-
PeerJ 2020The aims of this systematic review and meta-analyses were to determine if there is a statistically reliable association between poor reading and poor self-concept, and...
BACKGROUND
The aims of this systematic review and meta-analyses were to determine if there is a statistically reliable association between poor reading and poor self-concept, and if such an association is moderated by domain of self-concept, type of reading impairment, or contextual factors including age, gender, reading instruction, and school environment.
METHODOLOGY
We searched 10 key databases for published and unpublished studies, as well as reference lists of included studies, and studies that cited included studies. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals for one primary outcome (average self-concept) and 10 secondary outcomes (10 domains of self-concept). We assessed the data for risk of bias, heterogeneity, sensitivity, reporting bias, and quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies with 3,348 participants met our selection criteria. Meta-analyses revealed statistically significant SMDs for average self-concept (-0.57) and five domains of self-concept (reading/writing/spelling: -1.03; academic: -0.67; math: -0.64; behaviour: -0.32; physical appearance: -0.28). The quality of evidence for the primary outcome was moderate, and for secondary outcomes was low, due to lack of data.
CONCLUSIONS
These outcomes suggest a probable moderate association between poor reading and average self-concept; a possible strong association between poor reading and reading-writing-spelling self-concept; and possible moderate associations between poor reading and self-concept in the self-concept domains of academia, mathematics, behaviour, and physical appearance.
PubMed: 32211239
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8772 -
Clinical & Experimental Optometry Sep 2020This systematic review presents the existing scientific evidence for oculomotor anomalies in children with three different types of learning disorders - namely,...
This systematic review presents the existing scientific evidence for oculomotor anomalies in children with three different types of learning disorders - namely, dyslexia, dyspraxia and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This review was registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number: 139317). The QUADAS-2 tool was used to systematically evaluate the quality of the diagnostic tests used in the evaluated studies and to confirm whether the oculomotor alterations observed in the different groups of children with various learning disorders had a consistent diagnostic basis. Using this tool, the design of the articles was well elaborated, although concerns exist regarding the selection of patients and the diagnostic criteria for the binocular conditions. All the studies reviewed conclude that a pattern of oculomotor anomalies exist in the groups of children with these three types of learning disorders compared to healthy children. However, there is a concern regarding the diagnostic methodology, as no clear range of normality for the parameters used to characterise ocular motility was identified and no gold standard or reference test has been defined. In future studies, this range of normality must be developed for different oculomotor skills, and a reference test (possibly video-oculography) for the measurement of these skills must be established.
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Dyslexia; Eye Movements; Humans; Ocular Motility Disorders; Oculomotor Muscles
PubMed: 31869866
DOI: 10.1111/cxo.13024