Skip to main content
Log in

Is orthographic knowledge a strength or a weakness in individuals with dyslexia? Evidence from a meta-analysis

  • Published:
Annals of Dyslexia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine if individuals with dyslexia (DYS) have a deficit in orthographic knowledge. We reviewed a total of 68 studies published between January 1990 and December 2019, representing a total of 7215 participants. There were 80 independent samples in the chronological-age (CA)-DYS comparison and 33 independent samples in the comparison between DYS and reading-level (RL) controls. A random-effects model analysis revealed a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.17) for the CA-DYS comparison and a small effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.18) for the RL-DYS comparison. In addition, we found significant heterogeneity in the effect sizes that was partly explained by the level of orthographic knowledge (effect sizes being higher for lexical than sub-lexical orthographic knowledge). These results suggest that individuals with dyslexia experience an orthographic knowledge deficit that is as large as that of phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming reported in previous meta-analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We acknowledge that terms like “orthographic awareness” and “orthographic skills” have also been used in the literature, particularly in studies conducted in Chinese (e.g., Lin, Mo, Liu, & Li, 2019; Yeung, Ho, Chan, & Chung, 2016). Even though we included all of these terms in our search process (see the “Method” section), for the purpose of this paper, we will consistently use the term orthographic knowledge. In addition, we acknowledge that various definitions of orthographic knowledge exist in the literature. For example, Stanovich and West (1989) defined orthographic knowledge as “the ability to form, store, and access orthographic representations of words” (p. 404), Newby, Recht, and Caldwell (1993) as “the rapid recognition of sight-words” (p. 73), Barker, Torgesen, and Wagner (1992) as “memory for specific visual/spelling patterns” (p. 47), and Manis, Custodio, and Szeszulski (1993) as “the ability to access visual-orthographic codes for specific words” (p. 65). In the context of Chinese, orthographic knowledge refers to children’s knowledge of the positions, structuring, and functions of radicals; children’s awareness of conventional rules in characters; and their ability to identify or distinguish real characters from a pool of pseudocharacters and visual symbols (see, e.g., Ho et al., 2007; Lin et al., 2019; Luo, Chen, Deacon, & Li, 2011).

  2. This is very similar to Share’s (1995) self-teaching hypothesis, according to which orthographic representations of words are built through phonological recoding, which functions as a self-teaching mechanism.

  3. Some researchers have called the same levels “word-specific” orthographic knowledge and “general” orthographic knowledge (e.g., Bosse, Chaves, Largy, & Valdois, 2015; Zarić, Hasselhorn, & Nagler, 2020).

  4. Notice that similar results are obtained when using all possible effect sizes in the selected studies (186 in the CA-DYS comparison and 77 in the RL-DYS comparison) instead of using a weighted average of individual effect sizes. More specifically, when we reran the analyses using robumeta, we found that the overall mean effect in the CA-DYS comparison was 1.160 (p < 0.001, 95% CI = [1.000, 1.320]). In turn, the overall mean effect in the RL-DYS comparison was 0.183 (p = 0.072, 95% CI = [-0.0174, 0.383]).

  5. Notice though that some level of sub-lexical orthographic knowledge is present even at the onset of formal reading instruction (Cassar & Treiman, 1997; Treiman, 1993).

References

*An asterisk precedes the studies that have been included in the meta-analysis.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partly supported by the Beijing Education Sciences Planning Foudation (CECA19141).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to George K. Georgiou or Kan Guo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 116 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Georgiou, G.K., Martinez, D., Vieira, A.P.A. et al. Is orthographic knowledge a strength or a weakness in individuals with dyslexia? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Ann. of Dyslexia 71, 5–27 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00220-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00220-6

Keywords

Navigation