When dyslexia is diagnosed late, the question is whether this is due to late-emerging (LE) or late-identified (LI) problems. In a random selection of dyslexia-diagnosis case files we distinguished early-diagnosed (Grade 1–3, n = 116) and late-diagnosed (Grade 4–6) dyslexia. The late-diagnosed files were divided into LE (n = 54) and LI dyslexia (n = 45). The LE group consisted of children whose national-curriculum literacy outcomes did not warrant referral for dyslexia diagnosis in Grades 1–2; the LI group of children whose literacy outcomes did, but who were referred for diagnostic assessment after Grade 3. At the time of diagnosis, the percentage of poor performers on word-level literacy measures generally did not differ between the groups. Only the LE group contained fewer poor performers than the early-diagnosed and LI group on some word-reading measures. All groups showed similar distributions of phonological difficulties. There were no indications of compensation through vocabulary, memory or IQ in either late-diagnosed group. Our diagnosis-based study confirms and extends previous research-based studies on LE dyslexia. Moreover, it shows that LI dyslexia exists, which can be regarded as the existence of instructional casualties. The findings speak to issues of identification, diagnosis and compensation and call for further efforts to improve the early identification of dyslexia.

中文翻译：

---

及时缝合……：比较晚期识别、晚期出现和早期识别的阅读障碍

当阅读障碍诊断较晚时，问题是这是由于迟发（ LE）还是迟发（LI）问题。在随机选择的阅读障碍诊断病例文件中，我们区分了早期诊断（1-3 级，n  = 116）和晚期诊断（4-6 级）阅读障碍。晚期诊断文件分为LE（n  = 54）和LI阅读障碍（n = 45)。LE 组由国家课程读写结果不值得转诊进行 1-2 年级阅读障碍诊断的儿童组成；LI 组儿童的识字结果确实如此，但他们在 3 年级后被转诊进行诊断评估。在诊断时，在单词水平的识字测量中表现不佳的百分比在各组之间通常没有差异。只有 LE 组比早期诊断组和 LI 组在一些单词阅读方面的表现差。所有组都表现出相似的语音困难分布。在两个晚期诊断组中，没有迹象表明通过词汇、记忆或智商进行补偿。我们基于诊断的研究证实并扩展了之前基于研究的 LE 阅读障碍研究。此外，它表明存在LI阅读障碍，可视为教学人员伤亡的存在。研究结果涉及识别、诊断和补偿问题，并呼吁进一步努力改善阅读障碍的早期识别。