Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article reviews cognitive and neuropsychological theories of learning disabilities, drawing on the American, British, German and French literatures and on documents of international organisations. The study is a narrative review. At the cognitive level it covers the phonological deficit, double-deficit, working memory, visual attention span and number sense accounts. At the neuropsychological level it covers the left-hemisphere reading network, the magnocellular, cerebellar and temporal sampling theories, and genetic findings. The review shows that single-cause explanations have given way to probabilistic, multiple-deficit models. The phonological deficit remains the strongest cognitive predictor of reading difficulty, yet it is neither necessary nor sufficient on its own. Orthographic transparency shapes how difficulties appear, which calls for specific criteria in transparent orthographies such as Turkish. WHO, APA, UNESCO and OECD documents and national guidelines converge on a dimensional view of diagnosis and on evidence-based, inclusive intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jale Dişli Kutlu (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: