There’s a new definition of dyslexia. What could it mean for you?

A long-awaited new definition of dyslexia has just been released by the SASC!

It’s been created alongside findings from the Dyslexia Delphi study, which is spearheaded by academics and experts from several leading UK universities, including Warwick, Oxford, Coventry and KCL.

So what’s changed?

As with any definition change, it’s subject to interpretation and adoption. Many are commenting on how this particular definition sounds like it sees dyslexic differences as existing on a continuum with varying degrees of severity, emphasising the importance of collating unique profiles, and that working memory, orthographic skills and processing speed should be part of assessment criteria too.

There’s also an updated mention of common co-occurring differences, including developmental language disorder, ADHD, developmental co-ordination disorder, and dyscalculia.

And what will these changes mean for diagnoses?

If we look at dyslexia with a broader and more granular lens, as a wider continuum of processing and memory differences that can vary in impact, it means that people who have milder dyslexia or dyslexia that presents non-typically may not find it so hard to get a diagnosis.

That also means that we might see an uptick in diagnoses, with potential for an increase in demand for re-diagnoses. But those numbers are likely to only make up a small part of an ongoing upward trend in requests for dyslexia diagnosis across the board.

💡A new definition also means changes to how people are assessed. The SASC provides guidance on the implications for assessors here.

Could this flip the script for people with mild or non-typical dyslexia?

Getting a dyslexia diagnosis isn’t the easiest thing in the world, but if you had dyslexia that presents non-typically, that journey may have been more difficult still. Even as recently as a decade ago, a belief that somebody with passable reading and writing skills couldn’t possibly have dyslexia tended to dominate the discourse, and it led to many people missing out on a diagnosis that could unlock vital education and workplace support.

That might change now.

What’s the future impact likely to be for working adults?

Let’s take a scenario.

Imagine it’s 2011 and you’ve worked for years in an administrative role for a large company. You’ve always suspected you had a difference that impacted how you work, but your dyslexia assessment at age 8 was negative. You weren’t really shocked: you’ve always been an okay reader and got a C at GCSE.

…But you do struggle to read quickly, keep to time, spell and remember everything. And that’s led to a lot of stress and late nights with your laptop. Better not to talk about progression, either, as you’ve gone for every promotion that came up but your numbers just aren’t high enough.

If that assessment back when you were in primary school had caught your dyslexia— because yes, you’ve got dyslexia even though you can read well— you’d have been able to access a lot more support. Process support for timekeeping, text-to-speech support for speedier reading, a proofreader or spellchecker and a realignment of your KPIs to make progression fairer might have been good starting points, as well as helping drastically cut down on stress, overtime and missed opportunities.

This why we need to make sure that diagnostic criteria is right: it opens up a better quality of life for dyslexic people where everybody can access what they need to thrive. But does this new definition hit the nail on the head— do you think it’s a change for the better, needs a little work, or for you is it still off the mark?