Since the 2014 publication of The Dyslexia Debate by Julian Elliott and Elena Grigorenko, the scientific understanding of dyslexia has evolved significantly. While the book questioned the usefulness of the term “dyslexia” and called out inconsistencies in diagnosis, modern research has responded by sharpening definitions, expanding models, and embracing the complexity of this learning difficulty.
Here’s a concise breakdown of the key shifts in thinking based on research from 2014 to today.
1. The term “dyslexia” has survived—with stricter boundaries
Elliott and Grigorenko argued that “dyslexia” was too ambiguous to be clinically useful. However, subsequent research clarified that while the term had been misused, it still holds value if narrowly defined as having a specific difficulty with accurate and fluent word reading and spelling.
- Researchers now emphasize phonological processing deficits as a core component.
- The term is increasingly tied to clear, measurable impairments—not vague reading struggles or general academic underperformance.
Bottom line: Dyslexia is still a valid construct—when used with precision.
2. The multiple deficit model has replaced the “one cause” theory
Dyslexia is no longer seen as the result of a single phonological problem. Instead, it is now widely accepted as a multi-causal condition influenced by the interaction of various cognitive risk factors.
These may include:
- Phonological awareness deficits
- Rapid automatized naming (RAN) difficulties
- Working memory weaknesses
- Attention issues (especially ADHD)
- Broader language delays
Bottom line: Dyslexia isn’t caused by a single glitch—it’s the outcome of multiple, interacting risk factors.
3. Orthographic transparency matters: Dyslexia looks different across languages
Modern research has shown that the manifestation of dyslexia varies depending on the language being learned.
- In transparent orthographies (e.g., Finnish, Italian), dyslexic readers often read accurately but slowly.
- In opaque orthographies (like English or French), both accuracy and fluency are affected.
Despite surface-level differences, neuroimaging confirms that the underlying brain differences are similar across languages.
Bottom line: Dyslexia is universal—but shaped by language.
4. Neuroscience confirms dyslexia’s brain basis—But it’s not simple
Post-2014 imaging studies have provided strong support for the neurobiological basis of dyslexia, showing:
- Reduced activation in the left temporo-parietal and occipito-temporal regions
- Structural differences in white matter tracts, particularly those connecting language regions
- Increased reliance on the right hemisphere or frontal lobe compensatory networks
However, there’s no single “brain signature.” Each individual shows a different constellation of neurological traits.
Bottom line: Dyslexia is brain-based—but there’s no one-size-fits-all neurological fingerprint.
5. Early identification is more important than labels
Recent studies show we can identify children at risk for dyslexia in preschool based on:
- Poor phonological awareness
- Delayed letter-sound knowledge
- Slow RAN scores
- Family history of reading difficulties
Early screening and intervention—before formal reading instruction begins—leads to far better outcomes than waiting for a formal diagnosis.
Bottom line: Catching risk early matters more than labeling late.
6. Comorbidity isn’t the exception—It’s the norm
Dyslexia rarely occurs in isolation. Research now embraces the high rate of co-occurrence with other developmental disorders:
- ADHD (especially inattentive type)
- Developmental Language Disorder (DLD)
- Dyscalculia
- Executive function deficits
These overlapping conditions influence severity, response to intervention, and long-term prognosis.
Bottom line: Dyslexia is often part of a broader neurodevelopmental profile.
7. Cognitive training is being reassessed
While structured phonics remains the cornerstone of dyslexia intervention, researchers are exploring the supplementary role of cognitive training:
- Working memory enhancement
- Attention and inhibition control
- Processing speed improvements
Results are mixed but promising in certain profiles—especially when dyslexia co-occurs with broader executive function difficulties.
Bottom line: Cognitive training isn’t a replacement—but it may be a valuable addition.
8. Social and emotional impact is now a priority
Recent research is finally giving weight to the emotional cost of dyslexia:
- Higher rates of anxiety, school avoidance, and self-doubt
- Emotional trauma from being labeled “lazy” or “slow”
- Protective value of self-efficacy, resilience, and a strength-based identity
There’s growing advocacy for shifting the narrative from deficit-focused to difference-inclusive, recognizing creativity, storytelling, and visual-spatial strengths.
Bottom line: Dyslexia affects the heart, not just the head—and support must reflect that.
Summary: What has changed since The Dyslexia Debate?
| Old Assumption | Modern Understanding |
|---|---|
| Dyslexia is a single phonological problem | It’s a result of multiple interacting risk factors |
| IQ discrepancy is essential for diagnosis | IQ is irrelevant—focus on word-level reading difficulties |
| Label “dyslexia” is vague and unhelpful | Label is valid—if narrowly defined and scientifically grounded |
| Dyslexia is universal in appearance | Presentation varies with language and orthography |
| Comorbidities complicate diagnosis | Comorbidities are central to understanding each case |
| Wait for failure before intervening | Early screening and preventive instruction are best |
Final thoughts
Dyslexia remains a complex, evolving field—but since 2014, research has moved decisively toward a clearer, more evidence-based model. It’s no longer a mystery, nor a bucket-term diagnosis. It’s a pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses with identifiable markers, overlapping profiles, and actionable intervention points.
If we keep evolving our understanding—grounded in research but guided by compassion—we’ll be doing more than labeling difficulties. We’ll be unlocking potential.
Edublox offers cognitive training and live online tutoring to students with dyslexia. Our students are in the United States, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere. Book a free consultation to discuss your child’s learning needs.
Reference list for What Modern Research Says About Dyslexia (Post-2014):
- Elliott, J. G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). The dyslexia debate. Cambridge University Press.
- Elliott, J. G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2024). The dyslexia debate revisited. Cambridge University Press.
- Ozernov-Palchik, O., & Gaab, N. (2016). Tackling the ‘dyslexia paradox’: Reading brain and behavior for early markers of developmental dyslexia. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 7(2), 156–176.
- Peterson, R. L., & Pennington, B. F. (2012). Developmental dyslexia. The Lancet, 379(9830), 1997–2007.
- Protopapas, A., & Parrila, R. (2018). Is dyslexia a brain disorder? Brain Sciences, 8(4), 61.
- Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2021). Annual Research Review: Reading disorders revisited – the critical importance of oral language. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 62(5), 635–644.
- Vandermosten, M., Boets, B., Wouters, J., & Ghesquière, P. (2014). A qualitative and quantitative review of diffusion tensor imaging studies in reading and dyslexia. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(6), 1532–1552.
What Modern Research Says About Dyslexia (Post-2014) was authored by Sue du Plessis (B.A. Hons Psychology; B.D.), an educational and reading specialist with 30+ years of experience in the learning disabilities field.
