IQ SCORES AND READING DISABILITY

LAURA MACLELLAN

ARTICLE
Siegel, L. S. (1988). Evidence that IQ scores are irrelevant to the definition and analysis of reading disability. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 201215.

PURPOSE
To examine the 2 assumptions that are used to define reading disabled (RD) students

ASSUMPTIONS BEING EXAMINED

Assumption 1: Students at different IQ levels have different patterns of cognitive functioning Assumption 2: Students with low IQ scores and reading achievement scores have difficulty reading because of their lower intelligence

BACKGROUND
IQ or Intelligent Quotient Tests: thought to be independent of educational and cultural factors Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Revised (WISC-R)
- Most commonly used IQ tests - Composed of two parts Verbal and Performance (nonverbal) that include many subtests

PARTICIPANTS
250 RD students ( 25th percentile on diagnostic reading test) 750 Non-Reading Disabled (NRD) students (30th percentile on diagnostic reading test) 7-16 years of age

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN/METHOD

Students screened using diagnostic reading test

Based on score assigned to RD or NRD group

IQ test conducted and students assigned to IQ groups within reading group

Experimental reading tasks conducted

EXPERIMENTAL READING TESTS

Language Tasks - ITPA Grammatic Closure - Sentence Repetition Task - Error Correction Task 1 - Oral Cloze Task 1 - Error Correction 2 and Oral Cloze 2 Reading and Spelling Tasks - Reading Non words - Spelling Non-words - Gates-McKillop Recognition of Visual Form of Sound - Visual-Phonological Reading Task - Gilmore Oral Reading Test

Memory Tasks - Phonological Coding in Short Term Memory - Working Memory Task (words) - Working Memory Task (numbers)

RESULTS
Diagnostic Reading Test, IQ, and Reading Group When scores for the diagnostic reading test were examined: - scores in RD group were much lower than in NDR group (no overlap of scores between the two groups) - in a few cases the higher IQ RD students scored significantly higher than the lower IQ RD students

RESULTS
Experimental Reading Tasks - Significant differences on all tasks between RD and NRD - No significant difference on task scores between IQ levels in RD or NRD groups

RESULTS
Experimental Language Tasks - RD students scores were significantly lower at all IQ levels than NRD students - A few significant differences between IQ levels in RD group - In NRD group scores showed some covariance with IQ level (Students with higher IQs scored highest)

RESULTS
Memory Tasks - Short term Memory
- Significant differences between RD and NRD at all ages and IQ levels - Few significant differences between IQ groups for both DR and NDR groups

- Working Memory
- RD students scored significantly lower at any IQ level than NRD students

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
RD students scored significantly lower on all experimental tests (Reading, Language and Memory) than NRD students

In a small number instances students with higher IQs had significantly higher scores than students in the lowest IQ group but that seemed consistent despite reading group status

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
Assumption 1: Students at different IQ levels have different patterns of cognitive functioning

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
Assumption 1: Students at different IQ levels have different patterns of cognitive functioning NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DATA - Did not show that basic reading, memory and language skills were different among DR students at high or low IQ - DR students scores were shown to be quite homogenous

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
Assumption 2: Students with low IQ scores and reading achievement scores have difficulty reading because of their lower intelligence

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
Assumption 2: Students with low IQ scores and reading achievement scores have difficulty reading because of their lower intelligence

NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DATA - RD students regardless of IQ had similar problems across the experimental tests - NDR students have a variety of IQ scores, even low ones, but still did not exhibit reading problems

RECOMMENDATIONS
STOP defining reading disability using the IQdiscrepancy method and embrace the fact that students with low IQs can also have reading disabilities

RECOMMENDATIONS
Future Research - Examine the component processes involved in reading - Identify what about these processes is disrupted for RD students - Develop effective remedial plans to address these areas

CRITIQUE
- No information is giving what studies were used to formulate this meta analysis
- What criteria did the studies have to meet to be included, who conducted them and have the results been published before?

- No information was given who conducted the tests with the students

CRITIQUE
- No participant information was given other than IQ and age (no information on gender, ethnicity, SES, and how the were selected students came to be involved in the study - Diagnostic reading test consisted of a word reading test
- Others have argued word reading is not sufficient to determine if students have a reading disability

SO 25 YEARS LATER
Component processes of reading and areas where RD students struggle - Phonological awareness, pseudo word decoding, non-word memory, confrontation naming and rapid naming (Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987 (as cited in Jimenez, Siegel, OShanahan & Ford, 2009))

- Phonological awareness and naming speed deficits (Wolf & Bowers, 1999)

SO 25 YEARS LATER
- Auditory processing, phonological awareness, short term auditory memory, visual memory, rapid automatized naming and visual processing speed (Bell, McCallum & Cox 2003) - Phonological skills most predictive of reading ability (Jimenez, Siegel, OShanahan & Ford, 2009)

SO 25 YEARS LATER.
- In British Columbia and most Canadian provinces, an IQ-discrepancy system is still being used to identify students with a reading disabilities (Kozey & Siegel 2008)

SO 25 YEARS LATER
DAngiulli, A. & Siegel, L.S. (2003). Cognitive Functioning as Measured by the WISC-R: Do Children with Learning Disabilities Have Distinctive Patterns of Performance?, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 4858 - Achievement tests (WRAT-R) are better predictor of reading success than IQ tests (WISC-R)

REFERENCES
Bell, S., McCallum, R., & Cox, E. (2003). Toward a researchbased assessment of dyslexia: Using cognitive measures to identify reading disabilities, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 505-516. CliffsNotes.com. Intelligence Tests. 11 Feb 2013 http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/topicArticleId25438,articleId-25413.html DAngiulli, A. & Siegel, L.S. (2003). Cognitive Functioning as Measured by the WISC-R: Do Children with Learning Disabilities Have Distinctive Patterns of Performance?, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 48-58. .

REFERENCES
Jimenez, J., Siegel, L., OShanahan, I., & Ford, L. (2009). The realative role of IQ and cognitive processes in reading disability, Educational Psychology, 29, 27-43 Kozey, M. & Siegel, L.S. (2008). Definitions of learning disabilities in Canadian provinces and territories. Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 162-171. Siegel, L. S. (1988). Evidence that IQ scores are irrelevant to the definition and analysis of reading disability, Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 201-215.

REFERENCES
Wolf, M., & Bowers, P., (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for developmental dyslexia, Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415-438.