Traditional IQ Is Irrelevant to Learning Disabilities

Abstract

This investigation examined the relationship between intelligence and phonological coding when ability was redefined according to the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) cognitive processing model. This study directly tested the hypothesis that traditional IQ tests may be irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities, but a different theory of intelligence may be more sensitive to deficiencies related to reading failure. Normally achieving students (n=30) and students with reading disabilities (n=30) ranging in age from 7.7 years to 15.3 years (mean = 11.9 years, SD = 2.4 years) were administered measures of the PASS cognitive processes, the Woodcock-Johnson Pyscho-Educational Battery-Revised pseudoword reading, and the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R) reading recognition tests. Results showed that the sample with reading disabilities earned significantly lower scores on the WRAT-R Reading (mean = 69.3) than the nondisabled subjects (mean = 91.4) and, similarly, on pseudowords those with reading problems earned a mean of 78.9 while the nondisabled earned a mean of 96.3. For the sample with reading disabilities, pseudoword reading scores were significantly predicted by successive processing scores (R ² = .267), but no other processing variable added to the prediction; successive scores (R2 = .212) and the combination of successive and planning (R² = .296) were significant predictors of WRAT-R Reading scores.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baldwin, R.S. , & Vaughn, S. (1989). Why Siegel's arguments are irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 22, 513-514.

Bisanz, G.L. , Das, J.P. , & Mancini, G. (1984). Children's memory for phonemically confusable and nonconfusable letters: Changes with age and reading ability. Child Development, 55, 1845-1854.

Cummins, J.P. , & Das, J.P. (1977). Cognitive processing and reading difficulties: A framework for research. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 23, 246-256.

Cummins, J.P. , & Das, J.P. (1980). Cognitive processing, academic achievement, and WISC-R performance in EMR children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 777-779.

Das, J.P. (1972). Patterns of cognitive ability in nonretarded and retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 6-12.

Das, J.P. (1985). Global and specific re-mediation of reading problems. In G. d'Ydewalle (Ed.), Cognition, information processing, and motivation (pp. 665-679). Holland: Elsevier Science.

Das, J.P. , & Naglieri, J.A. (1988). Das-Naglieri: Cognitive assessment battery-Experimental form. Unpublished test materials.

Das, J.P. , & Siu, I. (1989). Good and poor readers, word naming time, memory span, and story recall. Journal of Experimental Education , 57, 101-114.

Das, J.P. , Snart, F. , & Mulcahy, R.F. (1982). Reading disability and its relation to information integration. In J.P. Das , R.F. Mulcahy , & A.E. Wall (Eds.), Theory and research in learning disabilities (pp. 85-110). New York: Plenum Press.

10.

Das, J.P. , & Varnhagen, C.K. (1986). Neuropsychological functioning and cognitive processing. Child Neuropsychology, 1, 117-140.

11.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences . New York: Basic Books.

12.

Golden, C.J. (1978). Stroop color and word test. Chicago: Stoelting.

13.

Guilford, J.P. , & Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education . New York: McGraw-Hill.

14.

Jastak, S. , & Wilkinson, G.S. (1984). Wide range achievement test-Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.

15.

Kaufman, A.S. , & Kaufman, N.L. (1985). Kaufman test of educational achievement. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service .

16.

Kirby, J.R. , & Das, J.P. (1990). A cognitive approach to intelligence: Attention, coding and planning. Canadian Psychology, 31, 320-331.

17.

Kirby, J.R. , & Williams, N.H. (1991). Learning problems: A cognitive approach. Toronto, Ontario: Kagan and Woo.

18.

Leong, C.K. (1980). Cognitive patterns of "retarded" and below-average readers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 5, 101-117.

19.

Luria, A.R. (1966). Human brain and psychological processes. New York: Harper & Row.

20.

Luria, A.R. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology . New York: Basic Books.

21.

Luria, A.R. (1974). Language and brain: Towards the basic problems of neurolinguistics. Brain and Language, 1, 1-14.

22.

Luria, A.R. (1980). Higher cortical functions in man (2nd ed., rev.). New York: Basic Books.

23.

Luria, A.R. (1984). Language and cognition. New York: Wiley.

24.

Naglieri, J.A. (1985). Matrix analogies test-Expanded form. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.

25.

Naglieri, J.A. (1989a). A cognitive processing theory for the measurement of intelligence. Educational Psychologist, 24, 185-206.

26.

Naglieri, J.A. (1989b). Planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive cognitive processes: A summary of recent studies with exceptional samples . The Mental Rgtardation and Learning Disabilities Bulletin , 17, 3-22.

27.

Naglieri, J.A. , & Das, J.P. (1987). Construct and criterion related validity of planning, simultaneous and successive cognitive processing tasks. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4, 353-363.

28.

Naglieri, J.A. , & Das, J.P. (1990). Planning, attention, simultaneous, successive cognitive processes as a model for intelligence. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 303-337.

29.

Naglieri, J.A. , Das, J.P. , & Jarman, R.F. (1990). Planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive (PASS) cognitive processes as a model for assessment. School Psychology Review, 19, 423-442.

30.

Naglieri, J.A. , Das, J.P. , Stevens, J.J. , & Ledbetter, M.F. (1990). Confirmatory factor analysis of planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive cognitive processing tasks. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 1-18.

31.

Prewett, P.N. , & Naglieri, J.A. (in press). Relationship between planning, simultaneous, and successive processes and academic achievement with normal, reading disabled, and developmentally handicapped students. Journal of Learning Disabilities.

32.

Sahu, S. , & Devi, G. (1984). Reading ability and information-processing strategies . Journal of Research in Reading, 7, 33-40.

33.

Schofield, N.J. , & Ashman, A.F. (1986). The relationship between Digit Span and cognitive processing across ability groups. Intelligence, 10, 59-73.

34.

Siegel, L.S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469-479.

35.

Snart, F. , Das, J.P. , & Mensink, D. (1988). Reading disabled children with above-average IQ: A comparative examination of cognitive processing. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 344-356.

36.

Sternberg, R.J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

37.

Sternberg, R.J. (1991). Death, taxes, and bad intelligence tests. Intelligence, 15, 257-270.

38.

Swanson, H.L. (1989). Phonological processes and other routes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 493-497.

39.

Torgesen, J.K. (1989). Why IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 484-486.

40.

Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.

41.

Woodcock, R.W. , & Johnson, M.B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational battery-Revised . Allen, TX: DLM.

Traditional IQ Is Irrelevant to Learning Disabilities—Intelligence Is Not

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References