Considerable support exists for both the phonological core deficit and the naming speed deficit models of dyslexia. The double deficit model proposed that many students with dyslexia might also be impaired in both underlying processes. Employing either performance thresholds (i.e., scores below the 16th or 25th percentile) or k‐means clustering as classification methods, the current study investigated whether 154 young adolescents with dyslexia could be categorized into subtypes according to the presence or absence of phonological deficits alone, naming speed deficits alone, or a combination of the two and whether group composition changed depending on classification method. Results support the existence of both single and double deficit groups and confirm that those with both deficits are the most severely impaired across multiple measures. Contrary to previous research, most adolescents were classified as either naming speed only (about a third of the group) or double deficit when defining impairment using performance thresholds to classify groups. This may suggest that although early phonological deficits are amenable to remediation, identification of language symbols fails to become automatized in most individuals with dyslexia and may require more targeted intervention. Classification differences reported in the literature may depend on age and methods employed for classification.

中文翻译：

---

双缺陷模型对年轻的阅读障碍青少年的诊断意义

语音障碍核心和诵读困难的命名速度不足模型都得到了相当多的支持。双重缺陷模型表明，许多阅读障碍的学生在两个基本过程中也可能受到损害。使用绩效阈值（即得分低于16％或25％）或k作为聚类的分类方法，本研究调查了154个有阅读障碍的年轻青少年是否可以根据是否存在语音缺陷，单独命名速度缺陷或两者结合或是否组合以及是否根据组组成变化而分类为亚型关于分类方法。结果支持单赤字组和双赤字组的存在，并证实在两种测量方法中，两种赤字组的受损最严重。与以前的研究相反，在使用性能阈值对组进行分类来定义损伤时，大多数青少年被归类为仅命名速度（大约占组的三分之一）或双重缺陷。这可能表明，尽管早期的语音缺陷可以接受补救，语言符号的识别未能在大多数患有阅读障碍的患者中自动实现，可能需要更有针对性的干预。文献中报道的分类差异可能取决于年龄和分类方法。