Dyslexia: More than a Phonological Deficit

Science does not advance by consensus. Science is not an exercise in democracy. – Author unknown
Most problems can be solved once we know what causes that particular problem. A disease such as scurvy claimed the lives of thousands of seamen during long sea voyages. The disease was cured fairly quickly once the cause was discovered, viz. a vitamin C deficiency. A viable point of departure would therefore be to ask the question, what causes dyslexia?

Although some causes of dyslexia have a genetic origin, and environmental factors play an important role, cognition mediates brain-behavior relationships and  therefore offers a sufficient level of explanation for the development of principled interventions. In short, we need to understand the cognitive difficulties that underpin reading problems, regardless of whether their origin is constitutional or environmental (Snowling & Hulme, 2011, p. 4).

The phonological deficit theory is the most well-developed and supported theories of dyslexia. It has been widely researched, both in the UK and in the US, resulting in a remarkable degree of consensus concerning the causal role of phonological skills in young children’s reading progress. Children who have good phonological skills, or good “phonological awareness,” become good readers and good spellers. Children with poor phonological skills progress more poorly. In particular, those who have a specific phonological deficit are likely to be classified as dyslexic by the time they are nine or ten years old (Goswami, 1999). The US researchers have united in adopting the phonological deficit hypothesis since the early 1980s, and this united front has led to the investment of more than $15 million annually by the US government, via the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (Fawcett, 2001).

Phonological awareness refers to an individual’s awareness of the phonological structure, or sound structure, of language. It is a listening skill that includes the ability to distinguish units of speech, such as rhymes, syllables in words, and individual phonemes in syllables. Phonological awareness is often confused with phonics, but it is different. Phonics requires students to know and match letters or letter patterns with sounds, learn the rules of spelling, and use this information to decode (read) and encode (write) words. Phonological awareness relates only to speech sounds, not to alphabet letters or sound-spellings. Students don’t need to have alphabet knowledge to develop a basic phonological awareness of language.

The phonological deficit theory gained prominence following studies of preschool children seeking which prereading skills are the best predictors of reading and writing ability. Phonological awareness emerged as an important factor (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014). Bradley and Bryant (1983), for example, found high correlations between preschool children’s initial rhyme awareness and their reading and spelling development over three years, and this link held even after controlling for other variables such as IQ and memory. Other studies comparing older backward readers with younger children without difficulties, reading at the same level, showed significant phonological deficits for the older groups (Bradley & Bryant, 1978; Olson, 1985; Rack, Snowling, & Olson, 1992).

Phonemic awareness is a subset of phonological awareness that focuses on recognizing and manipulating phonemes, the smallest units of sound. The two most important phonemic awareness skills are segmenting and blending. Segmenting is breaking a word apart into its individual sounds. Blending is saying a word after each of its sounds is heard. If a child can segment, he can say f-i-sh after hearing the word fish. If he can blend, he’s able to say the word fish after hearing the individual sounds f-i-sh. Phonemic awareness is said to be a foundational skill for phonics, which in turn is the foundation for reading.

The ability to segment and blend phonemes is said to be critical for the development of reading skills, including decoding and fluency, and even that it predicts reading ability (Taylor, 1998; Moustafa, 2001). In one of the landmark articles on phonemic awareness research, “Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy,” which received the Albert J. Harris Award from the International Reading Association, Keith Stanovich (1986) argued that phonological awareness is causally related to the early development of reading skill, and concluded that the solution for reading failure is to “identify early, remedy early, and focus on phonological awareness” (p. 394). As the “most convincing” evidence for his proposal, Stanovich cited several studies “where phonological awareness skills were manipulated via training, and the manipulation resulted in significant experimental group advantages in reading, word recognition, and spelling (Bradley & Bryant, 1983, 1985; Fox & Routh, 1984; Olofsson & Lundberg, 1985; Torneus, 1984; Treiman & Baron, 1983)” (p. 363).

In the late 1980s, the US Department of Education’s Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI) commissioned Marilyn Jager Adams to survey the entire body of reading research. She produced Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print, relying heavily on the research studies conducted by Stanovich. She discusses no fewer than eight of his articles in her report, and in her bibliography makes 26 references to his work, including “Matthew effects in reading.” She concluded that phonemic awareness is the “most important core and causal factor separating normal and disabled readers” (1990, pp. 304-5). According to Kilpatrick (2016), phonological awareness training prevents and corrects reading difficulties (p. 13).

Correlation does not equal causation

Margaret Moustafa, professor emeritus of education at California State University in Los Angeles, points out that correlation does not establish causation. For example, there is a high correlation between being dead and being in a cemetery. However, the cemetery did not cause the death. “In statistics, the word ‘predicts’ means nothing more than that there is a high correlation between two phenomena” (Moustafa, 2001, p. 248).

“Research does not support phonemic awareness training,” says Moustafa. Olson et al. (1997) report that in their studies of at-risk children, the analysis failed to show an advantage of those who had received explicit training in phonological awareness on word recognition over control groups on two-year follow-up tests. Krashen (1999a) reviewed ten studies and found no significant difference between the effects of phonemic awareness for measures of reading administered immediately after training or delayed by up to two or three years. After reviewing another 15, he concluded that training in phonemic awareness has a larger effect on tests of phonemic awareness than on tests of real-word reading and reading comprehension (1999b).

Pape-Neumann et al. (2015) investigated whether phonological awareness training could improve the reading ability of 30 German third and fourth graders with dyslexia, who also had a phonological awareness deficit. They randomly assigned the students to one of three interventions: phonological awareness training, phonology-based reading training (phonics instruction), and visually-based reading training (repeated reading of sight words). A total of 20 training sessions (30 minutes each) were presented over four weeks. The study concludes that “despite divergent short-term patterns, long-term improvement of reading comprehension and decoding is similar across all training groups, irrespective of the training method… Phonological awareness may but does not need to be part of reading remediation in dyslexic children with a phonological deficit when learning to read a consistent orthography.”

Taylor (1998) points out that while children’s early cognition develops from concrete experiences to abstract understandings, phonemic awareness training begins with abstract exercises. She also points out that when “Matthew effects in reading”-references are checked, “they are often problematic” (p. 12). For example, the “convincing” results of the study by Olofsson and Lundberg (1985, p. 21) read: “the children who participated in the phonemic training program seemed to have benefited from it to some extent. At least they improved their scores on phonemic synthesis tests in school.”

The problem, says Taylor, is that “Matthew effects in reading” was relied upon by Adams and many other scholars, as well as the state of California to justify the “ABC Bills” and to mandate that children receive phonemic awareness training. In addition, the NICHD has used the article in a report that John Silber sent to every school superintendent in the state of Massachusetts, commanding teachers to “begin teaching phonemic awareness directly at an early age (kindergarten)” (Taylor, 1998, p. 5).

Some researchers say phonological factors may be less important than is generally accepted (Byrne, 2011). Not all children with reading disabilities demonstrate a phonological deficit. Blomert and Willems (2010) investigated children at familial risk for dyslexia in kindergarten and first grade. The familial risk was genuine; 40 percent developed reading deficits in first grade. However, they did not find any relationship between phonological awareness or other phonological processing deficits in kindergarten and reading deficits in first grade.

Catts and Adlof (2011), and Howard and Best (1996) point out that children with poor phonological abilities can nevertheless develop good reading skills. Phonological awareness appears to be a better predictor of reading ability in general than reading disability in particular (Scarborough, 1998). Studies of adults with reading disabilities suggest that phonological awareness appears to be rather less important for older poor readers than it is for children, with other processes such as verbal memory, vocabulary, and naming speed playing an equally significant role in differentiating between those with and without reading disability (Swanson & Hsieh, 2009).

Precursor or consequence?

Some findings indicate that phoneme awareness may develop as a consequence of exposure to reading and writing. Especially persuasive is research showing that adult illiterates and readers of a non-alphabetic script lack awareness of phonemes. Berthelsen and De Gelder (1989) reviewed several studies of speakers of Portuguese, Belgian, Japanese, and Chinese demonstrating that adult non-readers and readers of non-alphabetic scripts are unable to segment phonemes, but can do so after learning to read alphabetic scripts. In a study by Lukatela et al. (1995), the truly illiterate adults were completely unable to do a phoneme deletion task. These findings have helped cement the link between awareness and reading in an alphabetic system, but seemed to question the presumption that the chief direction of causal influence is from awareness to reading rather than the reverse (Morais, 1991). However, there are findings which support an intermediate view, “that phonological awareness and alphabetic literacy learning influence each other reciprocally (Burgess & Lonigan, 1998; Lonigan, Burgess & Anthony, 2000; Wagner et al., 1994)” (Manolitsis & Tafa, 2011, p. 31).

As correctly stated by Elliott and Grigorenko (2014), much depends on the breadth of the use of the term “phonological” and the extent to which it includes a variety of cognitive processes such as working memory and rapid naming. Ramus et al. (2013), for example, have found some support for their suggestion that many of those with dyslexia have difficulties with the exercise of phonological skills, rather than poor phonological representations. For these authors, phonological skills are understood as the “things that one can do with one’s phonological representations, but that require additional skill: awareness and meta-cognitive skills, short-term or working memory, rapid and serial retrieval” (p. 639).

Given that a single phonological deficit is not necessary or sufficient to cause reading disability (Catts & Adlof, 2011), current thinking sees this as one of multiple deficits that are likely to interact to cause reading disability (Peterson & Pennington, 2012; Pennington, 2006).


Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bertelson, P., & De Gelder, B. (1989). Learning about reading from illiterates. In A. Galaburda (Ed.) From neurons to reading. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Blomert, L., & Willems, D. (2010). Is there a causal link from a phonological awareness deficit to reading failure in children at familial risk for dyslexia? Dyslexia, 16(4): 300-17.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P.E. (1978). Difficulties in auditory organisation as a possible cause of reading problems. Nature, 271: 746-747.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P.E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301: 419-421.

Byrne, B. (2011). Evaluating the role of phonological factors in early literacy development: Insights from experimental and behavior-genetic studies. In S.A. Brady, D. Braze, & C.A. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 175-95). New York: Psychology Press.

Catts, H.W., & Adlof, S. (2011). Phonological and other language deficits associated with dyslexia. In S.A. Brady, D. Braze, & C.A. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 137–51). New York: Psychology Press.

Elliott, J.G., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2014). The dyslexia debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fawcett, A. (2001). Dyslexia at school: a review of research for the DfES. Unpublished review for the Department for Education and Skills, the British Dyslexia Association and the Dyslexia Institute.

Goswami, U. (1999). Integrating orthographic and phonological knowledge as reading develops: Onsets, rimes, and analogies in children’s reading. In R.M. Klein & P. McMullen (Eds.). Converging methods for understanding reading and dyslexia (pp. 57-75). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Howard, D., & Best, W. (1996). Developmental phonological dyslexia: Word reading can be completely normal. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13: 887–934.

Kilpatrick, D.A. (2016). Equipped for reading success. Syracuse: Casey & Kirsch Publishers.

Krashen, S. (1999a). Effects of phonemic awareness training on delayed tests of reading. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89: 79-82.

Krashen, S. (1999b). Training in phonemic awareness. Greater on tests of phonemic awareness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89: 412-6.

Lukatela, K., Carello, C., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I.Y. (1995). Phonological awareness in illiterates: Observations from Serbo-Croatian. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16(4): 463-87.

Manolitsis, G., & Tafa, E. (2011). Letter-name letter-sound and phonological awareness: Evidence from Greek-speaking kindergarten children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(1): 27-53.

Morais, J. (1991). Phonological awareness: A bridge between language and literacy. In D.J. Sawyer & B.J. Fox (Eds.). Phonological awareness in reading: The evolution of current perspectives (pp. 31-71). New York: Springer Verlag.

Moustafa, M. (2001). Contemporary reading instruction. In T. Loveless (Ed.). The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading and math? (pp. 247-67). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Olofsson, A., & Lundberg, I. (1985). Evaluation of long-term effects of phonemic awareness training in kindergarten. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 26: 21-34.

Olson, R.K. (1985). Disabled reading processes and cognitive profiles. In D.B. Gray & J.F. Kavanagh (Eds.), Biobehavioral measures of dyslexia (pp. 215-44). Parkton, MD: York Press.

Olson, R.K., Wise, B., Ring, J., & Johnson, M. (1997). Computer-based remedial training in phoneme awareness and phonological decoding: effects on the posttraining development of word recognition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(3): 235-53.

Pape-Neumann, J., Van Ermingen-Marbach, M., Grande, M., Willmes, K., & Heim, S. (2015). The role of phonological awareness in treatments of dyslexic primary school children. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 75: 80-106.

Pennington, B.F. (2006). From single to multiple deficit models of developmental disorders. Cognition, 101(2): 385-413.

Peterson, R.L., & Pennington, B.F. (2012). Developmental dyslexia. The Lancet, 379: 1997–2007.

Rack, J.P., Snowling, M.J., & Olson, R.K. (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia – a review. Reading Research Quarterly, 27: 28-53.

Ramus, F., Marshall, C.R., Rosen, S., & Van der Lely, H.K.J. (2013). Phonological deficits in specific language impairment and developmental dyslexia: Towards a multidimensional model. Brain, 136, 630-45.

Scarborough, H.S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In B.K. Shapiro, P.J. Accardo, & A.J. Capute (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75–119). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Snowling, M.J., & Hulme, C. (2011). Evidence-based interventions for reading and language difficulties: Creating a virtuous circle. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81: 1-23.

Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 22: 360-407.

Swanson, H.L., & Hsieh, C.-J. (2009). Reading disabilities in adults: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1362-90.

Taylor, D. (1998). Beginning to read and the spin doctors of science. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.