Internalizing problems in individuals with reading, mathematics and unspecified learning difficulties: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine if individuals with reading difficulties (RD), mathematics difficulties (MD), or unspecified learning difficulties (ULD) experience internalizing problems (i.e., anxiety, depression, somatic complaints, and social withdrawal) to the same extent, and if the effect sizes are influenced by moderators (age, internalizing problems type, anxiety type, rater type, selection criteria, and attention control). We reviewed 2,806 studies published in English between January 2000 and April 2023. Our final sample consisted of 96 studies that reported effect sizes or data to calculate them (a total of 120 unique samples, 83,260 participants, age range = 7.3 - 34.8 years). Risk of bias and sensitivity were assessed. A random-effects model analysis revealed a significant and moderate overall effect size (Hedge's g = -.54), indicating that individuals with RD, MD or ULD experience more internalizing problems than their chronological-age (CA) controls. Follow-up analyses showed that neither learning difficulties type nor age of participants were significant moderators, but selection criteria (diagnosis versus screening) and internalizing problems type were. These findings suggest that individuals with RD do not differ from those with MD or ULD in internalizing problems, and all fare poorly compared to CA controls.

A meta-analytic review of comprehension deficits in students with dyslexia.

Beyond the established difficulties of individuals with dyslexia in word recognition and spelling, it remains unclear how severe their difficulties in comprehension are. To examine this, we performed a meta-analytic review. A random-effects model analysis of data from 76 studies revealed a large deficit in reading comprehension in individuals with dyslexia compared to their chronological-age (CA) controls (g = 1.43) and a smaller one compared to their reading-level (RL) matched controls (g = 0.64). Individuals with dyslexia also differed significantly from their CA controls in listening comprehension (g = 0.43). Results further showed significant heterogeneity in the effect sizes that was partly explained by orthographic consistency (the deficits were larger in languages with low orthographic consistency) and vocabulary matching (the deficits were larger in studies in which the groups were not matched on vocabulary). These findings suggest, first, that individuals with dyslexia experience significant difficulties in both reading and listening comprehension, but the effect sizes are smaller than those reported in the literature for word reading and spelling. Second, our findings suggest that the deficits in reading comprehension are likely a combination of deficits in both decoding and oral language skills.