1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Differential identification of females and males with reading difficulties: A meta-analysis

      Reading and Writing
      Springer Science and Business Media LLC

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="P1">Males are more likely than females to be identified as having reading difficulties, but it is unclear if this is a result of sample ascertainment or identification bias. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the magnitude of gender differences in reading difficulties using available studies in which researchers investigated this difference and an additional dataset with a representative U.S. sample. After conducting a literature search, sixteen studies and a restricted use dataset were included in the present analysis ( <i>N</i> = 552,729). A random-effects odds ratio (OR) model indicated that males are 1.83 times more likely than females to have reading difficulties. Moderator analyses revealed that the gender ratio is greater when the identified reading difficulties were more severe. Further, this difference in identification rates across males and females was found without evidence of publication bias. Implications for the identification of students with reading difficulties are discussed. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Stereotype Threat and Women's Math Performance

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences

              The hypothesis of a Hierarchy of the Sciences with physical sciences at the top, social sciences at the bottom, and biological sciences in-between is nearly 200 years old. This order is intuitive and reflected in many features of academic life, but whether it reflects the “hardness” of scientific research—i.e., the extent to which research questions and results are determined by data and theories as opposed to non-cognitive factors—is controversial. This study analysed 2434 papers published in all disciplines and that declared to have tested a hypothesis. It was determined how many papers reported a “positive” (full or partial) or “negative” support for the tested hypothesis. If the hierarchy hypothesis is correct, then researchers in “softer” sciences should have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases, and therefore report more positive outcomes. Results confirmed the predictions at all levels considered: discipline, domain and methodology broadly defined. Controlling for observed differences between pure and applied disciplines, and between papers testing one or several hypotheses, the odds of reporting a positive result were around 5 times higher among papers in the disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry and Economics and Business compared to Space Science, 2.3 times higher in the domain of social sciences compared to the physical sciences, and 3.4 times higher in studies applying behavioural and social methodologies on people compared to physical and chemical studies on non-biological material. In all comparisons, biological studies had intermediate values. These results suggest that the nature of hypotheses tested and the logical and methodological rigour employed to test them vary systematically across disciplines and fields, depending on the complexity of the subject matter and possibly other factors (e.g., a field's level of historical and/or intellectual development). On the other hand, these results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Reading and Writing
                Read Writ
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                0922-4777
                1573-0905
                May 2018
                February 2 2018
                May 2018
                : 31
                : 5
                : 1039-1061
                Article
                10.1007/s11145-018-9827-8
                6023418
                29962661
                9a4d4f78-8f86-446b-bce0-cf3a621cf315
                © 2018

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article