Redefining Dyslexia
In October, I was lucky enough to receive a scholarship to attend the IDA (International Dyslexia Association) Conference in Dallas, Texas. It was thrilling to travel all that way and learn live from some of my idols in the field.
One of the key topics discussed was how the IDA’s definition of dyslexia could be improved. This conversation is gaining momentum internationally, with a Delphi Study published in the UK addressing similar questions.
At CAI Hub, we focus on interpreting research for practical use. So, what practical changes might we see in “Dyslexia 2.0”?
Before I entered the definition discussion I took a few minutes to think about what I thought might be changing. On my list were:
- A greater emphasis on the importance of Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN),
- Dyslexia being seen as having different profiles or sub-types,
- A shift away from a deficit-focused perspective..ideally including a nod to dyslexic strengths.
Spoiler alert – I was about as wrong as a polar bear at a Luau.
So what can we expect in Dyslexia 2.0?
1. Don’t Expect the Unexpected
The term “unexpected” has long been part of dyslexia’s definition, referring to an unexpected difficulty in reading. However, its meaning has evolved, introducing subjectivity into the definition.
For example, one person might view a child’s reading challenges as unexpected, while another might argue that insufficient instruction is to blame. Subjectivity can invite unconscious bias into the diagnostic conversation. At the conference, this word was heavily debated, and I suspect it will be removed from the new definition.
If they do take it out, it will be fascinating to see how that impacts the age at which children are diagnosed.
2. Think Multifactorial
While phonemic awareness is a key deficit in dyslexia, it’s not the only one. Before attending, I had imagined the new definition might include subtypes of dyslexia, as outlined by researchers like Coltheart. However, the researchers uniformly suggested a broader approach, recognizing phonemic awareness as just one of many contributing factors.
The revised definition may highlight the interplay of cognitive factors like working memory, processing speed, naming speed (AKA slow verbal retrieval), and others. It’s not about identifying a single “red flag” but understanding how these factors interact in each unique brain.
One of my favorite quotes from the conference came from Tim Odegard: “The best way to identify a kid with difficulties learning to read is if they are having difficulties learning to read” (assuming appropriate instruction has been provided). This ties into the importance of using RTI (Response to Intervention) in diagnosing dyslexia.
Catts & Petscher 2021 – Cumulative risk and resiliance model of dyslexia.
3. Addressing Anglo-Centricity
The current definition has been criticized for being Anglo-centric. Phonemic awareness may not be the predominant issue in dyslexia across all languages. The shift toward a more multifactorial definition supports a more multilingual perspective.
All the researchers agreed on wording that focuses on dyslexia as being marked by difficulties in accurate and fluent word reading, markers that sustain regardless of language.
4. Think Protective
The new definition will likely include a mention of protective factors. While dyslexia is genetic, high-quality early education can significantly mitigate its effects. This is an essential addition, emphasizing the role of intervention and support.
5. Intelligence Stays Out
There was widespread agreement that intelligence should remain excluded from the definition. This ties back to the debate over “unexpected.” Historically, dyslexia was seen as something only intelligent individuals could have—e.g., “She’s so smart, so it’s unexpected that she can’t read – therefore she must have dyslexia” versus “It’s just expected that he would have difficulties learning to read. He doesn’t have dyslexia.”
Keeping intelligence out of the definition keeps equity in.
6. Trauma and Secondary Consequences
In my practice, I advocate for trauma-informed support for dyslexic learners who have experienced small “t” trauma from repeated classroom failures. Hugh Catts advocated for including “psychosocial difficulties” as a secondary consequence of dyslexia. I 100% support this addition, I’m sure they’ve been waiting for me to weigh in on this topic so they can finish their work…
Final Thoughts
The discussions at the IDA Conference deepened my understanding of dyslexia—what it is and what it isn’t. None of my initial assumptions about potential changes to the definition were validated, but I left with some big “aha” moments.
The debates around the word “unexpected” were particularly striking; it’s incredible how much impact a single word can have. I also appreciated the emphasis on multifactorial and protective elements. My hope is that the new definition will acknowledge the trauma children often experience on their journey to a dyslexia diagnosis.
Does any of this surprise you? What do you hope to see in the next iteration of the dyslexia definition?
Share your thoughts in the comments—I’d love to hear from you!