Methods used by psychologists for identifying dyslexia: A systematic review.

IF 1.9 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Dyslexia Pub Date : 2022-05-01 Epub Date: 2021-12-20 DOI:10.1002/dys.1706
Andrea Sadusky, Emily P Berger, Andrea E Reupert, Nerelie C Freeman
{"title":"Methods used by psychologists for identifying dyslexia: A systematic review.","authors":"Andrea Sadusky,&nbsp;Emily P Berger,&nbsp;Andrea E Reupert,&nbsp;Nerelie C Freeman","doi":"10.1002/dys.1706","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Inconsistencies in the operationalisation of dyslexia in assessment practices are concerning. Variations in different countries' education contexts and education-related legislation could contribute to continuing discrepancies between psychologists' assessment practices. However, an international \"snapshot\" of these practices is unavailable. An international comparison of psychologists' dyslexia assessment practices could help ascertain whether there are contextual factors that can foster converging practices. Accordingly, this study systematically reviewed the literature to capture how psychologists identify and/or diagnose dyslexia across English-speaking countries. Quantitative and/or qualitative studies, published between 2013 and 2021, that investigated psychologists' self-reported methods for assessing, identifying, and/or diagnosing individuals with dyslexia were included. Eleven studies (published across fourteen papers) met the inclusion criteria. Most included studies sampled school psychologists who work in the USA. Psychologists' dyslexia assessment practices were diverse (including the use of cognitive discrepancy and response-to-intervention methods). The results highlight an international need to develop a consensus operational definition of dyslexia and universal assessment guidelines. Future research might investigate the practices and beliefs of psychologists who work outside of the USA, and to be inclusive of adult populations. Implications for research and training are explored.</p>","PeriodicalId":47222,"journal":{"name":"Dyslexia","volume":"28 2","pages":"132-148"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dyslexia","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1706","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Inconsistencies in the operationalisation of dyslexia in assessment practices are concerning. Variations in different countries' education contexts and education-related legislation could contribute to continuing discrepancies between psychologists' assessment practices. However, an international "snapshot" of these practices is unavailable. An international comparison of psychologists' dyslexia assessment practices could help ascertain whether there are contextual factors that can foster converging practices. Accordingly, this study systematically reviewed the literature to capture how psychologists identify and/or diagnose dyslexia across English-speaking countries. Quantitative and/or qualitative studies, published between 2013 and 2021, that investigated psychologists' self-reported methods for assessing, identifying, and/or diagnosing individuals with dyslexia were included. Eleven studies (published across fourteen papers) met the inclusion criteria. Most included studies sampled school psychologists who work in the USA. Psychologists' dyslexia assessment practices were diverse (including the use of cognitive discrepancy and response-to-intervention methods). The results highlight an international need to develop a consensus operational definition of dyslexia and universal assessment guidelines. Future research might investigate the practices and beliefs of psychologists who work outside of the USA, and to be inclusive of adult populations. Implications for research and training are explored.

心理学家用于识别阅读障碍的方法:系统回顾。
在评估实践中读写困难的操作不一致是值得关注的。不同国家的教育背景和教育相关立法的差异可能导致心理学家评估实践之间的持续差异。然而,这些做法的国际“快照”是不可用的。对心理学家的阅读障碍评估实践进行国际比较可以帮助确定是否存在能够促进趋同实践的环境因素。因此,本研究系统地回顾了文献,以捕捉心理学家如何识别和/或诊断英语国家的阅读障碍。2013年至2021年间发表的定量和/或定性研究调查了心理学家评估、识别和/或诊断阅读障碍患者的自我报告方法。11项研究(发表在14篇论文中)符合纳入标准。大多数包括的研究抽样了在美国工作的学校心理学家。心理学家的阅读障碍评估实践是多种多样的(包括使用认知差异和反应干预方法)。结果突出了国际需要制定一个共识的操作定义的阅读障碍和普遍的评估准则。未来的研究可能会调查在美国以外工作的心理学家的实践和信仰,并包括成年人。探讨了对研究和培训的影响。
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
Dyslexia
Dyslexia Multiple-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: DYSLEXIA provides reviews and reports of research, assessment and intervention practice. In many fields of enquiry theoretical advances often occur in response to practical needs; and a central aim of the journal is to bring together researchers and practitioners in the field of dyslexia, so that each can learn from the other. Interesting developments, both theoretical and practical, are being reported in many different countries: DYSLEXIA is a forum in which a knowledge of these developments can be shared by readers in all parts of the world. The scope of the journal includes relevant aspects of Cognitive, Educational, Developmental and Clinical Psychology Child and Adult Special Education and Remedial Education Therapy and Counselling Neuroscience, Psychiatry and General Medicine The scope of the journal includes relevant aspects of: - Cognitive, Educational, Developmental and Clinical Psychology - Child and Adult Special Education and Remedial Education - Therapy and Counselling - Neuroscience, Psychiatry and General Medicine
×
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