Reading and Writing

, Volume 24, Issue 7, pp 729–747 | Cite as

Gender ratio and cognitive profiles in dyslexia: a cross-national study

  • Juan E. JiménezEmail author
  • Claudia García de la Cadena
  • Linda S. Siegel
  • Isabel O’Shanahan
  • Eduardo García
  • Cristina Rodríguez


The purpose of this study was to analyze possible gender-related differences in the prevalence of dyslexia. A cross-national comparison of Spain and Guatemala was conducted. Both countries speak the same language but have a different standard of living and educational level. A second purpose of this study was to analyze the cognitive profile of Guatemalan and Spanish males and females children with dyslexia. The log-linear analysis indicated that the number of dyslexics detected was different across the countries but there were no differences as a function of gender. Similarly, there were no significant or meaningful differences between dyslexic males and females in the cognitive processes involved in reading. Therefore, gender differences do not appear to be characteristic of developmental dyslexia.


Dyslexia Gender Cross-national studies Cognitive processes 



This study has been funded by Plan Nacional I+D+i (Feder y Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología) SEJ2006-09156, Agencia Española de Cooperación con Iberoamérica (AECI, ref. A/3877/05), and Programa Ramón y Cajal (RyC-2009-04227). Some parts of the article were written while Juan E. Jiménez and Isabel O’Shanahan Juan were visiting the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education at the University of British Columbia of Vancouver, Canada, with the support from the Minister of Education in Spain through research grant PR2007-0395 and PR2007-0405, respectively.


  1. Artiles, A. J., & Pianta, R. C. (1993). Winds of change in Guatemala’s education system. International Journal of Special Education, 8, 1–14.Google Scholar
  2. Bednarek, D., Saldaña, D., & García, I. (2009). Visual versus phonological abilities in Spanish dyslexic boys and girls. Brain and Cognition, 70, 273–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beier, J. I., Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Castillo, E. M., Zhang, W., & Papanicolaou, A. C. (2003). Abnormal activation of temporoparietal language areas during phonetic analysis in children with dyslexia. Neuropsychology, 17, 610–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berninger, V. W., Nielsen, K. H., Abbott, R. D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008). Gender differences in severity of writing and reading disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bravo-Valdivieso, L. (2001). Learning disabilities studies in South America. In D. P. Hallahan & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research and global perspectives in learning disabilities (pp. 311–328). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, A. K. S. (1989). Test de Factor g. Escala 1 y 2. (Cordero, De la Cruz, & Seisdedos, Trans.). Madrid: T. E. A. Ediciones. (Original work published in 1950).Google Scholar
  7. Chan, D. W., Ho, C. S. H., Tsang, S. M., Lee, S. H., & Chung, K. K. H. (2007). Prevalence, gender ratio and gender differences in reading-related cognitive abilities among Chinese children with dyslexia in Hong Kong. Educational Studies, 33, 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of reading skills: A longitudinal study. Scientific Study of Reading, 6, 369–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coope, C. M., & Theobald, S. (2006). Children at risk of neglect: Challenges faced by child protection practitioners in Guatemala City. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 523–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dancer, L. S., Anderson, A. J., & Derlin, R. L. (1994). Use of log-linear models for assessing differential item functioning in a measure of psychological functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 710–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeFries, J. C. (1989). Gender ratios in children with reading disability and their affected relatives: A commentary. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 544–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. (1974). Rapid “automatized” naming of pictured objects, colors, letters, and numbers by normal children. Cortex, 10, 186–202.Google Scholar
  13. Federal Register (1977, August 23). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  14. Flannery, K. A., Liederman, J., Daly, L., & Schultz, J. (2000). Male prevalence for reading disability is found in a large sample of black and white children free from ascertainment bias. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6, 433–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geschwind, N. (1981). A reaction to the conference on sex differences in dislexia. In A. Ansara, N. Geschwind, A. Galaburda, M. Albert, M. Albert, & N. Gartrell (Eds.), Sex differences in dislexia (pp. 13–18). Towson, MD: Orton Dyslexia.Google Scholar
  16. Instituto Nacional de Estadística de Guatemala. (2003). Censo poblacional. SEN: Guatemala.Google Scholar
  17. Jiménez, J. E., Antón, L., Diaz, A., Estevez, A., García, A. I., Garcia, E., et al. (2007). Sicole-R: Un sistema de evaluación de los procesos cognitivos en la dislexia mediante ayuda asistida a través del ordenador [Software informático]. Universidad de La Laguna: Authors.Google Scholar
  18. Jiménez, J. E., Guzmán, R., Rodríguez, C., & Artiles, C. (2009). Prevalencia de las dificultades específicas de aprendizaje: la dislexia en español. Anales de Psicología, 25, 78–85.Google Scholar
  19. Jiménez, J. E., & Hernández-Valle, I. (1999). A Spanish perspective on learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jiménez, J. E., & Rodrigo, M. (1994). Is it true that the differences in reading performance between students with and without LD cannot be explained by IQ? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(3), 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jiménez, J. E., Siegel, L. S., O’Shanahan, I., & Ford, L. (2008). The relatives role of IQ and cognitive processes in reading disability. Educational Psychology, 29, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Katusic, S. K., Colligan, R. C., Barbaresi, W. J., Schaid, D. J., & Jacobsen, S. J. (2001). Incidence of reading disability in a population-based birth cohort, 1976–1982, Rochester, Minn. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 76, 1075–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liederman, J., Kantrowitz, L., & Flannery, K. (2005). Male vulnerability to reading disabilitiy is not likely to be a myth: A call for new data. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lubs, H., Rabin, M., Feldman, E., Jallad, B., Kushch, A., & Gross-Glenn, K. (1993). Familial dyslexia: Genetic and medical findings in eleven three-generation families. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McLaughlin, M. J., Dyson, A., Nagle, K., Thurlow, M., Rouse, M., Hardman, M., et al. (2006). Cross-cultural perspectives on the classification of children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 40, 46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miles, T. R., Haslum, M. N., & Wheeler, T. J. (1998). Gender ratio in dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ministerio de Educación (MINEDUC). (2001). Política y normativa de acceso a la educación para la población con necesidades educativas especiales. Guatemala: Guatemalan Government.Google Scholar
  28. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1994). Collective perspectives on issues affecting learning disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  29. Rutter, M., Caspi, A., Ferguson, D., Horwood, L. J., Goofman, R., Maughan, B., et al. (2004). Sex differences in developmental reading disability. JAMA, 291, 2007–2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seisdedos, N., De la Cruz, M. V., Cordero, A., & González, M. (1991). Test de aptitudes escolares (TEA). Madrid: T. E. A. Ediciones.Google Scholar
  31. Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Share, D. L., & Silva, P. A. (2003). Gender bias in IQ-discrepancy and post-discrepancy definitions of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shaywitz, S. E. (1998). Dyslexia. The New England Journal of Medicine, 338, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Escobar, M. D. (1990). Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls. Results of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 264, 998–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Siegel, L. S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 618–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Siegel, L. S. (2003). Basic cognitive processes and reading disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 158–181). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Siegel, L. S., & Himel, N. (1998). Socioeconomic status, age and the classification of dyslexics and poor readers: The dangers of using IQ scores in the definition of reading disability. Dyslexia, 4, 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siegel, L., & Ryan, E. B. (1989). The development of working memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Child Development, 60, 973–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Siegel, L. S., & Smythe, I. S. (2005). Reflections on research on reading disability with special attention to gender issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 473–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Snowling, M. J. (2000). Dyslexia. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences in individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tracey, T. J., Sherry, P., Bauer, G. P., Robins, T. H., Todaro, L., & Briggs, S. (1984). Helpseeking as a function of student characteristics and program description: A logit-loglinear analysis. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 54–62.Google Scholar
  44. UNICEF. (2001a). Country note-Guatemala (Executive Borrad, first regular session). Guatemala: United Nations Children’s Fund.Google Scholar
  45. UNICEF (2001b). End decade review-Guatemala. United Nations Children’s Fund, unpublished data.Google Scholar
  46. United Nations Development Programme. (2007). Human development report 2007/2008: Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world. New York: Hampshire.Google Scholar
  47. Vogel, S. (1990). Gender differences in intelligence, language, visual-motor abilities, and academic achievement in students with learning disabilities. A review of the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 44–52.Google Scholar
  48. Wadsworth, S. J., DeFries, J. C., Stevenson, J., Gilger, J. W., & Pennington, B. F. (1992). Gender ratios among reading-disabled children and their siblings as a function of parental impairment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 1229–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wagner, R., & Torgesen, J. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan E. Jiménez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Claudia García de la Cadena
    • 2
  • Linda S. Siegel
    • 3
  • Isabel O’Shanahan
    • 4
  • Eduardo García
    • 5
  • Cristina Rodríguez
    • 1
  1. 1.Facultad de Psicología, Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la EducaciónUniversidad de La LagunaIslas CanariasSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de PsicologíaUniversidad del ValleGuatemala CityGuatemala
  3. 3.Faculty of Education, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special EducationUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  4. 4.Facultad de Educación, Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la EducaciónUniversidad de La LagunaIslas CanariasSpain
  5. 5.Faculty of Psychology and Education, Department of Developmental PsychologyVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations