Diagnostic implications of the double deficit model for young adolescents with dyslexia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable support exists for both the phonological core deficit and the naming speed deficit models of dyslexia. The double deficit model proposed that many students with dyslexia might also be impaired in both underlying processes. Employing either performance thresholds (i.e., scores below the 16th or 25th percentile) or k-means clustering as classification methods, the current study investigated whether 154 young adolescents with dyslexia could be categorized into subtypes according to the presence or absence of phonological deficits alone, naming speed deficits alone, or a combination of the two and whether group composition changed depending on classification method. Results support the existence of both single and double deficit groups and confirm that those with both deficits are the most severely impaired across multiple measures. Contrary to previous research, most adolescents were classified as either naming speed only (about a third of the group) or double deficit when defining impairment using performance thresholds to classify groups. This may suggest that although early phonological deficits are amenable to remediation, identification of language symbols fails to become automatized in most individuals with dyslexia and may require more targeted intervention. Classification differences reported in the literature may depend on age and methods employed for classification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it