An interdisciplinary perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of the International Dyslexia Association definition of dyslexia.

This commentary article describes the results of a Delphi Method discussion between an interdisciplinary team of state dyslexia policy implementers. The authors argue that the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) definition of dyslexia from 2001 skews toward the perspectives of the research community, inadvertently creating implementation challenges for school practice. The article describes how the authors reached this determination; why they believe Vaughn et al.'s (Annals of Dyslexia, 2024) proposed definition marks an improvement over the 2001 IDA definition; and the need for continued support in the dyslexia policy implementation process, including knowledge dissemination efforts and updates to other relevant policy documents. This collaboration between policymakers, educators, and researchers contributes to the special issue by considering how the definition of dyslexia is situated in policy and practice. In so doing, it addresses a longstanding gap in academic research on how policy implementers understand and use the IDA definition.

A realist review of dyslexia pilot project research.

We conducted a realist review of state-authorized dyslexia pilot projects to understand how they have been implemented and evaluated, and the extent to which they adhere to best practice recommendations. We found that states have piloted broadly similar policy programs minimally consisting of professional development, universal screening, and instructional intervention. However, none of the pilot report documents we reviewed included explicit logic models or theories of action, which makes it difficult to understand the pilot projects and their results. Officially, most of the pilot project evaluations sought to establish the effectiveness of their programs. However, only two states used evaluation designs that are well-suited to making causal inferences about program effects, which complicates the interpretation of pilot project results. To make future pilot projects more useful to evidence-based policymaking, we make recommendations to improve their design, implementation, and evaluation.