Validity of IQ-Discrepancy Classifications of Reading Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis

By K. Stuebing, J. M. Fletcher, Josette M. LeDoux, G. Lyon, S. Shaywitz, B. Shaywitz. 2002

399 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d59f49cef38360305b966cd9add875e0af14a086

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

Learning Disabilities: Debates on definitions, causes, subtypes, and responses (2011, background): “Meta-analyses synthesising a large number of studies that aimed to compare discrepant and non-discrepant poor readers’ cognitive abilities closely related to reading have questioned the validity of IQ– achievement discrepancy-based classifications of poor readers (Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000; Stuebing et”
English Language Learners and Learning Disabilities: Research Agenda and Implications for Practice (2005, background): “…of LDs indicating that LD classiﬁcations based on an IQ-achievement discrepancy have, at best, weak validity (Aaron, 1997; Fletcher et al., 2002; Hoksyn & Swanson, 2002; Lyon, Fletcher, & Barnes, 2003; Siegel, 1992; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Sternberg & Grig-orenko, 2002; Stuebing et al., 2002).”
On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: the perils of overreliance on an "outlier" orthography. (2008, methodology): “This definition is founded on the gap between attainment in reading and aptitude as measured by IQ tests (Lyon et al., 2005; Share, McGee, McKenzie, Williams, & Silva, 1987; Siegel, 1989; Stanovich, 1991; Stuebing et al., 2002).”
Response to Instruction as a Means of Identifying Students with Reading/Learning Disabilities (2003, background): “Identifying students based on their response to treatment also supports the press to make identification and treatment more specific and less generic (Stuebing et al., 2002).”
The Validity of a Response-to-Instruction Paradigm to Identify Reading Disabilities: A Longitudinal Analysis of Individual Differences and Contextual Factors (2003, neutral): “…question the use of intelligence tests as an LD marker and, by extension, achievement discrepancies derived from intelligence test scores (Fletcher et al., 1994; Gresham & Witt, 1997; Share, McGee, & Silva, 1989; Siegel, 1988; Speece & Case, 2001; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Stuebing et al., 2002).”
Classification of Students with Reading Comprehension Difficulties: The Roles of Motivation, affect, and Psychopathology (2006, background): “For example, several researchers have noted limitations in the definition of learning disabilities (e.g., Francis et al., 2005) or the measurement of IQ (MacMillan & Forness, 1998; Stuebing et al., 2002).”
School psychology: Learning lessons from history and moving forward (2010, background): “There is only space in the article to highlight some of the main concerns about the use of IQ testing (see McGrew & Evans, 2004; Stuebing et al., 2002 for a more complete discussion of the issues).”
Responsiveness to General Education Instruction as the First Gate to Learning Disabilities Identification (2003, background): “…IQ discrepancy have similar characteristics to children with discrepancies and whom schools identify as LD children with absolute low achievement irrespective of IQ scores (Fletcher et al., 1994; D. Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, Lipsey, & Roberts, 2002; MacMillan & Siperstein, 2002; Steubing et al., 2002).”
The Future of a Mistake: Will Discrepancy Measurement Continue to Make the Learning Disabilities Field a Pseudoscience? (2005, background): “…(Aaron, 1997; Fletcher et al., 1994; Flowers, Meyer, Lovato, Wood, & Felton, 2001; O’Malley, Francis, Foorman, Fletcher, & Swank, 2002; Share, 1996; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Stuebing et al., 2002; see Stanovich, 2000, for at least a dozen more citations of evidence supporting this conclusion).”
Redefining Learning Disabilities as Inadequate Response to Instruction: The Promise and Potential Problems (2003, background): “The IQ-achievement discrepancy is fraught with measurement and conceptual problems, and few cognitive or affective characteristics differentiate poor readers with discrepancies from those without discrepancies (Fletcher et al., 1994; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, & Lynn, 1996; Stuebing et al., 2002).”
Why IQ is not a covariate in cognitive studies of neurodevelopmental disorders (2009, background): “A meta-analytic study comparing cognitive functions in children with reading disabilities found only small effect size differences between poorer readers relative to discrepant and nondiscrepant IQ scores (Stuebing et al., 2002 ).”
Reading Disabilities in Adults: A Selective Meta-Analysis of the Literature (2009, methodology): “However, with the recent enactment of IDEA, the federal government recognized potential problems with the IQ discrepancy method by formally stating that the IQ achievement discrepancy method was not necessary for learning disability diagnosis.”
Identifying and teaching children and young people with dyslexia and literacy difficulties : an independent report (2009, background): “39 Fletcher et al (1994), Reid-Lyon (1998), Stanovich and Siegel (1994), Stuebing et al (2002).”
A Follow-Up Meta-analysis for Word-Problem-Solving Interventions for Students with Mathematics Difficulties (2012, background): “In the realm of reading, a meta-analysis has found an overlap between the discrepant children and simply low-achieving poor readers on reading-related constructs (Stuebing et al., 2002).”