二十一世纪的阅读障碍:对国际阅读障碍协会阅读障碍定义的评论。

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Julian G. Elliott, Elena L. Grigorenko
{"title":"二十一世纪的阅读障碍:对国际阅读障碍协会阅读障碍定义的评论。","authors":"Julian G. Elliott,&nbsp;Elena L. Grigorenko","doi":"10.1007/s11881-024-00311-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In offering a commentary upon the IDA definition, we address its main components in turn. While each is technically accurate, we argue that, when taken together, the definition, or more accurately, the use to which it is often put, becomes problematic. We outline different current conceptions of dyslexia and conclude that the operationalisation of the definition for diagnostic purposes often results in scientifically questionable diagnoses and inadvertently leads to significant educational inequity. We propose a simpler definition that describes the primary difficulty, avoids reference to causal explanation, unexpectedness, and secondary outcomes, and redirects practitioner and policymaker focus to the importance of addressing and meeting the needs of all struggling readers.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47273,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Dyslexia","volume":"74 3","pages":"363 - 377"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11413141/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dyslexia in the twenty-first century: a commentary on the IDA definition of dyslexia\",\"authors\":\"Julian G. Elliott,&nbsp;Elena L. Grigorenko\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11881-024-00311-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In offering a commentary upon the IDA definition, we address its main components in turn. While each is technically accurate, we argue that, when taken together, the definition, or more accurately, the use to which it is often put, becomes problematic. We outline different current conceptions of dyslexia and conclude that the operationalisation of the definition for diagnostic purposes often results in scientifically questionable diagnoses and inadvertently leads to significant educational inequity. We propose a simpler definition that describes the primary difficulty, avoids reference to causal explanation, unexpectedness, and secondary outcomes, and redirects practitioner and policymaker focus to the importance of addressing and meeting the needs of all struggling readers.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Dyslexia\",\"volume\":\"74 3\",\"pages\":\"363 - 377\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11413141/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Dyslexia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11881-024-00311-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Dyslexia","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11881-024-00311-0","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

摘要

在对国际开发协会的定义进行评论时,我们依次讨论了其主要组成部分。虽然每个部分在技术上都是准确的,但我们认为,如果将这些部分合在一起,这个定义,或者更准确地说,这个定义的使用就会出现问题。我们概述了当前关于阅读障碍的不同概念,并得出结论:出于诊断目的而对该定义进行操作,往往会导致诊断结果在科学上存在问题,并在无意中造成严重的教育不公平。我们提出了一个更简单的定义,该定义描述了主要困难,避免提及因果解释、意外性和次要结果,并将从业人员和政策制定者的注意力重新引向解决和满足所有有困难的读者的需求的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dyslexia in the twenty-first century: a commentary on the IDA definition of dyslexia

In offering a commentary upon the IDA definition, we address its main components in turn. While each is technically accurate, we argue that, when taken together, the definition, or more accurately, the use to which it is often put, becomes problematic. We outline different current conceptions of dyslexia and conclude that the operationalisation of the definition for diagnostic purposes often results in scientifically questionable diagnoses and inadvertently leads to significant educational inequity. We propose a simpler definition that describes the primary difficulty, avoids reference to causal explanation, unexpectedness, and secondary outcomes, and redirects practitioner and policymaker focus to the importance of addressing and meeting the needs of all struggling readers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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