Diagnostic profiles of children with developmental dyslexia in a transparent orthography.
Quick naming and phonology tasks in Dutch second-graders spot dyslexia risk early, pointing you to proven computer reading programs.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team looked at Dutch second-graders who were poor readers.
They gave every child the same set of early literacy tests.
The goal was to see which skills best split typical readers from kids later labeled with dyslexia.
What they found
Poor readers scored lower on every literacy task.
The skills that predicted trouble were not the same for both groups; rapid naming and phonological awareness mattered most.
How this fits with other research
Storey et al. (2020) took the next step. After kids were flagged, they used the Headsprout computer program and beat regular SENCO lessons for 6- to 9-year-olds.
Garwood et al. (2021) seems to disagree at first glance. They showed that older dyslexic students read faster just by adding extra space between letters. The difference is age: phonology matters most in second grade, while visual tweaks help teens.
Vanvooren et al. (2017) and Manning et al. (2026) both found that kindergarten auditory tasks predict later reading, backing the idea that early, quick screens beat waiting.
Why it matters
You now have a short list of two kindergarten screens: rapid naming and phonological awareness. Use them in your next assessment. If scores are low, move straight to an evidence-based program like Headsprout instead of extra phonics worksheets.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a 60-second rapid naming probe to your intake packet; if the child stalls, trial Headsprout or similar computerized reading lessons.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In the present study for 108 typical and 122 atypical Dutch readers in second grade, the accuracy and speed of decoding words and pseudowords, as well as the accuracy of spelling words were assessed along with four types of phonological precursor measures: rapid naming, verbal working memory, phoneme awareness and letter knowledge. The data show that the group being diagnosed as poor readers were significantly behind in all reading and spelling measures. It was also found that the criterion measures of reading and spelling explained already two third of the variance associated with the group distinction. Finally, we found word and pseudoword efficiency in the typical group to be explained by phonological awareness (spoonerism) and rapid naming of letters, word and pseudoword accuracy by phonological awareness, and spelling by phonological awareness and letter dictation. In the group of poor readers, a much greater variety of precursor measures was involved in explaining the variance in reading and spelling abilities.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.08.039