Diagnosing dyslexia in adults: what is going wrong and how can we fix it?

IF 2 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Julian G Elliott, Johny Daniel
{"title":"Diagnosing dyslexia in adults: what is going wrong and how can we fix it?","authors":"Julian G Elliott, Johny Daniel","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2026.2665373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper examines how the concept of dyslexia, a problem that was once considered to be both rare and highly salient, has now been broadened to such an extent that many adults with successful educational histories, and without any history of significant reading difficulty, receive a dyslexia diagnosis only after having progressed to higher education, training, or employment. It is argued that the basis of the problem lies largely in conceptual and scientific misunderstandings. While there is a wide consensus that dyslexia represents a severe, complex, and persistent difficulty in learning to decode text, many have placed undue emphasis upon a wide variety of cognitive processes as diagnostic indicators. The primary error stems from conflating the greater likelihood of finding such difficulties in groups of struggling readers with the belief that these can be adjudged to be markers of dyslexia in the case of a given individual. This misconception has been exacerbated by a growing emphasis upon self-reported difficulties and the use of lived experience as primary means of understanding the nature of the condition. The dangers that result for scientific advance and for evidence-led educational policy and practice are highlighted. It is contended that the expansion of the dyslexia construct, and the misuse of assessment data, particularly when employed with adults, has in part been fueled, not by scientific research, but by the misunderstandings, interests, and motivations of those receiving and providing diagnostic services. Illustrative examples from the domains of adult higher education, medical training, and employment tribunals are offered as illustration.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"922-942"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2026.2665373","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper examines how the concept of dyslexia, a problem that was once considered to be both rare and highly salient, has now been broadened to such an extent that many adults with successful educational histories, and without any history of significant reading difficulty, receive a dyslexia diagnosis only after having progressed to higher education, training, or employment. It is argued that the basis of the problem lies largely in conceptual and scientific misunderstandings. While there is a wide consensus that dyslexia represents a severe, complex, and persistent difficulty in learning to decode text, many have placed undue emphasis upon a wide variety of cognitive processes as diagnostic indicators. The primary error stems from conflating the greater likelihood of finding such difficulties in groups of struggling readers with the belief that these can be adjudged to be markers of dyslexia in the case of a given individual. This misconception has been exacerbated by a growing emphasis upon self-reported difficulties and the use of lived experience as primary means of understanding the nature of the condition. The dangers that result for scientific advance and for evidence-led educational policy and practice are highlighted. It is contended that the expansion of the dyslexia construct, and the misuse of assessment data, particularly when employed with adults, has in part been fueled, not by scientific research, but by the misunderstandings, interests, and motivations of those receiving and providing diagnostic services. Illustrative examples from the domains of adult higher education, medical training, and employment tribunals are offered as illustration.

诊断成人阅读障碍:哪里出了问题,我们如何解决?
这篇论文探讨了阅读障碍这个曾经被认为既罕见又非常突出的问题的概念是如何被扩展到这样一个程度,即许多具有成功教育历史的成年人,没有任何明显的阅读困难史,只有在接受高等教育、培训或就业后才被诊断为阅读障碍。有人认为,问题的根源主要在于观念上和科学上的误解。虽然有一个广泛的共识,即阅读障碍代表了学习解码文本的严重、复杂和持续的困难,但许多人过分强调了各种各样的认知过程作为诊断指标。主要的错误是,把在一群苦苦挣扎的读者中发现这种困难的可能性更大,与认为在特定的情况下,这些困难可以被判定为阅读障碍的标志混为一谈。越来越多的人强调自我报告的困难,并将生活经验作为了解病情本质的主要手段,这加剧了这种误解。强调了科学进步和以证据为主导的教育政策和实践所带来的危险。有人认为,阅读障碍概念的扩大,以及评估数据的误用,尤其是在成年人身上使用时,在一定程度上不是由科学研究推动的,而是由接受和提供诊断服务的人的误解、兴趣和动机推动的。从成人高等教育、医疗培训和就业法庭领域提供了说明性的例子作为说明。
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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书