Dyslexia in the 21st century: revisiting the consensus definition

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Timothy N. Odegard, Emily A. Farris, Anna E. Middleton
{"title":"Dyslexia in the 21st century: revisiting the consensus definition","authors":"Timothy N. Odegard,&nbsp;Emily A. Farris,&nbsp;Anna E. Middleton","doi":"10.1007/s11881-024-00316-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Two decades after the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) adopted the 2002 consensus definition of dyslexia, this special issue of the <i>Annals of Dyslexia</i> revisits that definition in light of advances in scientific understanding and evolving needs. Through contributions from leading researchers and interdisciplinary teams, the issue examines the strengths and limitations of the definition as it has been applied in research, policy, and practice. Key themes emerged, which included reconsidering the need to include the neurobiological basis of dyslexia in the definition, the intersection of literacy challenges and mental health, and the role of context in shaping how dyslexia is defined. Contributors to this special issue also reflected on how the definition serves different audiences, including educators, policymakers, and families. As the IDA embarks on a thoughtful reassessment of the 2002 definition, this collection of articles offers insights to guide the path forward, ensuring the definition remains a robust tool for research, identification, intervention, and advocacy in the coming years.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47273,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Dyslexia","volume":"74 3","pages":"273 - 281"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Dyslexia","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11881-024-00316-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Two decades after the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) adopted the 2002 consensus definition of dyslexia, this special issue of the Annals of Dyslexia revisits that definition in light of advances in scientific understanding and evolving needs. Through contributions from leading researchers and interdisciplinary teams, the issue examines the strengths and limitations of the definition as it has been applied in research, policy, and practice. Key themes emerged, which included reconsidering the need to include the neurobiological basis of dyslexia in the definition, the intersection of literacy challenges and mental health, and the role of context in shaping how dyslexia is defined. Contributors to this special issue also reflected on how the definition serves different audiences, including educators, policymakers, and families. As the IDA embarks on a thoughtful reassessment of the 2002 definition, this collection of articles offers insights to guide the path forward, ensuring the definition remains a robust tool for research, identification, intervention, and advocacy in the coming years.

21 世纪的阅读障碍:重新审视共识定义
在国际阅读障碍协会(IDA)于 2002 年通过阅读障碍的共识定义二十年后,本期《阅读障碍年鉴》特刊根据科学认识的进步和不断变化的需求重新审视了这一定义。本期特刊通过顶尖研究人员和跨学科团队的贡献,探讨了该定义在研究、政策和实践中应用的优势和局限性。其中出现的关键主题包括:重新考虑是否有必要在定义中纳入阅读障碍的神经生物学基础、读写困难与心理健康的交集,以及背景在影响阅读障碍定义中的作用。本特刊的撰稿人还思考了该定义如何服务于不同受众,包括教育工作者、政策制定者和家庭。随着国际阅读障碍协会开始对 2002 年的定义进行深思熟虑的重新评估,这组文章提供了指导前进道路的真知灼见,确保该定义在未来几年中仍然是研究、识别、干预和宣传的有力工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of Dyslexia
Annals of Dyslexia Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Annals of Dyslexia is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the scientific study of dyslexia, its comorbid conditions; and theory-based practices on remediation, and intervention of dyslexia and related areas of written language disorders including spelling, composing and mathematics. Primary consideration for publication is given to original empirical studies, significant review, and well-documented reports of evidence-based effective practices. Only original papers are considered for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信