Gender Ratio in Dyslexia
This paper is based on a study carried out in Great Britain on a national sample of 11,804 ten-year olds. The first section describes an attempt to pick out cases of "specific developmental dyslexia" (Critchley 1970), a constellation or syndrome of difficulties which some believe to be rec...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Annals of dyslexia 1998-01, Vol.48 (1), p.27-55 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 55 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 27 |
container_title | Annals of dyslexia |
container_volume | 48 |
creator | Miles, T. R. Haslum, M. N. Wheeler, T. J. |
description | This paper is based on a study carried out in Great Britain on a national sample of 11,804 ten-year olds. The first section describes an attempt to pick out cases of "specific developmental dyslexia" (Critchley 1970), a constellation or syndrome of difficulties which some believe to be recognizable clinically. When specified criteria for dyslexia were used, 269 children qualified as dyslexic (2.28 percent of the sample). These included 223 boys and 46 girls, for a ratio of 4.51 to 1. Two possible difficulties in interpreting these data are discussed, and a defense is offered of the criteria used. Since some recent research papers report a gender ratio much nearer 1:1 (Shaywitz et al. 1990; Wadsworth et al. 1992; Lubs et al. 1993), those papers were examined for possible differences in procedure; it was found that the definition of dyslexia they used was "poor reading in relation to intelligence." We carried out a further analysis on our own data using the same criterion. Of the 494 children who qualified as dyslexic on the basis of discrepancy criteria alone (4.19 percent of the sample), 314 were boys and 180 were girls for a ratio of 1.69 to 1. It seems, therefore, that the apparent differences in gender ratio reported in the literature have arisen because different criteria for dyslexia have been used. We argue that the definition based on clinical criteria leads to a more powerful taxonomy and that the widespread equation of "dyslexia" with "poor reading" is a hindrance to progress. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11881-998-0003-8 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85711387</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ585704</ericid><jstor_id>23767888</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>23767888</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-70767487fad54255dea5f22070580c77386b2714364e58aec745bfc2c969b8d33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkM1LAzEQxYMoWKt3BYXiwVs03zN7lFq_KAii55Bms7Blu1uTLdj_3pSVHjx5msP7vZl5j5ALzm45Y3CXOEfktCiQMsYkxQMy4oVUFISSh2TEQBpaSIRjcpLSMjNQgBqR86fQliFO3l1fd5O6nTxsUxO-a3dKjirXpHD2O8fk83H2MX2m87enl-n9nHoJ0FNgYEAhVK7USmhdBqcrIRgwjcwDSDQLAVxJo4JGFzwovai88IUpFlhKOSY3w9517L42IfV2VScfmsa1odskixo4z3__A5QSipx5TK7_gMtuE9scwgqhJRhtTIb4APnYpRRDZdexXrm4tZzZXaN2aNTmRu2uUYvZczl4Qqz9np-96vwjU1m-GuRl6ru410W-CIgofwBoS3fW</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>225376566</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Gender Ratio in Dyslexia</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Education Source</source><creator>Miles, T. R. ; Haslum, M. N. ; Wheeler, T. J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Miles, T. R. ; Haslum, M. N. ; Wheeler, T. J.</creatorcontrib><description>This paper is based on a study carried out in Great Britain on a national sample of 11,804 ten-year olds. The first section describes an attempt to pick out cases of "specific developmental dyslexia" (Critchley 1970), a constellation or syndrome of difficulties which some believe to be recognizable clinically. When specified criteria for dyslexia were used, 269 children qualified as dyslexic (2.28 percent of the sample). These included 223 boys and 46 girls, for a ratio of 4.51 to 1. Two possible difficulties in interpreting these data are discussed, and a defense is offered of the criteria used. Since some recent research papers report a gender ratio much nearer 1:1 (Shaywitz et al. 1990; Wadsworth et al. 1992; Lubs et al. 1993), those papers were examined for possible differences in procedure; it was found that the definition of dyslexia they used was "poor reading in relation to intelligence." We carried out a further analysis on our own data using the same criterion. Of the 494 children who qualified as dyslexic on the basis of discrepancy criteria alone (4.19 percent of the sample), 314 were boys and 180 were girls for a ratio of 1.69 to 1. It seems, therefore, that the apparent differences in gender ratio reported in the literature have arisen because different criteria for dyslexia have been used. We argue that the definition based on clinical criteria leads to a more powerful taxonomy and that the widespread equation of "dyslexia" with "poor reading" is a hindrance to progress.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0736-9387</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1934-7243</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11881-998-0003-8</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ANDYDD</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: The International Dyslexia Association</publisher><subject>Academic underachievement ; Births ; Children ; Clinical Diagnosis ; Clinical experience ; Clinical judgment ; Data Analysis ; Data Interpretation ; Disability Identification ; Dyslexia ; Educational evaluation ; Educational Needs ; Educational Testing ; Evaluation Criteria ; Evaluation Methods ; Families & family life ; Foreign Countries ; Gender ; Intelligence ; Longitudinal Studies ; PART I: The Orton Tradition: Influences Past and Present ; Ratios ; Reading comprehension ; Reading difficulties ; Reading Tests ; Sensory disorders ; Sex Differences ; Speech discrimination ; Taxonomy</subject><ispartof>Annals of dyslexia, 1998-01, Vol.48 (1), p.27-55</ispartof><rights>The International Dyslexia Association 1998</rights><rights>Copyright International Dyslexia Association 1998</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-70767487fad54255dea5f22070580c77386b2714364e58aec745bfc2c969b8d33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-70767487fad54255dea5f22070580c77386b2714364e58aec745bfc2c969b8d33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23767888$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/23767888$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27903,27904,57996,58229</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ585704$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Miles, T. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haslum, M. N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, T. J.</creatorcontrib><title>Gender Ratio in Dyslexia</title><title>Annals of dyslexia</title><description>This paper is based on a study carried out in Great Britain on a national sample of 11,804 ten-year olds. The first section describes an attempt to pick out cases of "specific developmental dyslexia" (Critchley 1970), a constellation or syndrome of difficulties which some believe to be recognizable clinically. When specified criteria for dyslexia were used, 269 children qualified as dyslexic (2.28 percent of the sample). These included 223 boys and 46 girls, for a ratio of 4.51 to 1. Two possible difficulties in interpreting these data are discussed, and a defense is offered of the criteria used. Since some recent research papers report a gender ratio much nearer 1:1 (Shaywitz et al. 1990; Wadsworth et al. 1992; Lubs et al. 1993), those papers were examined for possible differences in procedure; it was found that the definition of dyslexia they used was "poor reading in relation to intelligence." We carried out a further analysis on our own data using the same criterion. Of the 494 children who qualified as dyslexic on the basis of discrepancy criteria alone (4.19 percent of the sample), 314 were boys and 180 were girls for a ratio of 1.69 to 1. It seems, therefore, that the apparent differences in gender ratio reported in the literature have arisen because different criteria for dyslexia have been used. We argue that the definition based on clinical criteria leads to a more powerful taxonomy and that the widespread equation of "dyslexia" with "poor reading" is a hindrance to progress.</description><subject>Academic underachievement</subject><subject>Births</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>Clinical Diagnosis</subject><subject>Clinical experience</subject><subject>Clinical judgment</subject><subject>Data Analysis</subject><subject>Data Interpretation</subject><subject>Disability Identification</subject><subject>Dyslexia</subject><subject>Educational evaluation</subject><subject>Educational Needs</subject><subject>Educational Testing</subject><subject>Evaluation Criteria</subject><subject>Evaluation Methods</subject><subject>Families & family life</subject><subject>Foreign Countries</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>Intelligence</subject><subject>Longitudinal Studies</subject><subject>PART I: The Orton Tradition: Influences Past and Present</subject><subject>Ratios</subject><subject>Reading comprehension</subject><subject>Reading difficulties</subject><subject>Reading Tests</subject><subject>Sensory disorders</subject><subject>Sex Differences</subject><subject>Speech discrimination</subject><subject>Taxonomy</subject><issn>0736-9387</issn><issn>1934-7243</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkM1LAzEQxYMoWKt3BYXiwVs03zN7lFq_KAii55Bms7Blu1uTLdj_3pSVHjx5msP7vZl5j5ALzm45Y3CXOEfktCiQMsYkxQMy4oVUFISSh2TEQBpaSIRjcpLSMjNQgBqR86fQliFO3l1fd5O6nTxsUxO-a3dKjirXpHD2O8fk83H2MX2m87enl-n9nHoJ0FNgYEAhVK7USmhdBqcrIRgwjcwDSDQLAVxJo4JGFzwovai88IUpFlhKOSY3w9517L42IfV2VScfmsa1odskixo4z3__A5QSipx5TK7_gMtuE9scwgqhJRhtTIb4APnYpRRDZdexXrm4tZzZXaN2aNTmRu2uUYvZczl4Qqz9np-96vwjU1m-GuRl6ru410W-CIgofwBoS3fW</recordid><startdate>19980101</startdate><enddate>19980101</enddate><creator>Miles, T. R.</creator><creator>Haslum, M. N.</creator><creator>Wheeler, T. J.</creator><general>The International Dyslexia Association</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8BM</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>CPGLG</scope><scope>CRLPW</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19980101</creationdate><title>Gender Ratio in Dyslexia</title><author>Miles, T. R. ; Haslum, M. N. ; Wheeler, T. J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-70767487fad54255dea5f22070580c77386b2714364e58aec745bfc2c969b8d33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Academic underachievement</topic><topic>Births</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>Clinical Diagnosis</topic><topic>Clinical experience</topic><topic>Clinical judgment</topic><topic>Data Analysis</topic><topic>Data Interpretation</topic><topic>Disability Identification</topic><topic>Dyslexia</topic><topic>Educational evaluation</topic><topic>Educational Needs</topic><topic>Educational Testing</topic><topic>Evaluation Criteria</topic><topic>Evaluation Methods</topic><topic>Families & family life</topic><topic>Foreign Countries</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>Intelligence</topic><topic>Longitudinal Studies</topic><topic>PART I: The Orton Tradition: Influences Past and Present</topic><topic>Ratios</topic><topic>Reading comprehension</topic><topic>Reading difficulties</topic><topic>Reading Tests</topic><topic>Sensory disorders</topic><topic>Sex Differences</topic><topic>Speech discrimination</topic><topic>Taxonomy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Miles, T. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haslum, M. N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, T. J.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Annals of dyslexia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Miles, T. R.</au><au>Haslum, M. N.</au><au>Wheeler, T. J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ585704</ericid><atitle>Gender Ratio in Dyslexia</atitle><jtitle>Annals of dyslexia</jtitle><date>1998-01-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>48</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>27</spage><epage>55</epage><pages>27-55</pages><issn>0736-9387</issn><eissn>1934-7243</eissn><coden>ANDYDD</coden><abstract>This paper is based on a study carried out in Great Britain on a national sample of 11,804 ten-year olds. The first section describes an attempt to pick out cases of "specific developmental dyslexia" (Critchley 1970), a constellation or syndrome of difficulties which some believe to be recognizable clinically. When specified criteria for dyslexia were used, 269 children qualified as dyslexic (2.28 percent of the sample). These included 223 boys and 46 girls, for a ratio of 4.51 to 1. Two possible difficulties in interpreting these data are discussed, and a defense is offered of the criteria used. Since some recent research papers report a gender ratio much nearer 1:1 (Shaywitz et al. 1990; Wadsworth et al. 1992; Lubs et al. 1993), those papers were examined for possible differences in procedure; it was found that the definition of dyslexia they used was "poor reading in relation to intelligence." We carried out a further analysis on our own data using the same criterion. Of the 494 children who qualified as dyslexic on the basis of discrepancy criteria alone (4.19 percent of the sample), 314 were boys and 180 were girls for a ratio of 1.69 to 1. It seems, therefore, that the apparent differences in gender ratio reported in the literature have arisen because different criteria for dyslexia have been used. We argue that the definition based on clinical criteria leads to a more powerful taxonomy and that the widespread equation of "dyslexia" with "poor reading" is a hindrance to progress.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>The International Dyslexia Association</pub><doi>10.1007/s11881-998-0003-8</doi><tpages>29</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0736-9387 |
ispartof | Annals of dyslexia, 1998-01, Vol.48 (1), p.27-55 |
issn | 0736-9387 1934-7243 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85711387 |
source | SpringerLink Journals; Jstor Complete Legacy; Education Source |
subjects | Academic underachievement Births Children Clinical Diagnosis Clinical experience Clinical judgment Data Analysis Data Interpretation Disability Identification Dyslexia Educational evaluation Educational Needs Educational Testing Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Methods Families & family life Foreign Countries Gender Intelligence Longitudinal Studies PART I: The Orton Tradition: Influences Past and Present Ratios Reading comprehension Reading difficulties Reading Tests Sensory disorders Sex Differences Speech discrimination Taxonomy |
title | Gender Ratio in Dyslexia |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T04%3A27%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Gender%20Ratio%20in%20Dyslexia&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20dyslexia&rft.au=Miles,%20T.%20R.&rft.date=1998-01-01&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=27&rft.epage=55&rft.pages=27-55&rft.issn=0736-9387&rft.eissn=1934-7243&rft.coden=ANDYDD&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11881-998-0003-8&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E23767888%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=225376566&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ585704&rft_jstor_id=23767888&rfr_iscdi=true |