University of Durham, Durham, UK.
University of Houston, Houston, TX, 77004, USA.
Ann Dyslexia. 2024 Oct;74(3):363-377. doi: 10.1007/s11881-024-00311-0. Epub 2024 Jun 15.
In offering a commentary upon the IDA definition, we address its main components in turn. While each is technically accurate, we argue that, when taken together, the definition, or more accurately, the use to which it is often put, becomes problematic. We outline different current conceptions of dyslexia and conclude that the operationalisation of the definition for diagnostic purposes often results in scientifically questionable diagnoses and inadvertently leads to significant educational inequity. We propose a simpler definition that describes the primary difficulty, avoids reference to causal explanation, unexpectedness, and secondary outcomes, and redirects practitioner and policymaker focus to the importance of addressing and meeting the needs of all struggling readers.
在对 IDA 定义进行评论时,我们依次讨论其主要组成部分。虽然每个部分在技术上都是准确的,但我们认为,当这些部分放在一起时,该定义(或者更准确地说,它经常被使用的方式)就会出现问题。我们概述了不同的当前阅读障碍概念,并得出结论,即出于诊断目的而对该定义的操作化常常导致有科学问题的诊断,并无意中导致了重大的教育不平等。我们提出了一个更简单的定义,该定义描述了主要困难,避免了对因果解释、意外性和次要结果的提及,并将从业者和决策者的注意力重新引导到解决和满足所有苦苦挣扎的读者的需求的重要性上。