0
Special Communication |

Sex Differences in Developmental Reading Disability:  New Findings From 4 Epidemiological Studies

Michael Rutter, MD; Avshalom Caspi, PhD; David Fergusson, PhD; L. John Horwood, MSc; Robert Goodman, MD; Barbara Maughan, PhD; Terrie E. Moffitt, PhD; Howard Meltzer, PhD; Julia Carroll, PhD
JAMA. 2004;291(16):2007-2012. doi:10.1001/jama.291.16.2007.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context An influential article published in 1990 claimed that the increased rate of reading disability in boys was a consequence of referral bias.

Objectives To summarize the history of research on sex differences in reading disability and to provide new evidence from 4 independent epidemiological studies about the nature, extent, and significance of sex differences in reading disability.

Design, Setting, and Participants The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study comprised 989 individuals (52.1% male) in a cohort born between April 1972 and March 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, and followed up from age 3 years; reading performance and IQ were assessed at ages 7, 9, and 11 years using the Burt Word Reading Test and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Revised (WISC-R), respectively. The Christchurch Health and Development Study comprised 895 individuals (50% male) in a prospectively studied cohort born in the Christchurch, New Zealand, region during a 4-month period in 1977; reading performance and IQ were assessed at ages 8 to 10 years using the Burt Word Reading Test and the WISC-R. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) Study comprised a UK nationally representative sample of 5752 children (50.1% male) aged 9 to 15 years in 1999; reading was assessed on the British Ability Scales II and IQ on the British Picture Vocabulary Scales II. The Environmental Risk Longitudinal Twin Study (E-Risk) comprised 2163 twin children from England and Wales (49.1% male) identified at birth in 1994 and 1995 and included administration of the Test of Word Reading Efficiency at age 7 years and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Revised as a test of IQ at age 5 years.

Main Outcome Measure Reading performance by sex in the lowest 15% of the distribution for all 4 studies, with and without taking IQ into account.

Results In all 4 studies, the rates of reading disability were significantly higher in boys. For non–IQ-referenced reading disability: Dunedin study, 21.6% in boys vs 7.9% in girls (odds ratio [OR], 3.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.15-4.17); Christchurch study, 20.6% in boys vs 9.8% in girls (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.62-3.50); ONS study, 17.6% in boys vs 13.0% in girls (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.23-1.65); and E-Risk, 18.0% in boys vs 13.0% in girls (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.04-1.86). The rates for IQ-referenced reading disabilities were similar.

Conclusion Reading disabilities are clearly more frequent in boys than in girls.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

Don't have Access?

Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more

Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features

Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)

Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours

Figures

Figure. Sex Differences in IQ-Referenced Reading Disability
Graphic Jump Location
A, Prevalence of IQ-referenced reading disability in 2 English samples (the Inner London Study and the Isle of Wight Study) and 2 American studies (the National Collaborative Perinatal Project [NCPP] and a Rochester, Minn, population-based birth cohort). All studies used a regression-based method to define reading disability. In the 2 English samples and in the NCPP, reading disability was defined as reading scores 1.5 SDs below IQ-predicted scores; in the Rochester sample, reading disability was defined as scores 1.75 SDs below IQ-predicted scores. B, Prevalence of IQ-referenced reading disability in 4 new epidemiological studies. In all 4 studies, a comparable definition was used, with children classified with a disability if their reading scores were at least 1 SD below their IQ-predicted scores.

Tables

References

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 124

Sign In to Access Full Content

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles
Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();