Identification and Assessment of Dyslexia in Bi/multilingual ChildrenTony Cline Department of Psychology, University of Luton

Norah Frederickson Dept of Psychology, University College London

AbstractWhen slow progress is made by children who arelearning to read and write in their second or thirdlanguage, it is often assumed that they simply havea language problem: if they knew the targetlanguage better, they would find it easier to learnto read. In this paper we argue that, while that isoften true, there is a risk that learningdifficulties associated with dyslexia willsometimes be overlooked. In support of thisargument we present evidence that pupils fromlinguistic minority communities are under-represented in specialist teaching provision andshow how traditional approaches to identifyingdyslexia are likely to under-identify bilingualchildren with dyslexia. The article proposes howgood practice may be developed in the assessment ofdyslexia with bilingual children and highlights thevalue in this context of recent approaches todefining dyslexia which do not depend uponexclusionary criteria or an IQ–achievementdiscrepancy.

IntroductionMost education systems have provision of some kindfor children who experience difficulties indeveloping basic literacy skills. Some of thatprovision will be for those who show specificlearning difficulties or dyslexia. There is an

impassioned debate about the adequacy of what isprovided, about how children are selected for it,about the teaching methods used and about thetraining of those concerned. But it is now acceptedthat there is a problem for which provision shouldbe made, and there is some degree of consensus thatthe focus of the provision should be specifically onliteracy and literacy-related skills.

When slow progress is made by children who arelearning to read and write in their second or thirdlanguage, there may be less provision to meet theirparticular needs - partly because there is lessagreement about what are their needs. Often they areseen as simply having a language problem: if theyknew the target language better, the difficultiesthey show in handling it in print would disappear.On the face of it that seems self-evident, and thereis indeed evidence that children whose generalproficiency in a language is more advanced obtainbetter scores on reading tests (Fitzgerald,1995).However, it would be wrong to assume thatreading difficulties in a second or third languageare always solely caused by a deficiency inknowledge of the language. That appears to implythat the neuropsychological problems that causedyslexia only affect those who happen to bemonolingual.

Of course, such views are not normally held in socrude a form. But the practices that are oftenemployed to identify dyslexia appear to be based onassumptions that are not much more sophisticated. Inthe main part of this paper we will analyse currentdefinitions of dyslexia and methods used toidentify it in order to highlight implications for

the bi/multilingual. First, though, we will presentsome evidence that there is a problem — data on thetake-up of places in scarce dyslexia provision bybi/multilingual children.

Representation of bi/multilingual children in provision for specific learning difficulties and dyslexia

In the United Kingdom there are no nationalstatistics on the representation of different ethnicand language groups in special education provision.In order to examine this issue it is necessary toturn to the results of regional and local studies.One early piece of evidence was provided by a surveyof various kinds of special provision run by theInner London Education Authority in the 1980s (ILEA,1985). One of the groups covered in this surveycomprised 300 children attending area classes forpupils with specific learning difficulties inliteracy (‘SpLD Classes’). The results are shown inTable 1. It will be seen that Asian children wereunder-represented in this provision. The majority ofthe children came from families speaking one of theSouth Asian languages at home — estimated on thebasis of Kysel (1986) to be approximately 55%Bengali or Sylhetti, 17% Gujerati, 16% Urdu and 13%Punjabi.

Table 1 Special classes for children with SpLDin Inner London in 1984 (From ILEA, 1985)

N African- Carib

Asian

ESWI*

Other

.All primary 131,4 15.7 11.1 55.9 17.3SpLD classes 300 19.0 2.3 64.7 14.0Tutorial 779 22.8 2.7 59.4 15.0EGCs** 115 26.1 0.0 59.1 14.8

* English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish** Educational Guidance Centres

Another piece of evidence comes from a report byeducational psychologists in Glasgow published bythe Scottish Office Education Department (SOED,1991).This group examined the representation ofchildren with learning difficulties in segregatedprovision in Glasgow during the period 1984–88. Themain findings have been summarised in a CRE Report(CRE, 1996) as showing that bilingual children weresignificantly over-represented in provision forchildren with severe or profound and multiplelearning difficulties, but were under-representedin provision for those with moderate or specificlearning difficulties. In addition, the authorsconsidered that assessment practice ‘fell short ofreasonable goals as it failed to look at the wholechild within the context of home language, cultureand community’ (CRE, 1996: 7).

A disorder manifested by difficulty in learningto read despite conventional instruction,adequate intelligence and socioculturalopportunity. It depends on fundamental cognitivedisabilities which are frequently ofconstitutional origin.(World Federation of Neurology, 1968 inCritchley, 1975)A disorder in one or more of the basicpsychological processes in understanding or using

Figure 1 Exclusionary definitions of dyslexia

Traditional Approaches to Identifying DyslexiaThis possible under-representation ofbi/multilingual children in provision for dyslexicchildren is a likely consequence of the way inwhich dyslexia has traditionally been identified. Early exclusionarydefinitions (see Figure 1), which highlightedsociocultural difference, in effect placed an extrahurdle in the way of bilingual children’s access toprovision as it required practitioners to establishthat cultural difference could be eliminated as aprimary contributor to the learning difficultiesbeing experienced. Exclusionary definitions statewhat dyslexia is not rather than what it is. Aninclusionary definition which stated what dyslexiais would allow it to be identified and appropriatesupport offered, irrespective of any other needs achild might have in addition. It might be antici-pated that such an approach would be less likely toresult in the under-representation ofbi/multilingual children in provision for dyslexic

Multilingual Children and Dyslexia 83

children. This prediction will be examined belowwhen inclusionary definitions are discussed. First,though, we will examine the approach to theidentification of dyslexia which has been the mostprevalent in the UK (Pumfrey & Reason, 1991) and theUSA (Frankenberger & Fronzaglio, 1991) for almost adecade — the use of IQ–achievement discrepancies. Itis possible to calculate the discrepancy between achild’s actual reading test score and the readingtest score which would be predicted for them on thebasis of the correlation between reading test scoresand IQ test scores in the general population. Tablesare available (e.g. Wechsler, 1992) that show thestatistical probability of different sizes ofdiscrepancy and the percentages of the populationwhich show discrepancies of different sizes. The useof various discrepancy criteria for theidentification of dyslexia has developed in anattempt to make the deployment of limited publicresources accountable in terms of measurable cut-offpoints (Ashton, 1996).

It can be seen that an IQ–achievement discrepancydefinition is but a special type of exclusionarydefinition, which uses one exclusionary factor,rather than several. Currently, the balance ofopinion in the literature is strongly weightedagainst the validity and utility of diagnosingdyslexia on the basis of IQ–achievement discrepancydefinitions and, more generally, on the role of IQin defining dyslexia (Miles, 1996; Share, 1996;Stanovich, 1996; Tunmer & Chapman, 1996). Thepractice of using IQ–achievement discrepancydefinitions of dyslexia as criteria for accessingprovision in education services has been widelycriticized on logical, empirical and equal

opportunities grounds (Frederickson & Reason, 1995;Solity, 1996; Stanovich & Stanovich, 1997). It is onthis last area that we will focus in examining howthe use of IQ–achievement definitions may contributeto the under-representation in provision fordyslexic pupils of children from minority linguisticor cultural background.

It is widely held that IQ scores based on a testadministered in English lack reliability andvalidity for bilingual children whose languageproficiency in English is still developing (Ashby etal., 1970; Figueroa, 1989). When immigrant childrenare assessed on such tests, the gap between theirmean scores and those of indigenous children becomessmaller the longer they have been in this country(Ashby et al., 1970). Over the 5–7 year periodrequired, on average, for the development ofcognitive–academic language proficiency (CALP) in anadditional language, English IQ tests underestimatethe cognitive skills of children for whom English isan additional language (Cummins, 1984). Consequentlythey may fail

to meet Specific Learning Difficulties criteria andbe deprived of additional resources. So where IQtests are used with such pre-CALP bilingual pupils,IQ is likely to be underestimated and with it theincidence of IQ–achievement discrepancies. Forexample, Rueda (1989) discusses the exclusion ofHispanic students from special services despite thewell documented low achievement of this group:

These students may be unable to demonstrate a sufficient ability–achievement discrepancy on standardised norm-referencedmeasures to qualify for services partly as an artefact of themeasurement tools (e.g. English-only IQ tests). (p. 124)

In addition, where IQ–achievement discrepancies areembedded in administrative eligibility criteria,avoidanceof IQ testing with bilingual pupils willalso lead to under-identification (Gersten &Woodward, 1994).

For these reasons, an IQ–achievement approach tothe identification of dyslexia is inconsistent with(1) good assessment practice for bilingualchildren, and (2) current research on dyslexia.These are each discussed in more detail in thefollowing sections.

Developing Good Practice in the Assessment ofDyslexia with Bilingual ChildrenThe framework for the identification and assessment

of special educational needs in England and Wales isset by the national Code of Practice (DFE, 1994).Unfortunately the advice on this issue in the Codeis rather bland and general. The Code states (para.2:18):

Particular care should be taken when working with children fromminority ethnic groups, including children whose first language isnot English:(a)Take care to consider the child within the context of home,

language, culture and community.(b)If necessary, use bilingual support staff and interpreters so that

the child and the parents fully understand the measures thatthe school is taking.

(c) So far as possible, use assessment tools which are culturally neutral and useful for a range of ethnic groups.

(d) Make use of any local sources of advice relevant to the ethnic group concerned.

It is doubtful that any assessment tools can be ‘culturally neutral’. Certainly tests for the assessment of literacy or intelligence must inevitably be firmly grounded

in the culture to which they relate. Ifguidance is to foster good practice in adifficult area like the assessment of learningdifficulties for bilingual children, it willneed to be much more specific and detailed thanwhat the Code has to offer. Cline (1995)proposed these procedural steps as crucial tovalid and reliable assessment of bilingualchildren:The active involvement of ESL and

bilingual support teachers at everystage.

The recording and reviewing of informationon a child’s knowledge and use of theirhome language and of English.

The setting and reviewing of specificeducational aims covering language andcultural needs.

The arrangement of appropriate languageprovision.

The investigationof social, cultural andlanguage isolation and peer harassment aspossible factors in the child’sdifficulties.

The engagement of an interpreter/adviserfrom the parent’s own community ifneeded.

Where a child attends a religious or communityschool, the inclusion of that school amongthe outside agencies to be consulted.

Procedures are important, and these steps willhelp to ensure that the particular needs ofbi- and trilingual children are notoverlooked. But such measures are not enoughon their own. In addition, sensitive and fairmethods of assessment must be employed withina framework of good practice. That will meanstriving to ensure that all bi- and trilingualchildren who are assessedare given assessment materials in which a

formal process of item bias review hasbeen completed;

have a full assessment of their proficiency ineach of their languages at the outset, theresults of which will inform all thatfollows; and

are dealt with exclusively by workers who,whatever their own background, areknowledgeable about and sensitive to the keyfeatures of the children’s culture andlanguage (Cline, 1998).

The interpretation (and reporting) of anyassessment should explicitly place children’sperformance in context. Specific factors thatmay affect the outcome include, for example,children’s position in society (e.g. holdingrefugee status), their situation in theirfamily, their educational history, and theircurrent educational provision. This isimportant for all children, but each of thesefactors requires particularly careful

consideration in the case of a bilingualchild.

In addition, there are other issues that mayneed attention when a bilingual child isassessed but may not need to be considered inother assessments in the same way: experience and understanding of the school

system and the classroom; cultural knowledge relevant to the

national curriculum; experience of prejudice, discrimination

and racism affecting attitudes to schoollearning.

It will be evident from even a cursoryexamination of the literature on research andprofessional practice in dyslexia that suchissues have rarely been considered in thisfield. Thus, for example, in an analysis of 27research articles in the British Journal of EducationalPsychology over a 15-year period, Cline andReason (1993) found that information was givenon the age of the samples in all the reports,on IQ or an ability measure in 85% of them, ongender in 78%, but on socioeconomic status inonly 33%, bilingualism in only 19% andethnicity in only 11%. Bos and Fletcher(1997)surveyed the learning disabilitiesinclusion research published between 1990 and1995 in five journals widely read in the fieldof learning disabilities in the USA. Of the 26articles they located, 50% reported information

about race/ethnicity but gave no informationabout cultural background, despite proportionsof minority students in excess of 75% in fiveof the studies where this information wasprovided. Information about children’s firstand second language acquisition or their use ofdialects of English was provided in only two(8%) of these studies. This failure to giveattention to social, linguistic and culturalfactors in the background of children withsevere reading difficulties may be traced backto the defective definitions of dyslexia (seeFrankenberger & Fronzagilo, 1991) on whichresearch and professional practice have beenbased. We turn now to recent theoreticaladvances that could have major implications forthose who are seeking to identify dyslexia inchildren who are learning to read in theirsecond or third language.

Current Research on Dyslexia and itsIdentificationAmong current theories of dyslexia, thosepositing a cognitive deficit in phonologicalprocessing are most broadly supported(Stanovich, 1988; Snowling, 1987, 1991, 1995;Frith, 1997). Indeed, Stanovich (1996: 161)suggests that the concept can only logically beretained if we classify as dyslexic, ‘all chil-dren with problems in phonological codingresulting from segmental language problems’.Such a specific and inclusionary approach to

diagnosis, which might begin to address theneeds identified by both practitioners andtheoreticians in recent years, has beensupported by a number of authors as analternative to the use of IQ–achievementdiscrepancies. Some have focused closely onphonology:

Individuals with dyslexia are distinguished by theirphonologically based decoding disability, not by thepresence or absence of a significant discrepancy betweenIQ and reading. (Moats & Lyon, 1993: 289)If we accept the overwhelming weight of research evidencewhich supports the characterisation of specific learningdifficulties as a marked delay or deficit in phonologicalprocessing and recognise that this deficit is independent ofintelligence (however defined) then logically IQ should notbe needed in the definition. Instead ... we should base thedefinition of specific learning difficulties in literacy skills on ameasure (or measures) of phonological processing.(Frederickson & Reason, 1995: 10)

Other authors have adopted a broader focusthat includes an analysis of readingperformance and suggests the consideration ofother cognitive processes, in addition tophonology. Rispens and Van Yperen argue that

current diagnostic criteria that focus on IQ as predictor areinadequate. Hence, we need improved criteria ... adescription of specific reading disorder that specifies whatdyslexia is in terms of reading behaviour, reading-relatedabilities and skills, and in terms of underlying psychologicaland neuropsychological processes. (Rispens & VanYperen, 1997: 359)

In this section we will offer an initialevaluation of the advantages and limitationsof basing the definition of dyslexia onphonology. In particular we will considerwhether or not bi/multilingual learners arelikely to be better served by a phonologicallybased definition than by one based on IQ–achievement discrepancies. We will thenconsider the merits of inclusionary definitionswhich have a broader focus.

Frederickson and Frith (1998) have hypothesisedthat an approach to identifying dyslexia whichis based on phonological skills should prove tobe less culturally biased than one based on IQtesting. It is argued that phonologicalprocessing skills that are relevant toalphabetic literacy can be developed byexposure to any language and, as phonology is asurface feature of language, ‘native-like’familiarity with the phonology of a newlanguage should be developed within a muchshorter period than is required to develop thedeeper level processing skills required forcognitive–academic language proficiency.Cummins (1984) has estimated that childrentypically require 5–7 years to fully developthe cognitive academic proficiency in a secondlanguage which is tapped by verbal IQ tests,whereas surface competencies in a new languagemay be developed within two years. Thesecompetencies should benefit reading, even whengeneral knowledge of semantic and syntactic

features of the second language is relativelypoor.

Work with bilingual preschool children hasindicated that their phonological awareness maybe as good or even superior to that ofmonolingual children (Bruck & Genesee, 1995;Campbell & Sais, 1995). Da Fontoura & Siegel(1995), working with bilingual Portuguese-Canadian children aged 9–12 years, reportedthat bilingualism per se did not have negativeconsequences for reading development. Rather,reading difficulties in both languages werestrongly related to deficits in phonologicalprocessing. Frederickson and Frith (1998)report the results of a study conducted with10–12-year-old children being educated inEnglish whose first language was Sylheti. Thereading and phonological skills of thesechildren were compared with those of an age-matched group drawn from a nationalstandardization sample. The results suggestedthat the phonological skills assessed in thisstudy (using the Phonological AssessmentBattery, Frederickson et al., 1997) weresimilarly developed in the two groups —monolingual English speaking children andSylheti speaking children whose exposure toEnglish had been sufficient to develop surfacecompetencies. The distribution of phonologicalskills and difficulties across the two sampleswas very similar, with bilingual children beingneither more nor less likely than monolingual

children to be identified as having significantphonological difficulties. In both samples thechildren whose phonological skills were weakestwere the poorest readers. Although there isclearly a need for replication with otherlanguage groups, it would appear that anapproach to defining dyslexia which is basedon phonology is likely to be less culturallybiased in practice as well as in theory thanmethods which involve the use of IQ tests.

However, there is still a significant problemwith the use of a phonologically-baseddefinition of dyslexia. Not all children whohave severe and persistent reading problemsshow phonological difficulties. Frederickson &Frith (1998) also report the results of a studyof dyslexic pupils who had marked and long-standing reading difficulties where theyidentified a subgroup, comprising about 20% ofthe sample, which showed evidence of unimpairedphonological skills despite below averagereading performance. These children would notbe identified as dyslexic if a purelyphonological approach to classification wasimplemented (as advocated for instance byStanovich, 1996). Observations such as thishave led some to argue that identifyingcharacteristics should be differentiated fromcausal factors and that the latter should notbe included in a definition of dyslexia(Tonnessen, 1997). This was the first conditionfor a working definition of dyslexia

identified by the Netherlands Health Council’sCommittee on the definition and treatment ofdyslexia. They proposed that a working defini-tion should be:descriptive with no explanatory elements;specific enough to identify dyslexia

within the whole of severe reading andspelling problems;

general enough to allow for variousscientific explanatory models and anydevelopments they might undergo;

operationalisable for the purposes ofresearch;

directive for statements concerning the needfor intervention;

applicable to the various groups involved.(Gersons-Wolfensberger & Ruijssenaars, 1997)

The British Psychological Society’s WorkingGroup on Dyslexia, Literacy and PsychologicalAssessment (British Psychological Society,1999) have proposed the adoption of a workingdefinition of dyslexia which is closely basedon that developed in the Netherlands andcomplies with these conditions:

Dyslexia is evident when fluent and accurate wordidentification (reading) and/or spelling does not developor does so very incompletely or with great difficulty.(British Psychological Society, 1999: 5).

The report proceeds to spell out theimplications — that the problem is severe andpersistent and has resisted usual teachingmethods and additional help at the school-based

stages of assessment and teaching advised bythe Code of Practice on the Assessment ofSpecial Educational Needs (DfE, 1994). It issuggested that this definition can provide aninclusionary basis both for the identificationof dyslexic participants for research studiesand for the identification of criteria foraccess to additional educational provision.

This working definition has no exclusionarycriteria. Rather, positive identifyingcharacteristics focus on severe and persistentproblems with accurate and fluent wordidentification and spelling. It also allowsfor cases where literacy performance mayappear normatively appropriate in some respectsbut where development is or has been achieved,‘with great difficulty’. Where problems areidentified it is recommended that hypothesesare explored in areas involving phonologicaland orthographic awareness and memory and takeaccount of compensatory styles such as heavyreliance on context when reading.

Is this definitional approach to be preferredto one focused on phonology? It has theadvantage of ensuring that the needs of theminority of children who have severe andpersistent literacy problems but nophonological difficulties are recognised,investigated and addressed. As it is focused onword reading and spelling, as opposed to higherorder language processes such as comprehension,

the definition should not of itselfdisadvantage children whose cognitive andacademic language proficiency is stilldeveloping. In practice, appropriate assessmentwill rely on the use of material to assessfluency and accuracy in word identification andspelling which is not confounded by higherorder comprehension skills.

For example, Frederickson and Frith (1998)found that bilingual children obtainedrelatively lower standardised reading accuracyscores when assessed on a prose reading testthan when assessed on a single-word readingtest. They hypothesised that this was becausethe bilingual children were less able to takeadvantage of context in the prose reading testthan the predominately monolingual group onwhom it had been standardised. In identifyingdyslexia in bilingual children it may behelpful to start by assessing accuracy andfluency through measures involving single-wordreading out of context. Subsequently the useof meaningful text should allow an assessmentof the extent to which this can currently beutilised and of ways in which the child can behelped to use it more effectively. Particularcare would need to be taken when working withchildren from different groups to ensure thecultural accessibility to them of supposedlymeaningful reading material.

Unlike IQ–achievement discrepancy definitions,the proposed British Psychological Society’s(1999) working definition of dyslexia does notcontain aspects which are inherently biasedagainst bilingual children. However, to ensurethat its promise is realised in practice,careful thought will be needed in developingassociated assessment approaches and inmonitoring and evaluating its implementationwith bilingual children. Such implications forpractice are drawn out in the followingsection.

Implications for Practice

Unbiased criteria for access to resourcesThe major implication must be that access tospecialist provision should not be based onevidence of a discrepancy between IQ andreading achievement. Where educationauthorities make that the basis of theirdecision making, they will effectivelydiscriminate against children from linguisticminority communities. It can only be a matterof time before the legality of suchdiscrimination is tested in the courts in theUnited Kingdom, as has already occurred manytimes in the USA (Baca & Cervantes, 1989).

Regular equal opportunities audits on theuse of provision

The evidence from local surveys quoted earliersuggests that children from some linguisticminority communities may be under-representedin the provision for children with dyslexia.As in other areas where an effort is being madeto rectify historical inequalities in provision(Cambridge & Feuchtwang, 1990), it will beimportant to monitor progress closely. How soonwill children from linguistic minoritycommunities begin to benefit from specialprovision more in proportion to their numbersin the population of the school or the area? Anexact match should not be expected (Cline &Reason, 1993), but very large discrepancieswill alert observers to the need to examine thefairness of allocation policies.

Guidance on methods of assessment inwhich sources of bias are minimisedThe British Psychological Society’s (1999)draft report on Dyslexia, Literacy andPsychological Assessment sets the assessment ofdyslexia within the framework of generalguidance for educational psychologists onassessment and intervention (BritishPsychological Society, 1998). This describes acyclical consultative process involving problemdefinition, hypothesis generation, datacollection, analysis, intervention planning andimplementation, evaluation of outcomes andproblem redefinition. While it is important toexamine particular approaches, methods andmaterials, using the guidance provided in

section 3, the potential risks attaching to anyindividual aspect of the assessment are mini-mised when it is set within the context of anevaluated, consultative process.

This fits with the focus in the BritishPsychological Society’s (1999) workingdefinition of dyslexia on the importance ofevaluating the response over time to teachinginterventions. In discussing theidentification of learning disabilities forculturally and linguistically diverselearners, Oritz (1997) emphasises that thiskind of data is invaluable. He recommends thatreferral information should include evidencethat:(1) the school’s curriculum is appropriate;(2) the child’s problems are documented

across settings and personnel, not onlyat school, but also at home;

(3) difficulties are present in both the nativelanguage or dialect and in English;1

(4) the child has been taught but has not madesatisfactory progress;

(5) the teacher has the qualifications andexperience to effectively teach thestudent;

(6) instruction has been continuous andappropriately sequenced and has includedteaching of skills prerequisite to success(Oritz, 1997: 328).

Awareness and skills trainingOchoa et al. (1997) report the results of a

survey of more than 1,500 school psychologistsacross eight states in the USA. Eighty per centof the sample reported insufficient knowledgeof second language acquisition factors andtheir relationship to assessment and felt thatthey had not been adequately prepared by theirtraining programmes to assess children fromminority language backgrounds. The authorsrecommend a number of actions including: continuing education workshops for school

psychologists to provide training in keycompetencies;

reconceptualisation of the psychologist’srole to include assessment of possiblewithin-school or systems deficits, ratherthan focusing only on within-child deficitswhen examining academic difficultiesexperienced by bilingual children;

collaborative work with other appropriateschool personnel who, where possible, arefrom or have experience in the child’sculture, e.g. a bilingual teacher, socialworker or speech and language therapist.

There is evidence to support the contentionthat continuing education through formalcourses and collaborative work are equallyneeded in the United Kingdom (CRE, 1996).

ConclusionIn research and in practice, bilingualchildren with dyslexia seem to have beenneglected in the past. There is room forgreater optimism about the future because, aswe have shown, developments in theconceptualisation of dyslexia and inassessment practice should reduce the riskthat this group of children will continue tobe under-identified. However, it will beessential that progress is constantlymonitored. An audit in five years’ time mightask: Do published reports on research on dyslexia

that are based on populations in multilingualareas report the language background of thesample?

Do criteria employed in defining dyslexiain research appear likely to exclude orunder-identify bilingual children?

Do criteria employed to determine access tospecialist teaching provision appear likelyto discriminate against children fromlinguistic minority communities?

Is published guidance and availabletraining likely to help practitioners toidentify and assess bilingual children withdyslexia accurately?

The current situation, as described in thisarticle, may prove useful as a baselineagainst which progress in each of these areascan be evaluated.

Notes1. It should also be noted that differentpatterns of difficulties maybe reported inthe two scripts of biliterate dyslexicchildren (Karanth, 1992; Goswami, 1997).

ReferencesAshby, B., Morrison, A. and Butcher, H.J.(1970) The abilities and attainments ofimmigrant children. Research in Education 4,73–80.

Ashton, C. (1996) In defence of discrepancydefinitions of specific learningdifficulties. Educational Psychology in Practice 12(3), 131–140.

Baca, L.M. and Cervantes, H.T. (1989) TheBilingual Special Education Interface. Columbus,OH: Merrill Publishing Co.

Bos, C.S. and Fletcher, T.V. (1997)Sociocultural considerations in learningdisabilities inclusion research: Knowledgegaps and future directions. LearningDisabilities Research and Practice 12 (2), 92–99.

British Psychological Society (1998) Divisionof Educational and Child Psychology: A Framework forPsychological Assessment and Intervention. SecondDraft, July. Leicester: BritishPsychological Society.

British Psychological Society (1999)Dyslexia, Literacy and Psychological Assessment. DraftReport of a Working Party of the Division of Educationaland Child Psychology. January. Leicester:British Psychological Society.

Bruck, M. and Genesee, F. (1995)Phonological awareness in young secondlanguage learners. Journal of Child Language 22,307–324.

Cambridge, A.X. and Feuchtwang, S.(1990)AntiracistStrategies. London: Avebury Press. Campbell, R. and Sais, E. (1995) Acceleratedmetalinguistic (phonological) awareness inbilingual children. British Journal of DevelopmentalPsychology 13, 61–68.Cline, T. (1995) The Code of Practice on Special

Educational Needs: A Short Guide for Those Working withBilingual Pupils. NALDIC Occasional Paper No. 4.Watford, Herts: National Association forthe Development of Language in theCurriculum.

Cline, T. (1998) The assessment of specialeducational needs for bilingual children.British Journal of Special Education 25 (4), 159–163.

Cline, T. and Reason, R. (1993) Specificlearning difficulties (dyslexia): Equalopportunities issues. British Journal of SpecialEducation 20 (1), 30–34.

CRE (1996) Special Educational Need Assessment inStrathclyde: Report of a Formal Investigation.London: Commission for Racial Equality.

Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and SpecialEducation: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Da Fontoura, H.A. and Siegel, L.S. (1995)Reading, syntactic, and working memory skillsof bilingual Portuguese-English Canadianchildren. Reading and Writing 7 (1), 139–153. Department for Education (1994) Code of Practiceon the Identification and Assessment of Special EducationalNeeds. London: HMSO.Figueroa, R.A. (1989) Psychological testing oflinguistic minority students: Knowledge gapsand regulations. Exceptional Children 56 (2), 145–152.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995) English-as-a-second-language learners’ cognitive readingprocesses: A review of research in the UnitedStates. Review of Educational Research, 65 (2), 145–190.

Frankenberger, W. and Fronzaglio, K. (1991)Areview of states criteria and procedures foridentifying children with learningdisabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 24 (8),495–500.

Frederickson, N.L. and Frith, U. (1998)Identifying dyslexia in bilingual children:A phonological approach with Inner LondonSylheti speakers. Dyslexia 4, 119–131. Frederickson, N., Frith, U. and Reason, R.(1997) The Phonological Assessment Battery,Standardisation Edition. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.

Frederickson, N. and Reason, R. (1995)Discrepancy definitions of specificlearning difficulties. Educational Psychologyin Practice 10 (4), 195–205.

Frith, U. (1997) Brain, mind and behaviour indyslexia. In C. Hulme and M. Snowling (eds)Dyslexia: Biology, Cognition and Intervention. London:Whurr.

Gersons-Wolfensberger, D.C.M. and Ruijssenaars,W.A.J.J.M. (1997) Definition and treatment ofdyslexia: A report by the committee ondyslexia of the health councilof theNetherlands. Journal of Learning Disabilities 30 (2),209–213.

Gersten, R. and Woodward, J. (1994) Thelanguage minority student and specialeducation: Issues, trends and paradoxes.Exceptional Children 60 (4), 310–322.

Goswami, U. (1997) Learning to read indifferent orthographies: Phonologicalawareness, orthographic representations anddyslexia. In C. Hulme and M. Snowling (eds)Dyslexia: Biology, Cognition and Intervention. London:Whurr.

Inner London Education Authority (1985)Educational Opportunities for All? Research Studies. FishReport Vol. 2. London: ILEA.

Karanth, P (1992) Developmental dyslexiain bilingual-biliterates. Reading and Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal 4 (3), 179–306.

Kysel, F. (1986) Inner London Education Authority1985 Language Census. London: ILEA Researchand Statistics Branch.

Miles, T.R. (1996) Do dyslexic children haveIQs? Dyslexia 2 (3), 175–178.Moats, L.C. and Lyon, G.R. (1993) Learningdisabilities in the United States:Advocacy, science and the future of thefield. Journal of Learning Disabilities 26 (5), 282–294.

Ochoa, S.H., Rivera, B. and Ford, L. (1997)An investigation of school psychologytraining pertaining to bilingual psycho-educational assessment of primarilyHispanic students: Twenty five years afterDiana v. California. JournalofSchoolPsychology35(4),329–349.

Oritz, A.A. (1997) Learning disabilitiesoccurring concomitantly with linguisticdifferences. Journal of Learning Disabilities 30(3), 321–332.

Pumfrey, P. and Reason, R. (1991) SpecificLearning Difficulties (Dyslexia): Challenges andResponses. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.

Rueda, R. (1989) Defining mild disabilitieswith language minority students. ExceptionalChildren 56 (2), 121–128.

Rispens, J. and Van Yperen, T.A. (1997) Howspecific are ‘specific developmentaldisorders’? The relevance of the conceptof specific developmental disorders for

the classification of childhooddevelopmental disorders. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry 38 (3), 351–363.

Share, D.L. (1996) Word recognition andspelling processes in specific readingdisabled and garden-variety poor readers.Dyslexia 2, (3) 167–174.

Snowling, M.J. (1987) Dyslexia: A Cognitive —Developmental Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.

Snowling, M.J. (1991) Developmental readingdisorders. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry 32, 49–77.

Snowling, M.J. (1995) Phonologicalprocessing and developmental dyslexia.Journal of Research in Reading 18, 132–138.

SOED (1991) Special Educational Need and EthnicMinority Pupils. Edinburgh: Scottish OfficeEducation Department.

Solity, J. (1996) Discrepancy definitionsof dyslexia: An assessment throughteaching approach. Educational Psychology inPractice 12 (3), 141–151.

Stanovich, K.E. (1988) Explaining thedifferences between the dyslexic and thegarden-variety poor reader: Thephonological-core variable-differencemodel. Journal of Learning Disabilities 21, 590–612.

Stanovich, K.E. (1996) Towards a moreinclusive definition of dyslexia. Dyslexia 2(3), 154–166.

Stanovich, K.E. and Stanovich, P.J. (1997)Further thoughts on aptitude/achievementdiscrepancy. Educational Psychology in Practice 13(1), 3–8.

Tonnessen, F.E. (1997) How can we best definedyslexia? Dyslexia 3, 78–92.Tunmer, W.E. and Chapman, J.W. (1996) Adevelopmental model of dyslexia: Can theconstruct be saved? Dyslexia 2 (3), 179–189.

Wechsler, D. (1992) Weschler Intelligence Scale forChildren (3rd edn). Sidcup, Kent:Psychological Corporation.