The Dyslexia Debate

The Dyslexia Debate examines how we use the term 'dyslexia' and questions its efficacy as a diagnosis. While many believe that a diagnosis of dyslexia will shed light on a reader's struggles and help identify the best form of intervention, Julian G. Elliott and Elena L. Grigorenko show that it adds little value. In fact, our problematic interpretation of the term could prove to be a major disservice to many children with difficulties learning to read. This book outlines in detail the diverse ways in which reading problems have been conceptualized and operationalized. Elliott and Grigorenko consider the latest research in cognitive science, genetics, and neuroscience, and the limitations of these fields in terms of professional action. They then provide a more helpful, scientifically rigorous way to describe the various types of reading difficulties and discuss empirically supported forms of intervention

Gold Standard Versus Treatment as Usual: Assessment Practices in the Juvenile Justice System

Mental health concerns are highly prevalent in the juvenile justice system (JJS). Assessment practices vary significantly across probation departments, often relying on past medical history or unstructured clinical interviews. Numerous structured and semi-structured assessment tools exist, some of which have previously been used within JJS samples. The current research compared mental health diagnosis prevalence and distribution as assigned by the current practice in a probation department versus utilizing the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS) in a sample of youth involved with the JJS. Results suggested the K-SADS identified a higher variety of mental health concerns with higher precision (e.g., all diagnoses were specified rather than unspecified). However, the standard assessment practice identified a higher prevalence of ADHD diagnoses, as well as “Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention.” Limitations and future directions are discussed