The Relationship Between IQ and Reading Disabilities in English-Speaking Canadian and Spanish Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to examine the role of intelligence (IQ) in the definition of reading disabilities (RD) in languages with different orthographic systems. A sample of 94 Spanish children and 157 English-speaking Canadian children with RD was classified into four groups on the basis of IQ scores from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (< 80; 81-90; 91-109; 110-140). We examined the reading and spelling skills of Canadian and Spanish children as a function of Full Scale, Verbal, and Performance IQ scores. Significant differences between the languages were found when reading performance was analyzed as a function of Verbal IQ scores, in that there were some differences between the groups of Canadian children with RD but not between the groups of Spanish children. The Canadian children with Verbal IQ scores < 80 demonstrated relatively lower performance in reading and spelling skills than the Canadian groups with higher IQ scores. There were differences in reading tasks as a function of Performance IQ in English but not in Spanish. The differences in the role of IQ as a function of orthographic systems may relate to the greater significance of visual-orthographic as opposed to phonological processing in English.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".