The DOI matches its Crossref record; 236 of the 236 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Oral language deficits in familial dyslexia: A meta-analysis and review.
Open accessAbstract
This article reviews 95 publications (based on 21 independent samples) that have examined children at family risk of reading disorders. We report that children at family risk of dyslexia experience delayed language development as infants and toddlers. In the preschool period, they have significant difficulties in phonological processes as well as with broader language skills and in acquiring the foundations of decoding skill (letter knowledge, phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming [RAN]). Findings are mixed with regard to auditory and visual perception: they do not appear subject to slow motor development, but lack of control for comorbidities confounds interpretation. Longitudinal studies of outcomes show that children at family risk who go on to fulfil criteria for dyslexia have more severe impairments in preschool language than those who are defined as normal readers, but the latter group do less well than controls. Similarly at school age, family risk of dyslexia is associated with significantly poor phonological awareness and literacy skills. Although there is no strong evidence that children at family risk are brought up in an environment that differs significantly from that of controls, their parents tend to have lower educational levels and read less frequently to themselves. Together, the findings suggest that a phonological processing deficit can be conceptualized as an endophenotype of dyslexia that increases the continuous risk of reading difficulties; in turn its impact may be moderated by protective factors. (PsycINFO Database Record
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
Wasserman, S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,326
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.
Freeman, P. R., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1986) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531069 · Cited by 4,784
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
Langenberg, D. N. (2000) · Cited by 4,305
Categorizing sounds and learning to read—a causal connection
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983) · Nature · doi:10.1038/301419a0 · Cited by 3,021
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3 · Cited by 2,871
GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Montori, V., Akl, E. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Falck-Ytter, Y. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017 · Cited by 2,798
Cited by
Bishop, D. V. M., Snowling, M. J., Thompson, P. A., Greenhalgh, T., & and the CATALISE‐2 consortium (2017) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.12721 · Cited by 1,641
Self-citationSnowling, M. J., Duff, F. J., Nash, H. M., & Hulme, C. (2016) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.12497 · Cited by 168
Self-citationToward Integrative Reading Science: The Direct and Indirect Effects Model of Reading
Kim, Y.-S. G. (2020) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/0022219420908239 · Cited by 166
Nurture might be nature: cautionary tales and proposed solutions
Hart, S. A., Little, C., & van Bergen, E. (2021) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-020-00079-z · Cited by 165
Children’s reading difficulties, language, and reflections on the simple view of reading
Nation, K. (2019) · Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties · doi:10.1080/19404158.2019.1609272 · Cited by 159
Metadata
- Authors
- Snowling, M. J., & Melby-Lervåg, M.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 142
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 498-545
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2321231052
- Cited by
- 490
- References
- 236
- FWCI
- 85.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Oral language deficits in familial dyslexia: A meta-analysis and review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/bul0000037
- The paper
- Snowling, M. J., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2016). Oral language deficits in familial dyslexia: A meta-analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000037
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.