Epidemiology of Reading Disability: A Comparison of DSM-5 and ICD-11 Criteria
Saved in:
| Title: | Epidemiology of Reading Disability: A Comparison of DSM-5 and ICD-11 Criteria |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Di Folco, Cécile, Guez, Ava (ORCID |
| Source: | Scientific Studies of Reading. 2022 26(4):337-355. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2022 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Elementary Education Grade 6 Intermediate Grades Middle Schools Junior High Schools Secondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Reading Difficulties, Disability Identification, Grade 6, Gender Differences, Socioeconomic Status, Intelligence Quotient, Nonverbal Ability, Mathematics Achievement, Classification, Incidence, Foreign Countries, Middle School Students, Reading Comprehension, Academic Achievement, French, Student Characteristics, Handedness, Grade Repetition, Self Efficacy, Student Motivation |
| Geographic Terms: | France |
| DOI: | 10.1080/10888438.2021.1998067 |
| ISSN: | 1088-8438 1532-799X |
| Abstract: | The present study performed a systematic comparison of DSM-5 and ICD-11 diagnostic criteria for reading disability. We quantitatively investigated the consequences of using DSM-5 or ICD-11, and of the different ways of implementing each diagnostic criterion on the prevalence of reading disability. We did so in a representative sample of the population of French sixth-graders (N = 25,000), using a reading comprehension test to assess reading ability. A compromise set of criteria and thresholds yielded a prevalence of 6.6% according to DSM-5 and 3.5% according to ICD-11. Factors that had the greatest influence on prevalence estimates were the criteria relative to IQ and to interference with academic performance. Compared with the reference population, children with reading disability were more likely to be boys (sex ratio˜1.6), to be schooled in a disadvantaged area (OR[approximately equal to] 2.1), and to have lower SES (d[approximately equal to] -0.7), non-verbal IQ (d[approximately equal to] -0.4 - -0.9), and math scores (d[approximately equal to] -1.4). Our results emphasize that the choice of classification and the operationalization of diagnostic criteria have a large impact on who is diagnosed with reading disability. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2023 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1360488 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | The present study performed a systematic comparison of DSM-5 and ICD-11 diagnostic criteria for reading disability. We quantitatively investigated the consequences of using DSM-5 or ICD-11, and of the different ways of implementing each diagnostic criterion on the prevalence of reading disability. We did so in a representative sample of the population of French sixth-graders (N = 25,000), using a reading comprehension test to assess reading ability. A compromise set of criteria and thresholds yielded a prevalence of 6.6% according to DSM-5 and 3.5% according to ICD-11. Factors that had the greatest influence on prevalence estimates were the criteria relative to IQ and to interference with academic performance. Compared with the reference population, children with reading disability were more likely to be boys (sex ratio˜1.6), to be schooled in a disadvantaged area (OR[approximately equal to] 2.1), and to have lower SES (d[approximately equal to] -0.7), non-verbal IQ (d[approximately equal to] -0.4 - -0.9), and math scores (d[approximately equal to] -1.4). Our results emphasize that the choice of classification and the operationalization of diagnostic criteria have a large impact on who is diagnosed with reading disability. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1088-8438 1532-799X |
| DOI: | 10.1080/10888438.2021.1998067 |
