A Comparative Study of Three Tests of Intellectual Potential, Three Tests of Reading Achievement, and the Discrepancy Scores between Potential and Achievement

Jerrolds, Bob W.; Callaway, Byron; Gwaltney, Wayne

doi:10.1080/00220671.1971.10884285

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To make samples of poor readers more comparable across grades, criteria have been proposed that would classify as poor readers the same proportion of children at each grade (e.g., Jerrolds et al, 1971).…”

Section: Lack Of Comparability and Generalizability Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Good and Poor Readers: A Critique of the Research

Nelson¹

2014

Children's Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing Good and Poor Readers: A Critique of the Research Many studies of children's reading have compared reading ability groups on measures of cognitive performance. The primary aim of this work has been to identify the underlying causes of children's reading problems.A large variety of measures have been used, including tests of perceptual discrimination, visual scanning, within-modality and between-modality matching, vocabulary knowledge, decoding, whole word recognition, shortterm memory, memory for sentences, deductive and inductive reasoning, verbal and nonverbal IQ, and many more. The population of main interest has been children who have reading problems not attributable to neurological, physiological, emotional, general cognitive, or environmental factors.These children are often said to be dyslexic or to have specific reading disabilities. Since the definitions of these terms are subject to debate (Rutter, 1978;Rutter & Yule, 1975), labels such as below average, disabled, poor, problem, or retarded readers are used in many studies. The comparison children who do not have reading problems are typically called normal, good, superior, or skilled readers.Studies comparing good and poor readers can be divided into three general categories according to the dependent measures used.One category consists of studies using measures of reading performance, such as number of comprehension questions correctly answered, number of errors in oral reading, or speed of reading. Studies using these measures fall into two subtypes.One subtype involves manipulations of aspects of the text, such as vocabulary difficulty, syntactic complexity, presence of illustrations, or use of adjunct questions. The other subtype involves comparisons of Comparing Good and Poor Readers 2 reading performance before and after a training program. Some training studies look at poor readers only, but many include comparisons of reading ability groups.

show abstract

Section: Lack Of Comparability and Generalizability Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%