Dyslexia: A History of the Term and Current Challenges

Dyslexia: A History of the Term and Current Challenges*

John C. Howell

Abstract

This review focuses on the term dyslexia within the context of a historical process that began to crystallize in the last quarter of the 19th century when reading difficulties began being recognized as a medical problem (Campbell, 2013). An important marker in this process was the observations of reading problems by Adolph Kussmaul (1877) and of his formulation of the diagnostic construct, word blindness. A milestone was the report by W. Pringle Morgan (1896) in which he described a patient whose set of reading difficulties he labeled congenital word blindness. Today Kussmaul’s patients would be recognized as having acquired dyslexia and the one described by Morgan as having developmental dyslexia, or simply dyslexia. This review begins with the introduction of the term dyslexia by Rudolf Berlin (1883), makes corrections to and comments about the historical record, and follows the term forward to the present day. It concludes by presenting a set of current challenges of pressing importance.

Acknowledgment and appreciation are due to Katherine Schaller, Department of German, Russian and East European Studies, Vanderbilt University and to Gudrun Adkins, Wellington, FL for assistance in translation of German-language sources examined in this review.

Dyslexia—Origin of the Term

The word dyslexia comes from the field of medicine. It was introduced by a distinguished German ophthalmologist, Rudolf Berlin (Wagner, 1973). It appeared in the professional literature for the first time in a report by Berlin (1883) and then again in two subsequent publications by him (1884, 1887). Berlin first introduced the term in presentations he made to two different professional audiences in 1883: to the Stuttgart Medical Association on March 1 and to the annual meeting of the South-West German neurologists and interns at Baden-Baden on June 17 (Berlin, 1883). Therein he presented the cases of five adult patients, four males and one female, referred to him over the years. He described their symptomatology which included the acquisition of literacy skills with no apparent difficulty with reading problems occurring later on. He discussed possible etiological explanations of the patients' problems. These were linked to his observation that the reading problems of each patient were preceded by some type of brain damage. Berlin called the clinical profile he described dyslexia and discussed briefly the term's relationship to relevant medical nomenclature of the day. In his most extensive treatment of the subject (1887), Berlin discussed his original cases (adding a sixth case which was briefly treated). He judged their condition to be closely related to alexia and word blindness (Kussmaul 1877). All of Berlin’s published reports on dyslexia (1883, 1884, 1887) dealt solely with what today would be considered acquired dyslexia (adults who successfully learn to read and who then experience some kind of brain damage followed by reading problems). Note is made that current day professional and lay books and articles, as well as websites, incorrectly cite and reference 1887 as the year Berlin introduced the term rather than the correct 1883. 1

Dyslexia—Absence and Reappearance

While there were professional peers who showed interest in Berlin’s work (Anderson & Meier-Hedde, 2001), the term he introduced, dyslexia, did not catch on. Almost fifty years passed before it began to appear in the literature (Tinker, 1932). This is not to say that during its absence from the scene little was happening. From medicine came increasing publications of relevance, and the fields of psychology and education began making notable contributions (Anderson & Meier-Hedde, 2001; Benton, 1980; Guardio, 2001; Hallgren, 1950; Thompson, 1966).

During this period not all of the expanding literature relevant to dyslexia was of a supportive nature. Some questioned substantive aspects of the concepts being promulgated. Others noted the number of different terms used in examining basic clinical material and the problems this created. Terms employed included aphasia, congenital aphasia, alexia, congenital alexia, developmental alexia, word blindness, congenital word blindness, strephosymbolia, reading disability, and specific reading disability.

Acquired and Developmental Dyslexia

Appearance of the term dyslexia in the literature of the 1930s was infrequent. The next decade saw its occasional use along with the emergence of other terms of differentiating capacity. Two of these, acquired dyslexia and developmental dyslexia, basic concepts today, currently are defined in much the same way as they were when enunciated in the 40s (Bender, 1946).

The term acquired dyslexia (also called alexia) referenced adults of normal intelligence and sensory acuity who acquired basic reading and related literacy skills without difficulty. They subsequently experienced some type of brain damage induced by such as stroke, accident, or infection that impeded these skills.

The term developmental dyslexia referenced those who experienced no brain damage and had no visual, auditory or mental deficits, but who exhibited unexpected difficulty in their efforts to learn to read, spell, and write. These learning difficulties were considered to be neurologically based unfolding over the developmental period during which most children successfully acquired literacy skills. 2

Since Kussmaul (1877) there has always been a continuing interest in acquired dyslexia albeit, shortly following Morgan (1896), the focus shifted and has remained on developmental dyslexia. This shifted focus has become so pronounced that today the single term, dyslexia, has become convenient shorthand for developmental dyslexia and other kindred variations of the term.

Acquired and Developmental Dyslexia 1872 to 1950

Use of the terms acquired dyslexia and developmental dyslexia are now firmly established in the literature (Crystal, 1987). In this review the two provide a classificatory framework within which the literature of the earlier years relevant to the term are examined. From this analysis corrections to and comments on the historical record are presented.

William Broadbent

Medicine’s initial interest in dyslexia was limited to patients exhibiting the characteristics of acquired dyslexia. The view that such behaviors constituted a medical problem began to crystallize in the latter quarter of the nineteenth century (Campbell, 2013).

While earlier clinical observations having relevancy to reading problems can be cited (Anderson & Meier-Hedde, 2001; Richardson, 1992; Miles & Miles, 1990; Kral, Nielson, & Hynd, 1998), sources speaking to the history of this period typically begin with a report by a British physician, William Broadbent. It focused on aphasic characteristics of ten of Broadbent’s patients, but it did note that two of these were one-time readers who, after experiencing brain damage, lost that skill (Broadbent, 1872).

Broadbent's report was typical of early clinical observations that touched on reading problems. It, like others, focused on some other primary condition (most often on aphasia) and note of reading difficulties was made in an incidental and limited way.

Adolph Kussmaul

Adolph Kussmaul, a German physician, was the first to treat the reading problems of patients as important in their own right (Hinshelwood, 1895). In a report (Kussmaul, 1877), he described cases who had normal intelligence and sensory acuity, who had acquired literacy skills with no difficulty, who subsequently experienced a brain injury, and who, as a result, exhibited notable difficulties with reading, and related literacy skills. Kussmaul introduced the term word blindness for this set of characteristics (what today would qualify as acquired dyslexia). For the next 70 years, it was the most common label used when discussing this clinical syndrome.

Rudolf Berlin

Rudolf Berlin who introduced the term dyslexia dealt only with patients who today would be diagnosed as having acquired dyslexia. Moreover, in none of his published works does he convey an awareness of the characteristics that would come to be first called congenital word blindness and ultimately developmental dyslexia, specific developmental dyslexia, or simply dyslexia. While his substantive contributions to medicine's evolving interest in reading problems are not to be discounted, it is his introduction of the term dyslexia for which he is remembered.

W. Pringle Morgan

A British eye surgeon, W. Pringle Morgan, is appropriately credited with providing the first focused and clearly recognizable description of what is now called variously developmental dyslexia, specific developmental dyslexia, or simply dyslexia. In his report he introduced and applied a new diagnostic label, congenital word blindness, to the now famous case of "Percy F."

"PERCY F. a well-grown lad, aged 14 is the eldest son of intelligent parents, the second child of a family of seven. He has always been a bright and intelligent boy, quick at games, and in no way inferior to others of his age. His great difficulty has been-and is now-his inability to learn to read. This inability is so remarkable, and so pronounced, that I have no doubt it is due to some congenital defect… His eyes are normal, there is no hemianopia, and his eyesight is good. The schoolmaster who has taught him for some years says that he would be the smartest lad in the school if the instruction were entirely oral (Morgan, 1896)."

Morgan concluded "…cases of word blindness are always interesting, and this case is, I think, particularly so. It is unique, so far as I know, in that it follows upon no injury or illness, but is evidently congenital, and due most probably to defective development." It was this latter judgment that led Morgan to introduce his diagnostic term congenital word blindness for cases such as Percy’s. This became the most frequently used label for almost 60 years with its usage beginning to fade away as dyslexia began its terminological inroads.

Morgan’s rubric, congenital word blindness, became the dominant diagnostic term pertaining to things dyslexic for some 40 years. In the 1930s and 40s its use began to erode and slowly, developmental dyslexia or simply dyslexia began to appear. However, the descriptive characteristics noted by Morgan were so on target that they are prominent in today’s dyslexia literature and discourse.

James Kerr

Some sources that address the matter of who was first to recognize the clinical characteristics of what today is called developmental dyslexia mention a contemporary of Morgan’s, another British physician, James Kerr. A school doctor, Kerr’s recognition was prompted by a comprehensive report he wrote several months prior to the publication of Morgan’s, but his essay was not published until the following year (Kerr, 1897).

Kerr’s report included a review of different categories of students with reading and related problems. Therein he stated: "…besides the generally dull there are the mentally exceptional, many quite suitable for ordinary school provided the teacher knows their peculiarities." This judgment was buttressed by the mention of a case of a boy who could do arithmetic as long as it involved only Arabic numerals but whose spelling and reading were that of a boy with word blindness (Kerr, 1897). While clearly in the realm of dyslexia, Kerr fell short by not providing a recognizable configuration of clinical characteristics and a diagnostic label as had Morgan (1896).

Oswald Berkhan

Oswald Berkhan, a German physician and educator of note (Leibbrand, 1955), has been credited by some as being the first to recognize what is now called developmental dyslexia or simply dyslexia. Those who have accorded this credit typically have supported it by citing a single source (Berkhan, 1917) and by sometimes adding 1881 as the year this occurred.

In his 1917 publication, Berkhan called attention to early work he had done that he considered relevant to congenital word blind-ness. He drew upon observations that he had made of children over three decades earlier (Berkhan, 1885, 1886). Also in his 1917 article, he provided updates on three males from the cohort of children he had observed in his early work.

Critchley (1964), Orton (1925), and Anderson & Meier-Hedde (2001) noted and commented on Berkhan's work. Observations made included that Berkhan had focused on students characterized by articulation, stammering, and writing difficulties, not by reading problems; that he noted reading capabilities of students but provided no details; and that he drew his students from a population known for deficiencies in intelligence.3 None of these commentators credited Berkhan with having been the first to recognize dyslexia.

If there is evidence supporting the claims for Berkhan, it should be apparent in his published work. Did his reports, particularly those published in the 1880s, convey that he had recognized and described the clinical characteristics of congenital word blindness (developmental dyslexia)? This review examined the sources cited by his creditors (Berkhan, 1917, 1886, 1885) seeking an answer to this question. Evidence of such recognition and description was not found.4 The credit extended to Berkjn by some is puzzling.5

James Hinshelwood

Following Morgan’s publication of the case of Percy, similar clinical descriptions began appearing in the medical literature, not only in England but elsewhere, most notably Germany, France, Scandinavia, and the United States (Anderson & Meier-Hedde, 2001; Guardio, 2001; Hallgren, 1950; Thompson, 1966; Campbell, 2013).

During the ten year span following Morgan (1896) the medical focus shifted from word blindness (acquired dyslexia) to what was then most often referred to as congenital word blindness (developmental dyslexia). The dominant figure during this early period was James Hinshelwood, a Scottish ophthalmologist. His command of this emerging medical interest was comprehensive. (Evidence of his ever timely responses to important developments was seen in his published comments on Morgan's report (Hinshelwood, 1896) that appeared but two weeks after Morgan's article). During his career Hinshelwood published and spoke extensively (Rawson, 1987; Campbell, 2011). He capped over 25 years devoted to the field with publication of Cognitive Word-Blindness (Hinshelwood, 1917), the seminal treatment of the subject at the time.

Samuel T. Orton

Playing a role similar to Hinshelwood's in the second half of the century in the United States was Samuel T. Orton. A neuropsychiatrist and pathologist, Orton's publications employed two major diagnostic rubrics: specific reading disability and strephosymbolia, the latter term being of his own invention, (Orton, 1925, 1928, 1937). A major contribution by Orton was providing building blocks for what became one of the most influential of all teaching interventions designed expressly for persons with dyslexia, the Orton-Gillingham Approach (Orton, 1967; Orton, 1957; "Resources," 2018).

Treatment of Dyslexia—Early Initiatives

The medical interest in dyslexia was generally accompanied by a concern with how to help children with dyslexia read, spell, and write (Campbell, 2011). Where this concern was actively addressed it typically drew upon conventional educational practices, configuring them in ways considered most appropriate for the learning needs of children with dyslexia. Leading figures in the field such as Hinshelwood (1917) and Orton (1937) are noted for the attention they gave to this matter. At the forefront in the United States were the collaborative efforts of Samuel Orton, Anna Gillingham, an educator and psychologist, and Bessie Stillman, a classroom teacher (Henry, 1998; Rawson, 1987).

At the urging of Dr. Orton and with his support, Gillingham with Stillman developed and implemented a teaching approach in the early 1930s. The first public edition of their work (Gillingham & Stillman, 1936) was followed by a series of revisions with the most current being the eighth (Gillingham & Stillman, 1996). From its outset, their work, stressing direct instruction, systematic phonics, and multisensory teaching and learning, incorporated basic curricular and instructional components later judged to be essential for student learning (National Reading Panel, 2000). Their work, augmented by contributions from others, (Orton, 1957), became the foundational corpus of the Orton-Gillingham Approach (Orton, J. 1966; "Resources,", 2018). This approach is internationally practiced today and has been widely emulated. It is a notable member of an intervention tradition that works with students with dyslexia when in the hands of an appropriately trained teacher.

Dyslexia—Since the 1950s

The corrections and comments about the term dyslexia so far presented have focused on a period ending in the 1950s. By that decade the term dyslexia had become one of the terminological players on the stage of activities pertaining to reading problems. The 1960s and 70s saw its usage progressively increase but not without contention (Benton, 1980). Since then argumentation and opposition have sometimes seemed to wax but most generally have waned and today may arguably be judged as being more matters of distraction than of crucial importance. Some would contest this judgment, and their arguments are sufficiently pronounced to warrant acknowledgment and attention. The examination that follows, however, relates to treatment that the term has received in the United States. With respect to this limited focus, note is made that a country long concerned with dyslexia, the United Kingdom, exhibits a history of elements similar to that of the United States (Campbell, 2013; Macdonald, 2009; Kirby, 2019). Other countries becoming more recently concerned with dyslexia (Anderson & Meier-Hedde, 2011) undoubtedly have undergone and will undergo parallel experiences.

Dyslexia—Challenged

Throughout its history the term dyslexia has been challenged on grounds advanced by some scholars and researchers. Current sources that represent such interests (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014; Elliott, Nicolson, & Davis, 2016) address terminological issues, substantive findings, and typically acknowledge challenges that emanate from other interest groups. Arguments and counter-arguments are found in almost every area within the dyslexia domain. Certain areas are of special relevancy, most particularly those of education and related advocacy groups.

Challenging dyslexia has long been the stance of the "educational establishment". Conventional education has historically rejected the concept of "dyslexia" (Sampson, 1975). It has never been happy with the "medicalization" and "biologicalization" of reading problems nor with the insistence by those in the field who insist that explicit instruction and systematic phonics are necessary components to success.6

Opposition from "educationalists" has been changing but ever so slowly as illustrated in stances taken by the International Reading Association (IRA), now the International Literacy Association (ILA), the largest educational/advocacy organization promoting reading and a bastion of conventional theory and practice in the U.S.

The IRA/ILA has a publishing series that provides a platform for research, theory, and policy typically reflective of IRA/ILA leadership. Its first dictionary on reading allocated one column to dyslexia. Contained therein was the following: "…dyslexia has come to have so many incompatible connotations that it has lost any real value for educators, except as a fancy word for a reading problem. Consequently, its use may create damaging cause and effect assumptions for students, family, and teachers (Hodges & Harris, 1981)."

Since the publication of this pronouncement, there has been some moderation in the IRA/ILA position. The treatment of dyslexia in the IRA/ILA's second dictionary (Harris & Hodges, 1995) published 14 years after the first is notably different. The subject received not one column but two pages. Moreover, it was an invited article by a distinguished and widely respected academician (Johnson, 1995). It was devoid of the negative editorial comments found in the 1981 dictionary and treated dyslexia as a concept of substance. Notwithstanding such signs of change, contentious arguments still prevail as evidenced in a recent exchange between the ILA and the International Dyslexia Association (IDA), the major U.S. based education/research and advocacy organization for dyslexia (ILA, 2016a; IDA, 2016; ILA, 2016b).

Rejection to use of the term dyslexia as a diagnostic tool is widespread in the United States. Some sense of the history and changing attitudes about this resistance is provided by an examination of editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The DSM, prepared and published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), is the dominant diagnostic reference used in the United States. It was first published in 1952 and is now in its fifth edition (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

It was not until DSM–IV (1994) that the term dyslexia appeared in the series and then it was only listed as one of several terms to be encountered in the literature. It was in preparation of DSM-5 that the term received its first really notable attention. This initially occurred in an early APA news release of changes it expected to be forthcoming: "…name changes for categories within the learning disorders section. The reading disorder and mathematics disorder categories become dyslexia and dyscalculia" (Clay, 2011).

Shortly following the initial APA statement a second and a much different announcement was released. The new APA position stated that "Learning Disorder has been changed to Specific Learning Disorder and the previous types of Learning Disorder (Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, and Disorder of Written Expression) are no longer being recommended. The type of Learning Disorder will instead be specified as noted in the diagnosis." (LD Online, 2012).

The announced APA change was viewed by partisans of dyslexia as the effective elimination of the term. The International Dyslexia Association (IDA), responded with "BREAKING NEWS & CALL TO ACTION: DSM-5 Proposed Revisions Remove the Term Dyslexia" (Cowen & Dakin, 2012). Therein it called upon all to communicate their objections to the new direction of the APA and to voice support for dyslexia.

As subsequent APA deliberations were kept tightly secret, its response to reactions from the IDA and others did not become known until the APA approved the final version of DSM-5 (2013). The published version of DSM-5 prescribed the diagnostic term of Specific Learning Disorder with impairment in reading (SPD). It included dyslexia as an alternative to SPD with impairment in reading and allowed that the term dyslexia could be employed by the clinician in cases where he/she judged its use to be warranted. (Unclear is whether the term is simply a synonym for Specific Learning Disorder with impairment in reading or if the term encompasses modified diagnostic criteria). Additionally, DSM-5 provided no separate numerical diagnostic code for the label dyslexia and asserts that in making a DSM-5 diagnosis, the numerical code for Specific Learning Disorder (315.00) must be used. The reaction of dyslexia proponents to DSM-5 has been both positive and negative (Colker, Shaywitz, B., Shaywitz, B., & Simon, J, 2013), and continuing exchange and disagreement in this domain is to be expected.

There are and have always been providers who promote treatment approaches for dyslexia that are unsupported by relevant reading science and recognized teaching practice (Pennington, 2011). These providers do not necessarily "challenge" the concept of dyslexia so much as they assert or imply the superiority of their treatment approach over that commonly used with persons with dyslexia. These alternative approaches typically support claims of high levels of success using individual testimonials and sometimes "in-house" research. Calling out these alternative approaches has been a continuing challenge to both researchers and mainstream dyslexia interest groups. It is presumed that the magnitude of this task will moderate with expanding research and validated teaching practice and an increasingly well informed public, albeit there may always be some market for "sure-fire, quick fixes".

Dyslexia Defended

Challenges to dyslexia over the spectrum of issues have and are being met (Ramus, 2014; Wolf, 2014; Kirby & Snowling, 2019). These responses draw upon a knowledge/action base derived, first and foremost, from the scientific disciplines. Also contributing are educational, allied health groups, professional and lay organizations, public advocacy groups and government. Notable features in the building of this base began to be laid in the 1950s. It involved the emergence of cognitive psychology (Haggard, 1987; Kessel and Bevan, 1985) and an explosion of research that has illuminated understanding of reading and reading problems. Other sources have included the growing neurosciences and genetics and the use of new technology such as computer and imaging techniques (Hruby & Goswami, 2011; Pennington & Olson, 2005; Enkai et al., 2014).

This span of time has seen notable growth in educational and advocacy groups. The multitudinous number of Internet sites support the magnitude and suggest the importance of their expansion. While a scholarly analysis of the impact of this development has yet to be done for the U.S., such exists for the U.K (Kirby, 2019) and important experiences there are paralleled in the U.S.

In general, the widening acceptance of and use of the term dyslexia by both professional and laypersons has been buttressed by expanding research and theory that has expressly focused on dyslexia (Fletcher, 2011), and by the growing science of reading (Rayner, Forman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2001; Rayner, Pollatsek, Ashby, & Clifton Jr., 2011). Threads of research from these sources have also helped to illuminate why certain instructional practices work well with students who have dyslexia and why others do not. Research has validated what are the essential curricular components and instructional practices required to succeed with dyslexic students. The intervention programs that work are those that incorporate these elements and are carried out by well-prepared teachers (Duff & Clarke, 2011; Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007; IDA, 2018; Snowling & Hulme, 2011).

Other forces of emerging importance since the 1950s include increasing public awareness of the problem and the desire for appropriate change. Public pressures with support from professional and lay interest groups have been increasingly aggressive in pressing for appropriate instructional services for dyslexic students (Reading Rockets, 2018a, 2018b).

The involvement of the federal government in matters relevant to dyslexia did not become visible until the early 1960s. Its initial focus was on matters subsumed under the then emerging classification of learning disabilities (Hallahan & Mercer, 2001). In the past (and still frequently today), if the term dyslexia appeared in print it was as one of a number of conditions tucked under the rubric of learning disabilities.

The federal government has made notable contributions that factor into the dyslexia scene today. There has been federal legislation relative to special needs education for over 50 years. These legislative acts have typically been both supported and opposed by various interest groups. The most significant of these acts have been Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, enacted in 1975 under a different name and then updated as IDEA in 1990 and updated again in 2004; and Americans with Disabilities Act , enacted in 1990 and updated in 2008 (Latham, Latham & Mandlawitz, 2008).

The U.S. Congress, in attending to special needs education, has been developing a more differentiated and in-depth understanding of types of learning problems. In the case of dyslexia, the House of Representatives recently created (2012) the Bipartisan Congressional Dyslexia Caucus. Currently comprised of 84 members, its stated purpose is to "… work across party lines to educate members of the public about dyslexia, as well as to identify policies that will support individuals as they overcome dyslexia and pursue educational and career opportunities" (Bipartisan Congressional Dyslexia Caucus, 2019).

No factor of federal government support has been more important to dyslexia than its long-term funding initiative for research relevant to the field (Lyon, 1995). This resulted and continues to result in new and important knowledge. It also contributed notably to the increasing legitimization of the term and to the efforts of those working in the field.

An important measure of state government involvement has been comparatively recent actions by legislatures to pass laws that mandate initiatives relating to student assessment, teacher training and instructional practice (Youman & Mather, 2018; Nessy, 2018). Today the primary players on the scene include government at its several levels, relevant scientific disciplines, education, and professional and public interest groups. Together these constitute a dynamic matrix whose future configuration is problematic, albeit it is clear that all will be involved in addressing the problems associated with dyslexia.

Summary

On balance the term dyslexia now seems well-established if not permanently embedded in both professional and public vocabularies. Precision in its definition(s) remains elusive, but this is to be expected. Dyslexia is the object of progressive and accelerating research. New knowledge can be expected to illuminate the variables encompassed by the concept. Definitional refinement and modification will be forthcoming. At play in all of this will be sociocultural factors.

Dyslexia is, at one level, but a word. As a word the question becomes what meanings are ascribed to it. New knowledge and shifting attitudes assure that new ascriptions will be forthcoming. Its future meanings are, in some measure, problematic (Tønnessen, 1997). For researchers the term is most likely to function as a general umbrella concept under which more differentiating and rigorously formulated constructs are subsumed. At the same time it is likely there will be some who will take positions at variance with any emerging research consensus. This will ensure continuation, at some level, of the controversy that has marked the history of the term (Hanford, 2018).

Whatever forms the term may take, the future holds the promise of increasing understanding of the variables that account for why so many children exhibit unexpected difficulty in their efforts to learn to read, spell, and write.

While continuing pursuit of new knowledge about dyslexia and instructional practice is of great importance, this should not obscure the fact that there is, at hand now, the curricular and practice knowledge necessary to successfully teach these children. This fact permits attaching high priority to the following pressing challenges:

Translating relevant knowledge into optimal teaching practice,
Ensuring that teachers are appropriately trained in such practice,
Providing teachers with educational environments that support and reward such practice, and
Promoting wider societal understanding of and support for these objectives.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder (5th ed.).

Arlington, VA: Author.

Anderson, P. & Meier-Hedde, R. (2001). Early case reports of dyslexia in the United States and Europe. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 9-21

Anderson, P.L. & Meier-Hedde, R. (2011). (Eds.).International case studies of dyslexia. London: Routledge.

Bender, J. (1946). Do you know dyslexia? Scientific Monthly, 63, 299-304.

Benton. A.I. (1980). Dyslexia: Evolution of a concept. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 10-26.

Berkhan, O. (1885). Ueber die Störung der Schriftsprache bei Halbidioten und ihre Aehnlichkeit mit dem Stammeln, Arch. f. Psychiat. 16, 78-86.

Berkhan, O. (1886). Über die Störung der Schriftsprache bei Halbidioten und ihre Ähnlichkeit mit dem Sprachgebrechen 2. Stammein und Stottern. Arch. f. Psychiat., 17, 897-900.

Berkhan, O. (1917). Uber die Wortblindheit, ein Stammeln im Sprechen und Schreiben, ein Fehl im Lesen.Neurologisches Centralblatt, 36, 914–927.

Berlin, R. (1883). Uber Dyslexie. Medicinisches Correspondenz-Blatt des Wurttembergisohen arztlichen Landesvereins, 53, 209-10.

Berlin, R. (1884). Über Dyslexie. Archiv fur Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 15, 276-278.

Berlin, R. (1887). Eine besondere Art der Wortblindheit (Dyslexie). Wiesbaden: Verlag von J.F. Bergmann.

Bipartisan Congressional Dyslexia Caucus. (2019).Home.R retrieved on 7/1/19 fom https://dyslexiacaucus- brownley.house.gov/.

Broadbent, W. H. (1872). Cerebral mechanisms of speech and thought. Transactions of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society, 55, 145-194.

Campbell, T. (2011). From aphasia to dyslexia, a fragment of geneology: analysis of the formation of a ‘medical diagnosis’. Health Sociology Review, 20, 450-461.

Campbell, T. (2013). Dyslexia: The government of reading. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Clay, R.A. (2011). Revising the DSM. American Psychiatric Association: Monitor on psychiatry, 42, 54. Retrieved 5/15/19 from https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/01

/dsm

Colker, R., Shaywitz, S., Shaywitz, B., & Simon, J. (2013) Comments on proposed DSM-5 criteria from a legal

and medical/scientific perspective [Online comment]. Retrieved 5/15/19 from http://dyslexia.yale.edu/CommentsDSM5ColkerShay

witzSimon.pdf.

Cowen, C.D, & Dakin, K. (2012). Breaking news & call to action: DSM-5 proposed revisions remove the term dyslexia. International Dyslexia Association. Retrieved on 5/15/19 f rom https://dyslexiaida.org/dsm5-

revisions/.

Critchley, M. (1964). Developmental dyslexia. London: Whitefriars Press.

Critchley, M. (1970). The dyslexic child. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Crystal, D. (1987). Dyslexia. In The Cambridge encyclopedia of language, (pp. 272-275). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duff, F. J. & Clarke, P. J. (2011). Practitioner review: Reading disorders: What are effective interventions

and how should they be implemented and evaluated? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 3–12.

Eden, G.F., Olulade, O.L., Evans, T.M., Krafnick, A.J., & Alkire, D.R. (2015). Developmental dyslexia. In

Hicko, G. & Small, S.L. (Eds.), The neurobiology

of language (Ch.65). Cambridge: Academic Press.

Elliott, J. G. & Grigorenko, E.I. (2014). The dyslexia debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elliott, J., Nicolson, R., & Davis, A. (Eds.) (2016).

Dyslexia: Developing the debate. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Elnakib, A.; Soliman, A.; Nitzken, M.; Casanova, M. F.; Gimel’farb, G. & El-Baz, A. (2014). Magnetic

resonance imaging findings for dyslexia: A review.

Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology, 10, 2778-2805.

Fletcher, J.M. (2009). Dyslexia: The evolution of a scientific concept. Journal of the International

Neuropsychological Society, 15, 501–508.

Fletcher, J., Lyon, R.G., Fuchs, L. & Barnes, M.A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to

intervention. New York: The Guildford Press.

Gillingham, A. & Stillman, B.W. (1936). Remedial work for reading, spelling and penmanship. Rev. and enl. Long Island City, Sackett, & Wilhelms.

Gillingham, A. & Stillman, B.W. (1997). The Gillingham manual: Remedial training for students with

specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship.

8th ed. rev. Cambridge, MA: Educators Pub. Service.

Guardio, J. G. (2001). The evolution of research on dyslexia. Retrieved from http://ibgwww.colorado.edu/~gayan/ch1.pdf For a

more complete version of this paper see Gayán J.

(2001). La evolución del estudio de la dislexia (The evolution of research on dyslexia). Anuario de

Psicología, 32, 3-30.

Hallahan, D.P. & Mercer, C.D. (2001). Learning Disabties: Historical perspectives. Executive summary.

Washington, DC.: Special Education Programs

(ED/OSERS). Retrieved from: https://eric.eed.gov.

Hallgren, B. (1950). Specific dyslexia ("Congenital word blindness"): A clinical and genetic study. Stockholm.

Hanford, E. (2018). Words: Why aren’t kids being taught to read? APM Reports. Retrieved from: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/09/10/

hard-words- why-american-kids-arent-being-taught- to- read

Harris, T., & Hodges, R. (Eds.), (1995). The dictionary: The literacy vocabulary of reading and writing.

Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 1983.

Henry, M.K. (1998). Structured, sequential, multisensory teaching: The Orton legacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 3- 26.

Hodges, R. & Harris, T. (1981). A dictionary of reading and related terms. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hilgard, E. R. (1987). Psychology in America: A historical survey. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.

Hinshelwood, J. (1895). Word-blindness and visual memory. The Lancet, 2,1564-1570.

Hinshelwood, J. (1896). A case of dyslexia: A peculiar form of word-blindness. The Lancet, 148, 1451-1454.

Hinshelwood, J. (1917). Congenital word-blindness. London: Lewis.

Hruby, G.G. & Goswami, U. (2011). Neuroscience and reading: A review for reading education researchers. Reading Research Quarterly. 46, 156-172.

International Dyslexia Association. (IDA, 2016). IDA urges ILA to review and clarify key points in dyslexia

research advisory. Retrieved from:

https://dyslexiaida.org/ida-urges-ila-to-review-and-

clarify-key-points-in-dyslexia-research-advisory/.

International Dyslexia Association (IDA, April, 2018). Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of

reading. 2nd ed. International Dyslexia Association. Retrieved from: https://app.box.com/s/21gdk2k1p3bnagdfz1xy0v98

j5ytl1wk

International Literacy Association. (ILA, 2016a). Dyslexia [Research advisory]. Newark,DE. Retrieved from: https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default- source/where-we-stand/ila-dyslexia-research-

advisory.pdf.

International Literacy Association. (ILA, 2016b). Dyslexia Response to the International Dyslexia Association. [Research advisory]. Newark, DE Retrieved from: https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-

source/where-we-stand/ila-dyslexia-research-advisor

Johnson, D. (1995). Dyslexia. In Harris, T., & Hodges, R. (Eds.), The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of

reading and writing (pp.64-65). Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.

Kerr, J. (1897). School hygiene, in its mental, moral, and physical aspects. Howard Medical Prize Essay: June 1896. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 60, 613- 680.

Kessel, F. S. & Bevan, W. (1985). Notes toward a history of cognitive psychology. In Buxton, C.E. (Ed.), Points

of view in the modern history of psychology (pp. 259- 294). New York: Academic Press.

Kim, J.S. (2008). Research and the reading wars. In F.M. Hess, When research matters: How scholarship

influences education policy (pp. 89-111). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Kirby, P. (2019). Literacy, advocacy and agency: the campaign for political recognition of dyslexia in Britain (1962–1997). Social History of Medicine, 31,1-21.

Kirby, P. & Snowling, M. (2019). Guest blog: A historical perspective on the ‘dyslexia myth’. ReadOxford, May 6, 2019. Retrieved 6/27/2019 from https://readoxford.org/dyslexia myth.

Kral, M., Nielson, K., & Hynd, G. W. (1998). Historical conceptualization of developmental dyslexia: Neurolinguistic contributions from the 19th and early

20th centuries. In R. Licht, A. Bouma, W. Slot & W.

Koops (Eds.), Child neuropsychology: Reading

disability and more (pp.1-16). Delft: Eburon.

Kussmaul, A. (1877). Diseases of the nervous system and disturbances of speech. In H. von Ziemssen (Ed.) &

J.A. McCreery (Trans.), Cyclopedia of the practice of medicine (Ch. 27). New York: William Wood.

Latham, P.S., Latham, P.H. & Mandlawitz, M. (2008). Special education law. Denver, CO: Pearson/Alyn & Bacon.

Leibbrand, W. (1955). Berkhan, Oswald. In: Neue Deutsche Biographie (NDB). Band 2, Duncker &

Humblot, Berlin 1955, ISBN 3-428-00183-4, S. 93 (Digitalisat).

Lemann, N. (1997). The phonics wars. The Atlantic, November, 128-30, 132-4.

Lyon, G. R. (1995). Research initiatives in learning disabilities. Contributions from scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and

human development. Journal of child neurology, 10

(Suppl 1).

Macdonald, S.J. (2009). Towards a sociology of dyslexia: Exploring links between dyslexia, disability and social class. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.

McCardle, P. & Chhabra, V. (2004).(Eds.). The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore: Brooks

Publishing.

Miles, T.R. & Miles, E. (1990). Dyslexia: A hundred years on. (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Moats, L.C. (2009). Still wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42,

387- 391.

Moats, L.C. & Lyon, G.R. (1996). Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Topics in Learning Disorders, 16, 73-86.

Morgan, W.P. (1896). A case of congenital wordblindness. British Medical Journal,2, 1378.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific

research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from: https://www1.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp

/documents/report.pdf.

Nessy. (2018). Dyslexia legislation by state. Retrieved Nov. 4, 2018 from https://www.nessy.com/us/state- dyslexia-legislation/.

Ophthalmic Review. (1887). Berlin (Stuttgart). A particular kind of word blindness (dyslexia). Bergmann,

Weisbaden, pp.74. 6, 217-221.

Opp, G. (2001). Learning disabilities in Germany: A retrospective analysis, current status and future

trends. In D.P Hallahan & B.K Keogh (Eds.), Research and global perspectives in learning disabilities: Essays in honor of William M. Cruickshank (pp.217-38).

Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.

Orton, J.L. (1957). The Orton story. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 7, 1-8.

Orton, J.L. (1966). The Orton-Gillingham Approach. in Money, J. (Ed.), The disabled reader: Education of the dyslexic child (pp.119-145). Oxford, England: Johns Hopkins Press.

Orton, S. T. (1925). "Word-blindness" in school children. Arch. Neurol. Psychiatry, 14, 581-615.

Orton, S.T. (1928). Specific reading disability- strephosymbolia. JAMA, 90, 1095-1099.

Orton, S. T. (1937). Reading, writing and speech problems in children: A presentation of certain types of disorders in the development of the language faculty. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Pennington, Bruce F. (2011). (Ed.). Controversial therapies for dyslexia. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 37, 7-31.

Pennington, B. F., & Olson, R. K. (2005). Genetics of dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), Blackwell handbooks of developmental psychology. The science of reading: A handbook (Ch.24). Malden, Blackwell Publishing.

Peterson, R.L. & Pennington, B.F, (2015). Development dyslexia. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 11, 283-307.

Ramus, F. (2014). Should there really be a 'Dyslexia debate'?. Brain, 137, 3361-3374.

Rawson, M.B. (1987). The Orton trail: 1896-1986. Annals of Dyslexia, 37, 36-48.

Rayner, K., Foorman, B.R., Perfetti, C.A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M.S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31-74.

Rayner, K., Pollatsek. A., Ashby, J., & Clifton Jr., C. (2011) Psychology of reading. (2nd Ed.). London: Psychology Press.

Reading Rockets (2018a). Education organizations & websites. Retrieved 6/12/18 from http://www.readingrockets.org/resourceinfo/

organizations.

Reading Rockets (2018b). Professional organizations. Retrieved 6/12/18 from http://www.readingrockets.org/resources_new/c602

Resources (2018). In Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators. Retrieved April 16, 2018 from: https:// www.ortonacademy.org/.

Richardson, S.O. (1992). Historical perspectives on dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 40-47.

Sampson, O.C (1975). Fifty years of dyslexia A review of the literature, 1925–75, I theory. Research in

Education, 14, 15-32.

Satellite of the Annual of the Universal Medical Sciences (1887). Berlin. 1, 86-88.

Sherlock, E.B. & Lond, B.M. (1905). Lunacy practice in Germany. The Lancet, 166, 1565-1568.

Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2011). Evidence‐based interventions for reading and language difficulties:

Creating a virtuous circle. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 1–23.

Tinker, M.A, (1932). Diagnostic and remedial reading. The Elementary School Journal, 33, 293-306.

Tønnessen, F.E. (1997). How can we best define ‘dyslexia’? Dyslexia, 3, 78–92.

Youman, M. & Mather, N. (2018). Dyslexia laws in the USA: A 2018 update. https://www.academia.edu/36641047/Dyslexia_

Laws_2018_Update.pdf

Wagner, R. (1973). Rudolf Berlin: Originator of the term dyslexia. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 23, 57–63.

Wikipedia. (2018). History of dyslexia research. Retrieved March 29, 2018 from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_dyslexia_

research

Wolf, M. (2014). Marcus Aurelius and the continuing dyslexia debate, Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/marcus- aurelius-and-the-continuing-dyslexia-debate/. . .

Footnotes

1 How 1887 came to be cited as the year Berlin introduced the term dyslexia instead of the correct year of 1883 is unclear. Part of the problem undoubtedly is associated with the fact that original sources were and still are in German inasmuch as careful reading of any of Berlin's three publications on the subject leads to the correct date. Obviously original source material has not been examined and secondary sources with the incorrect date have been accepted as accurate.

It is suspected that the error became embedded in the literature early on. The introduction of Berlin's work in the

United States was through detailed summaries of his 1887 monograph that appeared in two domestically distributed medical journals (Ophthalmic Review, 1887; Satellite of the Annual of the Universal Medical Sciences, 1887). Early publications in England also used the 1887 date.

In England James Hinshelwood, the preeminent British authority on dyslexia of the time, published an article on "a case of dyslexia" (1896) wherein he gave attention to Berlin's work. He referenced this discussion with Berlin's 1887 publication (no assertion that this was or was not the year in which Berlin introduced the term was made). It is likely that a person with Hinshelwood's command of the literature would have been aware of both Berlin's 1883 and 1887 publications. It is equally likely that he referenced Berlin with the 1887 publication in order to provide readers with Berlin's most comprehensive treatment of the subject. Given such presumptions, the following scenario is deemed quite possible.

Hinshelwood, a leading authority, published an article in 1896 in The Lancet, a prestigious and widely distributed medical journal. Its content dealt with a comparatively new subject and terminology. It considered Berlin's work which was available only in German. Hinshelwood's article made no mention of the year in which Berlin introduced the term dyslexia, and in referencing the discussion of Berlin, it cited the 1887 publication. Why? Henshelwood cited the 1887 article because it provided the reader with Berlin's most comprehensive treatment of the subject. What might a reader take away from all of this? This scenario suggests a "dyslexia/Berlin/1887" connection from which 1887 was inferred to be the year Berlin introduced the term. (There is no problem referencing Berlin's contribution with the 1887 monograph, his most compre-hensive statement on the subject, as long as it is not asserted to be the year of the term's introduction. However, sources that speak to the point give 1887 and so reference it.)

2 Definitions for acquired dyslexia and developmental dyslexia in this review avoid reference to the particulars of any theory of cause(s) of dyslexia. This was done on grounds that etiological explanations of the concepts, which have and will continue to be matters of importance and contention (Eden, Olulade, Evans, Krafnick, & Alkire, 2016; Peterson, & Pennington, 2015), are not central or necessary to the thrust of this review.

3 The setting in which Berkhan carried out his observations has prompted the question of whether he observed children with dyslexia (Critchley, 1970). He (Berkhan, 1917) used the term Hilfsklasse (lit. "Helping class") as the venue for the children he observed indicating they attended a type of remedial school (Hilfsschule) then developing in Germany. Such schools were popularly associated with children with intelligence deficiencies (Sherlock & Lond, 1905).

Given the common prescription of "average intelligence" as one of the defining characteristics of dyslexia (Critchley, 1964), the question has been posed: did Berkhan observe students whose reading problems were the result of mental deficiencies rather than of dyslexia? Critchley (1970), for example, noted that "… Berkhan [has] occasionally been cited as…[a pioneer] in the history of developmental dyslexia. This is unlikely, for [his] patients were essentially mental defectives, and an inability to read was merely one aspect of their global defect in learning."

While Germany's Hilfsschulen were popularly associated with children with intelligence deficiencies, students therein exhibited a range of types of deficiencies (Opp, 2001). Resolution of the question of intelligence was illuminated by Berkhan himself when he noted some of his students had no reading problems. On the whole the evidence supports the likelihood that some number of students with dyslexia were among those Berkhan observed.

4 The basic clinical observations made by Berkhan himself relevant to this matter are found in his 1885 report. Forty-four students were drawn from two classes of a single Hilfsschule in Braunschweig, Lower Saxony in 1881. From this group writing samples screened out 20 students with attributes of the sort Berkhan was looking for: problems of articulation, stammering, and writing. To this group of 20 he added an additional three students because of their "special interest." While the study focused on these problems, reading capabilities of students were noted in terse language: "Therein the focus was on clinical particulars of 20 children he personally observed. While his interest was not on reading but on articulation, stammering, and writing, he noted reading capabilities of the students but only in a terse and limited way to one of the following: "bad reading; poor reading; reads poorly; able to read; reads moderately well; good reading." No augmenting information accompanied these descriptions. Review of his other publications (1886, 1917) also provided no evidence of his awareness and identification of what came to be called dyslexia.

Could Berkhan, some 30 years after his early observations, retrospectively "remember" an earlier awareness of dyslexia? Of special relevance to this question are his 1917 updates of three males who were among those he observed in the 1880s. What did he say about these cases? In two of the cases his comments covered well into their adult years but continued to focus on articulation, stammering, and writing problems and not on reading. His updating remarks in these two cases provided no clinical descriptors that conveyed the subjects to have dyslexia. The third subject updated was a student for whom Berkhan provided comments relevant to the youngster's 11th through 15th years. He asserted that this youth initially exhibited several reading problems (no detail provided) and that in year 15 these problems no longer existed (again no detail). No other information or explanation was given about the boy. In these three cases Berkhan had the opportunity to present them in a way which could have validated a diagnosis of congenital word blindness (dyslexia) if such had been the case This he did not do.

5 Given the lack of evidence, claims made for Berkhan are puzzling. At some point in time the claim was made, picked up uncritically and replicated by others. The impetus of such claims may well have been Berkhan's 1917 article. It represented a publication by a noted and respected physician and educator. It was an article whose title begins with Uber die Wortblindheit (About Wordblindness) and one that reached back over 30 years to the when physicians were just beginning to think of reading difficulties as a medical problem. Berkhan was truly a pioneer in that, unlike others, he considered reading worth mentioning in his observations. If and how claims on his behalf grew from such considerations are unclear. What is clear is the present scene. Review of the current literature provides these facts: the Internet is the predominate site of claims for Berkhan; the number of Berkhan claims to be found on the Internet are numerous; the same terse language and single referenced support citation are used in these claims suggesting uncritical acceptance of secondary sources; and lastly, there appears to be continued if not increasing replication of this misinformation.

The Berkhan claims and the Berlin date error (1887 instead of 1883) are both based on acceptance of incorrect secondary source(s). An illustration of such is the following statement from Wikipedia (a source highly subject to error but easily accessible and widely used): "Dyslexia was identified by Oswald Berkhan in 1881… but the term dyslexia was coined in 1887 by Rudolf Berlin, …."(Wikipedia, 2018).

Wikipedia provides the single source (Berkhan, 1917) as evidence of the claim for Berkhan. With respect to Berlin, the Wikipedia article, in addition to the date problem, in one section wrongfully attributes to Berlin the famous "Percy" case, the work of Morgan (1896). This error leads the naïve reader to conclude that Berlin described a single patient with congenital word blindness (developmental dyslexia) when, in fact, he applied the term only to several literate adults who had experienced some loss of reading skills (what today would be called acquired dyslexia). In another section this error is corrected, and a reader must contend with this contradiction along with yet other errors.

6 A continuous and contentious argument between traditional education and practitioners who specialize in work with those having dyslexia relates to instructional practices. Remedial interventions that have success are those that, among other things, employ direct instruction and systematic phonics. The literature is replete with treatments of these issues, often casting the case in terms of the "reading wars" (Kim, 2008). To this day these remain contentious issues for some, albeit research and real-world experiments have provided support for the curricular components and instructional practices employed by established intervention approaches expressly intended for persons with dyslexia.

2019