a diagnosis of dyslexia for their participants. Three of these were thematic analysis studies (Gibson and Kendall 2010 ; Glazzard 2010 ; Stampoltzis and Polychronopoulou 2009 ), all of which reported themes relating to labelling. The studies included a total of 29 participants between the ages of 14 and 26 attending school or university. Mixed results suggest that reactions to receiving a dyslexia label are individual and can be conceptualised as lying on a continuum from resistance to accommodation. A number of factors seem to influence where one may lie on this continuum; individuals who were labelled for the first time in late adolescence perceived dyslexia as stigmatising, did not feel they needed help, did not perceive the label as informative or supportive, and were more likely to resist the label. On the other hand, those who felt they had already been labelled with negative terms such as ‘lazy’, the label of dyslexia was a welcome alternative, providing a boost to their self-esteem.

In each study, references were made to the negative consequences of not having a recognised diagnosis; Gibson and Kendall described feelings of school failure amongst their participants, as well as lack of appropriate support and, in some cases, very negative attitudes and low expectations from teachers. Glazzard reported that having a diagnosis of dyslexia and owning that label was essential for creating a positive self-image amongst participants. Glazzard noted feelings of increased self-esteem once the diagnosis had been made, partly because it enabled them to explain their difficulties to themselves and others. This is mirrored by a quote from Gibson and Kendall’s research from a participant who said ‘ I didn’t know what it was, I thought I was thick .’ (p.192) indicating that the diagnosis of dyslexia relieved these feelings.

Amongst Greek participants (Stampoltzis and Polychronopoulou 2009 ), there were similar stories of not understanding difficulties prior to diagnosis and 9/16 participants reported having had low self-esteem. For most participants, diagnosis was associated with feelings of relief and increased understanding. However, some felt it was not helpful as it did not give useful information.

In all of the qualitative studies, references were made to alternative labels to dyslexia. Primarily, these included ‘thick’ ‘lazy’ or ‘stupid’. Many participants spoke about applying these labels to themselves, or having them applied by others who did not know about, or understand, their dyslexia. Some participants felt that their label changed others’ perceptions (Stampoltzis and Polychronopoulou 2009 ) and Glazzard ( 2010 ) alluded to the dyslexia label replacing these negative judgements and boosting participants’ perceptions of their own intelligence. In Singer’s ( 2005 ) study, children who tended to internalise their emotions of guilt or shame found that emphasising their label, and taking responsibility away from themselves, helped to protect their self-esteem. Negative comments from other people generally made participants feel bad about themselves, although, in one case, low expectations and negative attitudes from teachers added to a participant’s determination to succeed (Gibson and Kendall 2010 ).

The study by Armstrong and Humphrey ( 2009 ) was designed specifically to look at college students’ reactions to diagnosis. Using grounded theory, the authors developed a model of psychological reactions to diagnosis conceptualised on a continuum from resistance to accommodation. Resistance is characterised by not accepting dyslexia as part of the self and holding negative connotations of dyslexia, whereas accommodation involves integrating dyslexia into the notion of self and recognising both positive and negative aspects. The amount of resistance or accommodation displayed by individuals clearly stemmed in part from their perception of dyslexia: those who felt dyslexia was equal to stupidity were less likely to accept it into their notion of self, as this would damage self-perceptions. The authors suggested that individuals diagnosed later in life may require additional psychological support to accommodate their diagnosis, as participants who had been described as having dyslexia at a younger age seemed more willing to accommodate it.

Individuals who accommodated dyslexia were more likely to be motivated and successful in their studies, take up support, and adjust to their difficulties. Failure to accommodate, however, was suggested as a risk factor for increased negative self-views, use of self-defeating strategies, lowered self-esteem and negative emotions.

This paper addressed five research questions; the first two concerned the evidence base around the impact of LitD/D on both global and domain-specific self-perceptions. Consistent with findings from an earlier review (Burden 2008 ), evidence suggests that CYP with LitD/D are very aware of their specific difficulties and may experience negative self-perceptions relating to their academic competence and literacy skills. However, these domain-specific self-perceptions do not appear to have a consistent impact on overall self-worth; evidence suggests that CYP with LitD/D do not hold less positive global self-perceptions than their peers. Protective factors that contribute to maintaining positive self-worth include supportive family, teacher and peer relationships, and recognition of their successes in other areas.

The third research question addressed attributional style. Current evidence suggests that CYP with dyslexia are at greater risk of developing maladaptive attributional styles, based on an external LoC. However, those who emphasise the importance of their own effort in their achievement are more likely to succeed academically and to hold positive self-concepts. This suggests a link between maladaptive attributional styles, lower self-perceptions, and poorer performance amongst CYP with dyslexia, making this a potentially important area for intervention and support. Although the causal links amongst CYP with LitD/D are not yet clear, researchers have suggested that in the general population maladaptive attributions lead to lowered self-esteem, which impacts motivation and consequently academic performance (Chodkiewicz and Boyle 2014 ). Therefore, it may be the case that attribution retraining programmes could have a positive impact on both self-perceptions and performance amongst CYP with LitD/D. Preliminary evidence suggests that more adaptive attributional styles develop in the context of supportive and accepting environments in which CYP can experience success, however, more evidence around this is needed, along with research looking at the effects of attribution retraining interventions.

The fourth research question explored the impact of different educational settings for CYP with LitD/D. In this area, there were only a small number of research studies to review and more research is needed to draw conclusions about differences in the self-perceptions of those attending mainstream versus specialist settings. However, initial findings from one qualitative study have shed some light on the features of educational settings that may support CYP to hold positive self-perceptions. CYP with LitD/D and, arguably, all CYP, may benefit from settings that provide nurturing and acceptance, which support their students to understand dyslexia and provide high quality differentiated teaching. These approaches may contribute to more positive self-perceptions amongst pupils and the development of resilient learners. Findings from this review suggest that CYP with dyslexia thrive when they are accepted and their needs are understood, something that is not unique to any one setting, or to those with dyslexia.

The final research question addressed the potential impact of labelling on the self-perceptions of CYP with LitD/D. Frederickson and Jacobs ( 2001 ) found that children with literacy difficulties, but no dyslexia diagnosis, did not experience the same negative impact on self-perceptions. It may be that having attention drawn to one’s literacy difficulties (through diagnosis) increases the likelihood of a negative effect on self-perceptions. However, qualitative research sheds a different light on experiences of receiving a diagnosis. Individual reactions to diagnosis vary and may lie on a continuum between resistance and accommodation of the label (Armstrong and Humphrey 2009 ). Many CYP reported having been labelled, prior to their diagnosis, as ‘lazy’ or ‘stupid’ and felt that their label of dyslexia counteracted this experience. For others, the label was perceived as stigmatising and unhelpful. Given the mixed nature of these findings, there is a need for further research, carried out with CYP currently in education, to explore the subtle differences in how individuals with LitD/D respond to a label of dyslexia and their own perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of this label.

When considered as a whole, the findings from this data set illuminate some key factors that may be influential for CYP with LitD/D, whilst also revealing gaps in our current understanding and raising some interesting and important questions. It appears that CYP benefit from LitD/D being identified, recognised and explicitly supported in terms of having a positive overall sense of self. The findings also strongly suggest that it is particularly helpful for CYP when parental, cultural and school attitudes towards LitD/D are understanding and help to cultivate a sense of personal responsibility, high expectations and self-worth. What is not yet known is whether the type of label used to recognise the LitD/D makes any difference, whether there are any gender differences to account for, how much variation there is in individual CYP’s resistance or accommodation of the label, and whether social comparison factors, or being placed in a special education group for LitD/D, has a significant impact.

The overall findings also suggest that the good overall self-concept associated with having widely-recognised and explicitly labelled LitD/D may be a ‘trade off’ that occurs at the expense of declines in CYP’s academic self-concept and a tendency to make unhelpful external attributions, when learning. The relief obtained from the difficulty not being construed as negatively (or from others taking a more tolerant and supportive approach) seems offset by CYP’s sense that their LitD/D is beyond personal control and they have less academic potential than peers. Whether it is possible to effectively support CYP with LitD/D to reduce any external attributions through intervention is, as yet, unclear.

Interesting and important questions raised by these mixed overall findings include whether CYP with LitD/D are a sufficiently homogenous group to allow us to draw generalisable conclusions, whether the support and encouragement from the culture and context are more important factors in determining positive global and domain specific self-perceptions than having an identified LitD/D label and, finally whether the benefit in having a positive overall self-concept outweighs the risk and detrimental effects that may come as a result of having a low academic self-concept and a less adaptive attribution style.

Implications

Mixed findings relating to the impact of the dyslexia label indicate that psychologists, dyslexia specialists, and school staff should continue to treat every student as an individual and exercise caution in terms of using the dyslexia label, considering, alongside the child, whether the label is justified and useful to the individual. Furthermore, it is important that an accessible and accurate explanation of any LitD/D is given, dispelling any pre-existing stigmatising or negative connotations that the child may have.

The evidence of the role of attributional style in the development of self-perceptions amongst CYP with LitD/D is emerging, but currently limited. However, there is evidence that teaching CYP about attributions can be beneficial for their achievement and motivation (e.g. Blackwell et al. 2007 ) and this is something that should be further explored amongst a sample of CYP with LitD/D.

Preliminary evidence from two intervention studies suggests that interventions targeting both self-perceptions and literacy skills can be beneficial for CYP with LitD/D. One such intervention, which is readily available to schools, is Precision Teaching (Lindsley 1995 ). Recent research suggests that Precision Teaching can have motivational benefits and increase self-esteem, as well as being highly effective for teaching literacy skills (Griffin and Murtagh 2015 ).

Self-efficacy is more malleable and less stable over time than self-concept or self-esteem; furthermore, it can be seen as an active precursor to self-concept (Bong and Skaalvik 2003 ). In which case, it may be useful to target interventions for CYP with LitD/D at self-efficacy rather than self-esteem, for example, asking students to make self-efficacy judgements before completing tasks. With repeated exposure and success, greater self-efficacy in specific domains may lead to enhanced self-concept in those domains. There would be benefit from future research evaluating this type of intervention amongst learners with LitD/D who are suffering from negative self-perceptions.

The importance of social and familial support in coping with LitD/D and maintaining self-esteem was highlighted in several studies. Being able to safely discuss feelings with parents helped children with LitD/D to maintain positive self-views, whereas negative interactions with peers could damage them (Glazzard 2010 ; Singer 2005 ). Furthermore, parents having a good understanding of dyslexia and associated needs may be a protective factor (Terras et al. 2009 ). Lindeblad et al. ( 2016 ) suggested that recent political reforms in Sweden, aiming to achieve greater equality within the education system, may be responsible for the positive psychological adjustment and self-perceptions found amongst their sample of CYP with LitD/D. They noted that being exposed to positive attitudes from significant others such as teachers or peers has the potential to protect against the development of negative self-perceptions. This highlights the importance of creating an accepting, understanding and inclusive atmosphere within schools.

Limitations

One major limitation of the body of research in this area relates to how researchers identify participants for their studies. It is important to note that at least half of research papers included in this review utilised a discrepancy-based definition, and most of the remaining papers did not specify whether a discrepancy-based definition had been used or not. This is likely to have impacted the findings of the review as children who meet the discrepancy-based definition of dyslexia have average or above-average IQ scores. Higher IQ scores are typically linked with better academic performance (Laidra et al. 2007 ), which may well lead to more positive academic self-concept. Therefore, individuals with LitD/D who do not meet the discrepancy-based definition may be at greater risk of low academic self-concept than the participants in the majority of studies reported here.

This paper operationalised self-perception terms in order to thoroughly review the research and, in most cases, authors had considered their use of self-perception terms. However, in some cases, where insufficient information was given, it was necessary to make assumptions about what exactly was being measured.

The majority of reviewed papers emphasised the voice of CYP through self-report measures or interviews. Seeking and valuing the voice of CYP should be acknowledged as a strength (and is in line with guidance from the UK Children and Families Act 2014 ). However, some may argue against over reliance on self-report measures due to their potential for bias. One such bias is the impact of transient mood states (Podsakoff et al. 2003 ). The majority of data from these studies was collected at a single time point, so individual variations in mood may have influenced self-perceptions. Yet, arguably, only the individual can provide insight into their own self-perceptions; therefore, report from others is less valuable and we may need to accept that there will be some biases with self-report data.

The papers in this review were restricted to studies conducted in Europe due to differences in diagnosis in other parts of the world. However, even within Europe there are wide ranging cultural differences in the construct of LitD/D. Furthermore, literacy difficulties themselves are different in different languages due to variations in orthography, which influence the prevalence of LitD/D in different countries (Paulesu et al. 2001 ), potentially impacting children’s self-perceptions. Given these differences, caution should be applied when making cross-cultural generalisations, considering that 12/19 of the studies reviewed were conducted in the UK. Additionally, it should be noted that most participants with LitD/D in these studies were male, which reflects the population being studied, but should be considered before generalising further.

A weakness of many papers was their failure to adequately consider the impact of localised and wider environmental, cultural and social influences on the emotional development of CYP. A number of the papers took a distinctly within-child perspective when discussing self-perceptions and environmental factors were rarely explored within the available research. For example, the value that the UK national curriculum places on traditional academic and literacy skills.

Recommendations for Future Research

School-based interventions for CYP with learning disabilities have been found to enhance self-concept (Elbaum and Vaughn 2001 ). However, as this review focused specifically on LitD/D, only two intervention studies were available, both of which were low quality. Further intervention studies would be beneficial in highlighting factors influencing the development of positive or negative self-perceptions. The current research provides evidence that LitD/D is linked with lower perceptions of academic competence and maladaptive attributional styles, but intervention studies would allow us to understand how these factors influence each other in a causal way.

More research is needed on attributional styles and approaches to learning amongst CYP with LitD/D, not only regarding differences, but how these styles develop and change over time. This kind of evidence could be sought through adding a qualitative element to the research and studying changes over time, as well as looking at the impact of attribution retraining programmes, as suggested by Frederickson and Jacobs ( 2001 ) and the benefits of deep approaches to learning.

A number of publications have focused on exploring attitudes to dyslexia and labelling (e.g. Arishi et al. 2017 ). Various authors have considered the practical use and validity of the dyslexia diagnosis (e.g. Elliott and Grigorenko 2014 ; Lauchlan and Boyle 2007 ); however, fewer have looked at CYP’s perceptions of their dyslexia label and fewer still have directly asked CYP about the benefits or harms of the label. Given the current labelling debate, research looking specifically at the advantages and disadvantage of the label from the perspectives of CYP would be beneficial.

This review extends current literature by systematically reviewing research exploring the links between self-perceptions and CYP with LitD/D. These CYP appear to be at greater risk of developing negative perceptions of themselves as learners, although, this does not necessarily impact on their general sense of self-worth. Current research suggests that some key factors may be relevant in supporting CYP with LitD/D to develop, and maintain, positive self-perceptions; these include holding adaptive attributional styles (having an internal LoC in relation to overcoming difficulties), good relationships with peers and parents, and positive attitudes towards dyslexia and neurodiversity. In some cases, CYP had negative educational experiences because of their difficulties and felt that they had been labelled as unintelligent or idle, for these CYP, the label of dyslexia led to more positive self-perceptions, as it provided an alternative picture of themselves. There is a need for further research to explore the impact of attributional styles and the potential for intervention, as well as CYP’s experiences of labelling and any associated advantages or disadvantages.

Alexander-Passe, N. (2006). How dyslexic teenagers cope: An investigation of self-esteem, coping and depression. Dyslexia, 12 (4), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.318 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arishi, L., Boyle, C., & Lauchlan, F. (2017). Inclusive education and the politics of difference: Considering the effectiveness of labelling in special education. Educational & Child Psychology, 34 (4), 9–19.

Google Scholar  

Armstrong, D., & Humphrey, N. (2009). Reactions to a diagnosis of dyslexia among students entering further education: Development of the “resistance-accommodation” model. British Journal of Special Education, 36 (2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2008.00408.x .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bar-Tal, D., & Darom, E. (1979). Pupils’ attributions of success and failure. Child Development, 50 , 264–267.

Battle, J. (1992). Culture-free self-esteem inventories . Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.

Beck, J. S., Beck, A. T., & Jolly, J. B. (2001). Beck Ungdomsskalor [Beck Youth Inventory] . Stockholm: Psyklogiforlaget AB.

Bear, G. G., Minke, K. M., & Manning, M. A. (2002). Self-concept of students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 31 (3).

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78 (1), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x .

Boersma, F. J., & Chapman, J. W. (1992). Perception of ability scale: revised manual . Edmonton: University of Alberta.

Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15 (1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382 .

British Psychological Society. (2005). Dyslexia, literacy and psychological assessment . Leicester: Report by a working party of the Division of Educational and Child Psychology.

Burden, R. (2008). Is dyslexia necessarily associated with negative feelings of self-worth? A review and implications for future research. Dyslexia, 14 , 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.371 .

Burden, R., & Burdett, J. (2005). Factors associated with successful learning in pupils with dyslexia: A motivational analysis. British Journal of Special Education, 32 (2), 100–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0952-3383.2005.00378.x .

Burton, S. (2004). Self-esteem groups for secondary pupils with dyslexia. Educational Psychology in Practice, 20 (1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/0266736042000180410 .

Casserly, A. M. (2013). The socio-emotional needs of children with dyslexia in different educational settings in Ireland. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13 (1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01227.x .

Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2003). Reading difficulties, Reading-related self-perceptions, and strategies for overcoming negative self-beliefs. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19 (1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308205 .

Children and Families Act. (2014). London. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6/pdfs/ukpga_20140006_en.pdf

Chodkiewicz, A. R., & Boyle, C. (2014). Exploring the contribution of attribution retraining to student perceptions and the learning process. Educational Psychology in Practice, 30 (1), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2014.880048 .

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2017). CASP Qualitative Research Checklist. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/dded87_25658615020e427da194a325e7773d42.pdf

De Beni, R., Moè, A., & Ravazzolo, C. (1998). Sviluppo dello stile attributivo e relazione con le componenti metacognitive in bambini dai 4 ai 10 anni. Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo, 2 (2), 245–269.

Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998). The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 52 , 377–384.

Elbaum, B., & Vaughn, S. (2001). School-based interventions to enhance the self-concept of students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 101 (3), 303–329.

Elliott, J. G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). The Dyslexia Debate (No. 14) . New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139017824 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Elliott, C., Smith, P., & McCullock, K. (1996). British Ability Scales, BAS II technical manual . London, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research. Nelson.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1999). Coping inventory for stressful situations: CISS manual (2nd ed.). New York: Multi-Health Systems.

Frederickson, N., & Jacobs, S. (2001). Controllability attributions for academic performance and the perceived scholastic competence, global self-worth and achievement of children with dyslexia. School Psychology International, 22 (4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034301224002 .

Gibson, S., & Kendall, L. (2010). Stories from school: Dyslexia and learners’ voices on factors impacting on achievement. Support for Learning, 25 (4), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2010.01465.x .

Glazzard, J. (2010). The impact of dyslexia on pupils’ self-esteem. Support for Learning, 25 (2), 63–69.

Griffin, C. P., & Murtagh, L. (2015). Increasing the sight vocabulary and reading fluency of children requiring reading support: The use of a precision teaching approach. Educational Psychology in Practice, 31 (2), 186–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2015.1022818 .

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the self-perception profile for children . Denver: University of Denver.

Humphrey, N. (2002). Teacher and pupil ratings of self-esteem in developmental dyslexia. British Journal of Special Education, 29 (1), 29–36.

Humphrey, N., & Mullins, P. M. (2002a). Personal constructs and attribution for academic success and failure in dyslexia. British Journal of Special Education, 29 (4), 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8527.00269 .

Humphrey, N., & Mullins, P. M. (2002b). Self-concept and self-esteem in developmental dyslexia. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2 (2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2002.00163.x .

Jacobson, C. (2001). Laskedjor [Reading Chains] . Stockholm: Psykologiforlaget AB.

Korkmazlar, Ü. (1993). Özel Ögrenme Bozuklugu (6-11 yas ilkokul çocuklarinda özel ögrenme bozuklugu ve tani yöntemleri) . Istanbul: Taç Ofset.

Laidra, K., Pullmann, H., & Allik, J. (2007). Personality and intelligence as predictors of academic achievement: A cross-sectional study from elementary to secondary school. Personality and Individual Differences, 42 (3), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.001 .

Landerl, K., Wimmer, H., & Moser, E. (1997). Salzburger Lese- und Rechtschreibtest: Verfahren zur Differentialdiagnose von Stoerungen des Lesend und Schreibens fuer die 1. bis 4. Schulstufe . Bern: Huber.

Lauchlan, F., & Boyle, C. (2007). Is the use of labels in special education helpful? Support for Learning, 22 (1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2007.00443.x .

Lawrence, D. (1996). Enhancing self-esteem in the classroom . London, England: Paul Chapman.

Lindeblad, E., Svensson, I., & Gustafson, S. (2016). Self-concepts and psychological well-being assessed by Beck youth inventory among pupils with reading difficulties. Reading Psychology, 37 (3), 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2015.1060092 .

Lindsley, O. R. (1995). Precision teaching: By teachers for children. Journal of Precision Teaching, 12 (2), 9–17.

Marsh, H. W. (1990a). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2 (2), 77–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01322177 .

Marsh, H. W. (1990b). Self-Description Questionnaire 1 . Sydney: University of Western Sydney.

Mruk, C. J. J. (2006). Self-Esteem Research, Theory, and Practice: Toward a Positive Psychology of Self-Esteem (third edit) . New York: Springer Publishing Company Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/soton-ebooks/detail.action?docID=291344 .

National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. (2014). Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools/cohort

Novita, S. (2016). Secondary symptoms of dyslexia: A comparison of self-esteem and anxiety profiles of children with and without dyslexia. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31 (2), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1125694 .

Pasta, T., Mendola, M., Longobardi, C., Prino, L. E., & Gastaldi, F. G. M. (2013). Attributional style of children with and without specific learning disability. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11 (3), 649–664. https://doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.31.13064 .

Paulesu, E., Démonet, J. F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N., et al. (2001). Dyslexia: Cultural diversity and biological unity. Science, 291 (5511), 2165–2167. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057179 .

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 .

Polychroni, F., Koukoura, K., & Anagnostou, I. (2006). Academic self-concept, reading attitudes and approaches to learning of children with dyslexia: Do they differ from their peers? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21 (4), 415–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250600956311 .

Pope, A. W. (1988). The Five-Scale Test of Self-Esteem for Children: Junior and secondary. In A. W. Pope, S. M. McHale, & W. E. Craighead (Eds.), Self-esteem enhancement with children and adolescents . Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Richmond, M. J. (1984). The self-concept of academically able and less-able children in a comprehensive school – a comparative study. Remedial Education, 19 (2), 57–58.

Riddick, B. (1996). Living with Dyslexia . London, England: Routledge.

Riddick, B. (2000). An examination of the relationship between labelling and stigmatisation with special reference to dyslexia. Disability & Society, 15 (4), 653–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590050058233 .

Saday Duman, N., Öner, Ö., & Aysev, A. (2017). The effect of educational therapy on self-esteem and problem behaviors in children with specific learning disability. Journal of Psychiatry, 18 (1), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.219208 .

Schauder, T. (1991). Die Aussagen-Liste zum Selbstwergefuehl fuer Kinder und Jugendliche . Beltz Test: Weinheim.

Siegel, L. S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25 (10), 618–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949202501001 .

Singer, E. (2005). The strategies adopted by Dutch children with dyslexia to maintain their self-esteem when teased at school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38 (5), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380050401 .

Snowling, M. J. (2013). Early identification and interventions for dyslexia: A contemporary view. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 1 (13), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01262.x .

Solvang, P. (2007). Developing an ambivalence perspective on medical labelling in education: Case dyslexia. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 17 (1–2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620210701433779 .

Stampoltzis, A., & Polychronopoulou, S. (2009). Greek university students with dyslexia: An interview study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24 (3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250903020195 .

Svensson, I., & Jacobson, C. (2006). How persistent are phonological difficulties? A longitudinal study of reading retarded children. Dyslexia, 12 , 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.296 .

Tanaka, H., Black, J. M., Hulme, C., Stanley, L. M., Kesler, S. R., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Reiss, A. L., Gabrieli, J. D. E., & Hoeft, F. (2011). The brain basis of the phonological deficit in dyslexia is independent of IQ. Psychological Science, 22 (11), 1442–1451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611419521 .

Terras, M. M., Thompson, L. C., & Minnis, H. (2009). Dyslexia and psycho-social functioning: An exploratory study of the role of self-esteem and understanding. Dyslexia, 15 , 304–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.386 .

Tracey, D., & Marsh, H. (2000). Self-concepts of primary students with mild intellectual disabilities: Issues of measurement and educational placement. In R. G. Craven & H. W. Marsh (Eds.), Self-concept theory, research and practice: Advances from the new millennium (pp. 419–425). University of Western Sydney: SELF Research Centre.

Turner, M. (1997). Psychological assessment of dyslexia . London: Whurr.

Watkins, C. (2010). Learning, performance and improvement. INSI Research Matters, 34 , 2–15 Retrieved from http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/6401 .

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92 (4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548 .

Weiss, R. H. (2006). CFT-20R: Grundintelligenztest Skala 2 . Goettingen: Hogrefe.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

West Sussex Educational Psychology Service, Centenary House, Durrington Lane, Worthing, BN13 2QB, UK

Rosa Gibby-Leversuch

University of Southampton, Building 44, Highfield Campus, University Lane, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

Brettany K. Hartwell & Sarah Wright

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Wright .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

As this is a systematic review ethical approval or participant consent is not required.

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Rosa Gibby-Leversuch declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Brettany K. Hartwell declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Sarah Wright declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gibby-Leversuch, R., Hartwell, B.K. & Wright, S. Dyslexia, Literacy Difficulties and the Self-Perceptions of Children and Young People: a Systematic Review. Curr Psychol 40 , 5595–5612 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00444-1

Download citation

Published : 09 November 2019

Issue Date : November 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00444-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Self-esteem
• Self-concept
• Attributions
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• PubMed/Medline
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Trends in dyslexia research during the period 1950 to 2020—theories, definitions, and publications, 1. part i—a historical overview, 1.1. the pioneers, 1.2. 1950–1970, 1.2.1. from medicine to educational psychology approach.

“A disorder manifested by difficulty in learning to read despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence, and sociocultural opportunity. It is dependent upon fundamental cognitive disabilities which are frequently of constitutional origin.” [ 10 , 11 ]

1.2.2. Groupings by Function Analysis

1.3. 1970–2000, 1.3.1. deficits within the phonological system, 1.3.2. dyslexia and access to lexicon: the theory of the double deficit, 1.3.3. neuroanatomical aspects, deviant hemispheric dominance of language, the hypothesis of deviations in the cerebellum, the theory of deviant temporal processing, new definitions.

“Dyslexia is one of several distinct learning disabilities. It is a specific language-based disorder of constitutional origin characterized by difficulties in single word decoding, usually reflecting insufficient phonological processing. These difficulties in single word decoding are often unexpected in relation to age and other cognitive and academic abilities; they are not the result of generalized developmental disability or sensory impairment. Dyslexia is manifest by variable difficulty with different forms of language, often including, in addition to problems with reading, a conspicuous problem with acquiring proficiency in writing and spelling” [ 37 ]

“Dyslexia is a complex neurological condition which is constitutional in origin. The symptoms may affect many areas of learning and function, and may be described as a specific difficulty in reading, spelling and written language. One or more of these areas may be affected. Numeracy, notational skills (music), motor functional and organisational skills may also be involved. However, it is particularly related to mastering written language, although oral language may be affected to some degree” [ 38 ]

A Causal Model

1.4. 2000–2020, our millennium, 1.4.1. 2000–2010, new definitions.

“Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.” [ 46 ]

“Dyslexia is a specific learning difficulty which mainly affects the development of literacy and language related skills. It is likely to be present at birth and to be lifelong in its effects. It is characterised by difficulties with phonological processing, rapid naming, working memory, processing speed, and the automatic development of skills that may not match up to an individual’s other cognitive abilities. It tends to be resistant to conventional teaching methods, but its effects can be mitigated by appropriately specific intervention, including the application of information technology and supportive counselling” [ 47 ]

“Dyslexia is a learning difficulty that primarily affects the skills involved in accurate and fluent word reading and spelling. Characteristic features of dyslexia are difficulties in phonological awareness, verbal memory and verbal processing speed. Dyslexia occurs across a range of intellectual abilities. It is best thought of as a continuum, not a distinct category, and there are no clear cut-off points. Co-occurring difficulties may be seen in aspects of language, motor coordination, mental calculation, concentration, and personal organization, but these are not, by themselves, markers of dyslexia. A good indication of the severity and persistence of dyslexic difficulties can be gained by examining how the individual responds or has responded to well-founded intervention” [ 49 ]

1.4.2. 2010–2020

1.5. evaluation of the different definitions, 2. part ii—dyslexia publications 1950–2020, 3. discussion, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Berkhan. Ueber die Störung der Schriftsprache bei Halbidioten und ihre Aehnlichkeit mit dem Stammeln. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 1885 , 16 , 78–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hinshelwood, J. Congenital Word-Blindness ; HK Lewis & Company: London, UK, 1917. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan, W.P. A Case of Congenital Word Blindness. Br. Med. J. 1896 , 2 , 1378. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Orton, S.T. Specific reading disability—Strephosymbolia. Bull. Orton Soc. 1963 , 13 , 9–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Orton, S.T. Reading, Writing and Speech Problems in Children ; WW. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 1937. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax ; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1965. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piaget, J. The Language and Thought of the Child ; Hartcourt: New York, NY, USA, 1926. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L.S. Thought and language ; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller, G.A. The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 1956 , 63 , 81–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Critchley, M. The Dyslexic Child: Developmental Dyslexia , 2nd ed.; ScienceDirect, Public Health; Heinemann: London, UK, 1970; Volume 84, pp. 155–306. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matejcek, Z. Report of research group on developmental dyslexia and world literacy. Bull. Orton Soc. 1968 , 18 , 21–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frank, G. The Wechsler Enterprise: An Assessment of the Development, Structure and Use of the Wechsler Tests of Intelligence ; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2013; Volume 27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson, D.J.; Myklebust, H.R. Learning Disabilities: Educational Principles and Practices ; Grune & Stratton: New York, NY, USA, 1967; pp. 322–328. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boder, E. Developmental Dyslexia: A Diagnostic Approach Based on Three Atypical Reading-spelling Patterns. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 1973 , 15 , 663–687. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vellutino, F.R. Visual Processing Deficiencies in Poor Readers: A Critique of Traditional Conceptualizations of the Etiology of Dyslexia. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Reading Association World ‘Congress’ Reading, Hamburg, Germany, 1–3 August 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vellutino, F.R. Dyslexia: Theory and Research ; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vellutino, F.R. Dyslexia. Sci. Am. 1987 , 256 , 34–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Snowling, M.; Hulme, C. A longitudinal case study of developmental phonological dyslexia. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 1988 , 6 , 379–401. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mcbridechang, C. What is phonological awareness. J. Educ. Psychol. 1995 , 87 , 179–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shaywitz, B.A.; Fletcher, J.M.; Holahan, J.M.; Shaywitz, S.E. Discrepancy compared to low achievement definitions of reading disability: Results from the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. J. Learn. Disabil. 1992 , 25 , 639–648. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wolf, M.; Bowers, P.G. The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. J. Educ. Psychol. 1999 , 91 , 1–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Albert Galaburda, M.D. Developmental dyslexia: Current anatomical research. Ann. Dyslexia 1983 , 33 , 41–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Geschwind, N.; Galaburda, A.M. Cerebral lateralization: Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology: I. A hypothesis and a program for research. Arch. Neurosci. 1985 , 42 , 428–459. [ Google Scholar ]
• Geschwind, N.; Galaburda, A.M. Cerebral lateralization: Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology: II. A hypothesis and a program for research. Arch. Neurosci. 1985 , 42 , 521–552. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Geschwind, N.; Galaburda, A.M. Cerebral lateralization: Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology: III. A hypothesis and a program for research. Arch. Neurosci. 1985 , 42 , 634–654. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bakker, D.J.; Bouma, A.; Gardien, C.J. Hemisphere-specific treatment of dyslexia subtypes: A field experiment. J. Learn. Disabil. 1990 , 23 , 433–438. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bakker, D.J.; Spyer, G. Neuropsychological Treatment of Dyslexia ; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fawcett, A.J.; Nicolson, R.I. Automatisation deficits in balance for dyslexic children. Percept. Mot. Ski. 1992 , 75 , 507–529. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tallal, P. Temporal or phonetic processing deficit in dyslexia? That is the question. Appl. Psycholinguist. 1984 , 5 , 167–169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paula, T. Experimental Studies of Language Learning Impairments: From Research to Remediation. In Speech and Language Impairments in Children ; Bishop, D.V.M., Leonard, L.B., Eds.; Psychology Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; pp. 131–155. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tallal, P.E.; Galaburda, A.M.; Llinas, R.R.; von Euler, C. Temporal Information Processing in the Nervous System: Special Reference to Dyslexia and Dysphasia. Conference proceedings. New York City, New York, September 12–15, 1992. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1993 , 682 , 1–442. [ Google Scholar ]
• Witton, C.; Talcott, J.; Hansen, P.; Richardson, A.; Griffiths, T.; Rees, A.; Stein, J.; Green, G. Sensitivity to dynamic auditory and visual stimuli predicts nonword reading ability in both dyslexic and normal readers. Curr. Biol. 1998 , 8 , 791–797. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lovegrove, W.J. Do dyslexics have a visual deficit? In Studies in Visual Information Processing ; North-Holland/Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1993; pp. 33–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stein, J.; Walsh, V. To see but not to read; the magnocellular theory of dyslexia. Trends Neurosci. 1997 , 20 , 147–152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fletcher, J.M. Memory for verbal and nonverbal stimuli in learning disability subgroups: Analysis by selective reminding. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 1985 , 40 , 244–259. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fletcher, J.M.; Francis, D.J.; Shaywitz, S.E.; Lyon, G.R.; Foorman, B.R.; Stuebing, K.K.; Shaywitz, B.A. Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 1998 , 13 , 186–203. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyon, G.R. Toward a definition of dyslexia. Ann. Dyslexia 1995 , 45 , 3–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• BDA. The British Dyslexia Association Handbook. Reading: British Dyslexia Association ; BDA: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morton, J. Causal modeling: A structural approach to developmental psychopathology. Dev. Psychopathol. 1995 , 1 , 357–390. [ Google Scholar ]
• Helland, T. Neuro-Cognitive Functions in Dyslexia. Variations According to Language Comprehension and Mathematics Skills. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frith, U. Paradoxes in the definition of dyslexia. Dyslexia 1999 , 5 , 192–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paulesu, E.; Démonet, J.F.; Fazio, F.; McCrory, E.; Chanoine, V.; Brunswick, N.; Cappa, S.F.; Cossu, G.; Habib, M.; Frith, C.D.; et al. Cultural diversity and biological unity in dyslexia. Neuroimage 2001 , 13 , 584. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miles, E. Dyslexia may show a different face in different languages. Dyslexia 2000 , 6 , 193–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ho, C.S.H.; Chan, D.W.O.; Lee, S.H.; Tsang, S.M.; Luan, V.H. Cognitive profiling and preliminary subtyping in Chinese developmental dyslexia. Cognition 2004 , 91 , 43–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Berninger, V.W.; Nielsen, K.H.; Abbott, R.D.; Wijsman, E.; Raskind, W. Writing Problems in Developmental Dyslexia: Under-Recognized and Under-Treated. J. Sch. Psychol. 2008 , 46 , 1–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• IDA. Definition ; IDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• BDA. British Dyslexia Associtation: Definition of Dyslexia. 2007. Available online: http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/about-dyslexia/faqs.html (accessed on 5 August 2022).
• Pennington, B.F.; Bishop, D.V.M. Relations Among Speech, Language, and Reading Disorders. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009 , 60 , 283–306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rose, J. Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties. An Independent Report from Sir Jim Rose to the Secretary of State for Children. 2009. Available online: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk (accessed on 5 August 2022).
• Peterson, R.L.; Pennington, B.F. Developmental dyslexia. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2015 , 11 , 283–307. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Clark, K.A.; Helland, T.; Specht, K.; Narr, K.L.; Manis, F.R.; Toga, A.W.; Hugdahl, K. Neuroanatomical precursors of dyslexia identified from pre-reading through to age 11. Brain J. Neurol. 2014 , 137 , 3136–3141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Perera, H.; Shiratuddin, M.F.; Wong, K.W. Review of EEG-based pattern classification frameworks for dyslexia. Brain Inform. 2018 , 5 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kuhl, U.; Neef, N.E.; Kraft, I.; Schaadt, G.; Dörr, L.; Brauer, J.; Czepezauer, I.; Müller, B.; Wilcke, A.; Kirsten, H.; et al. The emergence of dyslexia in the developing brain. Neuroimage 2020 , 211 , 116633. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Benfatto, M.N.; Seimyr, G.; Ygge, J.; Pansell, T.; Rydberg, A.; Jacobson, C. Screening for Dyslexia Using Eye Tracking during Reading. PLoS ONE 2016 , 11 , e0165508. [ Google Scholar ]
• Toffalini, E.; Losito, N.; Zamperlin, C.; Cornoldi, C. Reading in a transparent second language with limited orality: The case of high school students with dyslexia in Latin. Dyslexia 2018 , 25 , 57–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joshi, R.M. Simple View of Reading (SVR) in Different Orthographies: Seeing the Forest with the Trees. Read. Dyslexia 2018 , 16 , 71–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Landerl, K.; Freudenthaler, H.H.; Heene, M.; De Jong, P.F.; Desrochers, A.; Manolitsis, G.; Parrila, R.; Georgiou, G.K. Phonological Awareness and Rapid Automatized Naming as Longitudinal Predictors of Reading in Five Alphabetic Orthographies with Varying Degrees of Consistency. Sci. Stud. Read. 2019 , 23 , 220–234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Landerl, K.; Ramus, F.; Moll, K.; Lyytinen, H.; Leppänen, P.; Lohvansuu, K.; O’Donovan, M.; Williams, J.; Bartling, J.; Bruder, J.; et al. Predictors of developmental dyslexia in European orthographies with varying complexity. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2013 , 54 , 686–694. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martin, A.; Kronbichler, M.; Richlan, F. Dyslexic brain activation abnormalities in deep and shallow orthographies: A meta-analysis of 28 functional neuroimaging studies. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2016 , 37 , 2676–2699. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Parrila, R.; Dudley, D.; Song, S.; Georgiou, G.K. A Meta-Analysis of Reading-Level Match Dyslexia Studies in Consistent Alphabetic Orthographies. Ann. Dyslexia 2020 , 70 , 1–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Snowling, M.J.; Hulme, C.; Nation, K. Defining and understanding dyslexia: Past, present and future. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 2020 , 46 , 501–513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shaywitz, B.A.; Shaywitz, S.E. The American experience: Towards a 21st century definition of dyslexia. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 2020 , 46 , 454–471. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abbondanza, F.; Dale, P.; Wang, C.A.; Hayiou-Thomas, M.E.; Toseeb, U.; Koomar, T.S.; Wigg, K.G.; Feng, Y.; Price, K.M.; Kerr, E.N.; et al. Non-Right Handedness is Associated with Language and Reading impairments. 2022. Available online: http://psyarxiv.com (accessed on 5 August 2022).
• Campen, K.V.; Segers, E.; Verhoeven, L. How phonological awareness mediates the relation between working memory and word reading efficiency in children with dyslexia. Dyslexia 2018 , 24 , 156–169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Provazza, S.; Carretti, B.; Giofrè, D.; Adams, A.-M.; Montesano, L.; Roberts, D. Shallow or deep? The impact of orthographic depth on visual processing impairments in developmental dyslexia. Ann. Dyslexia 2022 , 72 , 171–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Valdois, S. The visual-attention span deficit in developmental dyslexia: Review of evidence for a visual-attention-based deficit. Dyslexia , 2022; Online ahead of print . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meng, Z.-L.; Liu, M.-L.; Bi, H.-Y. Spatial and temporal processing difficulties in Chinese children with developmental dyslexia: An ERP study. Dyslexia , 2022; Online ahead of print . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zugarramurdi, C.; Fernández, L.; Lallier, M.; Valle-Lisboa, J.C.; Carreiras, M. Mind the orthography: Revisiting the contribution of prereading phonological awareness to reading acquisition. Dev. Psychol. 2022 , 58 , 1003–1016. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Karlsudd, P. Cheating or legitimate support? Student-Teachers’ attitudes toward digital tools in school. Support Learn. 2018 , 33 , 338–359. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• James, K.H.; Engelhardt, L. The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 2012 , 1 , 32–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baddeley, A. Working memory and language: An overview. J. Commun. Disord. 2003 , 36 , 189–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baddely, A.D.; Hitch, G.J.; Bower, G.H. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation ; Bower, G.A., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1974; pp. 47–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Helland, T.; Asbj⊘Rnsen, A. Digit span in dyslexia: Variations according to language comprehension and mathematics skills. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 2004 , 26 , 31–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Helland, T.; Asbjornsen, A.E. Executive functions in dyslexia. Child Neuropsychol. 2000 , 6 , 37–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Helland, T.; Tjus, T.; Hovden, M.; Ofte, S.; Heimann, M. Effects of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Intervention Principles in Emergent Literacy in Children at Risk of Developmental Dyslexia: A Longitudinal Study. J. Learn. Disabil. 2011 , 44 , 105–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• APA. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ; American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagtvet, B.; Helland, T.; Lyster, S.A.H. Literacy Acquisition in Norwegian Handbook of Orthography and Literacy ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2006; p. 840. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aro, M. Learning to Read: The Effect of Orthography. In Handbook of orthography and literacy ; Taylor & Francis: Singapore, 2013; pp. 545–564. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Landerl, K.; Wimmer, H.; Frith, U. The impact of orthographic consistency on dyslexia: A German-English comparison. Cognition 1997 , 63 , 315–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McDougall, S.; Brunswick, N.; Davies, P.d.M. Reading and Dyslexia in Different Orthographies: An Introduction and Overview ; Psychology Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; Volume 336, p. 51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Richlan, F. The Functional Neuroanatomy of Developmental Dyslexia Across Languages and Writing Systems. Front. Psychol. 2020 , 11 , 155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morken, F.; Helland, T. Writing in Dyslexia: Product and Process. Dyslexia 2013 , 19 , 131–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Strömqvist, S.; Holmqvist, K.; Johansson, V.; Karlsson, H.; Wengelin, Å. What keystroke logging can reveal about writing. In Computer Key-Stroke Logging and Writing ; Brill Publishers: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 45–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Waes, L.V.; Mariëlle, L.; Eva, L.; Åsa, W. Keystroke logging in writing research: Analyzing online writing processes. In Handbook of Writing Research ; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 410–426. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones, L.; Manger, T. Literacy Skills, Academic Self-Efficacy, and Participation in Prison Education. In The Wiley Handbook of Adult Literacy ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/databases/wiley_journals (accessed on 5 August 2022).
• Lohvansuu, K.; Torppa, M.; Ahonen, T.; Eklund, K.; Hämäläinen, J.A.; Leppänen, P.H.T.; Lyytinen, H. Unveiling the Mysteries of Dyslexia—Lessons Learned from the Prospective Jyvskyl Longitudinal Study of Dyslexia. Brain Sci. 2021 , 11 , 427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gabrieli, J.D.E. Dyslexia: A New Synergy Between Education and Cognitive Neuroscience. Science 2009 , 325 , 280–283. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Helland, T. Trends in Dyslexia Research during the Period 1950 to 2020—Theories, Definitions, and Publications. Brain Sci. 2022 , 12 , 1323. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12101323

Helland T. Trends in Dyslexia Research during the Period 1950 to 2020—Theories, Definitions, and Publications. Brain Sciences . 2022; 12(10):1323. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12101323

Helland, Turid. 2022. "Trends in Dyslexia Research during the Period 1950 to 2020—Theories, Definitions, and Publications" Brain Sciences 12, no. 10: 1323. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12101323

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Public Health

Dyslexia: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis

1 Institute of Information Resource, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China

2 Library, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China

Yanxia Cheng

Xianlin yang, associated data.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Dyslexia is a disorder characterized by an impaired ability to understand written and printed words or phrases. Epidemiological longitudinal data show that dyslexia is highly prevalent, affecting 10–20% of the population regardless of gender. This study aims to provide a detailed overview of research status and development characteristics of dyslexia from types of articles, years, countries, institutions, journals, authors, author keywords, and highly cited papers. A total of 9,166 publications have been retrieved from the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) from 2000 to 2021. The United States of America, United Kingdom, and Germany were the top three most productive countries in terms of the number of publications. China, Israel, and Japan led the Asia research on dyslexia. University of Oxford had the most publications and won first place in terms of h-index. Dyslexia was the most productive journal in this field and Psychology was the most used subject category. Keywords analysis indicated that “developmental dyslexia,” “phonological awareness,” children and fMRI were still the main research topics. “Literacy,” “rapid automatized naming (RAN),” “assessment,” “intervention,” “meta-analysis,” “Chinese,” “executive function,” “morphological awareness,” “decoding,” “dyscalculia,” “EEG,” “Eye tracking,” “rhythm,” “bilingualism,” and “functional connectivity” might become the new research hotspots.

Introduction

The term dyslexia is derived from the Greek script and was first proposed in 1887 by Dr. Rudolf Berlin in his work “Eine besondere Art der Wortblindheit (Dyslexie)”. In 1994, Lyon proposed a working definition of dyslexia, and later in 2002, a revised version of dyslexia was approved as “dyslexia is a specific learning that is neurobiological in origin that is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities” ( 1 , 2 ). In 1896, Hinshelwood J. published a case of dyslexia ( 3 ). There were almost no publications on dyslexia from 1900 to 1945 and the possible reason might be the turmoil of society and the world wars. Since 1946, more scientific research gradually uncovers the reasons behind dyslexia including the causes, symptoms, clinical diagnosis, and improvement measures ( 4 – 13 ). Although the root cause of dyslexia is still unclear, researchers do have some explanations that give us a better understanding of dyslexia and people with dyslexia ( 14 – 21 ). According to the European dyslexia association (EDA), the incidence of dyslexia worldwide is about 9–12%. At present, some countries have passed a series of legislation to promote better identification of people with dyslexia, and to protect the rights in education, employment, and access to public services of individuals with dyslexia ( 22 – 25 ).

Bibliometrics was proposed by Alan Pritchard in 1969, defined as “the application of mathematics and statistical methods to books and other media of communication” ( 26 ). Bibliometrics is an important branch of information science and philology. At the same time, it also shows important methodological value and becomes a special research method of information science. The number of bibliometrics academic papers published each year around the world is continually increasing, with about 3,000 in 2021. Bibliometric analyses are useful tools to quantitatively analyze academic literature to get a good understanding of the research trends in specific areas of science and technology, such as public health care ( 27 – 32 ), drug discovery ( 33 – 35 ), nursing ( 36 , 37 ), biomass ( 38 – 42 ), and COVID-19 ( 43 – 49 ). Bibliometrics has become an academic link closely related to science communication and basic theories. To our knowledge, few comprehensive bibliometric studies have been performed on the dyslexia research literature. Ram ( 50 ) conducted an analysis of dyslexia literature (1967–2016) from Scopus, which mainly studied the document types, trends of the number of publications, most productive countries, journals, authors, and keywords. Recently, Zhang et al. ( 51 ) published a paper on the top 100 most-cited studies of dyslexia research. Due to the language and the stages of cognition of dyslexia, there is still a need to carry out a comprehensive analysis on the differences of bibliometric characters and research priorities and hotspots of dyslexia research from a country perspective.

To fill this research gap, this study (1) uses the bibliometric method to indicate the status and development trends using major research areas, productive institutes, and journals from a country perspective, (2) analyzes the collaboration patterns between countries and organizations, (3) explores the priorities and hotspots by analyzing the author keywords from temporal evolution and a country perspective. This study demonstrates the status of studies of dyslexia from a country perspective, which offers readers a fresh perspective and suggestions to dyslexia students and families, researchers, and policymakers for future challenges and policy formulation.

The analysis was based on the publications related to “dyslexia” which were retrieved through the Social science citation index (SSCI) and science citation index expand (SCI-E) during the period 2000 to 2021. The data were obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection by searching the title, abstract, author keywords, and KeyWords plus with search formula of “dyslexia” on January 14th, 2022. The graphical analysis of cooperation uses bibliographic coupling, co-citation, citation, co-authorship, and co-occurrence metrics. We used the Derwent Data Analyzer (DDA) software to present the outcomes of bibliometric analyses. Articles originating from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland were grouped under the United Kingdom (UK) heading. The impact factor (IF) for each journal was determined according to the report from the 2020 Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Note that some related publications that did not use “dyslexia” in their topic parts may not be included in this analysis. This issue might produce some deviations.

General Statistics

In total, 9,166 papers were obtained from the WoS, including 14 article types. They were articles (7,651), review articles (589), meeting abstracts (409), editorial materials (262), proceedings papers (248), early access (127), letters (101), book reviews (97), corrections (31), book chapters (24), news items (21), biographical-items (4), retracted publications (2), and reprints (1). The vast majority of publications were published in English (8,776; 95.745%), followed by German (197; 2.419%), French (79; 0.862%), Spanish (62; 1.480%), Portuguese (12; 0.131%), Czech (10; 0.109%), and others (30; 0.330%). The following analysis was based on the top eight document types which are the majority of the publications in this field.

Total 99 countries have published articles on the topic of dyslexia from 2000 to 2021. Figure 1 show the annual analysis of published papers of the top 10 most productive countries. The United States of America published the most articles (2,589) and the highest h-index (148). United Kingdom was in the second position with a total of 1,811 publications. Other productive countries included Germany (721), Italy (648), Canada (598), China (564), France (558), Australia (506), the Netherlands (445), and Israel (380). From 2000 to 2007, the annual output of publications in China did not exceed 10. Thereafter, the number of publications increased rapidly and reached 59 in 2020. In summary, no countries from Africa, and although publications from Asia countries (China and Israel) have increased quickly in the past 10 years, publications from the United States of America and European countries have dominated the dyslexia research field because of their longer accumulation of expertise.

The number of publications per countries by year.

International Cooperation Analysis

The academic collaboration networks of countries were extracted using Derwent Data Analyzer (DDA) software based on the co-occurrence matrix of author's country and country cooperation. The result of the top 20 most productive countries' cooperation (with a minimum of 5 shared publications) is shown in Figure 2 . The size of nodes represents the number of publications. The lines between the nodes represent the cooperative frequency. The United States of America is the country with the highest number of papers in the dyslexia research field, followed by the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Canada, and China. As can be seen in Figure 2 , the United States of America cooperated most frequently with the United Kingdom, Canada, and China. Furthermore, the United States of America and United Kingdom had the biggest collaboration network among the top 20 most productive countries. Researchers from Japan, Brazil, and Greece need to strengthen their international cooperation. China, Israel, and Japan led the research in Asian countries.

Collaborative relationships among the top 20 most productive countries.

Organization Co-occurrence Analysis

A total of 4,869 organizations have published papers on the study of dyslexia. The top 15 most productive organizations concerning the number of publications and h-index have been enlisted in Table 1 . The University of Oxford ranked first in terms of total publications and obtained the highest h-index (75), followed by UCL and the University of Jyvaskyla. Yale University has the highest number of ACCP. Figure 3 shows the cooperation between organizations with a minimum of 8 papers among the top 50 productive organizations. As shown in Figure 3 , institutions from the same country were more closely connected. This was confirmed by the analysis of the top 3 most collaborative organizations for each institution (see Table 1 ). The University of Oxford has the largest collaborative network.

The top 15 most productive organizations of publication, citations and h-indices during 2000–2021.

TP, total paper; ACCP, average citations per paper; SP, Share of publications .

Collaborative relationships among the top 50 most productive organizations.

In addition, we analyzed the share of cooperative publications between institutes (see Table 1 ). It can be seen that all the 15 most productive institutions except University Haifa have very high collaboration rates, especially the UCL, Harvard University, Yale University, and the University of Connecticut. Interestingly, all of the top 15 prolific organizations are universities. It suggests that dyslexia research is mostly held by universities.

Prolific Authors' Analysis From a Country Perspective

There are 17,009 authors who have published at least one paper on the research of dyslexia. Table 2 outlines the top 20 contributing authors based on the number of publications they authored or co-authored. As can be seen in these data, all of the authors are from the top 20 productive countries. Among the top 20 prolific authors, five authors are from the united States of America, four from United Kingdom, two from Finland, P. R. China, Belgium, and Italy, and one from Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria. Schulte-korne G. ranked first on the list with the highest number (101) of dyslexia papers, Snowling MJ obtained the second one with 99 papers, and Lyytinen H obtained the third one with 95. For the average citation per paper, Fletcher JM ranked first with 99.63, followed by Pennington BF (86.49) and Bishop DVM (81.98). Looking to the H-index record, Lyytinen H obtained the first position with 45, followed by Snowling MJ, Goswami U, and Pennington BF. It is worth noting that three out of four United Kingdom researchers are from the same institution, the University of Oxford. Once again it proved the outstanding contribution of the University of Oxford to dyslexia research.

The top 20 most productive authors of publication, and h-indices during 2000–2021.

TA, total publications; TC, total citations .

Schulte-korne G. is from Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich and his main research areas in dyslexia include genetics ( 52 – 56 ), assessment ( 57 , 58 ), intervention ( 59 – 62 ), language ( 63 , 64 ), and cognitive neuroscience ( 55 , 65 , 66 ). Snowling MJ, listed in the second place, is from the University of Oxford and her research on dyslexia focuses on language impairment ( 67 – 69 ), comorbidity ( 70 , 71 ), and intervention ( 72 – 76 ). Lyytinen H is from the University of Jyvaskyla and his research on dyslexia focuses on the longitudinal study ( 21 , 77 – 79 ), speech perception ( 80 – 82 ), auditory processing ( 83 – 85 ), and intervention ( 86 , 87 ).

Research Area and Journal Analysis From a Country Perspective

Research works on dyslexia have been carried out in about 101 research areas in SCI and SSCI databases. Figure 4 shows the number of papers published by the top 20 most productive countries in the top 20 most productive research areas. “Psychology” ranked first in terms of the total publications of all countries. “Neurosciences Neurology” and “Education Educational Research” are listed in the second or third position in all countries. Sweden, Spin, Norway, the Netherlands, China, and Greece had published more papers on “Education Educational Research” than “Neurosciences Neurology”.

Number of papers in the top 20 research areas by the top 20 most productive countries.

The 9,110 papers related to dyslexia research during 2000–2021 were published in 1,156 journals. Table 3 shows the number of papers published by the top 15 most productive countries in the top 10 most productive journals. About 30% of articles were published in these top 10 productive journals in the top 15 countries. Dyslexia published the most articles in this research field (415 publications), followed by Neuropsychologia (302), Journal of Learning Disabilities (296), and Frontiers in Psychology (280). United Kingdom published the most articles in Dyslexia while United States of America published more articles in the Journal of Learning Disabilities and Annals of Dyslexia than other countries. These suggested that the United Kingdom and United States of America researchers prefer to publish in journals hosted by their countries.

Number of papers in the top 10 Journals and by the top 15 most productive countries.

An Analysis of Author Keywords From a Global Perspective

Keywords analysis has been used widely to analyze research hotspots and trends ( 88 – 93 ). To identify the research focus of dyslexia research, 9,562 author keywords which appeared 32,757 times from 9,110 papers were analyzed. Keywords with the same meanings were grouped and represented by one unified word or phrase, and the publications that lack author keywords may not be included in this analysis. Among the author keywords, 6,705 (70%) were used only once. The high percentage of once-only author keywords may indicate a lack of continuity in research and a wide range of interests in dyslexia research.

Figure 5 shows a network map of author keywords co-occurrence analysis (frequency not <50 times) related to dyslexia. As seen in the analysis result in Figure 5 , the keywords “dyslexia” and “reading” occupied the core positions. The top high-frequency nodes linked with “dyslexia” are “reading,” “children,” “attention,” “dyscalculia,” “magnocellular,” “adults,” “magnetoencephalography,” and “MRI”. Keywords “fMRI,” “eye movements,” “spelling,” “intervention,” “phonology,” and “writing” were the top high-frequency nodes connected to “reading”.

Globe research hot points related to dyslexia.

To better understand the development trend of research, we compared the top 50 high-frequency author keywords in the past 5 years and the first 16 years (see Table 4 ); “dyslexia” and “developmental dyslexia” were exceptions because these keywords were among the search terms of the data that were used in this study. “Phonological awareness,” “reading,” and “spelling” are the main research aspects; “children” are the main group studied. “fMRI” was still a strong and useful technique to measure the brain activity of dyslexia and remained among the top eight most frequently used keywords ( 94 , 95 ). “Literacy” refers to the quality or state of being literate, especially the ability to read and write. The rank of “literacy” increased from 27th in 2000–2016 to 15th in 2017–2021, suggesting that the research of literacy remained hot research during the past 20 years.

Temporal evolution of the 50 most frequency used author keywords.

With the in-depth research and experience accumulation of dyslexia, early intervention and prevention of dyslexia have important social significance ( 96 ). “Rapid automatized naming (RAN)” as one of the effective cognitive measures drew the attention of researchers that involved in creating optimal assessments and interventions ( 97 ). In fact, the rank of “Rapid automatized naming” had an apparent upward movement from 37th in 2000–2016 to 27th in 2017–2021. Both “Assessment” and “intervention” also had a big upward movement from 40th in 2000–2016 to 29th in 2017–2021 and 36th in 2000–2016 to 21st in 2017–2021, respectively. In 1976, Gene Glass first used the name “Meta-analysis” to represent the process and method of integrating and analyzing many empirical studies on the same subject through statistical analysis to obtain the most representative conclusions. This method had become an important tool for analyzing various research results of dyslexia ( 98 – 101 ) and “meta-analysis” reached the 30th in 2017–2021 from 95th in 2000–2016.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Chinese scholars began to study dyslexia in reading Chinese, but most of the results were published in their Chinese journals. In recent years, with the enhancement of scientific research capabilities and international cooperation, increased research results have been published in international journals ( 102 – 106 ). The rank of “Chinese” had a dramatic increase from 49th in 2000–2016 to 32nd in 2017–2021. It is also worth mentioning that “executive function” ( 107 , 108 ), “morphological awareness” ( 109 , 110 ), “Meta-analysis,” “decoding” ( 16 ), “dyscalculia,” “EEG” ( 111 , 112 ), “Eye tracking” ( 113 , 114 ), “rhythm” ( 115 , 116 ), “bilingualism” ( 117 , 118 ), and “functional connectivity” ( 119 , 120 ) entered the top 50 high-frequency keywords in 2017–2021, suggesting that these topics may become the new research hotspots.

An Analysis of Author Keywords From a Country Perspective

Table 5 shows the 20 countries with the highest scientific production in dyslexia research as well as the keywords most used by these countries. Not surprisingly, “dyslexia,” “reading,” and “developmental dyslexia” were the keywords most used by most of these countries, ranking first to third in 15 of the 20 countries. “fMRI” was one of the research hotspots in the United States of America, Norway, Switzerland, and Austria. The language of early research on dyslexia was mainly English. In the 1970s, some researchers believed that the writing system of Asian countries would not cause dyslexia. However, with the development of early reading education activities by educators in some Asian countries, the problem of children's dyslexia had gradually attracted the attention of researchers. Therefore, it was not surprising that Asian countries (China, Japan, and Israel) had their language as one of their research focuses ( 104 , 121 – 128 ).

Top 5 most used author keywords by top 20 most productive countries.

An Analysis of Highly Cited Papers Based on WoS

The citation account is an important indicator of academic influence and was widely used in research evaluation. According to the Essential Science Indicators (ESI) database, highly cited papers (HCPs) refers to papers with citations in the top 1% of all papers based on a cited threshold for an academic field and publication year during the past 10 years. To some extent, HCPs from the ESI database might reflect research directions and hotspots in an academic field ( 129 ). Table 6 shows the HCPs of dyslexia over the last 10 years. One was published in the Lancet (IF = 79.323 in 2020) and Nature Reviews Neuroscience (IF = 34.87 in 2020). Two were published in the Annual Review of Psychology, Journal of Learning Disabilities , and Trends in Cognitive Sciences , respectively. Among the 16 HCPs, seven papers included authors from the United States of America and the United Kingdom, two from Germany, Finland, and Norway, and one from Finland, China, Austria, France, Hungary, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. It is worth mentioning that China was the only non-European and non-United States country, indicating that China has strengthened its development in this field of research. Among the 16 HCPs, two were about Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) ( 97 , 130 ) and two about meta-analysis ( 100 , 101 ), indicating that RAN and meta-analysis became the hotspots in dyslexia research. “Predictors of developmental dyslexia” ( 131 ) and “Early detection of dyslexia risk” ( 96 ) might be one of the new dyslexia research directions.

Highly-cited papers of dyslexia.

As of November/December 2021, these highly cited papers received enough citations to place it in the top 1% of the academic field of Social Sciences, general based on a highly cited threshold for the field and publication year. Data collection: 2022-05-12 .

There is no doubt that more countries have taken dyslexia seriously over the past few decades. The United States of America, United Kingdom, and Germany had done well in publishing research papers in this field. Some Asian countries like China and Israel have started to play a role in dyslexia research. It is worth noting that in 2020–2021, the research results from China increased significantly, and the ranking jumped to third place based on the number of published papers in the past 2 years.

North America, Western and Northern Europe, Asia, and Australia were the most active regions in the research of dyslexia. This was further confirmed by most active institutions and authors. There were no organizations from Africa in the top 15 most productive institutions that indicated that the issues relating to dyslexia in low-income regions lag far behind in developed countries and regions. The possible reason might be poor awareness of dyslexia among educators, the public, funding input, economic level, etc. As dyslexia is a world health issue, we expect more Asian and African nations join this research area. Although, most of the dyslexia research is held by universities, it will benefit sharing its knowledge and experiences between organizations such as hospitals, schools, and research centers.

According to the keywords analysis, 65% of publications were about children, suggesting that the most of research was about children with dyslexia. At present, MRI technology is mostly used to explore the brain function and mechanism of dyslexia, among which fMRI research is at the forefront. As can be seen from Figure 5 and Tables 4 , ​ ,6, 6 , “developmental dyslexia,” “phonological awareness,” children, and fMRI are still the hotspots in dyslexia research. By comparing the keywords in papers published before and after 2017, we found that the keywords “literacy,” “rapid automatized naming (RAN),” “assessment,” “intervention,” “meta-analysis,” “Chinese,” “executive function,” “morphological awareness,” “decoding,” “dyscalculia,” “EEG,” “Eye tracking,” “rhythm,” “bilingualism,” and “functional connectivity” were increasingly attracting the attention of researchers and had become some new research hotspots in dyslexia research. With the rapid development of the Internet, more knowledge is mainly obtained through network resources, and the effect of dyslexia on “information seeking” behavior has gradually attracted the attention of dyslexia researchers ( 132 , 133 ). In addition, the emergence of a new keyword COVID-19 in the past 2 years also showed that during the COVID-19 epidemic, researchers began to study the impact of the epidemic on dyslexia research ( 115 , 134 – 137 ). As the international exchange of dyslexia research continues to grow, scientists are aware that differences in education-related legislation in different countries may lead to persistent differences between psychologists' assessment practices. “Methods used by psychologists for identifying dyslexia: A systematic review” by Sadusky et al. ( 138 ) drew a conclusion that “a consensus operational definition of dyslexia and universal assessment guidelines” is needed. At the same time, the public library, as one of the important places for people to read, has thought about how to better serve dyslexic users ( 139 , 140 ).

Conclusions

In this study, we presented a general overview of the dyslexia research area from a country perspective. The number of countries participating in dyslexia research increased to 68 in 2021 from 32 in 2000. In total, 99 countries published papers in this research field since 2000. All 9,110 publications were analyzed based on co-occurrence of country, institution, author, and author keyword. The United States of America, United Kingdom, and Germany were the top three most prolific countries and had the biggest collaboration network in the dyslexia research. Currently, international cooperation is still insufficient in Asian and African countries. The advanced expertise and experience of developed countries can be shared with developing countries through international cooperation. To our knowledge, there is no cure for dyslexia, but early assessment and intervention will give the best outcome. And also, people with dyslexia can learn to read with structured literacy which helps to rewire their brains. This was confirmed by the topmost used author keywords “intervention,” “assessment,” and “literacy”.

This study provided an insight into the status of current dyslexia research. It can also provide useful information for relevant researchers to find potential collaborators. In addition, this study may help to increase public awareness and acceptance of dyslexia, disseminate knowledge of dyslexia to educators, policymakers, and especially parents of children with dyslexia.

Data Availability Statement

Author contributions.

YWan and YC designed the study. WY is responsible for data collection. YC and XY analyzed the data. YWu analyzed, interpreted the data, and wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research was funded by National Social Science Foundation of China (20BTQ028), the Scientific Research Program of Zhejiang Educational Committee (Y202147067), and Humanities and Social Sciences Research Foundation of Zhejiang University of Technology (SKY-ZX-20200076).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.