Abstract
The two major medical classifications (ICD-11 and DSM-5), define diagnostic criteria for developmental dyslexia that partly differ and that are open to multiple interpretations, inducing different prevalence estimates and discordant cases. The present study evaluates the prevalence of developmental dyslexia for the first time in France in an extensive population representative of French sixth-graders (N=25,000), investigating the consequences of using one classification or the other, and of the different ways of implementing each criterion. Moreover, students diagnosed with dyslexia were compared with the reference population in the other available characteristics. Overall, prevalence estimates ranged from 1.3% to 17.2% depending on the criteria and thresholds used. A reasonable set of criteria and thresholds (−1.5 SD below mean for reading score, -0.5 SD for achievement) yielded a prevalence of dyslexia in France of 6.6% according to DSM-5 and 3.5% according to ICD-11. Factors that had the greatest influence on prevalence estimates were the criteria relative to 1) IQ, and 2) impact on academic achievement. DSM-5, being more liberal than ICD-11 on the IQ criterion, included more cases with relatively low IQ and thus yielded higher prevalence estimates. Compared with the reference population, children with dyslexia were more likely to be boys, to be schooled in a disadvantaged area, and to have lower SES, IQ, and math results. Our results emphasize that the choice of classification and the operationalization of specific criteria have a large impact on who is diagnosed with dyslexia.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work has received support under the program "Investissements d'Avenir" launched by the French Government and implemented by ANR with the references ANR-17-EURE-0017 and ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the National Council for Statistical Information (CNIS) (visa #2008A061ED and 2011A082ED), ensuring public interest and conformity with ethical, statistical and confidentiality standards.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data can be requested from the ADISP archive of French public statistical data: http://www.progedo-adisp.fr/enquetes/XML/lil.php?lil=lil-0955. Under the terms of the data transfer agreement, we are not allowed to redistribute it.
