Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-76mfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T13:07:36.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reading skills deficits in people with mental illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2020

Martina Vanova*
Affiliation:
Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, College of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom Division of Psychology, Department of Life Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
Luke Aldridge-Waddon
Affiliation:
Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, College of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom Division of Psychology, Department of Life Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
Ben Jennings
Affiliation:
Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, College of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom Division of Psychology, Department of Life Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
Ignazio Puzzo
Affiliation:
Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, College of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom Division of Psychology, Department of Life Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
Veena Kumari*
Affiliation:
Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, College of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom Division of Psychology, Department of Life Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
*
*Martina Vanova, E-mail: martina.vanova@brunel.ac.uk Veena Kumari, E-mail: veena.kumari@brunel.ac.uk
*Martina Vanova, E-mail: martina.vanova@brunel.ac.uk Veena Kumari, E-mail: veena.kumari@brunel.ac.uk

Abstract

Background

Good reading skills are important for appropriate functioning in everyday life, scholastic performance, and acquiring a higher socioeconomic status. We conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify possible deficits in specific reading skills in people with a variety of mental illnesses, including personality disorders (PDs).

Methods

We performed a systematic search of multiple databases from inception until February 2020 and conducted random-effects meta-analyses.

Results

The search yielded 34 studies with standardized assessments of reading skills in people with one or more mental illnesses. Of these, 19 studies provided data for the meta-analysis. Most studies (k = 27; meta-analysis, k = 17) were in people with schizophrenia and revealed large deficits in phonological processing (Hedge’s g = −0.88, p < 0.00001), comprehension (Hedge’s g = −0.96, p < 0.00001) and reading rate (Hedge’s g = −1.22, p = 0.002), relative to healthy controls; the single-word reading was less affected (Hedge’s g = −0.70, p < 0.00001). A few studies in affective disorders and nonforensic PDs suggested weaker deficits (for all, Hedge’s g < −0.60). In forensic populations with PDs, there was evidence of marked phonological processing (Hedge’s g = −0.85, p < 0.0001) and comprehension deficits (Hedge’s g = −0.95, p = 0.0003).

Conclusions

People with schizophrenia, and possibly forensic PD populations, demonstrate a range of reading skills deficits. Future studies are needed to establish how these deficits directly compare to those seen in developmental or acquired dyslexia and to explore the potential of dyslexia interventions to improve reading skills in these populations.

Information

Type
Review/Meta-analysis
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association
Figure 0

Table 1. Full search strategy per database and eligibility criteria.

Figure 1

Table 2. Tests and measures used in the selected studies (k = 34) and diagnoses assessed. Studies involving forensic populations are in italics.

Figure 2

Table 3 Summary of key data extracted from selected studies (k = 34).

Figure 3

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart.

Figure 4

Figure 2.2.1. Phonological processing and decoding

Figure 5

Figure 2.2.2. Comprehension

Figure 6

Figure 2.2.3 Single-word reading

Figure 7

Figure 2.2.4. Rate

Figure 8

Figure 2.2.5 Accuracy

Figure 9

Figure 2.2.6 Fluency

Figure 10

Figure 2.2.7 Speed

Figure 11

Figure 3.3.1 Phonological processing and decoding.

Figure 12

Figure 3.3.2 Comprehension.

Figure 13

Figure 4. Interpretation of observed reading deficits in included diagnoses.No deficit = nonsignificant differences between patients and healthy control (HC); Very mild deficit = Hedge’s g up to −0.30 and/or mixed results with the majority of samples scoring within the norm; Mild deficit = Hedge’s g up to −0.50 and/or reading skill at 9–10th-grade level; Moderate deficit = Hedge’s g up to −0.75 and/or reading skill at 7–8th grade level; Severe deficit = Hedge’s g over −0.75 and/or reading skill below 7th grade level. This interpretation considers whether the results were consistent or mixed. Empty circle  = Mixed evidence.

Figure 14

Figure 5.5.1. Phonological processing and decoding

Figure 15

Figure 5.5.2. Comprehension. Psychopathy.

Figure 16

Figure 6.6.1 Phonological processing and decoding.

Figure 17

Figure 6.6.2 Comprehension.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.