English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

We reviewed five studies that relied on the same methodologies to determine the prevalence of Phonological, Surface and Double-Deficit-Subtypes in developmental dyslexia. The proportion of these subtypes was found to vary according to the method (classical method or regression method), the measure (accuracy or processing time), the dyslexics’ language (English or French) and their chronological age. Only two results appeared consistently across the studies. First, with the classical method, and as compared to chronological age controls, most of the dyslexics appeared to suffer from a double deficit. Second, with the regression method, and as compared to reading level controls, the surface profile, though not the phonological profile, almost disappeared, thus suggesting that only the latter corresponds to a developmental deviance. In addition, in the sole study in which both accuracy and processing time were taken into account, in the comparison with reading level controls, only the phonological skills of both the phonological and the surface dyslexics were found to be impaired, either in accuracy or in processing time. These results are more in line with the hypothesis that a phonological deficit is at the core of developmental dyslexia, than with the idea that a clear dissociation exists between surface and phonological profiles.

Reliability of Phonological and Surface Subtypes in Developmental Dyslexia: A Review of Five Multiple Cases Studies