Consensus Without Clarity for Dyslexia Identification: A Commentary on Holden et al

Area of Science:

• Educational Psychology
• Neuroscience
• Clinical Psychology

Background:

• Dyslexia assessment practices are evolving.
• Consensus-building studies aim to standardize identification and intervention.
• Previous approaches often rely on cognitive testing and discrepancy models.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate the methodology and recommendations of Holden et al. (2025) regarding dyslexia assessment.
• To address concerns regarding the reliance on IQ testing, cognitive processing, and clinical judgment.
• To propose an alternative framework for dyslexia assessment prioritizing direct reading measures.

Main Methods:

• Critical analysis of the Delphi study by Holden et al. (2025) and its reported definitional component by Carroll et al. (2025).
• Review of the methodological rigor and theoretical underpinnings of the discussed assessment approaches.
• Argumentative synthesis to support an alternative assessment model.

Main Results:

• The Holden et al. (2025) approach may complicate dyslexia assessment and hinder equitable identification.
• Reinforcement of IQ testing and discrepancy-based methods may not be optimal.
• Over-reliance on cognitive processing and clinical judgment can be problematic.

Conclusions:

• The current Delphi study's recommendations may create barriers to effective dyslexia identification and intervention.
• An alternative approach focusing on direct assessment of word reading accuracy and fluency is advocated.
• Eliminating reliance on cognitive assessments, family history, and response to intervention is proposed for clearer, more equitable dyslexia diagnosis.