Towards a Consensus for Dyslexia Practice: Findings of a Delphi Study on Assessment and Identification.

Caroline Holden, Philip Kirby, Margaret J Snowling, Paul A Thompson, Julia M Carroll
Author Information
  1. Caroline Holden: SpLD Assessment Standards Committee (SASC), Esher, Surrey, UK.
  2. Philip Kirby: King's College London, London, UK. ORCID
  3. Margaret J Snowling: University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  4. Paul A Thompson: University of Warwick and University of Birmingham, Coventry and Birmingham, UK.
  5. Julia M Carroll: University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Abstract

This paper discusses the findings of a Delphi study in which Dyslexia experts, including academics, specialist teachers, educational psychologists, and individuals with Dyslexia, were asked for their agreement with a set of key statements about defining and identifying Dyslexia: why it should be assessed and how and when this assessment should be conducted. Two rounds of survey responses provided a vehicle for moving towards consensus on how to assess for Dyslexia. Forty-two consensus statements were ultimately accepted. Findings suggested that assessment practice should take account of risks to the accurate identification of Dyslexia. An assessment model, with guidelines for assessors, is presented, based on the Delphi's findings. This hypothesis-testing model requires assessors to investigate and weigh up the factors most likely to result in an accurate assessment before reaching conclusions, assigning terminology, and making recommendations for intervention and management.

Keywords

References

  1. Dyslexia. 2019 Nov;25(4):345-359 [PMID: 31697024]
  2. Oxf Rev Educ. 2020 Aug 13;46(4):501-513 [PMID: 32939103]
  3. J Learn Disabil. 2022 May-Jun;55(3):171-184 [PMID: 34365842]
  4. Ann Dyslexia. 2024 Oct;74(3):303-324 [PMID: 38217783]
  5. Dyslexia. 2018 Feb;24(1):3-16 [PMID: 29314436]
  6. Dyslexia. 2022 May;28(2):132-148 [PMID: 34931397]
  7. Sci Stud Read. 2020;24(1):7-13 [PMID: 32440085]
  8. Ann Dyslexia. 2024 Jul;74(2):143-157 [PMID: 38877328]
  9. Oxf Rev Educ. 2020 Aug 13;46(4):472-486 [PMID: 32939102]
  10. J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15 [PMID: 11095242]
  11. J Learn Disabil. 2020 Sep/Oct;53(5):343-353 [PMID: 32075514]
  12. Sci Stud Read. 2023;27(1):67-81 [PMID: 36685047]
  13. Read Res Q. 2023 Apr-Jun;58(2):188-202 [PMID: 37448987]
  14. Ann Dyslexia. 2024 Oct;74(3):282-302 [PMID: 38194056]
  15. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016 Apr 22;113(16):279-86 [PMID: 27159142]
  16. Cognition. 2012 Jan;122(1):110-7 [PMID: 22030120]
  17. J Learn Disabil. 2020 Nov/Dec;53(6):454-468 [PMID: 32623947]
  18. Dyslexia. 2018 May;24(2):109-127 [PMID: 29577523]
  19. Ann Dyslexia. 2023 Oct;73(3):337-355 [PMID: 37418132]
  20. Dyslexia. 2022 Aug;28(3):256-275 [PMID: 35766340]
  21. Dyslexia. 2023 Aug;29(3):162-178 [PMID: 37313635]
  22. Ann Dyslexia. 2024 Oct;74(3):337-354 [PMID: 38867023]

MeSH Term

Humans
Delphi Technique
Dyslexia
Consensus

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0dyslexiaassessmentDelphiconsensusfindingsstudystatementsFindingspracticeaccuratemodelassessorspaperdiscussesexpertsincludingacademicsspecialistteacherseducationalpsychologistsindividualsaskedagreementsetkeydefiningidentifyingdyslexia:assessedconductedTworoundssurveyresponsesprovidedvehiclemovingtowardsassessForty-twoultimatelyacceptedsuggestedtakeaccountrisksidentificationguidelinespresentedbasedDelphi'shypothesis-testingrequiresinvestigateweighfactorslikelyresultreachingconclusionsassigningterminologymakingrecommendationsinterventionmanagementTowardsConsensusDyslexiaPractice:StudyAssessmentIdentificationframework

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.