The Arabic language presents unique challenges for literacy development due to its diglossia nature and orthographic complexity (Abu-Liel et al., 2021). Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) is the written form of the language, while spoken Arabic dialects vary across regions (Azaz & Alfaifi, 2022). This diglossia creates additional cognitive demands on Arabic-speaking children, as they must acquire proficiency in both the spoken and written forms of the language (Ibrahim, 2024; Tarabeh et al., 2025).

Arabic orthography is distinguished by its complex morphology, right-to-left script, and the use of diacritical markings to indicate short vowels (Jouhar, 2020; Yassin et al., 2020). Diacritical markings in completely vowelized text offer crucial phonological information that facilitates word recognition (Midhwah & Alhawary, 2020). However, readers must rely on morphological and contextual signals to correctly identify words in a non-vowelized text, which is more common in advanced reading materials (Asadi et al., 2023). Deficits in phonological awareness and morphological processing cause children with dyslexia to have difficulty reading non-vowelized Arabic text frequently (Oweini & Awada, 2022; Smail et al., 2025).

Numerous studies have shown that WM, phonological awareness, and rapid automatized naming (RAN) are important indicators of reading proficiency in Arabic-speaking children (Alhwaiti, 2024; Gharaibeh et al., 2021; Hassanein et al., 2022; Mercugliano et al., 2024). However, the role of EFs, such as inhibition and switching, in Arabic-speaking children with dyslexia remains underexplored. Given the orthographic and cognitive demands of the Arabic language, it is likely that EF deficits play a significant role in the reading difficulties experienced by children with dyslexia.

EFs are very important for literacy development because they help children control their behavior, attention, and thought processes during reading and writing (Cartwright & Duke, 2023). The three core EFs under investigation in this study are as follows:

Research has shown that deficits in EFs are associated with reading difficulties, particularly in children with dyslexia (Varvara et al., 2014). Inhibitory control and CF issues are common in children with dyslexia, which can make it difficult for them to interpret words, focus when reading, and balance conflicting cognitive demands (Cadime et al., 2024). A meta-analysis by Ober et al. (2020) reported that children with dyslexia consistently perform poorly on EF tasks compared to their typically developing peers, underscoring the importance of these processes in literacy development.

EFs, particularly inhibition and switching, are integral to the reading process (Tarchi et al., 2021). Inhibition allows readers to suppress irrelevant information and focus on decoding words, while switching enables them to alternate between phonological and orthographic representations (Ruffini et al., 2024). For example, a child reading an unfamiliar word must inhibit automatic responses and use phonological decoding strategies to identify the correct pronunciation (Scanlon & Anderson, 2020). Similarly, CF allows readers to shift between decoding unfamiliar words and integrating contextual information to comprehend the overall meaning of a sentence (Duke & Cartwright, 2021).

Children with dyslexia often exhibit deficits in these EFs, leading to difficulties with word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (Khan & Lal, 2023). Inhibition deficits can result in frequent reading errors, as children may struggle to suppress automatic but incorrect responses (Jaffe & Bolger, 2023; Smith-Spark & Gordon, 2022). RAS is a key predictor of reading fluency (Lee & Stoodley, 2024). Deficits in RAS have been consistently observed in children with dyslexia across different languages (Farah et al., 2021). Combined inhibition/switching, which requires the integration of inhibitory control and CF, is also impaired in children with dyslexia, further exacerbating their reading difficulties (Peng et al., 2022).

EFs (inhibition, WM, and CF) control learning and goal-directed behavior (Diamond, 2020). These abilities are essential for literacy because they help children manage their focus, block out unimportant stimuli, and adjust to changing reading requirements (Butterfuss & Kendeou, 2018). Reading difficulties are closely linked to deficiencies in EFs, which are more noticeable in children with dyslexia (Ober et al., 2020; Varvara et al., 2014). The theoretical framework of the present study is based upon the Dual-Route Model (Coltheart et al., 2001) and the Working Memory Model (Baddeley, 2020).

According to the Dual-Route Model proposed by Coltheart et al. (2001), there are 2 pathways that help in word recognition. The lexical approach serves to identify well-known whole words. The phonological or sub-lexical approach uses grapheme-phoneme relations to decode unknown words. Both routes face significant obstacles in Arabic. Diglossia, the difference between spoken dialects and written MSA, reduces word familiarity and affects the lexical path (Asadi et al., 2023). Frequent removal of diacritical marks impedes the sub-lexical pathway, leading to increased ambiguity in meaning and pronunciation (Jouhar, 2020). Strong inhibition (to disregard unnecessary dialectal forms) and CF (to switch between decoding techniques) are necessary for the effective use of both routes, and dyslexia frequently impairs these abilities (Saiegh-Haddad et al., 2022).

The Working Memory Model by Baddeley (2020) describes that reading requires the coordinated functioning of the phonological loop (involved in storing linguistic information on a temporary basis), the visuospatial sketchpad (involved in managing orthographic and visual data), and the central executive (involved in directing attention and managing cognitive control). The right-to-left script, diacritical markings, and morphological intricacy of Arabic orthography put a significant strain on the executive and visuospatial systems (ALmenaye, 2009). Due to their frequently low WM capacity, children with dyslexia find it more difficult to remember both visual and phonological information at the same time when reading (Menghini et al., 2011).

Young readers have particular difficulties in reading due to the diglossia nature and complex morphology of the Arabic language (Saiegh-Haddad, 2012). Ambiguity is increased in un-vowelized text by diacritical omission (Mijlad & Younoussi, 2019). Moreover, complex word analysis is necessary for morphological parsing (Al-Sughaiyer & Al-Kharashi, 2004). The cognitive challenges of transitioning between spoken and written forms are increasing in diglossia (Ibrahim, 2024). The cognitive strain on EFs is increased by these traits. As a result, EF impairments may make it more difficult for Arabic-speaking children with dyslexia to handle these demands.

While previous studies have examined the role of EFs in dyslexia, most of this research has been conducted in non-Arabic languages. There is a need for studies that investigate EFs in Arabic-speaking children, particularly in relation to dyslexia. The present study addresses this gap by examining inhibition, RAS, and combined inhibition/switching in third-grade students with typical literacy development and those with dyslexia in the Arabic language. As these three EF components are mostly linked to dyslexia across a variety of languages (Farah et al., 2021), therefore, researchers gave priority to inhibition, RAS, and combined inhibition/switching. The requirements of Arabic reading (e.g., asking children to flexibly shift between un-vowelized and vowelized words, and suppress competing dialectal pronunciations) are directly linked to inhibition and switching (Balshe, 2022). Another component of EF is WM or updating (which is important for development of literacy in general) but has been less consistently impaired in dyslexia and is not as closely related to the orthographic difficulties of Arabic (Ibrahim, 2024). Additionally, researchers chose a small number of EF tasks that were age-appropriate and most theoretically related to our study topics to reduce testing fatigue in young participants. Understanding the cognitive deficits associated with dyslexia in Arabic-speaking populations will help inform the development of culturally and linguistically appropriate interventions.

The study will address the following research question:

The procedure of the current study consists of the following steps:

The researchers adopted a comparative cross-sectional design to examine the levels of EFs among third-grade students in the Arabic language, focusing on children with typical literacy development and those with dyslexia. This appropriate design allowed for direct comparisons between the two groups on the specified EFs, namely inhibition, RAS, and combined inhibition/switching (Cai et al., 2023).

A total of 55 third-grade Arabic-speaking students (23 typically developing children and 22 students with dyslexia) were recruited from public schools in Abu Dhabi. The selection process followed a two-stage procedure. First, stratified random sampling was used at the school level to ensure representation across socioeconomic backgrounds. Second, within each school, children were screened for eligibility based on school records and teacher referrals. This approach allowed us to identify students with documented dyslexia diagnoses, who represented a smaller proportion of the population, while also recruiting a comparison group of typically developing readers.

The dyslexia group (n = 22) consisted of students with a recent school-based diagnosis of developmental dyslexia, confirmed by special education departments within the previous 12 months. Diagnoses were based on standardized Arabic literacy assessments covering reading accuracy, fluency, phonological awareness, and rapid automatized naming. Children were classified as dyslexic if they performed at least 1.5 standard deviations below the mean on two or more measures. The typically developing group (n = 23) included students with no history of learning difficulties and performance within the expected range on the same standardized literacy assessments.

To minimize potential confounding factors, groups were matched as closely as possible on demographic variables including age, gender, and socioeconomic status. In addition, a non-verbal reasoning test (Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices) was administered to both groups to ensure cognitive equivalence. Only students scoring within the average range (≥ 25th percentile) were included in the final sample. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of all the study participants. All the participants were enrolled in class 3 of schools working under MoE and all residents of Abu Dhabi.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study participants are described in Fig. 1.

Only students who received a dyslexia diagnosis based on their academic records were included in this research. The schools' standardized exams, which evaluated comprehension, phonological awareness (PA), RAN, word reading accuracy, and word reading speed, were used to make these diagnoses. The participants' profiles already included the scores in relation to age norms. These tests were not re-administered because of the pre-existing data. Rather, individuals' school reports were used to create subgroups. This strategy made sure that researchers made use of the thorough diagnostic data that was already available, preserving the intervention's integrity and focus.

The following instruments were used to assess EFs and reading performance:

Data was analyzed using SPSS software. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each variable. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare EF performance between typical readers and students with dyslexia. A significance level of p < 0.05 was calculated to assess the significance of differences (Mesquida & Lakens, 2024). Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges' correction, as t-test was applied and sample size of the two groups under study were not equal (n = 23 for TDC and n = 22 for CDD) .

The findings of the present study have significant implications for intervention designs and educational policy in Arabic-speaking contexts. Early evaluation of EF abilities should be incorporated into regular literacy assessments since there is a definite correlation between EF performance and reading ability, especially in a linguistically difficult educational settings like Arabic. Additionally, EF training, which includes games and activities that improve inhibitory control, CF, and processing speed, should be incorporated into intervention programs for students with dyslexia in addition to phonological awareness and decoding abilities. Compared to language-focused therapies alone, such multimodal techniques are probably going to yield greater long-term results.

This study’s results recommend that EF tests should be used in early grades of school to find out children who could struggle with reading. With Cohen’s d values indicating highly sensitive differentiation, EF tasks such as the Stroop test, RAS naming, and rule-switching activities could be adopted as reliable screening tools for identifying children at risk for dyslexia. Educators should be trained regarding the value of EFs, and they should be provided with tools that can help children with dyslexia in their regular classrooms. Promotion of the creation of standardized EF assessment instruments that are tailored to Arabic language and culture should be done.

Despite the study's strong evidence, it must be noted that it has some limitations. First, the generalizability is limited by the sample size (N = 55). The results of the future studies would be strengthened with a bigger and more varied cohort of other Arabic-speaking locations. Second, a moment in time is captured by the design. Longitudinal research could shed light on how EF deficiencies change over time and affect the development of literacy. Third, pre-existing academic tests, which might differ in rigor and consistency between schools, served as the basis for the dyslexia diagnosis in the present study. Fourth, Several EF tasks included reading or naming components. In particular, the Stroop Color–Word task inherently involves orthographic processing, which may inflate group differences because children with dyslexia are expected to struggle more with word-based tasks. Although the RAS task was adapted to use pictures and numbers to minimize reading demands, this overlap between EF and literacy skills should be considered when interpreting results. Fifth, despite their cultural adaptation, the EF tests might not accurately represent the range of executive functioning in every situation, and dependability would be improved by additional psychometric validation.