Cited by 151Reading and Literacy DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

Are specific learning disorders truly specific, and are they disorders?

Open access
Peters, Lien, Ansari, Daniel·2019·Trends in Neuroscience and Education

Abstract

Specific learning disorders, such as dyslexia and dyscalculia, are frequently studied to inform our understanding of cognitive development, genetic mechanisms and brain function. In this Opinion Paper, we discuss limitations of this research approach, including the use of arbitrary criteria to select groups of children, heterogeneity within groups and overlap between domains of learning. By drawing on evidence from cognitive science, neuroscience and genetics, we propose an alternative, dimensional framework. We argue that we need to overcome the problems associated with a categorical approach by taking into account interacting factors at multiple levels of analysis that are associated with overlapping rather than entirely distinct domains of learning. We conclude that this research strategy will allow for a richer understanding of learning and development.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tine.2019.100115

Cites

110 of 110 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peters, L., & Ansari, D.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Peters, Lien
Venue
Trends in Neuroscience and Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
17
Pages
100115
ISSN
2211-9493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2956070372
Cited by
151
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 12
FWCI
3.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trends in Neuroscience and Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Jacobs Foundation
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (93609)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN/04644-2017)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Keywords
specific learning disorders, dyslexia, dyscalculia, categorical classification, diagnostic criteria, group heterogeneity, cognitive development, brain function
MeSH terms
Specific Learning Disorder, Child, Developmental Disabilities, Child, Preschool, Cognition, Dyslexia, Humans, Learning Disabilities, Dyscalculia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review