The relevance of IQ to the definition of learning disabilities is a much-debated issue. In this article, the effect of not using IQ in the identification of children with reading disabilities is demonstrated. Two classification procedures, differing in their use of IQ, are compared. The first conclusion is that abandoning IQ in classification has a very limited impact on the number of children identified as reading disordered. Our data demonstrate that, if IQ is used, more high IQ children are classified. Another finding pertains to the effect of a restriction of IQ range. The number of children classified as reading disordered is a function of the IQ range.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Epps, S., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Algozzine, B. (1983). Impact of different definitions of learning disabilities on the number of students identified. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 341–352.
2.
Forness, S.R., Sinclair, E., & Guthrie, D. (1983). Learning disability discrepancy formulas: Their use in actual practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 107–114.
3.
Lindgren, S.D., De Renzi, E., & Richman, L.C. (1985). Cross-national comparisons of developmental dyslexia in Italy and the United States. Child Development, 56, 1404–1417.
4.
Reynolds, C.R. (1981). The fallacy of “two years below grade level for age” as a diagnostic criterion for reading disorders. Journal of School Psychology, 19, 350–358.
5.
Rispens, J., & Van Yperen, T.A. (1990). The identification of specific reading disorders: Measuring a severe discrepancy. In G. Th. Pavlidis (Ed.), Perspectives on dyslexia, Vol. 2: Cognition, language and treatment (pp. 15–41). London: Wiley.
6.
Rutter, M., Shaffer, D., & Sturge, C. (1979). A guide to a multi-axial classification scheme for psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence (3rd ed.). London: Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry.
7.
Siegel, L.S. (1989a). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469–478.
8.
Siegel, L.S. (1989b). Why we do not need intelligence test scores in the definition and analyses of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 514–518.
9.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Cognitive processes and the reading problems of learning disabled children: Evaluating the assumption of specificity. In J. Torgesen & B. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 87–132). New York: Academic Press.
10.
Van Haassen, P.P., DeBruyn, E.E.J., Pijl, Y.J., Poortinga, Y.H., Lutje Spelberg, H.C., VanderSteene, G., Coetsier, P., Spoelders-Claes, R., & Stinnissen, J. (1987). WISC-R. Nederlandse uitgave. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
11.
Verhoeven, L. T. (1982). Verantwoording toetsen aanvankelijk lezen en spellen (Specialistisch Bulletin, nr. 13). Arnhem: CITO.
12.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
13.
Willson, V.L., & Reynolds, C.R. (1984). Another look at evaluating aptitude-achievement discrepancies in the diagnosis of learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 477–487.
