NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ814167
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2008-Nov
Pages: 19
Abstractor: As Provided
Reference Count: 51
ISSN: ISSN-1940-4158
Gender Ratios for Reading Disability: Are There Really More Boys than Girls Who Are Low-Progress Readers?
Limbrick, Lisa; Wheldall, Kevin; Madelaine, Alison
Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, v13 n2 p161-179 Nov 2008
Extensive research over the past decade has indicated that there are more boys than girls who are struggling readers, but the degree to which there are more boys remains a point of contention. The focus of this article is to review the various definitions of reading disability, to examine how these different definitions translate into different methods of identifying reading disability and to determine the effects on observed gender ratios for reading disability. The most frequently used methods of identifying reading disability are discrepancy formulae, Response-To-Intervention (RTI) and low achievement methods. Gender ratios clearly fluctuate among, and even within, these methods. Inconsistencies in reported gender ratios of reading disability are a result of inconsistencies in the definition and measurement of reading disability, sampling issues and the overall distributions of reading scores for boys and girls. Future research might consider reporting gender ratios for reading disability based on consistent measures of reading performance in population samples, using consistent cut off points, over a significant period of time. (Contains 1 table.)
Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A