Skip to main content
Log in

A meta-analytic review of comprehension deficits in students with dyslexia

  • Published:
Annals of Dyslexia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Beyond the established difficulties of individuals with dyslexia in word recognition and spelling, it remains unclear how severe their difficulties in comprehension are. To examine this, we performed a meta-analytic review. A random-effects model analysis of data from 76 studies revealed a large deficit in reading comprehension in individuals with dyslexia compared to their chronological-age (CA) controls (g = 1.43) and a smaller one compared to their reading-level (RL) matched controls (g = 0.64). Individuals with dyslexia also differed significantly from their CA controls in listening comprehension (g = 0.43). Results further showed significant heterogeneity in the effect sizes that was partly explained by orthographic consistency (the deficits were larger in languages with low orthographic consistency) and vocabulary matching (the deficits were larger in studies in which the groups were not matched on vocabulary). These findings suggest, first, that individuals with dyslexia experience significant difficulties in both reading and listening comprehension, but the effect sizes are smaller than those reported in the literature for word reading and spelling. Second, our findings suggest that the deficits in reading comprehension are likely a combination of deficits in both decoding and oral language skills.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors, upon request.

Notes

  1. We use the term “hyperlexia” here as it was used by Gough and Tunmer (1986). Today, researchers use the term developmental language disorders.

  2. We acknowledge though that the type of comprehension task may differ according to the age of the participants. Cloze tasks and picture matching tasks are more frequently used in studies with younger participants and multiple choice or open-ended question tasks are more frequently used in studies with older participants. In addition, even within the same task (e.g., Woodcock-Johnson Passage Comprehension), ítems for younger ages include pictures that give hints to the answer, but ítems for older children do not include pictures.

  3. Notice that Collins et al. (2018) did not use only studies with dyslexic children. Their sample of studies included also struggling readers, children at-risk for reading difficulties, and low achievers in reading.

  4. Notice that similar results are obtained when using random effects models. More specifically, when we reran the analyses using robumeta, in reading comprehension, the overall mean effect for the CA-DYS comparison was 1.4374 (p < 0.0001, 95% CI = [1.2572, 1.6175]) and the overall mean effect for the RL-DYS comparison was 0.6509 (p = 0.0243, 95% CI = [0.0845, 1.2173]). In listening comprehension, the overall mean effect for the CA-DYS comparison was 0.4558 (p = 0.0015, 95% CI = [0.1737, 0.7378]) and the overall mean effect for the RL-DYS comparison was 0.0222 (p = 0.8753, 95% CI = [-0.2548, 0.2991]). The results of this analysis can be found in Supplementary Material.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partly supported by a grant from the Beijing Education Sciences Planning Foundation (CECA19141) to KG.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to George K. Georgiou or Kan Guo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 15820 KB)

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 6 Studies with chronological age-matched controls

Appendix 2

Table 7 Studies with reading level-matched controls in reading comprehension

Appendix 3

Table 8 Studies with chronological age-matched controls in listening comprehension

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. A meta-analytic review of comprehension deficits in students with dyslexia. Ann. of Dyslexia 72, 204–248 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00244-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00244-y

Keywords

Navigation