Are IQ Scores Valid for Children Who Are Poor Readers
01 Dec 1993-Psychological Assessment (American Psychological Association)-Vol. 5, Iss: 4, pp 400-407
TL;DR: This article evaluated whether the external validity of IQ scores was moderated by reading levels within 2 separate samples of referred children, and found that IQ scores had expected correlations with external measures of verbal, visual-spatial, short-term memory, and arithmetic ability, and these relations were invariant across levels of reading skill.
Abstract: Remedial services for children with reading problems are often allocated according to discrepancies between reading and IQ scores. Results of some recent research suggest, however, that IQ scores of poor readers do not covary with their levels of functioning in other cognitive domains. This study evaluated whether the external validity of IQ scores (from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised) was moderated by reading levels within 2 separate samples of referred children. We found that IQ scores had expected correlations with external measures of verbal, visual-spatial, short-term memory, and arithmetic ability, and that these relations were invariant across levels of reading skill. Many school-age children have reading difficulties, but only some may be classified as reading disabled, which indicates a discrepancy between specific reading proficiency and general cognitive ability. Children so classified may be eligible for general learning disability services or for more specialized programs for the reading disabled. Poor readers who do not meet ability-achievement discrepancy definitions of reading disability may receive other remedial services but, in some instances, may receive none at all. For example, poor readers with IQ scores in the borderline range (e.g., 70-79 on Wechsler scales) may be ineligible for special education services because they are considered to be "slow learners." Poor readers with even lower IQ scores (e.g., 60-69), however, may be eligible for placement in classrooms for the educable mentally impaired, where they may at least receive more individual attention than "slow learners" who remain in regular classrooms. Considering the implications for children's educational careers, it is crucial to demonstrate the validity of allocating special education resources on the basis of discrepancies between reading and general ability levels. There have been two types of criticisms about this method of allocation, however, the second of which provides the main focus of this study. First, as with the broader notion of learning disability, there are numerous conceptual and statistical problems with the operational definition of "significant" ability-reading discrepancies (e.g., see Kamphaus, Frick, & Lahey, 1991; Reynolds, 1984-1985). Second, there has been much debate about whether IQ tests provide valid estimates of general cognitive capacity for children with reading problems. For example, some researchers have argued that poor readers may obtain artificially low IQ scores because
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, a cross-lagged panel analysis of WISC-III and achievement test scores of 289 students assessed for special education eligibility with a test-retest interval of 2.8 years was conducted.
179 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, an alternative assessment model for the evaluation of children with reading problems is proposed based on lessons learned from the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) and their implications for future directions are identified.
Abstract: When the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC ; A. S. Kaufman & N. L. Kaufman, 1983a, 1983b) was published just over 10 years ago, it had many unique features, including its information processing model and specific recommendations for educational remediation. Although the test has received much attention because of these characteristics, the K-ABC has also been the subject of much controversy. Through consideration of some of these arguments, lessons that researchers in the field of child assessment may learn from the K-ABC and their implications for future directions are identified. Based in part on lessons learned from the K-ABC, an alternative assessment model for the evaluation of children with reading problems is proposed at the end of this article.
20 citations
01 Jan 1998
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a list of tables, figures and figures for each of the following categories: Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6
Abstract: ....................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables .............................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ................................................................................................................ x Chapter
7 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: For many years (Chalfant & Scheffelin, 1969) the diagnosis and evaluation of learning disabilities has been a major problem as mentioned in this paper, particularly since the passage of Public Law 94-142 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975).
Abstract: For many years (Chalfant & Scheffelin, 1969), but particularly since the passage of Public Law 94-142 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975), the diagnosis and evaluation of learning disabilities has presented major problems. The central one has been the problem of arriving at a workable definition of learning disability (LD). Education and psychology, the primary fields concerned with learning disabilities are low consensus fields, dealing with human behavior and theoretical constructs (of which LD is one). Much controversy has always existed regarding just what constitutes a learning disability. The rules and regulations for implementation of PL 94-142 provide a definition for use by multidisciplinary teams in deciding upon a diagnosis of LD. This definition states that a determination of LD:
341 citations
TL;DR: It is suggested that both groups of children with reading disability, that is, those defined by either D or L, should be considered eligible for special education services.
Abstract: We used data derived from a survey sample, the Connecticut Longitudinal Study (CLS), to compare two commonly employed definitions of reading disability: a discrepancy-based model (D) and a low reading achievement model (L). We identified children satisfying each definition in second grade and compared the groups retrospectively in kindergarten and prospectively in fifth grade using parent-based, teacher-based, and child-based measures. Our findings suggest more similarities than differences between the reading disabled groups. The most salient differences were those related to ability and seem inherent in the definitions of the groups: Children identified as D have significantly higher verbal, performance, and full scale IQ scores than those identified as L. These findings suggest that both groups of children with reading disability, that is, those defined by either D or L, should be considered eligible for special education services.
222 citations
221 citations
"Are IQ Scores Valid for Children Wh..." refers background or result in this paper
..., phonological processing) than do measures such as reading comprehension tasks, which may have high "ecological validity" but could confound children's reading ability with their vocabulary breadth or familiarity with text content (Siegel, 1988)....
[...]
...Siegel (1992) compared the performance of dyslexics (children whose reading achievement scores were > 15 standard score points below their IQ scores); poor readers (children with low reading and IQ scores); and normal controls across tasks similar to those used in her earlier study (Siegel, 1988)....
[...]
212 citations
"Are IQ Scores Valid for Children Wh..." refers methods in this paper
...Clinic sample children were also administered the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT; Dunn, 1959), an individually administered, multiple-choice format, pictorial test of receptive vocabulary breadth that is normed for ages 2A–18 years (see test review by Lyman, 1965)....
[...]
TL;DR: Comparison of group differences on a set of 10 neuropsychological tests corrected for correlations with IQ showed that group differences were small and accounted for little of the variability among groups, questioning the validity of segregating children with reading deficiencies according to discrepancies with IQ scores.
Abstract: This study addressed the validity of distinguishing children with reading disabilities according to the presence or absence of discrepancies between intelligence test scores and academic achievement. Three definitions of reading disability were used to provide criteria for five groups of children who (a) met a discrepancy-based definition uncorrected for the correlation of IQ and achievement; (b) met a discrepancy-based definition correcting for the correlation of IQ and achievement; (c) met a low achievement definition with no IQ discrepancy; (d) met criteria a and b; and (e) met none of the criteria and had no reading disability. Comparison of these five groups on a set of 10 neuropsychological tests corrected for correlations with IQ showed that group differences were small and accounted for little of the variability among groups. These results question the validity of segregating children with reading deficiencies according to discrepancies with IQ scores.
165 citations