Talk:Reading disability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I've[edit]

I've started in on expanding this stub by sketching out the definition section. This needs references, of course. I think it is important that this article differ from the dyslexia article, and deals with reading comprehension and fluency problems. ---- Vannin (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Page expansion[edit]

Hi, Vannin. I'm glad you're expanding this page.

I made a few text edits but did not change the information being conveyed.

One thing that seems a bit awkward to me is how to refer to difficulties with fluency, and to a lesser extent, reading comprehension, given that they do not have specific names for the difficulties (there is nothing equivalent to WLRD). It appears that Fletcher, Lyon et. al. have a similar difficulty. But I notice that they point out that difficulty with reading fluency and comprehension has not been studied sufficiently to be defined as reading disabilities per se, but that it seems likely that they are disabilities unto themselves (p. 164).

I'm wondering whether it might be good to approach these two areas in a similar manner, especially since their book is the primary reference for the article.

Thoughts?

Rosmoran (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a change to the section heading - from types of reading disorders to types of reading difficulties?--Vannin (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement about remediation section[edit]

Hi GargantuanDan!

  • First, why do you remove properly formatted text: {{See also|Dyslexia interventions|Management of dyslexia|List of phonics programs}} and replace it with not properly formatted text: See [[Dyslexia interventions|Dyslexia Interventions]], [[Management of dyslexia|Management of Dyslexia]], and [[List of phonics programs|List of Phonics Programs]] ???
  • Second, you give a list of other approaches, that you call "controversial therapies" but without a reliable source stating that they are controversial. And then there is this rather confused text about biofeedback. The biofeedback research that is mentioned is a primary source, and therefore not a good source according to WP:MEDRS - and your criticism of this research has no source at all. So that is why I removed this text.
  • Third, instead of describing some "scientifically validated interventions", you just put a link to organizations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and in articles we describe - we don't just put a link to an organization and let the user find the information there. So why don't you write some sentences giving "information on scientifically validated interventions"? Lova Falk talk 09:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


Howdy, Lova Falk.
  • My apologies for the confusion and re-edits, especially of the first formatting issue. I just started editing pages this weekend, so I'm figuring it out. I initially thought Wiki failed to save my edits, so I re-added them. This watchlist and talk area is a fantastic resource!
  • In regards to the controversial therapies, why do you think that the American Pediatrics Association (Journal: Pediatrics) is an unreliable source? Both Pediatrics and Perspectives are secondary sources from peer-reviewed journals that explain why these therapies are controversial and furthermore harmful to the LD population and their families. I'm fine with removing the biofeedback information. I was appalled to see it there but didn't know whether removal or refutation was a better way to go.
  • I agree with you point in regards to including external links. I'll write something about validated interventions shortly. Would you suggest I create a new sub-heading for controversial (and validated) therapies?
GargantuanDan (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


Howdy GargantuanDan!
  • I am glad that we agree on the removal of the biofeedback information.
  • I never said that I thought that the American Pediatrics Association (Journal: Pediatrics) is an unreliable source! You wrote the following sentence: "Vision therapy[19], [...]are all controversial therapies for their lack of sound methodology (e.g. small sample sizes, lack of a control group, etc.), failure to be replicated, and inability to stand up to randomized controlled trials."
Do you see that you didn't add a source at all (neither a reliable one nor an unreliable one) to the important part of this sentence: "are all controversial therapies for their lack of sound methodology [etc]."
  • I'm glad that you'll write something about validated interventions. Personally, I am not fond of a "Controversial therapies" section, but I wouldn't remove it either. It is a difficult section to write though. It is important that it represents both sides of the controversy. Furthermore, it needs to be neutral, which does not mean that both sides get equal weight, but rather that sides get weight in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. You can read more about this in WP:DUE.
Thank you too! Face-smile.svg Lova Falk talk 18:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)