EDITORIAL: AVANCES EN LA INVESTIGACIÓN SOBRE LA DISLEXIA EVOLUTIVA: DIVERSIDAD, ESPECIFICIDAD E INTERVENCIÓN (Editorial: Advances in Developmental Dyslexia Research: Diversity, Specificity and Intervention)

Willy Serniclaes

Description

RESUMEN
El objetivo de este número especial ha sido presentar una perspectiva necesariamente limitada pero significativa sobre los avances que se vienen produciendo desde hace varias décadas en la investigación sobre la dislexia evolutiva. Los artículos publicados combinan revisiones de enorme valor teórico junto con aportaciones de carácter netamente aplicado. Mientras que los artículos de Sprenger-Charolles y también el de Pernet, Dufor y Démonet abordan la diversidad de la dislexia desde diferentes perspectivas, el artículo de Serniclaes sigue una estrategia opuesta, presentando la percepción alofónica como el déficit específico de la dislexia. Explicar la variabilidad y la especificidad de la dislexia constituye un auténtico desafío para la investigación científica actual. Completan este monográfico cuatro aportaciones de carácter netamente aplicado que se han ordenado con cierta intención didáctica. Las dos primeras relacionadas con el diagnóstico. Carrillo, Alegría, Miranda y Sánchez presentan, parcialmente, una batería de evaluación de la dislexia en español, mientras que Luque, Bordoy, Giménez, López-Zamora y Rosales defiende el valor diagnóstico de un conjunto de pruebas relativas a la percepción del habla. Los dos últimos artículos representan, sin duda, aportaciones muy novedosas en el contexto de la intervención sobre las dificultades de aprendizaje de la lectoescritura. Jiménez, Baker, Rodríguez, Crespo, Artiles y Afonso, presentan un sistema de Respuesta a la Intervención aplicado en el contexto del sistema educativo público de la Comunidad de Canarias. Por su parte, Gómez, Defior y Serrano presentan detalladamente el fundamento y estructura de un programa de intervención en la fluidez lectora, un objetivo objetivo escasamente representado en la bibliografía en español.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this special issue is to offer a necessarily limited, but meaningful perspective on recent advances in research on developmental dyslexia. The papers presented combine great theoretical value with practical applications. The studies by Sprenger-Charolles and, Pernet, Dufor and Démonet approach the diversity of dyslexia from different perspectives, whereas the paper presented by Serniclaes follows the opposite strategy. It presents allophonic perception as a deficit specific to dyslexia. Explaining the variability and specificity of dyslexia is a genuine challenge within current scientific research. Four other contributions complete this monograph, and are presented in a given order to fulfil certain didactic aims. The first two papers focus on diagnosis. Carrillo, Alegría, Miranda and Sánchez present part of a battery for evaluating dyslexia in Spanish, while Luque, Bordoy, Giménez, López-Zamora and Rosales support the diagnostic value of a set of tasks related to speech perception. The last two papers clearly offer new approaches to difficulties in learning to read and write in the context of intervention. Jimenéz, Baker, Rodríguez, Crespo, Artiles and Afonso present a Response to Intervention (RTI) system applied within the State Education system in the Canary Islands. Gómez, Defior and Serrano describe in detail the basis and structure of an intervention program on reading fluency, which has rarely been addressed in the Spanish literature.

Sujets

• Dyslexia
• Assessment
• Intervention
• Investigación
• Evaluación
• Intervención

Informations

• Publié par: erevistas
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2011
• Nombre de lectures: 22
• Langue: English

Extrait

Escritos de Psicología, Vol. 4, nº 2, pp. 1-4 Copyright © 2011 Escritos de Psicología
Mayo-Agosto 2011 ISSN 1989-3809 DOI: 10.5231/psy.writ.2011.13072
Editorial
Advances in Developmental Dyslexia Research: Diversity, Specifcity
and Intervention
Avances en la investigación sobre la dislexia evolutiva: diversidad,
especifcidad e intervención
Willy Serniclaes and Juan L. Luque
Disponible online 31 de agosto de 2011
The aim of this special issue is to offer a necessarily lim- Sprenger-Charolles takes a cross-linguistic approach to
ited, but meaningful perspective on recent advances in research the different dyslexia profles. Surface and phonological pro -
on developmental dyslexia. The papers presented combine fles, based on the double route model, are used to establish
great theoretical value with practical applications. The stud- differences between languages with different levels of ortho-
ies by Sprenger-Charolles and, Pernet, Dufor and Démonet graphic consistency (English, French, and Spanish). After a
approach the diversity of dyslexia from different perspectives, critical review of the methodology, the author emphasizes the
whereas the paper presented by Serniclaes follows the opposite advantage of the classic method over the regression method,
strategy. It presents allophonic perception as a defcit specifc due to the latter being less reliable. She also supports the use-
to dyslexia. Explaining the variability and specifcity of dys - fulness of assessing accuracy as well as speed to identify the
lexia is a genuine challenge within current scientifc research. dyslexics’ reading defcit. Use of the classic method under the
Four other contributions complete this monograph, and are best methodological conditions, while taking accuracy and
presented in a given order to fulfl certain didactic aims. The speed into account, shows there is a predominance of mixed
frst two papers focus on diagnosis. Carrillo, Alegría, Miranda profles, followed by phonological and surface profles, with
and Sánchez present part of a battery for evaluating dyslexia in few differences between languages. However, under less opti-
Spanish, while Luque, Bordoy, Giménez, López-Zamora and mal conditions, dissociated profles dominate and the ratio of
Rosales support the diagnostic value of a set of tasks related phonological to surface profles varies between languages. The
to speech perception. The last two papers clearly offer new author supports a phonological defcit, without clear-cut lim -
approaches to diffculties in learning to read and write in the its between subtypes, which is very stable across languages.
context of intervention. Jimenéz, Baker, Rodríguez, Crespo, This conclusion is very similar to that of Ziegler, Castel, Pech-
Artiles and Afonso present a Response to Intervention (RTI) Georgel, George, Alario and Perry (2008) who used a computer
system applied within the State Education system in the Canary simulation, where individual profles were simulated by add -
Islands. Gómez, Defor and Serrano describe in detail the basis ing noise to different skill components. As Ziegler et al. (2008)
and structure of an intervention program on reading fuency, point out, the distinction between surface and phonological
which has rarely been addressed in the Spanish literature. We dyslexics is not related to clear-cut differences between def -
now describe these contributions in more detail. cient lexical processing versus defcient non-lexical process -
Teléfono: ([phone]
1 Fax: [phone]WILLY SERNICLAES, JUAN L. LUQUE
ing. These two processing defcits (lexical versus non-lexical) has not been demonstrated as being specifc to dyslexia, neither
suggest different approaches to both profles. However, a mul - has it been possible to determine the connection between an
tifactorial approach is compatible with a primary simple def - auditive defcit and learning to read (Ramus, 2003). Nor has
cit that will unfold into different defcits during development. the repeated confrmation of differences in categorical percep -
However, are we returning to the uniqueness and invariance of tion between control and dyslexic participants led to further
specifc reading disorders? Or do we lack a suffciently reliable progress (Serniclaes et al, 2004). This is the main advantage
and powerful method to reveal clear-cut differences between of the allophonic hypothesis: it offers a direct explanation that
phenotypes and linguistic contexts? connects a defcit (allophonic perception) with diffculties in
Multiplicity is the core of Pernet, Dufor and Démonet’s learning conversion rules. Allophonic perception would be the
paper. Their basic idea is that we should be aware of a paradox consequence of diffculties in the transition between universal
between what is assumed to be a pure reading defcit, according phonetic boundaries and those of the mother tongue. If some
to the defnition of dyslexia, and the multiple defcits associated of the universal categories remain active, this would directly
with this disorder. The following question arises: how could affect the establishment of the sound-letter correspondences.
a pure reading defcit account for the fact that in relation to In particular, some correspondences, which would normally be
dyslexia three different types of defcits (phonological, visual- established between two sounds and two letters, would include
hattentional, and learning-memory) have been demonstrated three sounds and two letters (/b-p-p / to “b” and “p”). Thus,
with a fairly high degree of success, each one subdivided into Serniclaes argues in favour of specifc falsifable predictions
different categories (e.g. auditory and allophonic explanations that in this new review provide a new formulation: whereas
for the phonological defcit)? The authors point out that pho - several defcits in perceptual accuracy are not specifc to dys -
nological disorders, which are almost the most common, are lexia, allophonic perception is specifc to it. The real theoretical
present only in 40% of the participants as reported in a meta- interest of defcits in categorical perception is not that dyslex -
analysis of 10 recent papers. In answer to this question, the ics have weaker discrimination between categories, but that
authors offer three suggestions: (1) relaxing the criteria used they have better within categories. The paper
to defne dyslexia to include associated defcits; (2) investigat - is rounded out with two contributions of interest. Firstly, the
ing every possible associated defcit; (3) identifying different identifcation of the left premotor area as the key area where
phenotypes based on brain studies. We analyze these questions phonemes are discriminated from allophones. These studies
within a more general framework. It is worthwhile to support have highlighted another relevant aspect: although allophonic
studies that include participants with specifc diffculties and perception is diffcult to observe using behavioural measures,
those with other defcits (e.g. deafness, attentional disorders, complementary recordings of brain activity clearly show the
high-level autism, Williams Syndrome, etc). Using this “broad- phenomenon. Finally, after reviewing the results of some inter-
band” paradigm should not only shed light on differences vention studies on phonemic perception, it is concluded that
within the clinical disorder itself (e.g. within dyslexia), but there is some evidence of its positive effect on alleviating
also on some features common to several disorders (e.g. among dyslexia.
dyslexics and high-level autistics). It is worth noting that in Carrillo, Alegría, Miranda and Sánchez present part of
the current state of the art the “broad-band” paradigm does a larger study in development on designing a simple reliable
not involve redefning the different clinical disorders. Should tool to detect specifc diffculties in reading and to diagnose
we be conducting systematic research on phonological, visual, developmental dyslexia. As they explain, the battery includes
and auditive defcits? Maybe, but we should think twice. The three basic tools to be applied sequentially. Firstly, a simple
cost-beneft ratio involved in multifactorial research could be cost-effective detection task that can be administered to a group
prohibitive if the criteria applied are not clearly associated with within 5 minutes. This task can identify up to 96% of students
a well-defned hypothesis. Finally, brain studies often reveal who will subsequently present delays in word identifcation
more than behavioural studies (see Serniclaes’ paper) and could mechanisms. To assess delays or defcits in these mechanisms,
even prove useful for taxonomic purposes. the DIS-ESP battery includes a selected set of tasks related to
Serniclaes’ paper reviews allophonic theory. One of the the phonological and orthographic mechanisms involved in
challenges of current research is to determine the exact rela- word reading. These tasks have proved that once the reading
tionship between diffculties in learning to read and their experience becomes more relevant, most students with diffcul -
hypothetical cause. It is widely accepted that phonological ties show a delay in both phonological and orthographic mech-
awareness tests identify the immediate cause of diffculties ani