DYSLEXIA MYTHS & FACTS

Based on over 30 years of fieldwork on language-based disorders and a decade of successful interventions with Dysolve, we present the following.

Myth – Dyslexia is lifelong

Dyslexia is due to inefficient language processes in the brain, which can be corrected. Diagnosed by certified psychologists as having dyslexia, children who completed Dysolve were able to pass state/school standardized reading tests, take no more than typical to complete schoolwork and tests, and spell, read and write as well as their typical peers.

Myth – Dyslexia is only a small subset of reading difficulties

Dysolve® AI’s evaluations of struggling readers all show language processing inefficiencies, regardless of whether they had been diagnosed with dyslexia by specialists. Dyslexia affects 20% of students, yet schools do not often provide intervention for 20% of their students.

Myth – The Gold Standard is the best

The science of reading lacks research evidence on the most efficacious treatment for students with dyslexia after 3rd grade. Popular programs, methods and approaches do not often conduct efficacy studies that meet the US Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences criteria. They also do not show positive effect on broad reading achievement for this population. The US Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse does not have any intervention meeting these criteria. It is hard to find any replicable, rigorous study with positive effect on reading comprehension for this population in meta-analytic reviews.*
Study Criteria
See Elliot & Grigorenko, 2014; Ritchey & Goeke, 2006; Stevens et al., 2021;
Sayeski & Hurford, 2022 in References 

Myth – “Evidence-based” means positive evidence

Methods under study are considered “evidence-based” (Institute of Education Sciences). The Department of Education What Works Clearinghouse does not contain any rigorous, replicable study of a reading intervention that has positive effect on broad reading achievement for students with dyslexia who are in grade 3 and up.

Myth – The most expensive interventions are the best

Dyslexia interventions presently require highly trained, certified reading specialists to work with students one-on-one or in small groups. Hence the cost. Yet these interventions only help students cope with their reading difficulty year after year. An AI program can be effective and costs less than 10% of these specialist-led interventions.

Cost of Dysolve v. other methods

Myth – The most expensive evaluations are the best

The best evaluation is one that forms the blueprint for intervention. None of the traditional evaluations, no matter how lengthy, does this. Only Dysolve® AI does.

*Dysolve AI is new. Its 2025 clinical trial showed positive effect for grade 3 and up.

REFERENCES

We have curated these premier peer-reviewed references and primary sources for more comprehensive and in-depth information. If you have any reference to recommend, please contact us.

  1. Anthony, N., & Bills, K. (2021). Examining college stop out rates for students with disabilities. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 8(3), 13-18. doi:10.30845/jesp.v8n3p2.
  2. Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education. (2023). IDEA dispute resolution data summary for U.S. and outlying areas: 2011-12 to 2021-22. https://cadreworks.org 
  3. Donegan, R. E., & Wanzek, J. (2021). Effects of reading interventions implemented for upper elementary struggling readers: A look at recent research. Reading and Writing, 34, 1943-1977. doi: 10.1007/s11145-021-10123-y 
  4. Dvorsky, M. R., Shroff, D., Larkin Bonds, W. B., Steinberg, A., Breaux, R., & Becker, S. P. (2023). Impacts of COVID-19 on the school experience of children and adolescents with special educational needs and disabilities. Curr Opin Psychol, 52:101635. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101635. Epub 2023 Jun 17. PMID: 37451025; PMCID: PMC10275652. 
  5. Elliott, J. G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). The dyslexia debate. New York: Cambridge. 
  6. Institute of Education Sciences (IES). What Works Clearinghouse. Search results: Literacy topic. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Search/Products?searchTerm=&Topic=3 
  7. Kraft, M. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241-253. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912798 
  8. National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). NAEP Report Card: Reading. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/ 
  9. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Students with disabilities. Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-with-disabilities 
  10. National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2023). IDEA full funding: Why should Congress invest in special education? Policy & Advocacy. https://ncld.org/news/policy-and-advocacy/idea-full-funding-why-should-congress-invest-in-special-education/ 
  11. National Center on Improving Literacy. State of Dyslexia. https://www.stateofdyslexia.org/ 
  12. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. 
  13. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 
  14. Nelson, J. M., & Gregg, N. (2012). Depression and anxiety among transitioning adolescents and college students with ADHD, dyslexia, or comorbid ADHD/dyslexia. Journal of Attention Disorders, 16, 244–254. 
  15. Peyton, D., & Acosta, K. (2022). Understanding special education teacher shortages. State Education Standard, The Journal of the National Association of State Boards of Education, 22(1). https://www.nasbe.org/understanding-special-education-teacher-shortages/ 
  16. Ritchey, K.D., & Goeke, J.L. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading instruction: a review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 171-183. 
  17. Stevens, E.A., Austin, C., Moore, C., Scammacca, N., Boucher, A.N., & Vaughn, S. (2021). Current state of the evidence: Examining the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 397-417. 
  18. Sayeski, K.L., & Hurford, D.P. (2022). A framework for examining reading-related education research and the curious case of Orton-Gillingham. Learning Disabilities, 27(2), 1-11. 
  19. Vacca, J. S. (2008). Crime can be prevented if schools teach juvenile offenders to read. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(9), 1055-1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.01.013 
  20. VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2017). Four dyslexia screening myths that cause more harm than good in preventing reading failure and what you can do instead. Communique, 45(7), 26-28.