The journey to understanding and addressing dyslexia often begins with a question many parents and educators ask: at what age is dyslexia typically diagnosed? The unfortunate reality is that the Average Age Of Dyslexia Diagnosis often falls around the late second grade to early third grade. This delay is largely due to a “wait-to-fail” approach prevalent in education systems, where significant reading struggles must be evident over time before intensive interventions are considered. This approach, while seemingly cautious, is paradoxically at odds with research highlighting that interventions are most effective in kindergarten and first grade.
This delayed identification has profound implications. Children with dyslexia are more prone to anxiety and depressive symptoms, less likely to complete high school, and less likely to pursue higher education. So, why does this diagnostic delay persist, and what can be done to ensure earlier identification and support? Let’s address some common myths that contribute to the misconception that dyslexia diagnosis must wait until a child has demonstrably failed at reading.
Myth 1: Dyslexia Can Only Be Identified After Years of Reading Instruction
It’s a common misconception that signs of dyslexia only become apparent after a child has undergone two to three years of formal reading instruction. While formal diagnosis often hinges on this period of struggle, the underlying indicators of dyslexia are present much earlier, even in preschool years. Deficits in phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, verbal working memory, and letter knowledge – all critical pre-reading skills – have been identified as robust predictors of dyslexia in children as young as three years old.
Research further supports this early identifiability. A study involving over 1,200 kindergartners revealed distinct reading profiles, including dyslexia risk profiles, that remained consistent over a two-year period. This stability indicates that these predispositions are not merely transient developmental phases but rather persistent patterns that can be recognized early.
Moreover, advancements in brain imaging techniques like electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have provided neurological evidence of dyslexia risk from infancy and preschool, particularly in children with a genetic predisposition. A Finnish longitudinal study tracking children from birth to age eight demonstrated that early brain measurements could differentiate at-risk children who later developed reading difficulties from those who did not. Similarly, studies have identified differences in white matter, the brain’s communication pathways, in prereading children who subsequently developed reading disabilities. These neurological findings underscore that some children enter kindergarten with brains already less optimally wired for reading acquisition. The question then becomes: why wait years to provide crucial support when early indicators are detectable and impactful interventions exist?
Myth 2: Early Intervention for Dyslexia is Ineffective
Another myth contributing to delayed diagnosis is the belief that early intervention for dyslexia is not effective. While it’s true that many reading interventions are designed for older students who have already faced significant reading challenges, a growing body of evidence emphasizes the profound impact of high-quality early reading instruction and targeted early interventions for at-risk children.
Meta-analyses of intervention studies consistently show greater effect sizes for interventions implemented in kindergarten and first grade compared to later grades. One meta-analysis of six studies revealed that explicit and intensive instruction for at-risk beginning readers enabled 50 to 90% of these children to achieve average reading performance levels. This highlights the remarkable plasticity of the young brain and its responsiveness to timely and appropriate support.
Conversely, neglecting early reading difficulties can lead to more entrenched reading disabilities later on. Research on brain plasticity indicates that the brain’s capacity to adapt and change diminishes as children age. Certain skills, like language acquisition, are more easily learned during sensitive periods in early childhood. Delaying intervention means missing critical windows of opportunity when the brain is most receptive to change, potentially making remediation more challenging and less effective in the long run.
Myth 3: Early Screening for Dyslexia is Too Costly and Time-Consuming
The concern about the cost and time burden of early dyslexia screening is understandable. School districts must carefully consider resource allocation. However, many schools already possess valid screening tools for key dyslexia indicators – the same tools used in later grades for struggling readers. Reading specialists and special education teachers are often already trained to administer these assessments.
Early screening can be efficiently integrated into existing pre-kindergarten events, daycare centers, preschools, or even pediatrician well-visits for four- and five-year-olds. While this might involve some initial personnel costs, it can significantly reduce screening hours and associated costs later in the school year and subsequent grades.
Furthermore, technological advancements are making early screening more accessible and cost-effective. Companies offer rapid scoring of standardized tests, and online screening tools are being developed to minimize labor and expenses. While early screening requires an investment, the long-term costs associated with remediation, psychological support for struggling students, and the societal impact of reduced educational attainment far outweigh the upfront investment in early identification and intervention. It’s crucial to view early screening not as an added expense, but as a strategic reallocation of resources that ultimately leads to better outcomes and cost savings in the long run.
What Constitutes Effective Early Screening for Dyslexia?
To implement optimal early screening, consider the SCREENED acronym, encompassing key characteristics of an effective screening battery:
-
*Short: Screening should be brief, ideally under 30 minutes, focusing on identifying risk indicators rather than comprehensive diagnosis.
-
*Comprehensive: Despite being short, the screening should cover key domains: phonological awareness, letter knowledge (letter-sound for kindergarten and older), rapid automatized naming, vocabulary, listening comprehension, and family history.
-
*Resourceful: Utilize existing assessments already available in schools, often used for older struggling readers.
-
*Early: Implement screening as early as preschool, but no later than kindergarten.
-
*ESL/Dialect Inclusion: Ensure screening is inclusive of English learners and dialect speakers, as these populations are at increased risk and often under-diagnosed or misdiagnosed.
-
*Neurobiology/Genetics: Inquire about family history of reading disabilities, a significant risk factor for dyslexia.
-
*Evidence-based response to screening: Screening is only effective if followed by evidence-based instruction and intervention targeting identified deficits within the classroom.
-
*Developmentally appropriate: Screening components must be age-appropriate for the target age range.
Crucially, teacher training is paramount. Educators need to understand how to interpret screening results and implement evidence-based instruction to address specific student needs within the classroom. Investing in teacher training, professional development, classroom resources, and broader dyslexia awareness benefits all students, creating a more supportive and effective learning environment.
By embracing early screening and debunking the myths that delay diagnosis, we can move towards a proactive approach that ensures all young learners receive the timely support they need to unlock their reading potential and experience the joy of learning.
References
Wanzek, J. & Vaughn, S. Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541 (2007).
Mugnaini, D., Lassi, S., La Malfa, G. & Albertini, G. Internalizing correlates of dyslexia. World Journal of Pediatrics, 5, 255–264 (2009).
Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A. & Carlson, B. A prospective longitudinal study of high school dropouts examining multiple predictors across development. Journal of school psychology, 38, 525–549 (2000).
Dougherty, C. Numeracy, literacy and earnings: evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Economics of education review, 22, 511–521 (2003).
Puolakanaho, A. et al. Very early phonological and language skills: estimating individual risk of reading disability. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 48, 923–931 (2007).
Ozernov-Palchik, O. et al. Longitudinal stability of pre-reading skill profiles of kindergarten children. Developmental Science (In press).
Leppanen, P. H., Hamalainen, J. A., Salminen, H. K., Eklund, K. M., Guttorm, T. K., Lohvansuu, K., Puolakanaho, A., & Lyytinen, H. Newborn brain event-related potentials revealing atypical processing of sound frequency and the subsequent association with later literacy skills in children with familial dyslexia. Cortex, 46, 1362–1376 (2010).
Wang, Y. et al. Development of tract-specific white matter pathways during early reading development in at-risk children and typical controls. Cerebral Cortex, doi:10.1093/cercor/bhw095 (In press).
Kraft, I. et al. Predicting early signs of dyslexia at a preliterate age by combining behavioral assessment with structural MRI. Neuroimage, 143, 378–386 (2016).
Blachman, B. A. et al. Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 444–461 (2004).
Torgesen, J. K. Avoiding the devastating downward spiral: The evidence that early intervention prevents reading failure. American Educator, 28, 6–19 (2004).
Stanovich, K. E. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the aquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407 (1986).
Johnson, M. H. Functional brain development in humans. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 475–483 (2001).
Johnston, M. V. Plasticity in the developing brain: implications for rehabilitation. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15, 94–101 (2009).
Johnson, M. H. Sensitive periods in functional brain development: problems and prospects. Developmental Psychobiology, 46, 287–292 (2005).
Birdsong, D. & Mollis, M. On the evidence for maturational constraints in second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 235–249 (2001).
Washington, J. A. Early literacy skills in African-American children: Research considerations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 213–221 (2001).
Mancilla-Martinez, J. & Lesaux, N. K. The gap between Spanish speakers’ word reading and word knowledge: a longitudinal study. Child Development, 82, 1544–1560 (2011).
Pennington, B. F. Reading Disabilities: Genetic and Neurological Influences. (Kluwer, 1991).
Wolff, P. H. & Melngailis, I. Family patterns of developmental dyslexia: clinical findings. Am J Med Genet, 54, 122–131, doi:10.1002/ajmg.1320540207 (1994).
