| Title |
The multiple deficit model of dyslexia: what does it mean for identification and intervention?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Dyslexia, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11881-018-0157-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeremiah Ring, Jeffrey L. Black |
| Abstract |
Research demonstrates that phonological skills provide the basis of reading acquisition and are a primary processing deficit in dyslexia. This consensus has led to the development of effective methods of reading intervention. However, a single phonological deficit is not sufficient to account for the heterogeneity of individuals with dyslexia, and recent research provides evidence that supports a multiple-deficit model of reading disorders. Two studies are presented that investigate (1) the prevalence of phonological and cognitive processing deficit profiles in children with significant reading disability and (2) the effects of those same phonological and cognitive processing skills on reading development in a sample of children that received treatment for dyslexia. The results are discussed in the context of implications for identification and an intervention approach that accommodates multiple deficits within a comprehensive skills-based reading program. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 183 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 30 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 8% |
| Researcher | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 48 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 55 | 30% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 8% |
| Linguistics | 13 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 10% |
| Unknown | 57 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2022.
All research outputs
#3,745,010
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Dyslexia
#42
of 250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,486
of 327,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Dyslexia
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them