https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2794763/ "The purpose of this article was to examine the logic and the empirical data supporting the proposition that intelligence tests are not necessary for the definition of a learning disability. Four assumptions of the use of IQ test scores in the definition of learning disabilities were examined. These assumptions were (a) IQ tests measure intelligence; (b) intelligence and achievement are independent, and the presence of a learning disability will not affect IQ scores; (c) IQ scores predict reading, and children with low IQ scores should be poor readers; and (d) reading disabled children with different IQ scores have different cognitive processes and information skills. It was argued that IQ scores measure factual knowledge, expressive language abilities, and short-term memory, among other skills, and that because children with learning disabilities have deficits in these areas, their scores may be spuriously low. It was also shown that some children with low IQ scores can be good readers, indicating that low IQ scores do not necessarily result in poor reading. Empirical evidence was presented that poor readers at a variety of IQ levels show similar reading, spelling, language, and memory deficits. On logical and empirical grounds, IQ test scores are not necessary for the definition of learning disabilities." yes i did copy the abstract doesnt take away from my argument
This is only the abstract and the full paper is locked. I can't address this properly without the full paper, but I'll address what I can.
Having a high I.Q. is never going to be associated with learning disabilities to the same degree that low I.Q. does. High I.Q. learning disabilities tend to come from autism or ADHD, rather than simply not being able to process information at all. I'd also posit that not being able to understand something at all is far more impactful than having autism (which doesn't impact your entire ability to learn anything). Hence, on this ground alone, I.Q. is going to predict the severity of learning disabilities, and so has predictive value in that regard.
As for the paper specifically, I'm not sure what exactly they did when they "examined" these "four assumptions". Did they question the validity of these assumptions? Did they use these assumptions as premises in their arguments, or perhaps examined and negated some of them but not others? We don't know because we don't have the full paper.
Another quote I'd like to address: "It was argued that IQ scores measure factual knowledge, expressive language abilities, and short-term memory, among other skills, and that because children with learning disabilities have deficits in these areas, their scores may be spuriously low"
-- with IQ scores measure "factual knowledge", what exactly did they consider to be "factual knowledge?" Is this "factual knowledge" derived from the I.Q. test and is thus g loaded. Or is this "factual knowledge" required from *before* the test starts, hence allowing cultural/learned bias, thus lowering the g loading? Again, abstract doesn't explain this.
-- On another note, "expressive language abilities" sounds like a g loaded facet of an I.Q. test, so I'm super skeptical of them arguing that the I.Q. test becomes spurious when this g loaded factor is accounted for. In other words, they seem to have attempted to control for "expressive language abilities" when this factor *is* part of g loaded I.Q. tests. Again, would be nice to see the full paper to make sure this is exactly what they did.
-- I'm not sure they controlled for "short-term memory" properly (and it's debatable whether it's g loaded in itself) because having a lack of short-term memory can be mistaken for not being able to process the information in front of them, and so they might be accidentally removing a g loaded part of the test which they think is not g loaded. Again, abstract only etc. etc.
The final part I'd mention is that they've decided to say this: "It was also shown that some children with low IQ scores can be good readers, indicating that low IQ scores do not necessarily result in poor reading". I'd argue that reading ability *is* a "spurious" ground in which to measure I.Q, because clearly this is non-g loaded (i.e. can be learned before the test). Just because someone is reading, that doesn't mean they are understanding what they are reading -- that would be g loaded. Also, "good reader" isn't defined in this abstract, so you know what we need...
