This response argues that Linda Siegel's paper (EC221505) confuses measures of intelligence with predicted achievement, calls for doing away with the construct of learning disabilities rather than the discrepancy definition model, and overlooks the need to determine which students qualify for special educational services for treatment of learning…

The classification of intelligence has been a prime interest to many for over three-quarters of a century. The Wechsler scales of intelligence and the development of factor analysis have both played major roles in the shaping of psychometric thought. An examination of this joint history by means of a review of the factor analytic studies of the…

Performance on the Digit Span (DSP) and Digit Symbol (DSY) subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) have been said to be vulnerable to the effects of anxiety, seating arrangements, and sex of subject. To determine the effects of these variables on anxiety and test performance on the WAIS-R DSP and DSY subtests, 40 male and 40…

This critique of a paper by Linda Siegel (EC221505) challenges Siegel's assumptions on the relationship of Intelligence Quotient to learning disabilities as being unacceptable and non-literature-based, and points out that discussion of Intelligence Quotient cutoffs may be moot given that 49 states employ no cutoff for learning disabilities. (JDD)

Today's tests of intelligence are largely unchanged over the past 70 to 80 years, despite substantial changes in the way intelligence is conceptualized. The history of intelligence testing reveals that much more has been done to perfect the measurement of traits that are static and immutable than has been done to make or keep intelligence tests…

This commentary supports Linda Siegel's challenge to the learning disabilities field (in EC221505) to produce data indicating that dyslexic readers differ from other poor readers in their cognitive processing, educational prognosis, and response to treatment. The commentary also points out that the existence of Matthew effects reinforces Siegel's…

This study examined differences between Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III) and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) scores for 40 elementary students with learning disabilities. WISC-III Full Scale, Verbal, and Performance scores were lower than comparable WISC-R scores by one-third to one-half a…

A study of 33 elementary/middle school deaf children correlated Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised Performance Intelligence Quotients (IQs) with Stanford Achievement Test-Hearing Impaired Edition (SAT-HI) grade equivalents and age-based percentiles. A second study of 64 children correlated nonverbal IQs from many tests with SAT-HI…

Use of the discrepancy approach in defining learning disabilities is challenged, as intelligence tests do not measure potential, are not independent from what is measured by achievement tests, and are not powerful predictors of low reading performance. Use of intelligence tests in analysis, identification, and definition of learning disabilities…

In commenting on Linda Siegel's argument (in EC221505) that Intelligence Quotient is not causally related to reading difficulties, this paper argues that Intelligence Quotient is relevant to the definition of reading disabilities but that present knowledge may not justify its use in the selection of children for special services. (JDD)

This response to Linda Siegel's paper (EC221505) suggests some alternative explanations of phonological processing as a basis for determining reading disability. Discussed are the use of pseudoword tests, the relationship between phonological coding and intelligence quotient, and the relationship between phonological coding and reading…

This response to a paper by Linda Siegel (EC221505) on the relationship between Intelligence Quotient and learning disabilities addresses the differences between classification and identification, limitations in Siegel's conceptualization of intelligence, and the representation of the language and learning domains subsumed within the learning…

The Stanford-Binet IV is compared to the original version and criticized for having less power to measure the high end of intelligence and for having norms that discriminate against gifted students. Strengths of the Stanford-Binet L-M are pointed out, and use of both scales for different purposes is recommended. (JDD)

This response to a paper by Linda Siegel (EC221505) discusses research on the relationship between social skills and Intelligence Quotient or academic performance. The research indicates that it is erroneous to assume that Intelligence Quotient or academic achievement account for the social problems of children with learning disabilities. (JDD)

This commentary re-examines Linda Siegel's four basic assumptions (in EC221505) inherent in the Intelligence Quotient-achievement discrepancy commonly used to define learning disability. The commentary also discusses the uses of alternative measures of intelligence and the role of Intelligence Quotient in the identification of learning-disabled…