A narrative review of school-based screening tools for dyslexia among students
File(s)
Published version
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background: Early detection and intervention of dyslexia in children and young people (CYP) can help mitigate its negative impacts. Schools play a crucial role as a key point of contact for dyslexia screening.
Objective: In this review, we examined the range of screening tools and reported sensitivities and specificities in school settings to identify CYP with dyslexia and explored variations in how tools captured the socio-demographic characteristics of screened student's groups.
Design: Narrative review.
Methods: We searched five electronic databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Cochrane, and Scopus (2010–2023) to identify worldwide school-based dyslexia screening studies conducted in CYP aged 4–16 years. Three independent researchers screened the papers, and data were extracted on the sensitivity and specificity of the screening tools, the informants involved, the prevalence of dyslexia among those who screened positive, and the socio-demographic characteristics of the identified CYP.
Results: Sixteen of 6,041 articles met the eligibility criteria. The study population ranged from 95 to 9,964 participants. We identified 17 different types of school-based dyslexia screening tools. Most studies combined screening tools (mean number of 3.7, standard deviation = 2.7) concurrently to identify dyslexia. Three studies used a staged approach of two and three stages. Developmental Dyslexia and Dysorthographia and Raven Progressive Matrices were the most used tools. The percentage of cases screening positive for dyslexia ranged from 3.1 to 33.0%. Among CYP identified by screening with dyslexia, there were missing socio-demographic data on gender (50%) and socio-economic status (81%) and none on ethnicity.
Conclusion: A variety of screening tools are used to identify children and young people (CYP) with dyslexia in school settings. However, it is unclear whether this wide range of tools is necessary or reflects variations in definitions. Greater collaboration between researchers and front-line educators could help establish a solid evidence base for screening and reduce the inconsistencies in approach. In the meantime, a practical and beneficial approach may involve starting with a highly sensitive screening tool, followed by more specific tests to assess detailed deficits and their impact.
Objective: In this review, we examined the range of screening tools and reported sensitivities and specificities in school settings to identify CYP with dyslexia and explored variations in how tools captured the socio-demographic characteristics of screened student's groups.
Design: Narrative review.
Methods: We searched five electronic databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Cochrane, and Scopus (2010–2023) to identify worldwide school-based dyslexia screening studies conducted in CYP aged 4–16 years. Three independent researchers screened the papers, and data were extracted on the sensitivity and specificity of the screening tools, the informants involved, the prevalence of dyslexia among those who screened positive, and the socio-demographic characteristics of the identified CYP.
Results: Sixteen of 6,041 articles met the eligibility criteria. The study population ranged from 95 to 9,964 participants. We identified 17 different types of school-based dyslexia screening tools. Most studies combined screening tools (mean number of 3.7, standard deviation = 2.7) concurrently to identify dyslexia. Three studies used a staged approach of two and three stages. Developmental Dyslexia and Dysorthographia and Raven Progressive Matrices were the most used tools. The percentage of cases screening positive for dyslexia ranged from 3.1 to 33.0%. Among CYP identified by screening with dyslexia, there were missing socio-demographic data on gender (50%) and socio-economic status (81%) and none on ethnicity.
Conclusion: A variety of screening tools are used to identify children and young people (CYP) with dyslexia in school settings. However, it is unclear whether this wide range of tools is necessary or reflects variations in definitions. Greater collaboration between researchers and front-line educators could help establish a solid evidence base for screening and reduce the inconsistencies in approach. In the meantime, a practical and beneficial approach may involve starting with a highly sensitive screening tool, followed by more specific tests to assess detailed deficits and their impact.
Date Issued
2025-10-23
Date Acceptance
2025-09-25
Citation
Frontiers in Public Health, 2025, 13
ISSN
2296-2565
Publisher
Frontiers Media S.A.
Journal / Book Title
Frontiers in Public Health
Volume
13
Copyright Statement
© 2025 Bakhti, Fonseka, Amati, Nicholls, Hargreaves, Lazzarino, McCan, Gardner, Narayan, Kerslake, Weston and Gnani. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
License URL
Identifier
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/41211409
Subjects
dyslexia screening
learning disability
school-based screening tools
sensitivity and specificity
systematic review
Humans
Dyslexia
Child
Adolescent
Mass Screening
Students
Schools
Male
Child, Preschool
Female
School Health Services
Sensitivity and Specificity
Publication Status
Published
Coverage Spatial
Switzerland
Article Number
1654470
Date Publish Online
2025-10-23