Consensus Without Clarity for Dyslexia Identification: A Commentary on Holden et al.

Holden et al. (2025) conducted a Delphi study to establish consensus on how to define, identify, and assess dyslexia, with the definitional component primarily reported by Carroll et al. (2025). Although Holden et al. aim to provide guidance for practitioners, we have concerns about the study's methodology, the reinforcement of IQ testing and discrepancy-based approaches, a focus on cognitive processing difficulties, and an over-reliance on clinical judgement. We argue that their approach ultimately complicates rather than clarifies dyslexia assessment and introduces barriers to equitable identification and intervention. Instead, we advocate for an approach that prioritises direct evaluation of word reading accuracy and fluency difficulties, eliminating reliance on cognitive assessments, family history, and response to instruction as diagnostic criteria.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Dyslexia
Published
2025-12-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.70019
Primary Topic
Reading and Literacy Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Consensus Without Clarity for Dyslexia Identification: A Commentary on Holden et al.

David P. Hurford, Michaela R. Ozier, Jamie L. Metsala, Linda S. Siegel
Dyslexia
Reading and Literacy Development
article

Consensus Without Clarity for Dyslexia Identification: A Commentary on Holden et al.

David P. Hurford, Michaela R. Ozier, Jamie L. Metsala, Linda S. Siegel
article en

Abstract

Holden et al. (2025) conducted a Delphi study to establish consensus on how to define, identify, and assess dyslexia, with the definitional component primarily reported by Carroll et al. (2025). Although Holden et al. aim to provide guidance for practitioners, we have concerns about the study's methodology, the reinforcement of IQ testing and discrepancy-based approaches, a focus on cognitive processing difficulties, and an over-reliance on clinical judgement. We argue that their approach ultimately complicates rather than clarifies dyslexia assessment and introduces barriers to equitable identification and intervention. Instead, we advocate for an approach that prioritises direct evaluation of word reading accuracy and fluency difficulties, eliminating reliance on cognitive assessments, family history, and response to instruction as diagnostic criteria.

DyslexiaVol. 32(1)
University of British Columbia (CA), Mount Saint Vincent University (CA), Pittsburg State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Reading and Literacy Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.