User:Markworthen/sandbox/author-guidelines

Accuracy

 *  Is anything incorrectly stated? - Yes

Inaccurate content
(i) Dyslexia is classified as a neurodevelopmental learning disorder, not as a (neuro-) cognitive disorder. Dyslexia does impair some cognitive functions, broadly speaking, but if we want to be most accurate, we should describe the most common, most widely-accepted classification. (sandbox diff).

(ii) Under Classification - Concordance-Discordance Method (in the actual manuscript) - When this section was written (two to three years ago) there seems to have been an assumption that "learning disability" and "learning disorder" and "dyslexia" are interchangeable terms. (They are not.) This assumption led to reading journal articles that are fine for learning disabilities in general, or even for other reading problems, but not for dyslexia. For example, at least one of the references does not mention dyslexia at all: Stuebing, Karla K.; Fletcher, Jack M.; Branum-Martin, Lee; Francis, David J. (2012). "Evaluation of the Technical Adequacy of Three Methods for Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities Based on Cognitive Discrepancies". School Psychology Review 41 (1): 3–22. In addition, discrepancy methods are not used to diagnose dyslexia.
 * * ' Classification' section has dropped all three methods (was also discussed here) Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 10:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC) Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Do the references support the statements being made? No - not in some important instances.

Discordant statement—reference pairs

 * Are there any important recent papers that are missed? - Yes

Important recent papers missed - Examples
Wagner, Richard K., Ashley A. Edwards, Antje Malkowski, Chris Schatschneider, Rachel E. Joyner, Sarah Wood, and Fotena A. Zirps. "Combining Old and New for Better Understanding and Predicting Dyslexia." New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development vol. 2019, no. 165 (2019): 11-23. ==> Reviews the advantages of "hybrid" assessment approaches (also called "multi-method, multi-informant" assessment), citing seminal studies and reviews, and presenting cutting-edge research on using "model-based meta-analyses and Bayesian models with informative priors" to achieve a more reliable operational definition (and related assessment protocols) for dyslexia.
 * * Mark, when I looked up the above reference to add, I found it was paywalled Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Are we not using paywalled references for WikiJournals? I know they are okay on Wikipedia, but perhaps not for WikiJournal articles?  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  17:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 *  Are any of the references used out of date or considered obsolete? Yes

Balance

 * Does it reflect the current thinking in the field? - No (in some important instances)

Outdated theories, methods, definitions, etc. - Examples
(i) Discrepancy methods to diagnose dyslexia (see above).
 * * per above answer Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 22:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Is there anything important missing?


 * Are viewpoints given due weight given the existing literature on the topic? - Yes (there are some undue weight aspects to the article, but none of them are blatant and I seriously doubt any were intentional).


 * Are any conclusions / perspectives / outlook / opinions / original research clearly indicated? - No

Accessibility

 * Is the language clear and unambiguous? - No (not the entire article, but in some important sections, paragraphs, or sentences). Examples:

Vague or equivocal language - examples
(i) First paragraph, Classification section - "Some published definitions propose causes, which usually cover a variety of reading skills and deficits, and difficulties with distinct causes rather than a single condition."
 * * Mark, I believe you removed this one, thank you Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 10:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Is the work written such that a knowledgeable generalist can understand it? - Yes


 *  Is the abstract/lead understandable to a general audience? - Yes