Link to journal article, which is open access is here.
Abstract
Despite a strong base of scientifically supported research on dyslexia, pervasive misunderstandings continue, particularly in the United States, where state legislation, instructional practices and parent advocacy intersect in ways that influence how dyslexia is identified and treated. Historical misinterpretations about the aetiology and characteristics of dyslexia, evolving definitions of dyslexia and differing ideological beliefs about how to operationalize identifying dyslexia in schools all contribute to uncertainty surrounding what dyslexia is and is not. Misunderstandings have led to a host of fad and pseudoscientific treatments for dyslexia that are unsupported by scientifically based reading research. Misinformation about dyslexia continues to be shared by well-intentioned, but uninformed, advocates. Disinformation about dyslexia is also shared with education stakeholders for monetary gain. This article draws on scientifically based reading research to (a) illuminate current understandings and misunderstandings about dyslexia, (b) support evidence-based treatments, (c) dispel fad and pseudoscientific treatments and (d) highlight areas needing additional research.
Practitioner Points
- Dyslexia reflects word-reading difficulty along a continuum of severity; students need the same evidence-based instruction, delivered with greater intensity.
- Structured literacy—explicit, systematic instruction in foundational and language skills—has the strongest evidence for remediating dyslexia.
- Vision-based treatments, dyslexic fonts and cognitive or ‘brain’ training programs lack evidence for improving reading outcomes.
- Orton–Gillingham's defining multisensory element lacks empirical support; its well-supported components are shared by other structured literacy approaches.
- Educators and parents should critically evaluate treatment claims, prioritizing instruction grounded in scientifically based reading research.
