The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validity of IQ-Discrepancy Classifications of Reading Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
According to federal regulations, children with reading difficulties are eligible for special education services under the learning disability category if they display reading skills that are significantly lower than their scores on intelligence (IQ) tests. Children who are poor readers but do not display this discrepancy are not eligible for special education. A meta-analysis involving 46 studies addressing the validity of this classification of poor readers revealed substantial overlap between the IQ-discrepant and IQ-consistent poor readers. Aggregated effect sizes were in the negligible range for the Behavior (–.05) and Achievement (–.12) domains but in the small range for the Cognitive Ability domain (.30). The latter effects were heterogeneous, with larger estimates showing higher performance by the IQ-discrepant poor readers. The size of the effects could be largely explained by the selection criteria used to form groups, indicating that variation in group definitions across studies accounted for variability in effect size estimates. These results provide little evidence supporting the validity of the IQ-discrepancy classification fundamental to public policy concerning students with learning disabilities and cast doubt on the need for IQ tests in identifying these students.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
THE IDENTIFICATION AND PREVALENCE OF SPECIFIC READING RETARDATION
RODGERS, B. (1983) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1983.tb02570.x · Cited by 134
Cited by
Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades?
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305.x · Cited by 2,555
Self-citationShare, D. L. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584 · Cited by 1,022
Why IQ is not a covariate in cognitive studies of neurodevelopmental disorders
DENNIS, M., FRANCIS, D. J., CIRINO, P. T., SCHACHAR, R., BARNES, M. A., & FLETCHER, J. M. (2009) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617709090481 · Cited by 875
Self-citationThe Education of Dyslexic Children from Childhood to Young Adulthood
Shaywitz, S. E., Morris, R., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093633 · Cited by 383
Self-citationMassetti, G. M., Lahey, B. B., Pelham, W. E., Loney, J., Ehrhardt, A., Lee, S. S., & Kipp, H. (2008) · Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9186-4 · Cited by 318
Metadata
- Authors
- Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A.
- Venue
- American Educational Research Journal
- Published
- 2002-06
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 469-518
- ISSN
- 0002-8312 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1011
- OpenAlex
- W2116137234
- Cited by
- 370
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validity of IQ-Discrepancy Classifications of Reading Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3102/00028312039002469
- The paper
- Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-Discrepancy Classifications of Reading Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312039002469
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
