A Meta-analysis of Morphological Awareness Deficits in Developmental Dyslexia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose We performed a meta-analysis to examine if children with dyslexia experience deficits in morphological awareness (MA) and if the effect sizes are influenced by different moderators (age, aspect of MA measured, type of MA task, language, modality input, semantic knowledge, and selection criteria).Method We reviewed 40 studies published in English between January 1990 and August 2021, representing a total of 5,018 participants (age range = 5.1–13.9 years). Studies with adults or English language learners were excluded. There were 49 independent samples in the chronological-age (CA) – dyslexia (DYS) comparison and 18 independent samples in the comparison between DYS and reading–level (RL) controls.Results A random-effects model analysis revealed a large effect size for the CA–DYS comparison (g = 1.11) and a non-significant effect size for the RL–DYS comparison (g = −0.08). Age was the only significant moderator of the effect sizes.Conclusion These findings suggest, first, that individuals with dyslexia experience significant difficulties in MA and second, that the effect sizes are as large as those reported for phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, and orthographic knowledge. The lack of a significant RL-DYS difference indicates that MA is not a core causal feature of dyslexia.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".