Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Variations in functional connectivity observed during middle childhood and early adolescence may be due to genetic variants associated with spelling or endophenotypes for attention supporting language learning.

“On the one hand, the variations in functional connectivity observed during middle childhood and early adolescence may be due to genetic variants associated with spelling (e.g., Roeske et al., 2009; Rubenstein et al., 2011; Schulte-Kőrne et al., 1998) or endophenotypes for attention supporting language learning (e. g,, Posner and Rothbart, 2007; Rubenstein et al., 2014).”

• cites Roeske et al., 2009Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Rubenstein et al., 2011 sourcePartly supported

  The Discussion reports linkage between spelling ability and four genomic regions, supporting a genetic contribution to spelling. It does not identify specific variants or examine functional connectivity, so it cannot establish the proposed explanation for connectivity differences. The attention-endophenotype portion of the citing sentence is attached to other citations. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Schulte-Kőrne et al., 1998 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Of the 26 dysgraphia participants, 21 fell in the low average or below average range on DASH Copy FAST and 13 on DASH Copy Best.

“Of the 26, 21 fell in the low average or below average range on DASH Copy FAST and exactly half (13) fell in the low average or below average range on DASH Copy Best.”

May combine two claims.

In dysgraphia, other working memory impairments included phonological word storage (n=1), orthographic word storage (n=7), morphological word storage (n=4), and focused/selective attention (n=5).

“Other working memory component impairments besides orthographic loop included phonological word storage and processing (n=1), orthographic word storage and processing (n=7), morphological word storage and processing (n=4), and focused/selective attention (D-KEFS Color Word Inhibition) (n=5).”

May combine two claims.

The 10 dyslexia participants who did not meet the dual criteria met the family-genetics criteria (word reading/spelling below population mean and at least 1 SD below Verbal Comprehension Index) and had persisting reading and spelling problems at school.

“However, of the ten who did not, they met the criteria used in multigenerational family genetics studies in which the child qualifying family for participation had word reading and/or spelling skills below the population mean and at least a standard deviation below measured Verbal Comprehension Index (e.g., Raskind et al., 2005); and the students had continued to have persisting reading and spelli”

• cites Raskind et al., 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Parent-reported history of learning difficulties accurately reflects the child's actual past and current struggles.

May combine two claims.

In Study 2, functional connectivity on fMRI from four seed regions involved in written word processing distinguished dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD, and the groups differed in which regions were connected and in the total number of connections.

“fMRI functional connectivity from 4 seed points in brain locations involved in written word processing to other brain regions also differentiated dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD; both specific regions to which connected and overall number of functional connections differed.”

May combine two claims.

Of OWL LD participants, 2 had co-occurring dysgraphia, 2 had co-occurring dyslexia, 5 had both, and 4 had neither.

“Of those with OWL LD, 2 had co-occurring dysgraphia, 2 had co-occurring dyslexia, 5 had co-occurring dysgraphia and dyslexia, and 4 had no co-occurring dyslexia or dysgraphia.”

May combine two claims.

Other working memory impairments in OWL LD included orthographic word storage (n=7), phonological word storage (n=4), focused/selective attention (n=4), switching attention (n=3), and phonological loop (n=1).

“Working memory impairments were also observed in orthographic word storage and processing (n=7), phonological word storage and processing (n=4), focused/selective attention (color word inhibition) (n=4), switching attention (RAS) (n=3), and phonological loop (RAN) (n=1).”

May combine two claims.

For the left occipital temporal seed point, OWL LD showed the least connectivity (21 regions), controls 26, dysgraphia 42, and dyslexia 79.

“For the left occipital temporal seed point, those with OWL LD showed the least connectivity (to 21 regions); the controls somewhat more connectivity (to 26 regions); but those with dysgraphia (to 42 regions) showed considerably more connectivity; and those with dyslexia (to 79 regions) showed the most connectivity.”

May combine two claims.

The dysgraphia group outperformed the OWL LD group on WISC IV Verbal Comprehension, all measures of processing/producing oral language, reading comprehension, written composition, dictated spelling of real words, accuracy and rate of oral reading of real words and pseudowords, orthographic and morphological storage and processing of words, and switching attention.

“The dysgraphia group outperformed the OWL LD group on one cognitive measure (WISC IV Verbal Comprehension), all measures of processing and/or producing oral language, reading comprehension and written composition, dictated spelling of real words and accuracy and rate of oral reading of real words and pseudowords, orthographic and morphological storage and processing of words, and switching”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

ANOVA showed significant main effects for groups at p ≤ .001 on working memory components: orthographic coding, morphological coding, phonological loop, orthographic loop, and supervisory attention (focused/selective and switching/flexible attention).

“The working memory components that showed main effects for groups included orthographic coding, morphological coding, phonological loop, orthographic loop, and supervisory attention (focused/selective attention and switching/flexible attention).”

May combine two claims.

Neither those with dysgraphia nor those with dyslexia differed from controls on cognitive measures.

“Although neither those with dysgraphia nor those with dyslexia differed from the controls on cognitive measures, those with OWL LD did differ from controls and differed on both what is generally regarded as verbal cognition (first measure in Table 2) and nonverbal cognition (last two measures in Table 2).”

May combine two claims.

For the left supramarginal gyrus seed point, OWL LD showed 14 regions, controls 46, dysgraphia 75, and dyslexia 110.

“For the left supramarginal gyrus seed point, those with OWL LD showed underconnectivity (to 14 regions) compared to the controls (to 46 regions); those with dysgraphia had even more connectivity (to 75 regions); and those with dyslexia had the most connectivity (to 110 regions).”

May combine two claims.

Impairments in phonological word coding were observed in all groups, most frequently in dyslexia (6), then OWL LD (4), and least in dysgraphia (1).

“Although impairments in phonological word coding were observed in all groups, they were more frequent in dyslexia (6), next highest in OWL LD (4), and lowest in dysgraphia (1).”

May combine two claims.

ANOVA showed significant main effects for groups at p ≤ .001 on cognitive measures: WISC IV Verbal Comprehension, WJ III Concept Formulation, and WJ III Analysis-Synthesis.

“Table 2 summarizes the main effects for groups on the three cognitive measures at the p ≤ .001. Group effects were observed for WISC IV Verbal Comprehension (cognitive to oral language translation), WJ III Concept Formulation (inductive reasoning—abstracting concepts), and WJ III Analysis-Synthesis (deductive reasoning—applying principles or rules).”

May combine two claims.

The dyslexia group outperformed the OWL LD group on all three cognitive measures, three oral language measures, and morphological storage and processing of words.

“The dyslexia group outperformed the OWL LD group on all three cognitive measures, three oral language measures, and morphological storage and processing of words.”

May combine two claims.

For the left inferior frontal seed point, controls showed 10 regions, OWL LD 21, dysgraphia 53, and dyslexia 72.

“For the left inferior frontal seed point, the controls had the least connectivity (to 10 regions); those with OWL LD had somewhat more (to 21 regions); those with dysgraphia had even more (to 53 regions); and those with dyslexia had the most (to 72 regions).”

May combine two claims.

ANOVA showed significant main effects for groups at p ≤ .001 on alphabet 15 and DASH Copy Fast for subword level, two dictated spelling measures and four oral reading measures for word level, and five syntax-level measures.

“Table 1 summarizes the between subjects Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) results for each of the levels of language measures and working memory components on which the main effect for groups was significant at p ≤ .001. These included alphabet 15 and DASH Copy Fast for subword level, two measures of dictated spelling (pseudowords and real words) and four measures of oral reading (accuracy and rate for”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

All participants had a reported history of past and current struggle with the relevant language skills for their assigned diagnostic group.

“All had reported history of past and current struggle with the relevant language skills for the assigned diagnostic group.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Parent-reported history of learning difficulties accurately reflects the child's actual past and current struggles.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Most participants fell below the diagnostic cut-off, often substantially below and on more than two measures.

“The criterion noted is the upper limit for qualifying for a diagnostic group; most fell below that cut-off and often substantially below and on more than two measures.”

May combine two claims.

Those with OWL LD differed from controls on both verbal cognition and nonverbal cognition.

“Although neither those with dysgraphia nor those with dyslexia differed from the controls on cognitive measures, those with OWL LD did differ from controls and differed on both what is generally regarded as verbal cognition (first measure in Table 2) and nonverbal cognition (last two measures in Table 2).”

May combine two claims.

For the left precuneus seed point, controls showed 29 regions, OWL LD 32, dysgraphia 58, and dyslexia 88.

“For the left precuneus seed point, the controls showed the least connectivity (to 29 regions) with those with OWL LD showing about the same (to 32 regions); and again those with dysgraphia showed more connectivity (to 58 regions); and those with dyslexia showed the most connectivity (to 88 regions).”

May combine two claims.

The dysgraphia group outperformed the dyslexia group on dictated spelling of real words, accuracy and rate of oral reading of real words, phonological loop, and switching attention.

“The dysgraphia group outperformed the dyslexia group on measures of dictated spelling of real words and accuracy and rate of oral reading of real words as well as phonological loop and switching attention.”

May combine two claims.

Study 1 confirmed unique diagnostic patterns based on impairments in levels of language and working memory components supporting language learning, but also some variation within diagnostic groups and some commonality across groups.

“That approach confirmed unique diagnostic patterns based on impairments in levels of language and working memory components supporting language learning, but also some variation within diagnostic groups, consistent with individual differences and genetic heterogeneity in SLDs (e.g., Raskind et al., 2012), and also some commonality across groups.”

• cites Raskind et al., 2012Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Compared to controls, those with dysgraphia made more functional connections from specific locations to other destinations and varied in the destinations of those connections from a common origin.

“Compared to controls, overall those with dysgraphia made more functional connections from specific locations to other destinations and varied on the same task as to the destinations of those connections from a common location of origin.”

May combine two claims.

Both distinctive and co-occurring SLDs, as predicted by the cascading levels of language framework, and common and unique impairments in working memory components, as predicted by a multi-component working memory model, were identified.

“Both distinctive and co-occurring SLDs, as predicted by the cascading levels of language framework, and common and unique impairments in working memory components, as predicted by a multi-component working memory model of language learning, were identified.”

May combine two claims.

Each of the SLDs showed some common functional connectivity as to destination from the seed point of origin, as well as distinctly different patterns of connectivity from each other and controls from four seed points on the same word-specific spelling task.

“However, each of the SLDs showed some common functional connectivity as to destination from the seed point of origin, as well as distinctly different patterns of connectivity from each other and controls from four seed points on the same word-specific spelling task.”

May combine two claims.

On the same task, those with OWL LD showed about the same number of functional connections as controls or fewer connections than controls depending on the seed point.

“In general on the same task those with OWL LD showed about the same number of functional connections as controls or fewer connections than controls depending on the seed point.”

May combine two claims.

Those with dyslexia showed the most functional connectivity and differed most from others in the nature of the connections.

“Overall, those with dyslexia showed the most functional connectivity (number of regions connected to seed point of origin) and differed most from the others in the nature of the connections (destinations).”

May combine two claims.

Study 2 provided converging fMRI functional connectivity evidence that dysgraphia, dyslexia, OWL LD, and controls differ in neuroimaging patterns of which local brain regions of origin are connected to which other brain regions, and how many functional connections are made from the same local brain region to other brain regions during a common word-specific spelling task.

“Study 2 provided converging fMRI functional connectivity brain evidence that those with dysgraphia, dyslexia, OWL LD, and controls differ in neuroimaging patterns of (a) which local brain regions of origin are connected to which other brain regions, and (b) how many functional connections are made from the same local brain region to other brain regions during a common word-specific spelling task.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Identifying the hallmark impaired language level is critical for understanding a person's learning profile and for planning the specialized instruction needed to remediate the SLD.

“the key concept in the cascading levels of language framework is that identifying the hallmark impaired level of language is critical to understanding an individual’s profile of learning (language achievement) skills and planning appropriate, specialized instruction that is necessary in order to remediate the SLD.”

May combine two claims.

In the cascading levels of language framework, individuals may or may not have co-occurring impairment below their hallmark level, but they do not have hallmark impairment in larger language units beyond their primary impairment.

“individuals may or may not show co-occurring impairment in the written language skills involving the smaller units of language below the hallmark level of impairment, but they do not show hallmark impairment in the larger unit(s) of language beyond their primary impairment”

May combine two claims.

Preschool treatment may help oral language disabilities, but affected children are likely to continue having listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension, and/or written expression problems during school unless identified and treated.

“Although oral language disabilities may respond to treatment in the preschool years, the affected children are likely to have ongoing listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension, and/or written expression problems”

• cites Nelson, 2010Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The phonological loop has been reinterpreted as a cross-code integration mechanism that supports language learning.

“The phonological loop has been re-conceptualized as a cross-code integration mechanism that supports language learning (Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998).”

• cites Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

For dyslexia, the enduring difficulty is spelling, even though it is often regarded as a reading problem.

“Although dyslexia is often thought to be a reading problem, the persisting problem is spelling”

• cites Lefly, & Pennington, 1991; Schulte-Korne et al., 1998Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Mayo Clinic epidemiological research indicates that roughly one fifth of US school-age children and adolescents probably have an SLD that may interfere with school learning at some point.

“about 20% of school age children and youth in the United States probably have some kind of SLD that may interfere with school learning at some time in their education”

• cites Katusic, Barbaresi, Colligan, Weaver, Leibson, Jacobsen, 2005; Katusic, Colligan, Barbaresi, Schaid, Jacobsen, 2001; Katusic, Colligan, Weaver, Barbaresi, 2009Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Evidence-based differential diagnosis has relevance for treatment.

“That is, evidence-based differential diagnosis is treatment-relevant.”

May combine two claims.

The behavioral and brain findings together support the conclusion that dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD are separate, diagnosable specific learning disabilities for written language problems that persist in middle childhood and early adolescence.

“Thus, results provide converging neurological and behavioral evidence, for dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD being different, diagnosable specific learning disabilities (SLDs) for persisting written language problems during middle childhood and early adolescence.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The study's conceptual framework defined each of the three SLDs by the highest language level at which the hallmark impairment occurs: subword handwriting, word reading/spelling, or syntax comprehension and expression.

“the conceptual framework underlying the current research was based on the level of language of the hallmark, defining impairment of each of three SLDs: subword level handwriting, word level reading/spelling, or syntax level comprehension and expression.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Supervisory attention in working memory is now viewed not as one function but as a set of functions for focusing, switching, and sustaining attention.

“supervisory attention in working memory is no longer considered a single function, but rather a panel of functions for focusing (selective), switching (flexible), and sustaining (maintaining) attention”

• cites Baddeley, 2003 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Some reading and writing difficulties involve significant syntax-level impairments, can appear in preschool, and continue through the school years.

“some other reading and writing problems are associated with significant impairments in syntax-level skills and may emerge during the preschool years”

• cites Ellis & Thal, 2008; Mashburn, & Myers, 2010; Apel, & Apel, 2011Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

In the current model, the deep structure lies not in syntax but in higher-order executive function for translating between cognition and oral language, and the full language learning mechanism includes a translator and a multi-component working memory system across cascading language levels.

“In this model, the deep structure is not in the syntax of the language, but rather in the higher order executive function for translating across the domains of cognition and oral language; and the full language learning mechanism involves both a translator and a multi-component working memory system supporting language learning across cascading levels of language”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In the cascading levels framework, the primary impairment can interfere with acquiring higher-level language skills, but those higher-level problems resolve once the primary impairment is remediated.

“the area of primary impairment may interfere with acquisition of skills at higher levels of language but once the primary impairment is remediated, the problems at the higher level of language resolve”

May combine two claims.

Students with dyslexia responded more slowly to decoding instruction, while students with OWL LD responded more slowly to real word reading instruction.

“those with dyslexia showed slower RTI for decoding instruction (pronounceable nonwords) whereas those with OWL LD showed slower RTI on real word reading instruction.”

• cites Berninger, 2008Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Chomsky's proposed language learning mechanism may be a multi-component working-memory architecture that supports language learning at multiple levels, with word storage and processing units, syntax storage and processing units, two cross-code integration loops, and supervisory attention and self-monitoring.

“Thus, Chomsky’s (1965) proposed language learning mechanism, in which syntax played a fundamental role, may be a multi-component working-memory architecture that supports language learning at other levels of language as well”

• cites Chomsky, 1965Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Baddeley's working memory model has developed from two storage mechanisms, phonological and visual-spatial, into multiple word-form storage and processing mechanisms, including phonological, orthographic, and semantic components, phonological, orthographic, and morphological word forms, and a syntax buffer.

“Baddeley’s original model of working memory has evolved (Baddeley, 2003) from only two storage mechanisms--phonological and visual spatial —to multiple word form storage and processing mechanisms—phonological, orthographic, and semantic (Crosson et al., 1999) and phonological, orthographic, and morphological word forms (Richards et al., 2006) and a syntax buffer for accumulating word forms (Ber”

• cites Baddeley, 2003; Crosson et al., 1999; Richards et al., 2006Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Students with persisting dysgraphia did not respond to intervention unless letter writing legibility and automaticity instruction was included, and students with OWL LD did not respond unless syntax-level instruction for language by ear, mouth, eye, and hand was included.

“students with persisting dysgraphia did not show RTI unless systematic instruction in letter writing legibility and automaticity was included; and students with OWL LD did not show RTI unless systematic instruction in syntax level skills for language by ear, by mouth, by eye, and by hand was included”

• cites Berninger & O’Malley-May, 2011 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

For dysgraphia, handwriting interferes with writing words in learning to spell.

“For dysgraphia, handwriting interferes with writing words in learning to spell.”

May combine two claims.

The OWL LD group does not have cognitive deficiencies; rather, they have impairments in oral language skills for answering questions and listening comprehension, i.e., cognitive to linguistic translation.

“It does not follow that the OWL LD group has cognitive deficiencies. Rather, they have impairments in their oral language skills for answering questions to express their cognitions on verbal measures; and for listening comprehension to understand the instructions and items administered with oral instructions even though oral responses are not required. That is, they are impaired in cognitive to l”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The left supramarginal gyrus in the parietal lobe is involved in storing words and their parts in working memory.

“Left supramarginal gryus in parietal lobe is involved in storing words and their parts in working memory.”

May combine two claims.

Subword, word, and/or syntax levels may be impaired for language by ear, mouth, eye, and/or hand.

“The subword, word, and/or syntax levels may be impaired for language by ear (listening), by mouth (oral expression), by eye (reading), and/or by hand (writing).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The left precuneus in the parietal lobe is involved in reflecting upon word parts and their interrelationships, i.e., linguistic awareness.

“Left precuneus in parietal lobe is involved in reflecting upon the word parts and their interrelationships, that is, linguistic awareness.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The first author checked whether test score patterns converged with diagnostic group and reported history before assigning groups.

“the first author examined whether the pattern of the learning profile test scores converged with (a) one of the three SLD diagnostic groups based on past research and the conceptual model described earlier or the control group, and (b) the reported history (timing of first observation of learning difficulty), nature of learning difficulties during preschool, the early grades, and recent/current”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

This impairment in the higher order executive function of translation may also affect other domains including nonverbal.

“This impairment in the higher order executive function of translation may also affect other domains including nonverbal.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The OWL LD group's lower cognitive scores may be because the nonverbal measures require processing heard language in the instructions.

“That may be because even though the latter two measures require a nonverbal response, they also require processing heard language in the instructions for the various items.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Preventing and treating persisting dyslexia requires spelling as well as reading instruction.

“Moreover, not all reading problems are dyslexia, and preventing and treating persisting dyslexia requires spelling as well as reading instruction (e.g., Berninger, 2008, 2009).”

• cites Berninger, 2008, 2009Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The left occipital temporal brain region is a word form region for initial processing of visible language.

“Left occipital temporal brain region has been shown in much brain research to be a word form region for initial processing of visible language.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The study used two kinds of controls: published test norms and a group of typical language learners.

“Overall, two kinds of controls were used. The first control was using measures with published test norms or research norms to compare each participant to age or grade peers in interpreting relative performance along a distribution of scores for measures relevant to differential diagnosis. This approach allows interpretation despite the age range of the participants because each participant is”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Given heterogeneity underlying behavioral expression of SLDs across and within diagnostic groups, it is unlikely that a one-size-fits-all approach to diagnostic procedures is evidence-based or can be reduced to algorithms without professional judgment.

“Given the heterogeneity underlying behavioral expression of SLDs across and within diagnostic groups, it is unlikely that a “one size fits all” approach to diagnostic procedures is evidence-based or can be reduced to algorithms that can be legally defined without professional judgment for the case at hand in the context of the profile for the whole child.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca's area) in the frontal lobe is involved in executive functions for coordinating language systems throughout the brain.

“Left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca’s area) in frontal lobe is involved in the executive functions for coordinating language systems throughout the brain.”

May combine two claims.

It does not follow that students with OWL LD are less intelligent nor that what cognitive measures assess is irrelevant to academic achievement.

“It does not follow, however, that students with OWL LD are less intelligent nor that what cognitive measures assess is irrelevant to academic achievement.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Two testers reviewed all scored handwritten measures to reach consensus on scoring.

“In the current study, two testers reviewed all the scored handwritten measures to reach consensus on scoring.”

May combine two claims.

Dysgraphia involves mainly impaired language by hand, dyslexia mainly impaired language by eye, and OWL LD mainly impaired language by ear and by mouth.

“Dysgraphia involves mainly impaired language by hand, whereas dyslexia involves mainly impaired language by eye, and OWL LD involves mainly impaired language by ear and by mouth.”

May combine two claims.

The Study 1 findings are consistent with cascading levels of language impairment: subword level impairment in dysgraphia alone, word-level and sometimes subword-level in dyslexia, and syntax-level impairment and sometimes subword and/or word levels in OWL LD.

“Overall the findings are consistent with cascading levels of language impairment—subword level impairment in dysgraphia alone, but word- level and sometimes subword-level in dyslexia, and syntax-level impairment and sometimes subword and/or word levels in OWL LD.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

For dyslexia, impairments in phonological and orthographic coding can interfere with learning the alphabetic principle for word decoding in reading and word encoding in spelling.

“For dyslexia, hallmark impairments in phonological and orthographic coding can interfere with learning alphabet principle for word decoding in reading and word encoding in spelling.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Conclusions based on this study should be restricted to developmental levels of the participants-middle childhood and early adolescence.

“Conclusions based on this study should be restricted to developmental levels of the participants—middle childhood and early adolescence.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

If more functional connections consume more limited resources, fewer connections may be more efficient in use of limited resources for fueling the brain's work during written word learning.

“If more functional connections consume more limited resources, fewer connections may be more efficient in use of limited resources for fueling the brain’s work during written word learning.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Persisting problems may be due to instruction not tailored to the changing nature and requirements of the curriculum during middle childhood and adolescence.

“On the other hand, the persisting problems may be due to instruction that is not tailored to the changing nature and requirements of the curriculum during middle childhood and adolescence (e.g., see Troia, 2009), which needs to include spelling and go beyond phonology only to orthography and morphology and their interrelationships with each other.”

• cites Troia, 2009Not checked — no full text of the source