Dyslexia: E-Articles from Reading Research Quarterly (ILA Hub)

Abstract
Oral deaf children and hearing children with dyslexia both experience literacy challenges, although their reasons differ. The authors explored the problems underlying poor literacy in each group and drew implications for reading interventions. Data were collected using standardized literacy and phonological measures from 69 severe-to-profoundly prelingually deaf children ages 10 and 11 years, all communicating with spoken language, and compared with equivalent data from 20 hearing children with a history of dyslexia matched on reading ability. Children were given a large battery of tasks assessing word and nonword reading, spelling, vocabulary, and reading-related skills, including letter sound knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid automated naming, and verbal short-term memory. Striking similarities were observed for word reading, nonword reading, and spelling across groups, and associations between the measures and reading-related skills were similar. However, differences between the two groups emerged in the strength of association between literacy and vocabulary. Regression analyses confirmed vocabulary as a key predictor of literacy in the oral deaf group. These results suggest that not only children with a history of dyslexia but also oral deaf children who struggle with reading should receive specialist literacy support. Reading interventions for oral deaf children should target phonological and language skills within a fully integrated approach.

Abstract
By investigating children whose parents have dyslexia, family risk (FR) studies are expanding our understanding of the intergenerational transmission of dyslexia. These studies, however, vary in their identification of FR, and how the use of different identification methods influences research findings and conclusions is yet to be systematically investigated. This study aims to evaluate the association between two FR identification methods—parental self-reports and direct skill assessments—and their unique contributions in the prediction of children's reading. The study employed two datasets: a prospective FR sample (half of the parents in the sample had dyslexia and the remaining half did not) and an unselected sample. Parental self-reports and direct skill assessments correlated strongly (.60) in the prospective FR sample and moderately (.42) in the unselected sample. Moreover, both FR identification methods were almost equally predictive of children's reading (explaining 5%–9% of the variance at different time points) in the prospective FR sample only. In the prediction of the children's skills, the two methods complemented each other only for some of the measures. At the same time, in the unselected sample, parental skills were not predictive of children's reading, whereas self-reports were. The two FR identification methods seem to have equally high predictive power when the variability in parental data is high. However, they lose their predictive power when either the lower or higher end of the parental reading distribution is underrepresented.