Identifying dyslexia when a child learns in more than one language
A bilingual child may be learning to read in English while using another language at home, reading in two school languages, or moving between writing systems with different rules. Identification of dyslexia requires the evaluator to understand that child's opportunities to learn each language, their actual literacy instruction, and their word-reading and spelling performance relative to appropriately comparable learners. Persistent difficulty learning printed words, mapping symbols to sounds, or developing accurate and automatic spelling may indicate dyslexia; limited familiarity with English vocabulary or grammar alone cannot establish the disorder. The central question is whether difficulties in the acquisition of word-level literacy exceed what the child's language experience and educational opportunities reasonably explain. International Dyslexia Association, 2025 and Lai et al., 2026.
A defensible evaluation combines developmental and family history, exposure and proficiency in each language, high-quality measures of actual reading and spelling, examination of instruction, and response to appropriate support. It records what a child can do in each language and which comparisons are valid. It also asks whether seemingly similar reading errors have different origins: a child who has never been taught an English vowel pattern may make errors that resemble those of a child with persistent difficulty learning sound–symbol correspondences despite sufficient teaching. Reading performance must be interpreted in context, and a child may need intervention while the diagnostic investigation continues. U.S. Department of Education, IDEA evaluation procedures.
The term bilingual here includes emergent bilinguals and multilingual children with unequal proficiency across their languages. Being bilingual does not mean having identical vocabulary, speaking skill, or literacy opportunities in each language. A home language can be strong for everyday conversation while the school language dominates written academic vocabulary; the reverse is also possible for specific skills. Assessment therefore maps the child's language experiences instead of assuming that one test language represents the entire child. ASHA, Multilingual Service Delivery.
The clinical concept: dyslexia across languages
Word reading and spelling, not simply difficulty understanding English
The International Dyslexia Association's 2025 revised definition identifies dyslexia through difficulties in word reading and/or spelling involving accuracy, speed, or both, with expression varying by orthography. It emphasizes persistent difficulty despite instruction effective for peers, a continuum of severity, interacting developmental influences, and the importance of language and literacy support. Phonological and morphological processing difficulties are common but are not obligatory features of every case. This definition matters especially for bilingual assessment because the same underlying learning difficulty can appear as unusually slow accurate reading in one language and both slow and inaccurate reading in another. International Dyslexia Association, 2025.
Dyslexia is primarily a word-level reading and spelling problem. Reading comprehension depends both on recognizing printed words and understanding language; therefore a child may decode English accurately yet misunderstand an English passage because of limited vocabulary, unfamiliar syntax, or background knowledge. Conversely, a child may understand a story read aloud yet struggle to read its words independently. Comparing oral comprehension, word reading, pseudoword decoding, spelling, and text fluency clarifies which process is limiting achievement. Peterson and Pennington, 201260198-6); IDA, 2025.
Diagnostic classification and educational categories
In DSM-5-TR, persistent difficulties with reading can be considered within specific learning disorder with impairment in reading when full clinical criteria are met. The profile is evaluated in relation to age, opportunities to learn, functional impact, and alternative explanations; a bilingual label neither proves nor excludes a disorder. ICD-11 uses developmental learning disorder classifications with corresponding reading impairment. The official IDA definition describes dyslexia conceptually but does not substitute for clinical or educational eligibility criteria. American Psychiatric Association, Specific Learning Disorder; IDA, 2025.
In U.S. schools, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) separately governs evaluation and eligibility for special education. Its specific learning disability category can encompass dyslexia. Schools must use varied sources of information; they must consider the child's native language or mode of communication, choose nondiscriminatory and valid instruments, and avoid relying on one test. Under IDEA, limited English proficiency and inadequate appropriate reading instruction cannot be the determinant factors in identifying a disability. These protections prevent inappropriate disability identification while preserving the right of children with genuine dyslexia to be evaluated and supported. IDEA §300.304; IDEA §300.306.
Why language-learning differences can resemble dyslexia
Unequal exposure changes what a reading test measures
Children accumulate knowledge of words, grammar, sound patterns, letters, and print through different experiences. A recently arrived child might recognize printed words in a home language while still acquiring English sound–letter mappings. Another child may have learned only English literacy at school despite speaking Spanish, Arabic, Ukrainian, or Mandarin at home. For either child, a low English achievement score may partly reflect limited exposure rather than a persistent reading-learning disability. A test's reference group and standardization history determine whether its score is interpretable for a particular child; simply giving the same test to all children does not produce equivalent measurement. ASHA, Multilingual Service Delivery; Lai et al., 2026.
Language learning can affect performance in distinct ways. Unfamiliar vocabulary depresses reading comprehension and oral naming even when decoding is secure. Limited knowledge of a particular sound distinction can change performance on phoneme identification. In a language with unfamiliar letter shapes or consonant clusters, decoding may be slow during normal initial learning. Problems appear clinically more informative when the child has had sufficient opportunities to acquire the taught patterns yet continues to make persistent, disproportionate word-reading and spelling errors or advances unusually slowly compared with learners with similar histories. Melby-Lervåg and Lervåg, 2011; Lai et al., 2026.
Reading performance and spoken language are related but distinct
A bilingual child's weaker spoken English can lower classroom participation, academic vocabulary scores, and literal or inferential comprehension. These outcomes deserve support but do not automatically show dyslexia. Assessment should contrast spoken-language comprehension with tasks of printed-word identification, decoding unfamiliar letter strings, spelling, and timed fluent reading. A child can have both a reading disability and emerging second-language proficiency. The evaluator should not explain away clear word-level difficulties as language acquisition when other evidence points toward persistent impairment. Peterson and Pennington, 201260198-6); IDEA §300.306.
Reading systems shape how dyslexia appears
Orthographic transparency, accuracy, and fluency
Orthography is the system of symbols and conventions used to write a language. Some alphabetic writing systems have comparatively consistent letter–sound relationships, while English has many context-dependent spellings and pronunciations. Children exposed to more consistent orthographies can learn basic word-decoding accuracy relatively quickly, so persistent reading difficulty may be especially conspicuous as slow, effortful reading. English can reveal difficulties through word-reading accuracy, nonword decoding, spelling, and rate together. Cross-European research documents substantial differences in the pace of foundation literacy acquisition across orthographies. Seymour, Aro, and Erskine, 2003; Caravolas et al., 2013.
A child who reads Spanish words with reasonable accuracy but unusually low speed can therefore still have a reading disability, even while making numerous English spelling errors. The correct comparison is with appropriate readers of Spanish and English at comparable instructional stages; comparing a Spanish accuracy percentage directly with an English accuracy percentage would ignore differences in orthographic complexity and test construction. Accuracy and speed are separate measurements, and both may inform identification. IDA, 2025.
Distinct scripts and linguistic structures
Cross-script assessment may concern alphabetic writing, morphosyllabic characters, consonant-oriented scripts, or other literacy conventions. The units that print represents, visual forms to be learned, morphology, and the role of tone or syllable structure differ. Clinicians should select language-specific reading and writing tasks with suitable developmental benchmarks rather than translate English items word for word and assume equivalent difficulty. A phoneme-deletion item, a timed word list, and a character-recognition task can draw on partly different knowledge in different writing systems. The broad construct of learning to recognize written words remains meaningful, but its operationalization must fit the written language. IDA, 2025; Caravolas et al., 2013.
Literacy history determines what evidence is available. A child may communicate fluently in a home language yet have received no literacy instruction in its script. Poor performance on a reading test in that script then has weak diagnostic significance. Families should be asked whether the child learned to read or write that language, at what age, in what setting, and with what materials and feedback. The absence of literacy instruction in a home language should never be described as evidence that the child's language is deficient. ASHA, Multilingual Service Delivery.
Cross-language predictors of reading difficulty
Phonological awareness and phonological representations
Phonological awareness concerns recognizing and manipulating sound structures in spoken words. Depending on the task, children identify syllables, onsets, rimes, or individual phonemes. A large meta-analytic literature links phonemic awareness and early word-reading development, but the measured performance also depends on task demands, oral-language knowledge, and familiarity with the tested sound inventory. Some phonological skills can support learning across languages, although transfer is variable rather than automatic. Melby-Lervåg, Lyster, and Hulme, 2012; Melby-Lervåg and Lervåg, 2011.
For emergent bilinguals, phoneme awareness should be examined in linguistic context. A low score may arise from difficulty manipulating sounds, from misunderstanding task instructions, or from a contrast that is uncommon in the child's stronger language. Examiners can use practice items, culturally and linguistically appropriate stimuli, and complementary measures to distinguish these possibilities. Stronger evidence comes from converging results across reading measures, not from treating one phonological task as a diagnostic switch. Lai et al., 2026.
Decoding and pseudoword reading
Decoding tests assess whether a child can apply taught print–sound knowledge to pronounce unfamiliar strings. Pseudowords reduce reliance on memorized vocabulary but remain sensitive to the writing system and the child's exposure to its letter patterns. The diagnostic meaning of a failed pseudoword item depends on whether the relevant correspondences have been taught and understood. A child who struggles on frequently taught patterns despite appropriate instruction may warrant a deeper assessment. A child tested on untaught patterns has not demonstrated the same kind of persistent learning difficulty. What Works Clearinghouse, Foundational Skills.
A 2026 systematic review of 23 studies on emergent bilingual students found comparatively promising criterion validity for decoding, reading fluency, and phonological-awareness assessments when predicting second-language reading outcomes. Other assessment domains had weaker evidence in that particular research synthesis, and the authors identified limited representation of diverse language backgrounds. This finding argues for selecting and validating tests for the actual population; it does not establish a single universal screen or claim that rapid naming is unimportant in dyslexia generally. Lai et al., 2026.
Naming speed, orthographic learning, and morphology
Rapid automatized naming measures how quickly a child names familiar visual stimuli, such as letters or objects. It can relate to reading fluency, but results are influenced by the familiarity of stimulus labels and processing demands in the test language. Naming speed should be considered alongside direct word-reading performance and the instrument's bilingual evidence. Similarly, orthographic learning—the accumulation of stable written-word representations—may be affected by the amount and quality of print exposure in each language. IDA, 2025; Lai et al., 2026.
Morphemes are meaningful word parts, including roots and affixes. They can help readers interpret and spell words, but the relevant forms and structures differ by language. The 2025 dyslexia definition explicitly recognizes the relevance of morphological processing. In bilingual evaluation, morphological tasks may clarify a child's language-specific strengths and barriers, while broad claims about diagnostic cutoffs or exact transfer between particular languages require corresponding studies. IDA, 2025.
Evidence that extends across languages—and where it stops
Cross-language transfer describes a relationship between skills acquired in one language and performance or learning in another. A meta-analysis of correlational research found evidence of links across languages in phonological awareness, decoding, oral language, and comprehension, with relationships varying by domain and population. Such correlations show that languages are not cognitively sealed compartments; they do not imply that an English screening cutoff can be imported unchanged into any other language. Melby-Lervåg and Lervåg, 2011.
Longitudinal research on early literacy in several European orthographies suggests that letter knowledge, phoneme awareness, and rapid naming can predict growth across languages, even as the expression and pace of reading development differ by spelling system. Studies covering particular alphabets should not be generalized to every script and language pair. Direct assessment evidence for children whose languages, literacy opportunities, or migration histories are underrepresented remains limited. Caravolas et al., 2013; Lai et al., 2026.
In a 2026 randomized trial involving children with low reading achievement in Welsh-medium schools, a structured Welsh-language literacy intervention improved Welsh word reading and yielded short-term improvement in English decoding. Differences in English were not maintained at the follow-up comparison, when the waitlisted group had also received intervention. This carefully bounded result supports the possibility of cross-language transfer while showing that its magnitude and persistence depend on intervention and study design; it is not proof that support in a single language is universally sufficient. Jones et al., 2026.
The strongest claims concern the centrality of word reading and spelling, the need for multiple measures, and the importance of opportunity to learn. More tentative claims concern the incremental validity of a particular translated test, optimal language combinations for assessment, and universal diagnostic thresholds across scripts. Researchers and practitioners should report the age, country, language backgrounds, schooling, and measures behind any apparent predictive effect. Lai et al., 2026.
A culturally and linguistically responsive evaluation
Step 1: Document language and literacy opportunity
Assessment begins with a structured interview with family members, teachers, and, when appropriate, the child. Record language exposure from early childhood to the present; languages used with each caregiver; hearing and health history; school transitions; prior reading instruction; attendance; quality and continuity of teaching; access to print; and family history of persistent reading or spelling difficulty. Ask separately about listening comprehension, conversation, word recognition, spelling, oral reading, and confidence in each language. The interview should allow families to describe strengths and concerns in their own terms, using competent interpreters where needed. ASHA, Multilingual Service Delivery; IDEA §300.304.
The evaluator should distinguish age at first exposure to a language from the age at which structured literacy instruction began. A ten-year-old who began English instruction only months earlier has a different instructional reference point from a ten-year-old who has received consistent English literacy teaching since kindergarten. A home language may have been used orally without systematic writing instruction; its reading scores then cannot serve as though the child had received years of schooling in that script. Report instructional circumstances explicitly in the interpretation. IDEA §300.306.
Step 2: Examine direct reading and spelling skills
An evaluation of suspected dyslexia should directly measure the abilities that define the problem: familiar word recognition, unfamiliar-word or pseudoword decoding where appropriate, spelling, and accuracy and speed of reading. Add letter–sound knowledge, phonological tasks, text reading, and comprehension as clinically indicated. Use age-appropriate and language-appropriate norms only when the standardization supports that interpretation. When valid bilingual norms are unavailable, descriptive performance, instructional benchmarks, careful observation, and repeated measures may be more meaningful than a conventional standard score. Lai et al., 2026; IDEA §300.304.
No test should be labeled culture-free. A word-reading measure depends on print experience and the orthography being tested, while a vocabulary measure also depends heavily on the child's exposure to the test language. A child may show stronger reading performance in one language than the other, but the evaluator must ask which language has received more literacy instruction. A difference between languages is a hypothesis-generating observation, not an independent diagnostic rule. ASHA, Multilingual Service Delivery.
Step 3: Assess relevant oral-language skills
Developmental language disorder, hearing difficulties, and limited exposure to a school language may affect comprehension and classroom achievement. A speech-language professional experienced with multilingual development may examine narrative ability, language comprehension, phonological processing, morphology, and language learning in a child’s languages. A language disorder can coexist with dyslexia, and a language disorder should not be inferred from accented speech, code-switching, or a difference from monolingual English vocabulary norms alone. ASHA, Multilingual Service Delivery; IDA, 2025.
Step 4: Compare appropriately and triangulate
Useful comparisons include the child's own progress over time; classmates who have received comparable instruction and have similar language exposure; supported language-specific norms; performance across decoding, spelling, and oral comprehension; and evidence from two languages when the child has learned literacy in both. Such comparisons help identify whether the reading problem is broader or more persistent than expected. The evaluator reports discrepancies among sources rather than mechanically averaging them into one score. Lai et al., 2026; IDEA §300.304.
Step 5: Observe learning under appropriate instruction
Progress monitoring is especially informative when the child receives explicit, systematic instruction in the relevant sound–symbol correspondences and abundant supported practice. Track what was taught, intervention duration and intensity, attendance, accuracy, speed, and the child's response across several measurement points. A limited response can strengthen concern about a persistent learning disorder, but instruction can be ineffective or mismatched for reasons unrelated to dyslexia. Schools should investigate and adjust teaching rather than wait for years of failure before responding. IDA, 2025; What Works Clearinghouse, Foundational Skills.
Screening, dynamic assessment, and formal identification
A screening measure estimates the probability of a later difficulty or the need for additional examination. It is designed for early risk detection and can lead to supplemental instruction and monitoring. It does not itself establish a clinical diagnosis, confirm IDEA eligibility, or justify a fixed prediction for an individual. For emergent bilinguals, the language composition of the validation sample, chosen outcome measure, and cutoff determine how well a screener generalizes. Lai et al., 2026.
Dynamic assessment evaluates how a child learns when given teaching, prompts, and feedback rather than only describing performance at one moment. A systematic review of dynamic approaches to reading disorder found some evidence of added prediction for bilingual students, with considerable variation by task and age and important research limitations. Another meta-analysis focused on language disorder in bilingual children—not dyslexia—found suggestive value for judgments of modifiability but warned about the quality of the evidence. These two literatures must not be conflated: a language-disorder diagnostic result cannot be imported as a validated dyslexia test. Dixon et al., 2023; Orellana, Wada, and Gillam, 2019.
A comprehensive evaluation assembles the full history and test results to identify the nature and functional significance of the learning difficulty. School eligibility under IDEA is determined through the applicable multidisciplinary process; the clinical diagnosis of a learning disorder and decisions about education plans involve partly overlapping, but different, frameworks. The child's right to assessment cannot be replaced by indefinite observation, and poor screening performance should trigger a suitable response even while further evaluation takes place. IDEA §300.304; IDEA §300.306.
Common diagnostic errors in bilingual children
Mistaking language difference for disability
The first error is diagnosing dyslexia primarily because an English learner reads below a monolingual English grade-level norm, especially when direct instruction in English orthography has been brief. A second is using vocabulary or comprehension measures as though they were specific measures of word-level decoding. A third is treating language switching, grammatical transfer, or accent as evidence of disordered phonological processing. These practices can exaggerate apparent deficits and obscure strengths. The remedy is linguistically appropriate measure selection and explicit documentation of instructional history. ASHA, Multilingual Service Delivery; IDEA §300.304.
Explaining away dyslexia as second-language learning
The opposite error is delaying intervention and evaluation indefinitely because a child is bilingual. A student can receive substantial explicit teaching, display persistent and pronounced decoding and spelling difficulties, and continue to need reading-disability evaluation even when English proficiency remains developing. Evidence from reading itself, progress monitoring, language development, and comparable peers provides a stronger basis than broad assumptions about immigration or multilingual homes. IDEA explicitly requires proper consideration of limited English proficiency in eligibility decisions; it does not authorize withholding an evaluation because a child is learning English. IDEA §300.306; IDA, 2025.
Overinterpreting one low score or an IQ gap
Another error is interpreting a single IQ, phonological-memory, naming-speed, or translated achievement score as decisive. Dyslexia is heterogeneous, and the revised IDA definition does not depend on an intelligence–reading discrepancy. Standardized measures can help describe a profile, but test validity and convergence matter more than a purported diagnostic magic number. Neither an IQ discrepancy nor a neuroimaging finding is necessary to establish word-level literacy difficulties. IDA, 2025; IDEA §300.304.
Interpreting illustrative bilingual profiles
Strong home-language literacy, emerging English comprehension
Consider a child who reads and spells accurately in a well-taught home language, decodes many taught English words accurately, and struggles mostly with English vocabulary and text comprehension. That pattern makes limited school-language proficiency and language-based comprehension demands particularly important hypotheses. It does not automatically settle the case, since each literacy system has different demands and dyslexia can be more visible in reading speed or complex spelling. The next steps are language-comprehension assessment, instruction review, and direct measures of reading fluency and untaught word decoding. IDA, 2025.
Persistent decoding difficulties across appropriately taught languages
Imagine a child who has received sustained literacy instruction in both school and home languages, struggles with word recognition and spelling in both, and makes unusually slow progress despite individualized systematic teaching. This pattern increases concern about a persistent reading-learning disability, particularly if the comparison data are relevant and language history supports the inference. It still requires comprehensive professional evaluation, because schooling quality, instruction intensity, hearing, language disorder, and other factors must be considered. Cross-language weakness is informative when the child actually had adequate literacy instruction in both languages; it is not an obligatory diagnostic criterion. Lai et al., 2026; IDEA §300.304.
Accurate but very slow reading in one orthography
A third child reads words correctly in a relatively consistent alphabetic orthography but needs extraordinary time, avoids independent reading, and has difficulty spelling or developing automatic recognition. Accuracy alone could obscure impairment. The assessment should examine standardized or appropriately benchmarked fluency, reading effort, spelling, the child's actual instructional experience, and functioning in each language. The 2025 definition deliberately recognizes speed and accuracy as potentially distinct expressions of dyslexia. Seymour, Aro, and Erskine, 2003; IDA, 2025.
These examples illustrate reasoning rather than provide rules for diagnosing a particular child. Individual clinical decisions require history, adequate measures, and professional judgment.
Intervention while evaluation proceeds
Teach foundational reading skills explicitly
When a bilingual learner struggles with decoding, instruction should target the observed skill deficits through explicit, systematic teaching of sound–symbol relationships, phonemic awareness as appropriate, blending, word analysis, spelling, repeated application in connected text, and monitored practice. The What Works Clearinghouse foundational-skills guide rates evidence for phoneme–letter connections and decoding-related instruction as strong and recommends daily connected reading to build accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. In parallel, English learners often need oral language, academic vocabulary, and content knowledge support rather than a narrowly print-focused response alone. What Works Clearinghouse, Foundational Skills; What Works Clearinghouse, English Learners.
Instruction must fit the language being taught. English phonics lessons require the conventions of English; instruction in another alphabet or script must reflect its corresponding orthographic structure. Teachers should establish which print–sound or print–meaning relationships a child has already mastered, which have been taught, and which require planned instruction. Decoding intervention and rich language learning can be simultaneous. A child's access to meaningful content, bilingual identity, and family communication should be maintained during reading support. What Works Clearinghouse, English Learners; IDA, 2025.
Monitor outcomes in ways that match the learner
Instructional progress is best assessed with measures sensitive to the taught skill, administered repeatedly under consistent conditions. A score may improve because children acquire new orthographic patterns or increase familiarity with a test format; the interpretation should consider the actual learning that occurred and whether the child can generalize skills. Where useful, monitor accuracy and efficiency separately. Families can support enjoyable reading, storytelling, vocabulary, and positive attitudes toward both languages, while trained educators provide targeted decoding instruction. What Works Clearinghouse, Foundational Skills.
Assistive technology and accommodations
Text-to-speech, accessible digital text, audiobooks, and extra time can provide access to grade-level information while word-level reading is being developed. The choice should depend on the child's functional needs, language availability, and learning context. Such accommodations can supplement instruction; they do not themselves establish the cause of reading difficulty or replace systematic teaching. Decisions about an IEP, Section 504 plan, or other school-based supports should follow the appropriate U.S. legal process and the child's documented needs. IDEA §300.304.
School rights in the United States
Under IDEA, a school evaluation uses a variety of functional, developmental, and academic information, includes parent input, and administers assessment in the child's native language or other suitable mode likely to yield accurate information unless clearly infeasible. The school must avoid culturally discriminatory procedures and cannot use one measure as the only criterion. Eligibility determinations consider whether limited English proficiency or lack of appropriate reading instruction is the determinant factor, while also assessing whether the child otherwise meets disability criteria. These are procedural and substantive safeguards for bilingual children. IDEA §300.304; IDEA §300.306.
Families can ask the school to explain which reading skills were assessed, whether norming samples represent children with comparable language exposure, what instructional history was reviewed, how an interpreter was used, and what evidence supports the eligibility decision. If evaluation data are incomplete, the written report should state that limitation. The precise protections and dispute procedures depend on the applicable legal framework and the child's situation. Clinicians and educators should describe the assessment and available educational options clearly enough that families can make informed decisions. IDEA §300.304.
Family and school collaboration
Families provide information unavailable in brief school testing: early language milestones, experience with books, sibling or parent reading histories, preferred languages, and observations of strengths outside the classroom. Teachers contribute records of instruction, authentic spelling and reading work, and measures of growth. Evaluators integrate these accounts and document how differing expectations between languages affect performance. When an interpreter participates, qualified interpretation should support meaning and rapport; informal translation of a normed instrument does not automatically preserve its psychometric validity. ASHA, Multilingual Service Delivery.
Communication with a child should protect dignity. Explain difficulties as specific reading-learning needs and identify concrete abilities the child already has, including oral storytelling, subject knowledge, music, mathematics, or home-language communication where supported by observation. Students should understand why they receive certain supports and be included in decisions as their development permits. Bilingualism can remain an important family and cultural resource throughout assessment and instruction. This supportive approach is compatible with rigorous diagnostic standards and individualized assistance. IDA, 2025.
Research limits and future questions
Evidence on bilingual dyslexia identification is substantial enough to reject English-only intuition as an assessment method, yet uneven across language pairs, educational systems, and measurement instruments. The systematic review by Lai and colleagues found promising prediction for selected reading-related measures but noted that research participants had relatively homogeneous backgrounds. This restricts the generality of findings to children from underrepresented languages or circumstances. Reports of sensitivity, specificity, and cutoffs must be interpreted against a defined population and independently validated outcomes. Lai et al., 2026.
Dynamic methods show promise for probing learning processes, but their incremental value for dyslexia identification in linguistically diverse populations requires stronger independent testing. Studies on language disorder and studies on reading disorder answer different questions. Similarly, cross-language intervention transfer is scientifically interesting but cannot guarantee that instruction in one language will remediate another language's orthographic challenges. The established clinical response remains to gather converging data, provide effective instruction, and adapt assessment to the child's actual languages and literacy opportunities. Dixon et al., 2023; Orellana, Wada, and Gillam, 2019.
Questions parents and educators frequently ask
Can bilingualism cause dyslexia?
Dyslexia involves interacting genetic, neurobiological, and environmental influences in reading development. Using or learning multiple languages is not itself a diagnostic cause. Different languages affect how literacy difficulties become visible and which instruction a child has experienced. The evaluator should consider both the child's learning history and persistent word-level reading difficulties. IDA, 2025.
Does dyslexia have to appear identically in both languages?
No. Accuracy and speed vary with orthography, and some children have received little or no literacy instruction in one of their languages. Consistent problems across adequately taught languages can strengthen the interpretation, while differing manifestations do not rule out dyslexia. The central concern is persistent word-reading or spelling difficulty interpreted in context. Seymour, Aro, and Erskine, 2003; IDA, 2025.
Is an English-only dyslexia test enough?
A single English test cannot provide a full account of a multilingual child's literacy skills and learning opportunities. The appropriate assessment examines relevant languages and instruction where feasible and combines multiple measures. Test choice depends on instrument validity and available norms; some children will lack an adequately normed test in a home language, which must be acknowledged rather than disguised by unsupported scores. IDEA §300.304; Lai et al., 2026.
Should schools wait until an English learner becomes fluent?
When word-level reading concerns are significant, schools can start evidence-informed reading support and gather assessment data while language proficiency develops. IDEA requires attention to limited English proficiency and instruction in eligibility decisions, yet it also provides evaluation requirements for suspected disability. Waiting for an arbitrary level of English fluency can delay access to appropriate reading instruction and identification. IDEA §300.304; IDEA §300.306.
Which test scores best predict reading risk in emergent bilinguals?
A 2026 systematic review found relatively stronger criterion-validity evidence for decoding, reading fluency, and phonological-awareness measures than for several other assessment categories in the included studies. Predictive utility depends on the language pair, age, measures, school context, and validation sample. No score or small set of scores eliminates the need for an individualized, multidisciplinary interpretation. Lai et al., 2026.
Can a child receive reading intervention before a definitive diagnosis?
Yes. Targeted reading support can begin as soon as meaningful risk or difficulty is identified. Early literacy interventions should be based on observed learning needs and evaluated through progress monitoring. Formal diagnostic and educational decisions can proceed in parallel according to the applicable framework. What Works Clearinghouse, Foundational Skills; IDA, 2025.
Conclusion
Identifying dyslexia in bilingual children requires a precise account of how reading is learned in each language. The strongest evaluation interprets word-reading accuracy, reading speed, decoding and spelling together with language development, instructional exposure, cultural and linguistic measurement validity, and evidence of learning over time. It distinguishes the effects of emerging proficiency from a persistent learning difficulty while allowing both to coexist. Families, teachers, reading specialists, and qualified clinicians contribute different pieces of evidence; the resulting decisions should guide timely, equitable, research-supported instruction and access to learning. International Dyslexia Association, 2025; IDEA §300.304.
Related Articles
Dyslexia Testing: Screening, Evaluation, and Diagnosis — A comprehensive examination of risk screening, direct measures of reading and spelling, differential assessment, and professional diagnostic interpretation.
Structured Literacy for Dyslexia: Principles and Evidence — Research foundations for systematic instruction in phonology, word recognition, spelling, and connected text.
Dyslexia and Spelling Difficulties: Orthographic Learning — How word-specific spelling knowledge develops and why writing systems shape the expression of difficulty.
ADHD and Executive Function — Scientific context for distinguishing reading-specific impairment from attention and executive-function difficulties and understanding co-occurrence.
Autism and Adult Neurodiversity — Scientific context for neurodevelopmental diversity, learning profiles, and the limits of broad identity labels as clinical explanations.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). What are specific learning disorders? Official clinical overview.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Multilingual service delivery in audiology and speech-language pathology. ASHA Practice Portal.
Caravolas, M., Lervåg, A., Defior, S., Seidlová Málková, G., and Hulme, C. (2013). Different patterns, but equivalent predictors, of growth in reading in consistent and inconsistent orthographies. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1398–1407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612473122.
Dixon, C., Oxley, E., Nash, H., and Steenberg Gellert, A. (2023). Does dynamic assessment offer an alternative approach to identifying reading disorder? A systematic review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 56(6), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221117510.
International Dyslexia Association. (2025). Explanation of the 2025 updated definition of dyslexia. Official statement.
Jones, M., Evans-Jones, G., Huws, T., Clark, C., Hulme, C., and Downing, C. (2026). Cross-language transfer in bilingual children with reading difficulties: Effects of a literacy intervention on word reading. Reading and Writing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-026-10795-4.
Lai, J., Rice, M., Quinonez-Beltran, J. F., Pittman, R. T., and Joshi, R. M. (2026). Identifying emergent bilinguals at risk for reading difficulties: A systematic review of criterion-validity of existing assessments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 59(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194251331533.
Melby-Lervåg, M., and Lervåg, A. (2011). Cross-linguistic transfer of oral language, decoding, phonological awareness and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(1), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01477.x.
Melby-Lervåg, M., Lyster, S.-A. H., and Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 322–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026744.
Orellana, C. I., Wada, R., and Gillam, R. B. (2019). The use of dynamic assessment for the diagnosis of language disorders in bilingual children: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28(3), 1298–1317. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_AJSLP-18-0202.
Peterson, R. L., and Pennington, B. F. (2012). Developmental dyslexia. The Lancet, 379(9830), 1997–2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60198-660198-6).
Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., and Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 143–174. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661859.
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). IDEA regulations: Sec. 300.304, Evaluation procedures. Official rule.
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). IDEA regulations: Sec. 300.306, Determination of eligibility. Official rule.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school. What Works Clearinghouse. Practice guide.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2016; revised 2019). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade. What Works Clearinghouse. Practice guide.