Why do interventions framed within the phonological hypothesis of dyslexia work? A treatment-focused analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/hl2025844Keywords:
Learning Disability, Teaching Reading, Dyslexia, Intervention, Content AnalysisAbstract
Introduction: in the last decades, the Phonological Hypothesis of dyslexia has gained popularity into the field of psychology. This hypothesis holds that difficulties in learning to read are due to a neurocognitive disorder and, in consequence, suggests that the possibilities of learning and/or improving reading skills in these cases, depend on psychological treatments that correct or compensate for such deficiencies. The effectiveness of these interventions is often undestood as confirmatory evidence of the neurological causes of reading problems. However, the effectiveness of these interventions could be understood attending to their own properties, without the need to postulate specific effects (corrective or compensatory) at a neurological level.
Objective: the aim of the present study is to characterize the interventions framed in the Phonological Hypothesis of dyslexia and to analyze the factors that influence their effectiveness.
Methods: in order to achieve this objective, a content analysis was performed on a set of systematic reviews that analyzed the effectiveness of this kind of interventions.
Results: the factors that influence the effectiveness of these interventions were identified and classified in three categories: 1) the dependent variable analyzed, 2) procedural aspects of their implementation and 3) the methodological rigor of the research.
Conclusions: the specificity of the interventions framed in the Phonological Hypothesis of dyslexia is discussed and an alternative interpretation is proposed to understand their effectiveness. or unstructured, no longer than 250 words; written in the past tense and in the third person singular.
References
1. Olusanya BO, Smythe T, Ogbo FA, Nair MKC, Scher M, Davies AC, et al. Global prevalence of developmental disabilities in children and adolescents: a systematic umbrella review. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1122009. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1122009
2. Perdue MV, Mahaffy K, Vlahcevic K, Wolfman E, Erbeli F, Richlan F, et al. Reading intervention and neuroplasticity: a systematic review and meta‑analysis of brain changes associated with reading intervention. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022;132:465‑494. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.11.011
3. Murphy KA, Jogia J, Talcott JB. On the neural basis of word reading: a meta‑analysis of fMRI evidence using activation likelihood estimation. J Neurolinguistics. 2019;49:71‑83. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.08.005
4. Barquero LA, Davis N, Cutting LE. Neuroimaging of reading intervention: a systematic review and activation likelihood estimate meta‑analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e83668. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083668
5. Benedek ME. Articulación en el acompañamiento de trayectorias escolares. Un estudio de casos en instituciones primarias privadas en Tucumán. Investigando en Psicología. 2023;24. doi:10.70198/iep.vi24.201
6. Christensen CA. Learning disability: issues of representation, power, and the medicalization of school failure. In: Sternberg RJ, Spear‑Swerling L, editors. Perspectives on Learning Disabilities: Biological, Cognitive, Contextual. 1st ed. Boulder (CO): Westview Press; 1999. p. 227‑249.
7. Morel S. La medicalización del fracaso escolar en Francia. Una forma contemporánea de etiquetaje de los alumnos con dificultades escolares. Rev Asoc Sociol Educ. 2015;8(3):321‑334. Disponible en: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5200263
8. Simos PG, Fletcher JM, Bergman E, Breier JI, Foorman BR, Castillo EM, et al. Dyslexia‑specific brain activation profile becomes normal following successful remedial training. Neurology. 2002;58:1203‑1213. doi:10.1212/WNL.58.8.1203
9. Goswami U. Reading. In: Reed J, Warner‑Rogers J, editors. Child Neuropsychology: Concepts, Theory and Practice. Malden (MA): Blackwell Publishing; 2008. p. 340‑356.
10. Goswami U. Neurociencia y Educación: ¿podemos ir de la investigación básica a su aplicación? Un posible marco de referencia desde la investigación en dislexia. Psicol Educativa. 2015;21:97‑105. doi:10.1016/j.pse.2015.08.002
11. Luque JL, Giménez A, Bordoy S, Sánchez A. De la teoría fonológica a la identificación temprana de las dificultades específicas de aprendizaje de la lectura. Rev Logop Foniatr Audiol. 2016;36(3):142‑149. doi:10.1016/j.rlfa.2015.10.001
12. Ripoll Salceda JC, Aguado Alonso G. Eficacia de las intervenciones para el tratamiento de la dislexia: una revisión. Rev Logop Foniatr Audiol. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.rlfa.2015.11.001
13. Goswami U. Learning to read in different orthographies: phonological awareness, orthographic representations and dyslexia. In: Hulme C, Snowling MJ, editors. Dyslexia: Biology, Cognition and Intervention. London: Whurr; 1997. p. 131‑152.
14. Troia GA. Phonological awareness intervention research: a critical review of the experimental methodology. Read Res Q. 1999;34(1):28‑52. doi:10.1598/RRQ.34.1.3
15. Eden GF, Moats L. The role of neuroscience in the remediation of students with dyslexia. Nat Neurosci Suppl. 2002;5:1080‑1084. doi:10.1038/nn946
16. Fletcher JM. Dyslexia: the evolution of a scientific concept. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2009;15(4):501‑508. doi:10.1017/S1355617709090900
17. Xia Z, Hancock R, Hoeft F. Neurobiological bases of reading disorder Part I: etiological investigations. Lang Linguist Compass. 2017;11(4):e12239. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12239
18. Danks D, Davis I. Causal inference in cognitive neuroscience. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2023;14:e1650. doi:10.1002/wcs.1650
19. Moncrieff J. Hablando claro. Una introducción a los fármacos psiquiátricos. Barcelona: Herder; 2012.
20. Moncrieff J. Un enfoque alternativo del tratamiento farmacológico en psiquiatría. Rev Asoc Esp Neuropsiq. 2018;38(133):181‑193. doi:10.4321/S0211-57352018000100010
21. Timimi S, Timimi Z. The dangers of mental health promotion in schools. J Philos Educ. 2022;56:12‑21. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12639
22. Elliot JG, Gibbs S. Does dyslexia exist? J Philos Educ. 2008;42(3‑4):475‑491. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00653.x
23. Elliot JG. It’s time to be scientific about dyslexia. Read Res Q. 2020;55(S1):S61‑S75. doi:10.1002/rrq.333
24. Bowers JS. The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience. Psychol Rev. 2016;123(5):600‑612. doi:10.1037/rev0000025
25. Gomes Campos CJ, Ribeiro Turato E. Análisis de contenido en investigaciones que utilizan la metodología clínico‑cualitativa: aplicación y perspectivas. Rev Latino‑Am Enferm. 2009;17(2). doi:10.1590/S0104-11692009000200019
26. Fernandez Chaves F. El análisis de contenido como ayuda metodológica para la investigación. Rev Cienc Sociales. 2002;2(96):35‑53. Disponible en: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/153/15309604.pdf
27. Piñeiro‑Naval V, Igartua JJ, Marañón‑Lazcano F, Sánchez‑Nuevo LA. El análisis de contenido y su aplicación a entornos web: un caso empírico. In: Caffarel C, Gaitán JA, Lozano C, Piñuel JL, editors. Tendencias metodológicas en la investigación académica sobre Comunicación. Salamanca: Comunicación Social Ediciones y Publicaciones; 2018. p. 253‑272. doi:10.52495/c6.2.emcs.2.mic6
28. Suggate SP. Why what we teach depends on when: grade and reading intervention modality moderate effect size. Dev Psychol. 2010;46(6):1556‑1579. doi:10.1037/a0020612
29. McArthur G, Eve PM, Jones K, Banales E, Kohnen S, Anandakumar T, et al. Phonics training for English‑speaking poor readers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(12):CD009115. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009115.pub2
30. McArthur G, Sheehan Y, Badcock NA, Francis DA, Wang HC, Kohnen S, et al. Phonics training for English‑speaking poor readers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;(11):CD009115. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009115.pub3
31. Galuschka, K., Görgen, R., Kalmar, J., Haberstroh, S., Schmalz, X., Schulte-Körne, G. Educational Psychologist. 2020; 55(1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1659794
32. Goodwin AP, Ahn S. A meta‑analysis of morphological interventions: effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Ann Dyslexia. 2010;60:183‑208. doi:10.1007/s11881-010-0041-x
39.33. Wanzek J, Stevens EA, Williams KJ, Scammacca N, Vaughn S, Sargent K. Current evidence on the effects of intensive early reading interventions. J Learn Disabil. 2018;51(6):612‑624. doi:10.1177/0022219418775110
40.34. Nelson JR, Benner GR, Gonzalez J. Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: a meta‑analytic review. Learn Disabil Res Pract. 2003;18(4):255‑267. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00080
31.35. Hall C, Dahl‑Leonard K, Cho E, Solari EJ, Capin P, Conner CL, et al. Forty years of reading intervention research for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Read Res Q. 2022;58(2):285‑312. doi:10.1002/rrq.477
33.36. Kim D, An Y, Shin HG, Lee J, Park S. A meta‑analysis of single‑subject reading intervention studies for struggling readers: using improvement rate difference. Heliyon. 2020;6:e05024. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05024
37. Swanson HL. Reading research for students with LD: a meta‑analysis of intervention outcomes. J Learn Disabil. 1999;32(6):504‑532. doi:10.1177/002221949903200605
38. Dahl‑Leonard K, Hall C, Capin P, Solari EJ, Demchak A, Therrien WJ. Examining fidelity reporting within studies of foundational reading interventions for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia. Ann Dyslexia. 2023. doi:10.1007/s11881-023-00279-3
36.39. Goldfeld S, Beatson R, Watts A, Snow P, Gold L, Le HND, et al. Tier 2 oral language and early reading interventions for preschool to grade 2 children: a restricted systematic review. Aust J Learn Difficult. 2022;27(1):65‑113. doi:10.1080/19404158.2021.2011754
35.40. Scammacca N, Vaughn S, Roberts G, Wanzek J, Torgesen JK. Extensive Reading Interventions in Grades K‑3: From Research to Practice. Portsmouth (NH): RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction; 2007. Disponible en: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521573.pdf
34.41. Scammacca NK, Roberts G, Vaughn S, Stuebing KK. A meta‑analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4‑12: 1980‑2011. J Learn Disabil. 2015;48(4):369‑390. doi:10.1177/0022219413504995
41.42. Austin CR, Wanzek J, Scammacca NK, Vaughn S, Gesel SA, Donegan R, et al. The relationship between study quality and the effects of supplemental reading interventions: a meta‑analysis. Except Child. 2019;85(3):347‑366. doi:10.1177/0014402918796164
42.43. Toffalini E, Giofrè D, Pastore M, Carretti M, Fraccadori F, Szűcs D. Dyslexia treatment studies: a systematic review and suggestions on testing treatment efficacy with small effects and small samples. Behav Res Methods. 2021;53:1954‑1972. doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01549-x
44. Cogo‑Moreira H, Andriolo RB, Yazigi L, Ploubidis GB, Brandão de Ávila CR, Mari JJ. Music education for improving reading skills in children and adolescents with dyslexia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(8):CD009133. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009133.pub2
45. Turker S, Hartwigsen G. The use of noninvasive brain stimulation techniques to improve reading difficulties in dyslexia: a systematic review. Hum Brain Mapp. 2022;43(3):1157‑1173. doi:10.1002/hbm.25700
43.46. Cancer A, Antonietti A. Music‑based and auditory‑based interventions for reading difficulties: a literature review. Heliyon. 2022;8:e09293. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09293
47. Gutierrez-Fresneda, R. y Pozo-Rixo, T. Lit. lingüíst. [online], 2022; 45:281-298. DOI: 10.29344/0717621x.45.2212.
48. Ferreiro E, Teberosky A. Los sistemas de escritura en el desarrollo del niño. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI; 1979.
49. Jiménez J, O’Shanahan J. Enseñanza de la lectura: de la teoría y la investigación a la práctica educativa. Rev Iberoam Educ. 2008;45(5):2‑22. doi:10.35362/rie4552032
50. Bowers JS. Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educ Psychol Rev. 2020;32:681‑705. doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Damián Revillo (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
