Reading disabilities in children: A selective meta-analysis of the cognitive literature.
Reading disabilities come with wide memory and executive skill gaps, so screen beyond phonics.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Foti et al. (2015) pooled earlier studies that compared kids with reading disabilities to typical readers.
They looked at scores on memory, language, and behavior tests, not just reading speed or accuracy.
The goal was to see how wide the skill gap is across many areas.
What they found
Kids with reading disabilities scored lower in almost every area tested.
The gaps showed up in phonology, working memory, and even classroom behavior.
The authors say the trouble is bigger than decoding alone.
How this fits with other research
Ni Chuileann et al. (2013) also found that kids with dyslexia struggle to organize messy speech sounds.
That fits the new picture: weak sound skills are one piece of a larger puzzle.
Chou et al. (2010) and Soltani et al. (2013) show the flip side: in mild intellectual disability strong phonology predicts better word reading.
Together these studies say the same brain skill matters, but the disability label changes.
Wang et al. (2012) adds that dyslexic readers also have weaker word inhibition, backing the idea that executive skills are part of the profile.
Why it matters
When a learner stalls in reading, test more than letter sounds.
Add quick checks of working memory, rapid naming, and inhibition.
Results can steer you to supports like shorter instructions, visual memory aids, or self-monitoring cues.
A fuller profile helps the team write goals that fix the real bottlenecks, not just the obvious ones.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a one-minute rapid-automatic-naming probe to your intake packet.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This article synthesizes literature that compares the academic, cognitive, and behavioral performance of children with and without reading disabilities (RD). Forty-eight studies met the criteria for the meta-analysis, yielding 735 effect sizes (ESs) with an overall weighted ES of 0.98. Small to high ESs in favor of children without RD emerged on measures of cognition (rapid naming [ES = 0.89], phonological awareness [ES = 1.00], verbal working memory [ES = 0.79], short-term memory [ES = 0.56], visual-spatial memory [ES = 0.48], and executive processing [ES = 0.67]), academic achievement (pseudoword reading [ES = 1.85], math [ES = 1.20], vocabulary [ES = 0.83], spelling [ES = 1.25], and writing [ES = 1.20]), and behavior skills (ES = 0.80). Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that specific cognitive process measures (verbal working memory, visual-spatial memory, executive processing, and short-term memory) and intelligence measures (general and verbal intelligence) significantly moderated overall group effect size differences. Overall, the results supported the assumption that cognitive deficits in children with RD are persistent.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2015 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2015.01.002