Abstract
Background: Parents and caregivers play an important role in supporting children with dyslexia, particularly through home-based reading activities and informal learning support. Although parental involvement is widely acknowledged in dyslexia research, studies that explicitly examine parents’ challenges, expectations and roles in home-based support remain fragmented across disciplines.
Objectives: This study aimed to map global publication trends, thematic emphases and intellectual structures in research on parents and caregivers in the context of dyslexia.
Method: A bibliometric review was conducted using 437 peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in the Scopus database and published between 2000 and 2026. VOSviewer was used to examine international collaboration patterns, keyword co-occurrence networks and author co-citation structures.
Results: The findings show that research output and collaboration are concentrated in high-income Western countries, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, with limited representation from non-Western contexts. Keyword analysis indicates that parental involvement is mainly framed within child-centred, clinical and school-based research paradigms, while parent-centred perspectives and home-based support remain peripheral. Author co-citation analysis further shows that the field is shaped by developmental and cognitive research traditions, with limited consolidation around parent-focused or design-oriented scholarship.
Conclusion: This review identifies a gap in research addressing parents’ challenges and design-related expectations in home-based dyslexia support.
Contribution: The study contributes a structured bibliometric overview of parental dyslexia research and offers directions for developing parent-responsive, context-sensitive and design-informed dyslexia support initiatives.
Keywords: dyslexia; parents; caregivers; bibliometric analysis; home-based support.
Introduction
Dyslexia is one of the most widely recognised specific learning difficulties affecting children’s literacy development across educational systems. It is commonly characterised by persistent difficulties in accurate and fluent word recognition, spelling and decoding, despite adequate intelligence and educational opportunity (Shaywitz 2021; Snowling & Hulme 2020). These reading-related difficulties may affect children’s academic progress, self-confidence, emotional well-being and participation in formal schooling, particularly when support is delayed or inconsistent (Wilmot et al. 2023; Xiao et al. 2023). For this reason, children with dyslexia often require sustained support that extends beyond classroom-based instruction. Within this broader support framework, parents and caregivers play a central role in facilitating children’s literacy development, particularly through shared reading activities, homework support and emotional encouragement in the home environment. Previous research has shown that parental involvement and family literacy practices are associated with children’s reading outcomes, motivation and engagement (Al Otaiba et al. 2009; Sénéchal & Young 2008). However, when children experience dyslexia, parental involvement may become more complex and demanding. Parents frequently report challenges related to limited pedagogical knowledge, uncertainty about effective instructional strategies, emotional strain and difficulties accessing appropriate resources for supporting reading at home (Radke, Mahlau & Köller 2020; Woodcock 2020). Recent studies have increasingly recognised the importance of parents’ roles in dyslexia support, particularly in relation to home-based literacy activities, parent-involved interventions and school–family collaboration (Guo & Keles 2025; Neville et al. 2022; Piao & Rangra 2024). These studies suggest that parents are not merely supplementary supporters of learning, but key stakeholders whose needs, constraints and decision-making roles should inform the design of dyslexia support resources used in home settings. In this context, parents’ expectations regarding instructional clarity, structured progression and practical usability are important considerations in the development of support materials for children with dyslexia. Theoretically, this study is informed by ecological, sociocultural and family literacy perspectives. Ecological systems theory positions the home as a key microsystem that directly shapes children’s learning experiences, while sociocultural theory emphasises the role of guided interaction and scaffolding in literacy development (Bronfenbrenner 1979; Vygotsky 1978). From a family literacy perspective, literacy development is also shaped by reading practices, routines and interactions that occur within the home environment (Sénéchal & Young 2008). These perspectives support the view that parents and caregivers should be examined not only as background variables in children’s literacy outcomes, but also as active participants in dyslexia support.
Over the past two decades, dyslexia research has expanded across education, psychology, neuroscience and health-related disciplines. Bibliometric studies have shown that dyslexia research has grown substantially, with strong attention to cognitive processes, diagnosis, screening, intervention and neurodevelopmental explanations (Nabil, Matore & Zainal 2026; Wu et al. 2022). However, research focusing specifically on parents and caregivers appears across several strands of literature, including family literacy, parental stress, intervention support, home literacy environments and perceptions of educational support. This distribution makes it difficult to obtain a coherent overview of how parents’ challenges and expectations are conceptualised within the broader dyslexia literature. Bibliometric analysis offers a systematic and quantitative approach for synthesising large bodies of academic literature by examining publication trends, collaboration networks and thematic relationships (Donthu et al. 2021). Scopus was selected as the data source for this study because it provides broad multidisciplinary coverage and is widely used in bibliometric research (Baas et al. 2020). Although bibliometric methods have been applied in dyslexia research, existing analyses have largely prioritised clinical, developmental, screening or neurocognitive perspectives rather than parent-centred and home-based support issues (Nabil et al. 2026; Wu et al. 2022). To date, limited bibliometric attention has been given to mapping how parents and caregivers are represented within dyslexia research, particularly in relation to home-based support, practical resource use and design expectations.
Addressing this gap is important for informing future research directions and supporting the development of evidence-informed, parent-responsive dyslexia support initiatives. Accordingly, this bibliometric study is guided by the following research questions:
- What are the global publication trends and international collaboration patterns in research related to parents and caregivers of children with dyslexia?
- What are the dominant thematic clusters and research emphases in the literature on parental involvement in dyslexia, as revealed through keyword co-occurrence analysis?
- What does author co-citation analysis reveal about the intellectual structure and dominant research traditions underpinning research on parents and dyslexia?
Research methods and design
Research strategy
This study employed a systematic two-stage screening strategy to retrieve relevant publications for bibliometric analysis. The search was conducted using the Scopus database, which was selected because of its broad multidisciplinary coverage of peer-reviewed literature across education, psychology, social sciences and related fields. Scopus is also widely used in bibliometric studies because it provides structured bibliographic metadata suitable for analysing publication trends, citation patterns, co-authorship networks and keyword relationships (Baas et al. 2020; Donthu et al. 2021). The data were extracted from Scopus in December 2025. The dataset included records indexed in Scopus at the time of extraction and covered publications from 2000 to 2026, including early online records assigned to 2026. In the first stage, an initial broad search was performed using the Title, Abstract and Keywords fields. The following Boolean expression was applied:
TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( parent* OR caregiver* ) AND dyslexia )
This initial search strategy was intentionally broad to maximise the retrieval of publications related to parents’ and caregivers’ roles, experiences and involvement in dyslexia research. Such an approach allowed dominant themes and research patterns to emerge inductively rather than being constrained by narrowly defined search terms. The first-stage search yielded 1306 records. In the second stage, the search results were refined to improve relevance and alignment with the study’s scope. The refinement criteria included publication year, subject area, document type, source type and language. Specifically, the dataset was limited to journal articles published between 2000 and 2026, indexed under Social Sciences (SOCI), Arts and Humanities (ARTS), and Psychology (PSYC), and written in English. Only publications from journal sources were retained. Following this refinement process, a total of 437 journal articles were selected for bibliometric analysis. All eligible records indexed in Scopus at the time of data extraction were included to support comprehensive coverage of the research domain. The final dataset of 437 journal articles served as the basis for subsequent bibliometric mapping and network analyses. Table 1 summarises the search strategy and retrieval process.
| TABLE 1: Search strategy and retrieval process. |
Data analysis
The bibliometric analysis was conducted using VOSviewer version 1.6.20, a specialised software tool for constructing and visualising bibliometric networks (Van Eck & Waltman 2017). VOSviewer was selected because it allows large bibliographic datasets to be analysed through network visualisations of collaboration patterns, keyword relationships and citation structures. All bibliographic records retrieved from Scopus were exported in CSV format, including information on authorship, affiliations, publication year, abstracts, author keywords, index keywords and citation data. Prior to analysis, the dataset was checked for completeness and suitability for bibliometric mapping. The exported records were then imported into VOSviewer for network analysis. To address the research questions, three bibliometric techniques were applied. First, country-level co-authorship analysis was conducted using authors’ affiliation data to examine global publication output and international collaboration patterns. Co-authorship relationships between countries were visualised to identify leading contributing nations and the structure of cross-national research networks in studies related to parents and dyslexia. Second, keyword co-occurrence analysis was performed to identify dominant research themes and conceptual emphases within the literature. Both author keywords and index keywords were included to enhance thematic coverage. Keywords were analysed based on frequency of occurrence and co-occurrence relationships, allowing thematic clusters to emerge through network proximity. Third, author co-citation analysis was employed to explore the intellectual structure of the research field. This analysis examined how frequently pairs of authors were cited together across the dataset, thereby identifying influential scholars and dominant research traditions underpinning research on parents and dyslexia (Small 1973). Network maps were generated using VOSviewer. For each analysis, VOSviewer was used to construct interpretable network visualisations based on item frequency, link strength and cluster formation. The maps were interpreted descriptively by examining node size, network centrality, link strength and cluster composition. The results are presented according to the study’s research questions.
Ethical considerations
This study analysed secondary bibliographic data retrieved from the Scopus database. No human or animal participants were involved, and no personal, identifiable or sensitive data were collected. As the study relied solely on publicly available bibliographic records, formal ethical clearance or institutional review board approval was not required.
Results
This section presents the results of the bibliometric analysis based on data retrieved from the Scopus database. The findings are organised according to the study’s research questions and focus on global publication trends, international collaboration patterns, thematic clusters and intellectual structures within research on parents and caregivers in the context of dyslexia.
Global publication trends and subject-area distribution
To address the publication trend component of the first research question, the annual distribution of publications was examined using the refined Scopus dataset. The refined search produced a final dataset of 437 journal articles published between 2000 and 2026. Figure 1 presents the annual publication trend across the review period. Publication output fluctuated during the earlier years but generally increased over time. From 2000 to the early 2010s, annual publication output remained relatively modest, with fewer than 20 publications recorded in most years. A more visible increase appeared from the mid-2010s onwards, followed by a sharper rise after 2020.
 |
FIGURE 1: Annual publication trends in research on parents and caregivers in dyslexia. |
|
The highest levels of publication output were observed in the most recent years, particularly between 2023 and 2025. This pattern indicates growing scholarly attention to parents and caregivers within dyslexia-related research. However, the lower publication count for 2026 should be interpreted cautiously, as the dataset only included records indexed in Scopus at the time of extraction. The subject-area distribution was also examined to describe the disciplinary profile of the publications included in the dataset. The results show that publications were concentrated mainly in Psychology and Social Sciences, with additional representation from Medicine, Health Professions, Arts and Humanities and Neuroscience. This distribution shows that research on parents and caregivers in dyslexia is located across multiple disciplinary areas, although its strongest base remains within psychological, educational and social science traditions.
International collaboration patterns
To address the international collaboration component of the first research question, a country-level co-authorship analysis was conducted using authors’ affiliation data. Figure 2 presents the country collaboration network generated through VOSviewer.
 |
FIGURE 2: Country collaboration network in research on parents and dyslexia. |
|
The analysis shows that research output and collaboration are concentrated within a relatively small number of countries. The United States appears as the most prominent contributor, occupying a central position in the collaboration network and demonstrating multiple links with other countries. The United Kingdom also shows a strong presence, forming collaboration ties with several European and English-speaking countries.
Additional countries appearing in the network include Australia, Canada, Finland, Norway, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, China, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Turkey and Malaysia. However, these countries appear at comparatively smaller levels than the United States and the United Kingdom. Overall, the network indicates that international collaboration in this area is concentrated mainly among high-income Western countries, with more limited representation from Asian, African and South American contexts.
Dominant thematic clusters and research emphases
To address the second research question, a keyword co-occurrence analysis was conducted using both author keywords and index keywords. Figure 3 presents the keyword co-occurrence network generated through VOSviewer.
 |
FIGURE 3: Keyword co-occurrence network in research on parents and dyslexia. |
|
The network is strongly centred on the keyword dyslexia, which functions as the main hub connecting multiple thematic clusters. Surrounding this core, one prominent thematic grouping focuses on developmental and clinical dimensions, including terms such as reading difficulties, risk factor, comorbidity, attention deficit disorder, attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity, diagnosis, depression and anxiety. This pattern shows that research involving parents and caregivers is often linked to child characteristics, assessment, associated conditions and psychosocial outcomes. A second major grouping reflects educational and school-based perspectives. This includes keywords such as education, school, student, literacy, early intervention, curriculum, primary school and high school. These terms indicate that parental involvement is frequently examined in relation to formal education and intervention-related contexts. Keywords more directly associated with parents and home-based support appear less prominently in the network. Terms such as parenting, parental behaviour, semi-structured interview, and coping behaviour are present, but they are less central than clinical, developmental and school-based terms. This pattern provides evidence that parent-centred and home-based perspectives exist within the literature, but are not positioned as dominant thematic areas.
Intellectual structure of research on parents and dyslexia
To address the third research question, an author co-citation analysis was conducted to examine the intellectual structure and dominant research traditions informing studies related to parents and dyslexia. Figure 4 presents the author co-citation network generated through VOSviewer. The network reveals several distinct clusters reflecting established research traditions within dyslexia studies. One prominent cluster is formed by authors such as Lyytinen, Torppa, Eklund, Aro, and Ahonen, whose work is widely cited in relation to early literacy development, familial risk and longitudinal studies of reading acquisition. This cluster reflects a developmental strand of dyslexia research, where parents are often situated as part of the child’s broader developmental environment. A second major cluster centres on authors including Van der Leij, Van Bergen, and Van Otterloo, representing research focused on cognitive and diagnostic dimensions of dyslexia. Studies associated with this cluster emphasise underlying cognitive processes, reading profiles and assessment frameworks. Additional smaller clusters include scholars associated with educational, family-risk and learning difficulties research. Overall, the author co-citation network indicates that research on parents and dyslexia is shaped mainly by developmental, cognitive and educational research traditions. Parent-centred, home-based and design-oriented scholarship appears less consolidated within the intellectual structure of the field.
 |
FIGURE 4: Author co-citation network in research on parents and dyslexia. |
|
Discussion
This section discusses the bibliometric findings in relation to the study’s research questions and the broader literature on dyslexia, parental involvement and home-based literacy support. The discussion is organised around three main areas: first, the positioning of parent-centred dyslexia research within dominant child-focused traditions; second, global research imbalance and the need for stronger Global South representation; third, implications for the design of home-based dyslexia support resources.
Parent-centred dyslexia research within dominant child-focused traditions
This bibliometric review shows that research on parents and caregivers in dyslexia has developed within a field that remains strongly shaped by child-centred, clinical and school-based traditions. Although parental involvement is widely recognised as part of children’s literacy development, the keyword and co-citation patterns suggest that parents are more often positioned as part of the child’s learning context rather than as primary subjects of research. This pattern is consistent with the broader dyslexia literature, where considerable attention has been given to reading difficulties, diagnosis, comorbidity, cognitive profiles and intervention outcomes (Shaywitz 2021; Snowling & Hulme 2020; Wu et al. 2022). Viewed through ecological, sociocultural and family literacy perspectives, this finding is important. Ecological systems theory positions the home as a key microsystem that shapes children’s learning experiences, while sociocultural theory highlights the role of guided interaction and scaffolding in literacy development (Bronfenbrenner 1979; Vygotsky 1978). Similarly, family literacy research emphasises that literacy learning is influenced by reading routines, parent–child interaction, and support practices in the home environment (Sénéchal & Young 2008). From these perspectives, parents are not merely background variables in children’s reading development; they are active participants whose knowledge, confidence, emotional labour and access to resources shape how dyslexia support is implemented outside school. The keyword co-occurrence findings show that terms related to clinical and developmental concerns, such as reading difficulties, diagnosis, comorbidity, attention-related difficulties, anxiety and depression, are more visible than terms directly related to parents’ lived experiences or home-based support practices. This does not mean that parents are absent from the literature. Rather, it indicates that parental involvement is commonly discussed in relation to children’s difficulties and school-based intervention systems. This interpretation is consistent with studies showing that children with dyslexia may experience academic, emotional and mental health challenges that also affect family support needs (Wilmot et al. 2023; Xiao et al. 2023). It is also consistent with studies showing that parents often play an important role in supporting reading, yet may face uncertainty, stress and limited access to practical guidance when supporting children with dyslexia or reading difficulties at home (Guo & Keles 2025; Radke et al. 2020; Woodcock 2020).
The author co-citation findings also show that the intellectual structure of the field is anchored mainly in developmental, cognitive and educational traditions. These traditions have provided strong foundations for understanding dyslexia as a reading and learning difficulty. However, they have not yet produced a clearly consolidated parent-centred research tradition focused on how parents understand, adapt and implement support in everyday home contexts. This finding supports the need to extend dyslexia research beyond assessment and intervention effectiveness alone, towards stronger consideration of parents’ roles, needs and constraints in the practical use of support resources.
Global research imbalance and the need for Global South inclusion
The country co-authorship findings reveal a clear imbalance in the geographical distribution of research on parents and caregivers in dyslexia. Research output and collaboration are concentrated mainly in high-income Western countries, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, while countries from Asia, Africa and South America appear less prominently in the collaboration network. This pattern is not unusual in bibliometric studies, as scholarly production and international visibility are often shaped by uneven access to research funding, institutional infrastructure, publication resources and academic networks (Groenewald & Teise 2024; Turba et al. 2026). This imbalance matters because parents’ experiences of supporting children with dyslexia are strongly shaped by local educational systems, language contexts, access to diagnosis, and availability of specialist support. In many non-Western and low- to middle-income contexts, families may have less access to specialised dyslexia assessment, structured intervention programmes or trained support personnel. As a result, parents may carry a heavier responsibility for home-based learning support, often without sufficient practical guidance. When research is dominated by Western contexts, these realities may be under-represented in the literature, limiting the relevance of existing evidence for families and educators in different cultural and educational settings. Language also plays an important role in this imbalance. The present review was limited to English-language publications indexed in Scopus, which means that studies published in local or regional languages may not have been captured. This is important because dyslexia support is closely connected to language structure, orthography, schooling practices and home literacy culture. Research published in English may not fully represent parental experiences in multilingual or non-English-speaking contexts. Recent discussions on academic publishing have shown that English-language dominance can affect the visibility of Global South scholarship and shape what is recognised as international knowledge (Snijder & Kingsley 2024; Turba et al. 2026). Therefore, the limited representation of non-Western contexts in this review should not be interpreted as evidence that parent-related dyslexia issues are less relevant in these regions. Rather, it points to a need for stronger research visibility, broader database inclusion and more context-sensitive studies on parental involvement in dyslexia support. Future research should give greater attention to the Global South, including studies that examine how parents support children with dyslexia in multilingual homes, resource-limited schools and educational systems where specialist support may be less accessible.
Implications for home-based dyslexia support design
The findings have implications for the design of dyslexia support resources intended for use beyond formal school settings. The keyword analysis shows that parent-centred and home-based support themes are present in the literature but remain less central than clinical, developmental and school-based themes. This suggests a gap between the recognised role of parents in children’s literacy development and the extent to which research has addressed the practical design of resources that parents can use at home. This gap is important because parents are often expected to support children’s reading development outside school, particularly through shared reading, homework support and informal literacy activities. However, previous research has shown that parents may experience uncertainty about how to support children with dyslexia, especially when they lack clear guidance, structured materials or access to specialist advice (Radke et al. 2020; Woodcock 2020). Recent work on parent-involved interventions for children with specific learning difficulties also suggests that parental participation can be strengthened when support is structured, accessible and connected to everyday learning routines (Guo & Keles 2025). From a design perspective, dyslexia support resources for home use should not assume that parents have specialist pedagogical knowledge. Instead, they should provide clear instructions, structured progression, practical examples and activities that can be implemented with minimal professional supervision. This is especially important in contexts where specialist services are limited or where parents are required to play a larger role in children’s learning support. In this sense, parent-responsive design is not merely a practical issue, but a matter of accessibility and equity in dyslexia support. Future research should therefore move beyond documenting parental involvement as a general factor in children’s learning outcomes. More attention is needed to how parents interpret, adapt and use support resources in real home environments. Design-informed studies that include parents during needs analysis, development and usability evaluation may help produce dyslexia support materials that are clearer, more realistic and better aligned with family routines. Such work would contribute to a more sustainable model of dyslexia support that recognises parents as active partners in literacy development rather than peripheral supporters of school-based intervention.
Limitations and future directions
This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the analysis was limited to publications indexed in the Scopus database. Although Scopus provides broad multidisciplinary coverage and is widely used in bibliometric research, relevant studies indexed in other databases, such as Web of Science or regional databases, may not have been captured. As a result, some local or non-English publications, particularly from under-represented regions, may be absent from the dataset. Second, the findings are influenced by the selection of search terms and inclusion criteria. Although the search strategy was designed to capture publications related to parents, caregivers and dyslexia, variations in terminology may have led to the exclusion of some relevant studies. For example, some studies may discuss family involvement, home literacy or learning support without explicitly using the terms ‘parents’, ‘caregivers’ or ‘dyslexia’ in the title, abstract or keywords. Finally, as a bibliometric review, this study focuses on patterns of publication output, collaboration, keyword relationships and author co-citation rather than direct evidence of parents’ lived experiences or intervention outcomes. Future research could build on these findings by conducting qualitative, mixed-methods or design-based studies that examine parents’ challenges, expectations and resource needs in greater depth, particularly within home-based and non-Western contexts.
Conclusion
This bibliometric review mapped global research trends, thematic emphases and intellectual structures in studies related to parents and caregivers within the dyslexia literature. By analysing 437 journal articles indexed in Scopus from 2000 to 2026, the study identified patterns in publication growth, international collaboration, keyword co-occurrence and author co-citation. The findings show that research on parents and caregivers in dyslexia is increasingly visible but remains shaped largely by child-centred, clinical and school-based traditions. Publication output and international collaboration are concentrated mainly in high-income Western countries, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. Thematic and co-citation analyses further indicate that parent-centred, home-based and design-oriented perspectives remain less consolidated than developmental, cognitive and educational research traditions. The study contributes by providing a structured bibliometric overview of how parents and caregivers are represented within dyslexia research. It also identifies a clear need for future research that foregrounds parents’ lived experiences, practical constraints and design expectations in home-based dyslexia support. Strengthening parent-responsive and context-sensitive research may support the development of dyslexia interventions that are more accessible, practical and relevant beyond formal educational settings.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on research originally conducted as part of Mohd Shahril I.B. Othman’s ongoing doctoral thesis in Special and Inclusive Education in the Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, titled ‘Development of a Parent-Oriented Reading Module for Learners with Dyslexia’. The thesis has not yet been submitted and is currently unpublished and not publicly available. The thesis is currently supervised by Syar Meeze Mohd Rashid and Wan Muna R. Wan Mohamad. The thesis was reworked, revised and adapted into a journal article for publication. The authors confirm that the content has not been previously published or disseminated and complies with ethical standards for original publication.
During the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT OpenA1 (GPT-based model) 2026 to support language refinement and clarity during manuscript preparation. The content was reviewed and edited by the authors, who take full responsibility for its accuracy.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Mohd Shahril I.B. Othman: Conceptualisation; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Supervision; Validation; Writing – original draft. Syar Meeze Mohd Rashid: Conceptualisation; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Supervision; Validation; Writing – original draft. Wan Muna R. Wan Mohamad: Conceptualisation; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Supervision; Validation; Writing – original draft. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting this study and its findings are available within the article and its listed references.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Al Otaiba, S., Connor, C.M., Foorman, B., Schatschneider, C., Greulich, L. & Sidler, J.F., 2009, ‘Identifying and intervening with beginning readers who are at-risk for dyslexia: Advances in individualized classroom instruction’, Perspectives on Language and Literacy 35(4), 13–19, viewed n.d., from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4296731/.
Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G. & Karimi, R., 2020, ‘Scopus as a curated, high quality bibliometric data source for academic research’, Quantitative Science Studies 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
Bronfenbrenner, U., 1979, The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N. & Lim, W.M., 2021, ‘How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines’, Journal of Business Research 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Groenewald, E. & Teise, K., 2024, ‘The North-South research gap: Challenges and lessons learnt’, Issues in Educational Research 34(2), vii–xii.
Guo, L. & Keles, S., 2025, ‘A systematic review of studies with parent-involved interventions for children with specific learning disabilities’, European Journal of Special Needs Education 40(4), 755–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2024.2421112
Nabil, N.Z.I.N.M., Matore, M.E.E.M. & Zainal, M.S., 2026, ‘Dyslexia screening: A bibliometric analysis in mapping research patterns and emerging trends’, Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn) 20(2), 1212–1221. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v20i2.22027
Neville, H.J., Stevens, C., Pakulak, E., Bell, T.A., Fanning, J., Klein, S. et al., 2022, ‘Family-based literacy interventions and parental engagement in children at risk for reading difficulties’, Developmental Science 25(2), e13133. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13133
Piao, X. & Rangra, N., 2024, ‘Parental involvement in supporting dyslexic children: Impact of home-based strategies and educational collaboration’, Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences 22(2), 11019–11030. https://doi.org/10.57239/PJLSS-2024-22.2.00834
Radke, J., Mahlau, K. & Köller, O., 2020, ‘Parental involvement in reading interventions for children with reading difficulties: A systematic review’, Educational Research Review 30, 100333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100333
Sénéchal, M. & Young, L., 2008, ‘The effect of family literacy interventions on children’s acquisition of reading skills: A meta-analytic review’, Review of Educational Research 78(4), 880–907. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320319
Shaywitz, S., 2021, Overcoming dyslexia, 2nd edn., Knopf, New York, NY.
Small, H., 1973, ‘Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 24(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406
Snijder, R. & Kingsley, D., 2024, ‘Research assessment systems and the effects of publication language: Manifestations in the Directory of Open Access Books’, Journal of Electronic Publishing 27(1), 281–308. https://doi.org/10.3998/jep.4847
Snowling, M.J. & Hulme, C., 2020, ‘Annual research review: Reading disorders revisited’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 61(2), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13155
Turba, R., Thoré, E.S.J., Bertram, M.G., Bridg, H., Sabet, S.S., Gamboa, M. et al., 2026, ‘Global North-South science inequalities due to language and funding barriers’, Peer Community Journal 6, e9. https://doi.org/10.24072/pcjournal.677
Van Eck, N.J. & Waltman, L., 2017, ‘Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer’, Scientometrics 111(2), 1053–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7
VOSviewer Visualising Scientific Landscapes, 2026, VOSviewer, viewed January 2026, from https://www.vosviewer.com/getting-started
Vygotsky, L.S., 1978, Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wilmot, A., Pizzey, H., Leitão, S., Hasking, P. & Boyes, M., 2023, ‘Growing up with dyslexia: Child and parent perspectives on school struggles, self-esteem, and mental health’, Dyslexia 29(1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1729
Woodcock, S., 2020, ‘Parents’ perspectives on the impact of dyslexia on family life’, Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 25(2), 131–145.
Wu, Y., Cheng, Y., Yang, X., Yu, W. & Wan, Y., 2022, ‘Dyslexia: A bibliometric and visualization analysis’, Frontiers in Public Health 10, 915053. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.915053
Xiao, P., Zhu, K., Liu, C., Bai, X., Wu, X., Yu, M. et al., 2023, ‘Associations between dyslexia and children’s mental health: Findings from a follow-up study in China’, Psychiatry Research 323, 115166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115166
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
