2022 - 2025
DYSOLVE RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Key Findings:
- Dysolve outperformed other methods
- The longer the Dysolve usage, the greater the reading gain
"With this RCT, Dysolve joins an exclusive group of education interventions that have been subjected to the most rigorous test of their impact on student learning."
CASE STUDIES
EARLIEST USERS, GRADE 1-7
GEORGE, GRADE 2-3
Note: Fluency breakdown is defined here as 3 consecutive misreadings. George read all the words in Tests 2 and 3 without fluency breakdown.
SARA, GRADE 2 ROBYN, GRADE 5 DAISY, GRADE 10
CAITLYN, GRADE 5
WAYNE, GRADE 6
BEN, GRADE 6
DYSOLVE® TRAINING CONTINUES UNTIL LANGUAGE PROCESSES REACH 90-100% EFFICIENCY
ADVANCING AI IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
UNDERSTANDING EXCEPTIONAL LEARNERS
HOW TO EVALUATE SCREENERS
Apply rigorous, objective criteria to dyslexia screeners
Criteria for Dyslexia Screeners
Screeners are brief assessments that indicate the estimated risk for dyslexia or reading difficulty. They do not diagnose dyslexia.
There are about a dozen products marketed as dyslexia screeners. Screeners serving grades K-3 are separated from those for K-12 in our comparison.
Some are more costly and less convenient to use because administration is not automated or require teachers trained in their implementation. The screeners assess core areas of literacy as well as others.
Dysolve tests these areas as well, except for reading comprehension and fluency. These areas are already adequately tested annually and regularly by the state and reading assessments used in school.
Dysolve is the only program that meets the most important criteria: its evaluation is individualized to each person’s difficulties, and the results feed into their individualized intervention.
| Screeners K-3 | Screeners K-12 | Dysolve | |
| Automated administration | ✓ | ✓ | |
| No teacher training | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Core Areas Tested | |||
| Letter-sounds, phonics | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Phonological or phonemic awareness | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Decoding | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Other Areas | |||
| Rapid naming | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Vocabulary | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Spelling | ✓ | ||
| Listening comprehension | ✓ | ||
| Reading comprehension | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Reading fluency | ✓ | ||
| Reading accuracy | ✓ | ||
| Integrated with intervention | ✓ | ||
| Individualized | ✓ |
A feature that applies to most screeners in a category is marked with ✓
HOW TO EVALUATE ASSESSMENTS
Apply rigorous, objective criteria to dyslexia evaluations
Criteria for Dyslexia Assessments
Evaluations are typically done by certified specialists. They often take several hours one-on-one and cost between $5,000-10,000 per person. They may cover some of the areas listed for screening above.
The value of an evaluation is determined by what results from it. Getting a dyslexia diagnosis is not enough. The technology is already available to integrate evaluation with intervention so that the former becomes the blueprint for the latter. Only Dysolve does this.
The question to ask your provider is, Can you tell me exactly how the data from your evaluation feed into your intervention?
HOW TO EVALUATE INTERVENTIONS
Apply rigorous, objective criteria to dyslexia interventions
Criteria for Dyslexia Interventions
Ask your provider these questions about the approach, method or program used:
- Was there an experimental study? The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the US Department of Education recommends experimental studies, where a comparison can be made between the group that received treatment v. a control group. The study should be a randomized controlled trial (RCT).
- Who did the study? Was it an independent evaluator? Or the provider themselves?
- What was the measure of success? Did it use independent, objective reading assessments from schools? Or did the provider design their own measures?
- How many participants were in the study? Were they all at-risk readers? What was used to determine their reading level?
- Were they in grade 3 and beyond? Interventions have difficulty showing impact after grade 3.
- Were they from disadvantaged backgrounds?
- Was the intervention implemented in a business-as-usual setting? Or was it given special attention with more resources than usual? That is, Can the program results be replicated?
Dysolve fulfilled additional criteria beyond the ones above.
WHAT IS STRUCTURED LITERACY?
General Definition
Structured Literacy is a systematic approach to teaching reading that is based on the structures of natural language. The scientific study of natural language is Linguistics. In Structural Linguistics, language is comprised of building blocks of increasing size, from sounds (phonemes) to syllables, words, sentences and texts.
Learning to read also entails tying spoken language to written forms, starting with letter-sound relations. Reading is a complex, global activity requiring the efficient coordination of many processes in the brain. These processes involve all these elements above.
Reading instruction should thus be
- systematic
- explicit
- cumulative
In the case of intervention, continuous assessment is also necessary to individualize instruction according to the specific needs of a struggling reader.
Reading for Exceptional Learners
For non-typical readers such as those with dyslexia, a systematic approach to teaching the structures of spoken and written language is not enough. This is why such interventions are considered compensatory, helping at-risk readers cope with the difficulty, not clear it.
Research shows that after 3rd grade; the majority of these learners continue to struggle throughout school. This is why the US Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse does not have any intervention that has a positive effect on reading for this population.*
WHAT DOES EVIDENCE-BASED MEAN?
According to the Institute of Education Sciences of the US Department of Education, this term can be used when there is a rationale, based on research findings, that the practice is likely to improve student outcomes, with ongoing efforts to examine such effects. That is, methods and programs called “evidence-based” do not necessarily have evidence of positive effects.
The Department of Education What Works Clearinghouse does not contain any rigorous, replicable study of a reading intervention that has positive effect on broad reading achievement for students with dyslexia who are in grade 3 and up.* Yet the term “evidence-based” is used liberally in special education.
WHAT IS DYSLEXIA, EXACTLY?
Although dyslexia affects 1 in 5 people and the name has been around for a century, it still confuses those with the condition and their families, teachers, providers and even researchers.
Why the Confusion?
Dyslexia’s defining trait is difficulty in learning to read. But its multifaceted aspects mask its true nature:
- Other co-existing symptoms, e.g., difficulty with math
- Contradictory behaviors, e.g., misspelling simple words yet articulate in speech
- Wide individual variation, i.e., different people show different symptoms
- Co-occurring conditions, e.g., ADHD and autism
- Confounding research findings and lack of consensus
State of the Science
Fifty years of research have established that dyslexia is a language-based disorder. It involves language processing in the brain, especially phonological (or speech sound) processing.
But beyond this, research findings tend to be inconclusive and often conflicting. Researchers still cannot agree on an operational definition of dyslexia. A concept needs to be operationalized so that it can be quantified and measured precisely for changes over time. Otherwise, how can we determine whether a person has dyslexia? Or whether they are improving with intervention?
Given this state of the science, two leading researchers from the University of Durham and Yale recommended dispensing with the term “dyslexia” altogether, following their comprehensive review of studies (The Dyslexia Debate, 2014, Cambridge University Press). They suggested “reading disability” instead, tying it to word-reading difficulty.
However, we at Dysolve® believe that a problem as significant and pervasive as dyslexia needs a distinct name. A name carves out the problem, draws public attention and mobilizes action. Moreover, new technology in the past decade has enabled us to overcome this conundrum.
A Logical Approach to Defining Dyslexia
Since dyslexia is a language processing disorder, we at Dysolve define processing difficulties quantitatively as “inefficiencies,” which we can then measure against a target, namely 100% efficiency.
Since the disorder involves the linguistic system in the brain, logically we should find evidence that different parts of this system are affected in different people to different degrees. In Linguistics, the scientific study of natural language, this system is traditionally divided into structural components defined by its basic building blocks. These basic units range from sounds, syllables, words, sentences to meaning concepts. Indeed dyslexia studies show evidence of difficulties with all these linguistic components even though most attention is focused on the smallest unit, the phoneme or sound.
Dysolve AI data reveal that language processing inefficiencies occupy a broad spectrum. At the individual level, different people show inefficiencies in different parts of the linguistic system in the brain. Similarly at the research level, differing definitions of dyslexia occupy different spaces, which is why researchers have not been able to reach consensus.
Breakthrough: Dysolve AI Defines Dyslexia Computationally
Dyslexia is not one unitary thing. People with dyslexia experience varying language processing inefficiencies across a continuum.
Therefore a person’s dyslexia is the bundle of language processing inefficiencies involved. Dysolve AI deals directly with these processing inefficiencies–which can be located, measured and corrected for each person.
By defining dyslexia computationally, Dysolve resolved the problem. We identify the underlying language processing inefficiencies that collectively pose linguistic difficulties for certain individuals, such as in reading.
This computational definition enabled Dysolve AI to advance to correcting the reading difficulty instead of only compensating for it, unlike other approaches.
WHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS
Reading research has yet to offer a clear definition, cause and intervention for dyslexia.
Dyslexia research in the past 5 decades suggests:
↘ Lack of phonological awareness is associated with poor decoding, which in turn affects reading. Phonological awareness is sensitivity to speech sounds and patterns. Decoding is deciphering written words by linking letters to sounds.
↘ Other parts of language may be affected as well.
↘ Underlying auditory and visual processing deficits may be involved in reading disability, but findings are inconclusive.
↘ Attentional factors may be important, but findings are inconclusive.
↘ Reading interventions lose their impact after 3rd grade.*
* Dysolve® is not a reading intervention. It is a language intervention. It clears language difficulties to enable a person to read. Dysolve’s thesis has been proven by its clinical trial results.
WHAT THE RESEARCH DOES NOT SAY
The research to date does NOT say that:
→ The science of reading has the answer for struggling readers.
→ Neuroscience has the solution for dyslexia.
→ Dyslexia is lifelong and cannot be corrected.
→ There is a gold standard in dyslexia instruction that can get students to read on grade level after 3rd grade.*
*Dysolve® is not an instructional program. It improves language processing to enable students to read.
The Science of Reading Mainly Concerns Typical Development
The science of reading is simply the body of work on how to teach reading to typically developing children. It is generally inconclusive on how best to remediate non-typical or exceptional learners such as struggling readers with dyslexia. Reading researchers conclude that the field has no effective instruction for students who are still struggling with reading in middle school.
“The Science of Reading” is not a theory, approach or method. It is not the solution for children at risk for dyslexia or reading failure–because research to date has no satisfactory answer for students who are still struggling with reading beyond 3rd grade.
The question is, Does the method in question have scientific evidence?
For children with dyslexia and other learning disabilities, instructors actually need guidance from “the Science of Non-Typical Reading,” which does not yet exist. Teachers need to know why standard practices do not work with this non-typical or exceptional population. Instructors need to understand how such students process language and read differently. This website is our first step in advancing towards this new science.
“Even high-quality research studies have proven largely incapable of indicating how to help those who have not benefited sufficiently from earlier high-quality interventions”
– Eliott & Grigorenko, 2014, The Dyslexia Debate, Cambridge, p. 141
Neuroscience Can’t Read Individual Brains for Dyslexia
Dyslexia is widely accepted as a neurological condition. The dyslexic brain has difficulty processing language. But neuroscience is still in its infancy.
Neuroscientists state that they cannot identify dyslexia traits in individual brains and may never. They cannot yet read individual brains for dyslexia, let alone correct it.
“To date it is not possible to reliably identify brain alterations characteristic for dyslexia in a single subject and it is unclear whether this will be possible in the near future (or ever)”
Ozernov-Palchik & Gaab, 2016, Perspectives on Language and Literacy v. 42, p. 15
As documented in rigorously designed studies, no established method can get students beyond 3rd grade with a reading disability to read on grade level.* The US Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse does not have any intervention showing positive effect on this population.
Reviews of intervention studies often find that they fail to meet the DOE’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) standards.
Dysolve meets these standards.
Dyslexia is Lifelong and Cannot be Corrected
Let us examine this claim rationally and empirically.
Rational rebuttal. This claim involves 2 parts:
1. Dyslexia is a neurological condition. Brain scans show that dyslexic brains read differently from typical brains.
2. Language is innate, and most people typically pick it up naturally. But if a person cannot do so, then that difficulty must be lifelong because of brain makeup.
Let’s start with the language-is-innate claim. The innateness idea comes from Linguistics. Linguists consider the human ability to produce and parse sentences to be innate. But behind this claim is a complex web of caveats and controversy within Linguistics.
The innateness notion wound its way into dyslexia study. The innateness concept in Linguistics applies to sentence formation (syntax). But the linguistic unit that is strongly linked to dyslexia is sound (phonology), not sentence. Research finds that the strongest predictor of dyslexia is lack of phonological awareness.
Linguists would not claim that the phonological component–the part with the strongest link to dyslexia–is innate. Think about it: a baby develops the sound patterns and structures of their native tongue from their environment after birth, not before.
Empirical rebuttal. The defining characteristic of dyslexia is reading difficulty. We can demonstrate that a person has overcome this difficulty by objective means, with standardized reading assessments pre- and posttest.
Some reading researchers use the 25th-30th percentile in these assessments as the dyslexia threshold. If students who used to score below this threshold, especially for many years, can exceed the 50th percentile posttest after the intervention and keep this gain, then the program can be considered successful in correcting the reading difficulty, or dyslexia.
WHAT ARE LEARNING DISABILITIES?
These are conditions that affect the ability to use language or do math.
The most common learning disabilities are:
→Dyslexia (reading)
→Dysgraphia (writing)
→Dyscalculia (math)
They are classified as “specific learning disabilities” in Special Education. They are more commonly called “learning disorders” in clinical settings. Some prefer the term “learning differences” to emphasize that different learners learn differently, at different rates.
We prefer the term “language processing difficulty.” This term makes clear the root of the problem in language processing.
Dyslexia
Dyslexia is a reading disability or difficulty. Those affected have problems processing language. It is the most common learning disability affecting 20% of the population.
Dyscalculia
Dyscalculia is a math disability that often co-occurs with dyslexia. Dyslexia results from language processing difficulties. These difficulties can prevent students from acquiring foundational math skills and facts in the primary grades, making math learning harder in later years. Dyscalculia affects about 10% of the population.
Dysgraphia
Dysgraphia is also caused by language processing difficulties, which impede the learning of spelling, written vocabulary and composing skills. By “dysgraphia,” we mean the above, not difficulty with the physical act of handwriting. People who cannot read (dyslexia) often also cannot write (dysgraphia).
WHAT IS LANGUAGE PROCESSING?
To use language, our brains have to receive verbal input, make sense of it and respond appropriately. We do this through several channels: speaking, listening, reading and writing.
To perform these functions, we use various parts of the linguistic system in the brain. The linguistic system may be viewed structurally as being made up of various components that are defined by their basic building blocks: sounds (phonological), words and parts of words (morphological), phrases and sentences (syntax), meaning concepts (semantics), etc.
Take a simple language task, such as hearing someone say “Yes” and responding appropriately. Minimally, this involves processing the sounds in YES and matching the output to the word you know.
To respond, you have to activate the semantic component to create your intention or meaning, the morphological to select your words, the syntactic to combine them into a grammatical sentence and so forth.
In the course of a day, we go through a myriad of language tasks in multiple modalities: read the words on the screen and type an answer, listen to a lecture and take notes, etc. And our brains have to process language super fast because language is only functional this way. Speech sounds come at us so fast that we only notice the words but not each individual sound in them. We spit out words rapidly so that listeners do not forget the beginning of our sentence when we get to the end.
Underlying our daily language use are these processes running in the brain. There are billions of them, all occurring rapidly in many parts of the linguistic system in the brain in parallel.
Occasionally, some of these processes do not run efficiently or at all. Then the system may get glitchy, grind to a halt, or crash. These problems occur in people with language processing disorders. Dyslexia is one of them.
DYSLEXIA MYTHS & FACTS
Based on over 30 years of fieldwork on language-based disorders and a decade of successful interventions with Dysolve, we present the following.
Myth – Dyslexia is lifelong
Dyslexia is due to inefficient language processes in the brain, which can be corrected. Diagnosed by certified psychologists as having dyslexia, children who completed Dysolve were able to pass state/school standardized reading tests, take no more than typical to complete schoolwork and tests, and spell, read and write as well as their typical peers.
Myth – Dyslexia is only a small subset of reading difficulties
Dysolve® AI’s evaluations of struggling readers all show language processing inefficiencies, regardless of whether they had been diagnosed with dyslexia by specialists. Dyslexia affects 20% of students, yet schools do not often provide intervention for 20% of their students.
Myth – The Gold Standard is the best
The science of reading lacks research evidence on the most efficacious treatment for students with dyslexia after 3rd grade. Popular programs, methods and approaches do not often conduct efficacy studies that meet the US Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences criteria. They also do not show positive effect on broad reading achievement for this population. The US Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse does not have any intervention meeting these criteria. It is hard to find any replicable, rigorous study with positive effect on reading comprehension for this population in meta-analytic reviews.*
Study Criteria
See Elliot & Grigorenko, 2014; Ritchey & Goeke, 2006; Stevens et al., 2021;
Sayeski & Hurford, 2022 in References
Myth – “Evidence-based” means positive evidence
Methods under study are considered “evidence-based” (Institute of Education Sciences). The Department of Education What Works Clearinghouse does not contain any rigorous, replicable study of a reading intervention that has positive effect on broad reading achievement for students with dyslexia who are in grade 3 and up.
Myth – The most expensive interventions are the best
Dyslexia interventions presently require highly trained, certified reading specialists to work with students one-on-one or in small groups. Hence the cost. Yet these interventions only help students cope with their reading difficulty year after year. An AI program can be effective and costs less than 10% of these specialist-led interventions.
Cost of Dysolve v. other methods
Myth – The most expensive evaluations are the best
The best evaluation is one that forms the blueprint for intervention. None of the traditional evaluations, no matter how lengthy, does this. Only Dysolve® AI does.
Myth – The solution to dyslexia is in neuroscience
Neuroscientists themselves point out that they may never be able to identify dyslexia traits from individual brain scans—ever. Dysolve® AI can read individual brains from its generated data to correct it—by focusing on the functional structure of the brain, not the physical. Thus, the problem of dyslexia was solved clinically and practically by AI technology.
*Dysolve AI is new. Its 2025 clinical trial showed positive effect for grade 3 and up.
REFERENCES
We have curated these premier peer-reviewed references and primary sources for more comprehensive and in-depth information. If you have any reference to recommend, please contact us.
- Anthony, N., & Bills, K. (2021). Examining college stop out rates for students with disabilities. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 8(3), 13-18. doi:10.30845/jesp.v8n3p2.
- Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education. (2023). IDEA dispute resolution data summary for U.S. and outlying areas: 2011-12 to 2021-22. https://cadreworks.org
- Donegan, R. E., & Wanzek, J. (2021). Effects of reading interventions implemented for upper elementary struggling readers: A look at recent research. Reading and Writing, 34, 1943-1977. doi: 10.1007/s11145-021-10123-y
- Dvorsky, M. R., Shroff, D., Larkin Bonds, W. B., Steinberg, A., Breaux, R., & Becker, S. P. (2023). Impacts of COVID-19 on the school experience of children and adolescents with special educational needs and disabilities. Curr Opin Psychol, 52:101635. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101635. Epub 2023 Jun 17. PMID: 37451025; PMCID: PMC10275652.
- Elliott, J. G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). The dyslexia debate. New York: Cambridge.
- Institute of Education Sciences (IES). What Works Clearinghouse. Search results: Literacy topic. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Search/Products?searchTerm=&Topic=3
- Kraft, M. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241-253. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912798
- National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). NAEP Report Card: Reading. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/
- National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Students with disabilities. Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-with-disabilities
- National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2023). IDEA full funding: Why should Congress invest in special education? Policy & Advocacy. https://ncld.org/news/policy-and-advocacy/idea-full-funding-why-should-congress-invest-in-special-education/
- National Center on Improving Literacy. State of Dyslexia. https://www.stateofdyslexia.org/
- National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
- National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
- Nelson, J. M., & Gregg, N. (2012). Depression and anxiety among transitioning adolescents and college students with ADHD, dyslexia, or comorbid ADHD/dyslexia. Journal of Attention Disorders, 16, 244–254.
- Peyton, D., & Acosta, K. (2022). Understanding special education teacher shortages. State Education Standard, The Journal of the National Association of State Boards of Education, 22(1). https://www.nasbe.org/understanding-special-education-teacher-shortages/
- Ritchey, K.D., & Goeke, J.L. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading instruction: a review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 171-183.
- Stevens, E.A., Austin, C., Moore, C., Scammacca, N., Boucher, A.N., & Vaughn, S. (2021). Current state of the evidence: Examining the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 397-417.
- Sayeski, K.L., & Hurford, D.P. (2022). A framework for examining reading-related education research and the curious case of Orton-Gillingham. Learning Disabilities, 27(2), 1-11.
- Vacca, J. S. (2008). Crime can be prevented if schools teach juvenile offenders to read. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(9), 1055-1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.01.013
- VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2017). Four dyslexia screening myths that cause more harm than good in preventing reading failure and what you can do instead. Communique, 45(7), 26-28.
ASK THE EXPERT ANYTHING
Have a question? Our team of experts in various specialties are here to help. Clinical Linguistics, Education Science, Special Education, Dyslexia Research, Reading, Writing, Math Instruction, Giftedness, Twice-Exceptionality Studies, AI in Education.
