Intelligence 1

What is Intelligence and what is its relevance in the Assessment of Specific

Learning Difficulties?

INTELLIGENCE

Definition

Intelligence is difficult to define, as theorists have different definitions of

intelligence (see History of Intelligence Theories). However, in order to test for

intelligence, one requires a working definition (Neisser et. al., 1996). Matarazzo

(1972) defines intelligence as follows:

“Intelligence, as a hypothetical construct, is the aggregate or global capacity of

the individual to act purposefully, think rationally and to deal effectively with the

environment.”

From the definitions of Matarazzo (1972) and Binet and Simon (1905b), it appears

intelligence is the ability to problem solve and adapt to new environments and

situations. Intelligence is more than book learning, and involves ability to learn from

experience (Sternberg, 1996).

Frearson and Eysenck (1987) find working memory an essential part of intelligence.

However, this is controversial, as people with Dyslexia/SpLD often have

difficulties with working memory (Turner, 2000).

The first half of this essay covers the history of intelligence theories. It

concludes by comparing intelligence with and without Dyslexia/SpLD. Assessors

must understand theories of intelligence and their relevance to Dyslexia/SpLD to

assess correctly (Backhouse & Morris, 2005).

Controversy

Intelligence 2

Reasons for Intelligence Testing

Intelligence testing is necessary to diagnose Dyslexia/SpLD. Diagnosis precedes

support (Department for Education and Skills (DfES), 2005). However, assessors

should be aware intelligence testing is controversial, and evokes strong emotions

(Neisser et. al., 1996).

Arguments against Intelligence Testing

Objections to intelligence tests are a combination of psychological objections, and

objections to test limitations.

Psychological Objections

• Intelligence is related to Socio-economic success (Ganzach, 2011), and

therefore not politically correct.

• Intelligence tests are used to categorise people. Classification can be

rigid, inflexible and/or incorrect (Anastasi, 1967).

• Low test scores impact self-esteem (Anastasi, 1967).

Problems with Testing Tools

• Whether tests are valid, measuring what they are supposed to measure

(American Educational Research Association, American Psychological

Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999).

Intelligence tests are supposed to predict academic success, and success

in life generally (Sternberg, 1996). However:

o People who do not do well on intelligence tests are not always

unsuccessful (Sternberg, 1996).

o People who do well on intelligence tests are not always successful

(Favier-Townsend, 2010).

• Whether tests are reliable, measuring the same thing consistently

(Meeker & Escobar, 1998).

Intelligence 3

• Some intelligence tests ask culturally biased questions, disadvantaging

those from poorer backgrounds and different cultures (Anastasi, 1967).

For example, the Wide Range Intelligence Test (WRIT) (Glutting, Adams

& Shelow, 1999) Verbal Analogies subtest includes references to Coltrain

and Marconi.

Assessors' Response to Controversy

Assessors should help clients and colleagues understand reasons for intelligence

testing, explaining tests are necessary to obtain Dyslexia/SpLD diagnosis and

support. Assessors should handle intelligence testing sensitively, showing empathy

with emotions it may elicit in clients (Moody, 2009a).

History of Intelligence Theories

Controversy surrounding intelligence testing has grown out of the history of

intelligence theories, and their impact on intelligence testing (Cianciolo &

Sternberg, 2004). This section covers a basic history of intelligence. It discusses

how its' legacy may affect clients, and assessors should respond.

Psychometrics

Psychometrics, or quantitative measurement of mental and psychological faculties

(Farlex, 2011) began with Galton (1883). Galton (1883) believed increased

intelligence was the result of increased sensitivity to the environment.

General Intelligence (G)

Spearman (1923) was one of the first to conceptualise intelligence as a set of

cognitive processes. Spearman (1923) believed intelligence was the result of

enhanced ability to perceive stimuli, determining similarities and differences.

Intelligence 4

Spearman (1927) proposed a single, general underlying mental ability, 'G,' the

general ability to reason.

Categorising

Binet and Simon (1905a) developed the first intelligence test of practical value.

This test separated 'ineducable' or 'severely mentally handicapped' students from

their peers (Cianciolo & Sternberg, 2004), adversely affecting many who were

incorrectly labelled 'ineducable' (Kirman, 1958).

During the First World War, intelligence testing was adopted by the Army for

recruitment and placement decisions. Subsequently, it was widely used to allocate

occupational and educational opportunities (Cianciolo & Sternberg, 2004).

Eugenics

Eugenics was developed by Galton (1883), who became fascinated by Darwin's

(1859) work on breeding animals. Galton (1883) suggested people could be bred to

improve the populations' genetic make-up. Galton (1883) promoted 'positive

eugenics', encouraging reproduction of eminent men and families. However, others

developed a racist pseudo-science termed 'negative eugenics.' Jews, people of

colour, people with special needs and others were deemed less intelligent for

genetic reasons. Eugenics was used to justify mass sterilization in America and

genocide in Nazi Germany (Black, 2003; Brody, 2000).

The Legacy of G

Clients may be aware of some of the legacy of unhelpful categorisation and

discrimination of early 'G' intelligence tests. Intelligence tests may evoke

concerns. Assessors should reassure clients the purpose of testing is to access

Dyslexia/SpLD support, rather than discriminate.

Intelligence 5

Nature & Nurture: Fluid & Crystallised Intelligence

Horn and Cattell (1966) divided Spearman's (1927) 'G' factor into two distinct

parts: 'fluid intelligence' and 'crystallised intelligence.'

Fluid intelligence, 'GF' pertains to performance on tasks requiring non-verbal

abstract reasoning and problem solving ability. This is determined by genetic and

biological factors.

Crystallised intelligence, 'GC' describes performance on verbal tasks. This is

influenced by learning and/or experience. Tests to measure crystallised intelligence

are culturally-loaded.

Horn and Cattell (1967) found both types of intelligence increase during childhood

and adolescence. Fluid intelligence peaks in adolescence and progressively declines

from approximately age 30 or 40. Crystallised intelligence grows throughout

adulthood.

Horn and Cattell (1967) found fluid intelligence deteriorates with age. However,

recent research shows it can remain strong if visual sensory functioning and

processing speed can be maintained (Clay et. al., 2009).

Criticisms of G - Early Multiple Intelligence

Spearman's (1927) 'G' was and remains controversial. Critics proposed there are

more types of intelligence than measured by conventional intelligence tests, calling

these 'multiple intelligences' (Cianciolo & Sternberg, 2004).

Intelligence 6

Possibly the most influential critic of of Spearman (1927) was Thurstone (1938), an

early proponent of multiple intelligence. Thurstone (1938) argued intelligence is

comprised of 7 distinct but interrelated factors: verbal comprehension, verbal

fluency, number, memory, perceptual speed, inductive reasoning, and spatial

visualisation. Deary (2001) finds correlation between intelligence test sub-tests

when averaged across large groups. However, this is not necessarily the case for all

individuals within groups.

Like Thurstone (1938), Guilford (1967) argued against Spearman (1927) for

multiple intelligences.

Figure 1 Guilford (1967) found the structure of intellect composed of 4 contents, 5

operations, and 6 processes. These were mixed and matched to produce 120 different

combinations of abilities.

Breakdown of 'G' factor

Cattell (1966; 1987) built on and combined the work of Spearman (1927) Thurstone

(1938), Horn and Cattell (1966; 1967), and Guilford (1967), giving a breakdown of

the 'G' factor. This breakdown aimed to cover all things identified in intelligence

tests. After applying statistical models to many different tests of intelligence,

Intelligence 7

Cattell (1987) identified 9 'primary mental ability factors.' These were abilities

that appeared to underlie performance on different mental ability tests.

Figure 2 Cattell's (1987) model describes 9 primary mental ability factors of 'G'. These 9

factors are classified under fluid and crystallised intelligence.

Carroll (1993) built on and combined the work of Spearman (1927) Thurstone

(1938), Horn and Cattell (1966; 1967), and Guilford (1967), producing a

comprehensive hierarchical structure of intelligence.

Figure 3 Carroll's (1993) model, developed from previous thinking. At the top of the hierarchy

(Stratum III) is 'G'. At the second level (Stratum II) are 8 different intelligences. These are

Intelligence 8

ordered with respect to how strongly they influence the 'G' score. From strongest to weakest,

these are: fluid intelligence, crystallised intelligence, general memory and learning, broad visual

perception, broad auditory perception, broad retrieval ability, broad cognitive speediness, and

processing speed. At the bottom of the hierarchy (Stratum I) are very specific mental skills, similar

to sub-tests of intelligence tests (Deary, 2001).

Carroll (1993) incorporated Frearson and Eysenck’s (1985) findings regarding

correlations between reaction time, processing speed, memory and intelligence.

Stratum II factors of intelligence included ‘processing speed’, and ‘broad retrieval

ability.’

Later Multiple Intelligences

Building on the work of Thurstone (1938), and Guilford (1967), Gardner (1983) and

Sternberg (1985; 1999) revived multiple intelligence theory. Not all forms of

intelligence had yet been incorporated into intelligence tests. The aim was to

address this.

Gardner (1983) argued there are many different types of intelligence, only a small

subset of these being measured in conventional intelligence tests. Whilst

conventional intelligence tests measure academic ability, Gardner (2006) identified

8 different types of intelligence: Spatial, linguistic, logical-mathematical,

kinaesthetic, musical, inter-personal, intra-personal, and naturalistic. He also

considered the possibility of existential intelligence. He argued conventional

intelligence tests measured only logical-mathematical, linguistic, and some aspects

of spatial intelligence. He found if individuals struggle academically, this does not

mean they lack intelligence. Gardner (1983) could account for abilities of gifted

musicians and athletes, whereas traditional intelligence tests could not.

Intelligence 9

Gardner’s (1993) theory is valued by teachers of people with Dyslexia/SpLD, as it

validates learning and thinking in different ways (Armstrong, 2009). Educators

find multiple intelligences are useful in thinking about learning styles (Silver,

Strong, & Perini, 2000) and talents (Armstrong, 2009).

Criticism of multiple intelligences

Multiple intelligence theory has been controversial among academics for the

following reasons:

• Multiple intelligence theory appears to be based on intuition, lacking hard

scientific evidence (Brody, 1992).

• Gardner (1983) held intelligence testing should not conform to standard

psychometric measures, being more naturalistic. Testing for Gardner's

(1983) multiple intelligences can consequently be a 'psychometric nightmare'

(Sternberg, 1991).

• There is little or no agreement concerning number of different intelligences

(Sternberg, 1991).

• Gardner (1983) states multiple intelligences are only loosely correlated,

whereas research has found them highly correlated (Sternberg, 1991).

• Gardner (1983) claimed his intelligences were 'new', without acknowledging

how closely they were related to domains of ability suggested by Thurston

(1938), and Cattell and Horn (1966), (Morgan, 1996).

• Some of Gardner's (1983) "intelligences" would better be described as

talents (Sternberg, 1985).

Sternberg (1985) agreed with Gardner (1983) that intelligence is broader than

traditionally measured by intelligence tests. Sternberg (1985) proposed an

alternative model of multiple intelligence. Sternberg's (1985) Triarchic Theory

Intelligence 10

categorised intelligences into analytical, creative and practical. The appeal of this

model is it easily applies to real life situations.

Analytic (componential) intelligences are useful when there is only one correct

answer to a problem, which has all elements present for resolution. This is also

known as ‘academic’ intelligence.

Creative (experiential) intelligences are used in the creation, invention or discovery

of new ideas.

Practical (contextual) intelligences give people the ability to recognise problems

and work out solutions in real life situations, drawing on experience.

All 3 intelligences are balanced to achieve success within a particular sociocultural

context.

Nature vs. Nurture

Since the time of Galton (1883), the Nature vs. Nurture debate and its implications

for education has been intense. Nature refers to genetic inheritance of

intelligence. Nurture refers to intelligence determined by environmental factors.

Children usually receive both genetic material and upbringing from the same

parents. This makes it difficult to tell what proportion and/or aspects of

intelligence are due to nature and/or nurture (Eysenck & Kamin, 1981).

Twin & Adoption Studies

Research into twins separated at birth e.g. Galton (1869; 1875) and Shields (1962)

and adoption studies e.g. Musinger (1975) Scarr and Weinberg, (1976) investigated

relative influence of nature and nurture on intelligence. However, there were

Intelligence 11

methodological issues. Experimenters did not carry out intelligence tests double-

blind during studies. They may have unconsciously biased results, particularly given

the nature-nurture debate and its links with eugenics. This could have been

improved. However, other methodological issues could not have been addressed

without violating ethics. For humane reasons, families and adoption agencies often

placed children in families with similar intelligence and/or socio-economic status

(SES) as birth families. Some children had contact with birth families. Estimates

of the genetic influence on intelligence range from 0% to 80%

(Eysenck & Kamin, 1981).

Genetics & Biology

Studies have found intelligence genes (Deary, Spinath, & Bates, 2006) which

impact on the biology of the brain and how it responds to the environment (Toga &

Thompson, 2005). Intelligence genes increase brain size (Deary et. al., 2006); make

the brain's electrical impulses faster, more complex, and differently shaped

(Deary, 2001); make visual processing more efficient (Deary, 2001); and make

reaction times shorter and less variable (Deary et. al., 2006). However, the brain is

plastic and can be rewired through education. It is therefore difficult to tell

which proportion of brain wiring is nature, and which is nurture (Restak, 2001).

Genetic Eugenics

Discoveries regarding intelligence genes have led to genetic eugenics. This has

generated a private market. This benefits parents who select the genes of their

children to avoid disabilities (Kevles, 2004). However, a negative outcome is this

also creates the potential for 'designer babies', with parents choosing to have

more intelligent children (Tuhus-Dubrow, 2007).

Intelligence 12

To conclude, there is no consensus regarding what proportion of intelligence is due

to nature or nurture. However, it is clear both play significant and interacting roles

(Sameroff, 2010).

The Legacy of Nurture

Improving nurture of intelligence has had humane and empowering consequences.

Nurturist Portwood found essential fatty acids in breast milk provide better wiring

in the brain for infants with Dyspraxia/SpLD (McKay, 2011). Omega 3 and 6 fish

oils improve coordination and concentration in school children with Dyspraxia/SpLD

(Portwood, 2006).

Piaget (1932) found cognitive development occurs through interaction with the

environment. Piaget's (1932) ideas have been successful in education (Eysenck,

2002).

Vygotsky (1978) found children achieve a limited amount of learning alone, but

learn better with assistance, and best from instruction. Social interaction acts as a

scaffold for children's learning. Vygotsky (1978)'s 'Zone of Proximal Development.'

is the increased potential for learning through interaction.

Combining the theories of Piaget (1935) and Vygotsky (1978), Feuerstein et. al.

(1980) found children benefit two different types of learning situations. In direct

learning, children interact directly with the environment. Sometimes they work out

things on their own and learn from them. Sometimes they require mediated

learning, or adult assistance in modifying the environment. This method is

particularly helpful for people with special needs and/or low intelligence

(Feuerstein, Rand, & Rynders, 1988).

Intelligence 13

Nurturist approaches assist children with development and maturation of

cognition. They modify the environment to facilitate children's development. They

are social in origin, with adults modifying the environment on a continual, dynamic

basis to meet children's needs (Kozulin & Presseisen, 1995). Assessors should

reassure clients that nurture has been shown to improve cognitive development,

and DSA support will fund specialist support for this purpose.

Implications of 'G' & Nature vs. Nurture on testing

Deary (2001) finds modern psychometrics, intelligence testing, is largely based on

'G.' In professional practice, Educational Psychologists largely use the Wechsler

(2008) Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV). The construction of this test was

largely built on the work of Carroll (1993) (Deary, 2001). Assessors have continued

to use conventional intelligence tests. This is due to difficulty of assessing talents

objectively, and/or covering the large numbers of multiple intelligences proposed

(Sternberg, 1991). Specialist teachers largely use the WRIT (Wide Range, Inc.,

1999), which is comparable to the WAIS-IV (Wechsler, 2008).

Dyslexia/SpLD and Intelligence

Whilst people without Dyslexia/SpLD perform similarly across tests in an

intelligence test assessment battery, people with Dyslexia/SpLD show marked

strengths and weaknesses. Therefore intelligence tests are useful in assessing for

Dyslexia/SpLD (Miles, 1983; Stanovich, 1991; Grant, 2010; Moody, 2010).

Pollak (2009) finds controversy regarding whether Dyslexia/SpLD is a learning

difference or deficit. Perceiving Dyslexia/SLD as a learning difference is

empowering and beneficial for client self-esteem. However, perceiving

Dyslexia/SpLD as a deficit is necessary to obtain government support. This funds

Intelligence 14

necessary assistance at university (DfES, 2005). Reasons for seeing Dyslexia/SpLD

as a deficit should be explained to clients. Both strengths and weaknesses should

be covered during assessment, and reflected in the report (Pollak, 2009).

The nature vs. nurture debate is useful in thinking about Dyslexia/SpLD Support.

The history of this debate shows it is unhelpful to discriminate against people on

the basis of nature. Instead, people with Dyslexia/SpLD should be nurtured to

achieve their full potential. Multiple intelligence theory helps value Dyslexia/SpLD

strengths and weaknesses and provide support (Armstrong, 2009).

Intelligence 15

ASSESSMENT

Uses of Intelligence Tests

Intelligence tests are currently used in job recruitment, education and medicine

(Deary, 2001). Despite their problematic history, they have useful applications

determining capacity to respond to and cope with different situations. One

educational application is diagnosis of Dyslexia/SpLD (Moody, 2010).

Legal and Professional Issues

To receive support for Dyslexia/SpLD in Higher Education (HE), students provide

the university and Disabled Student's Allowance (DSA) (Crown copyright, 2011)

with a report evidencing Dyslexia/SpLD. This includes an intelligence test.

Subsequently, the university must support them according to disability legislation.

The Disability Discrimination Act (Office of Public Sector Information, 1995) aims

to end disability discrimination. It states people with disabilities should not be

treated ‘less favourably’, and institutions should make ‘reasonable adjustments.'

The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) (2001) (Department for

Education and Employment, 2009) establishes rights for students with disabilities

in pre and post 16 Education (The Higher Education Academy, 2009). This impacts

schools, sixth-form colleges and universities. Universities must make reasonable

adjustments to help students with Dyslexia/SpLD. Individualised provision could

include exam access arrangements and/or specialist support.

Previously, diagnostic assessments were conducted exclusively by Educational

Psychologists. The SpLD Working Group 2005/DfES Guidelines (DfES, 2005) state

that from 2005 onwards, full assessment of Dyslexia/SpLD can be made by

Dyslexia/SpLD specialists. Specialists must complete a course accredited by the

Intelligence 16

Associate Membership of the British Dyslexia Association (AMBDA) (The British

Dyslexia Association, 2011).

Educational Psychologists

Educational Psychologists use the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Fourth

Edition (WAIS-IV) (Wechsler, 2008) to diagnose Dyslexia/SpLD for Disabled

Student's Allowance (DSA) provision in Higher Education (HE) (Crown copyright,

2011).

Figure 4 The (WAIS-IV) (Wechsler, 2008) hierarchy of mental ability test scores (Deary, 2001)

WAIS-IV (Wechsler, 2008) results can be summarised as:

Verbal Intelligence Quotient(VIQ), calculated from the sum of scaled scores on

verbal tests, excluding Digit Span. Verbal tests are shown in the 'Verbal

Comprehension' and 'Working Memory' sections of Figure 4.

Intelligence 17

Performance Intelligence Quotient (PIQ), calculated from the sum of scaled scores

on performance tests, excluding Mazes and Symbol Search. Performance tests are

shown in the 'Perceptual Organisation' and 'Processing Speed' sections of Figure 4.

Full Scale IQ can be calculated using the VIQ and PIQ scores, giving an indication

of overall intelligence (Wechsler, 2008.)

Specialist Teachers

Figure 5: Overview of the Wide Range Intelligence Test (WRIT) (Glutting et. al., 1999).

Specialist Teachers use an equivalent test: the Wide Range Intelligence Test

(WRIT) (Glutting et. al., 1999). (DfES, 2005). This is an individually administered

test for ages 4-80 divided into a verbal scale and performance scale.

The Verbal Scale assesses language development, vocabulary, verbal reasoning,

general knowledge and auditory sequential memory. The scores on this scale

correlate most closely with academic achievement. The Verbal Analogies subtest

asks clients to find common elements between words, e.g. 'Wheels are round, boxes

are...' The Vocabulary Subtest asks clients to explain meanings of words, e.g.

'testify.'

The WRIT Performance Scale examines development of visual and manual abilities.

Clients perform observations and pattern constructions. In the Matrices Subtest,

Intelligence 18

clients select pictures to complete designs. In the Diamonds Subtest, clients

reproduce two and three-dimensional patterns.

Other Assessment Tools

The WRIT (Glutting et. al., 1999) is necessary but not sufficient for diagnosing

Dyslexia/SpLD for DSA (DfES, 2005) purposes. Single word reading, reading

speed, reading comprehension, spelling, writing speed and quality, phonological

awareness, working memory and processing speed must also be assessed (Grant,

2009; Johnson, 2010). Some of the more frequently used tests available are:

Single Word Reading

Wide Range Achievement Test 4 (WRAT 4) (Wilkinson & Robertson, 1993) reading

subtest

Reading Speed

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999b)

Gray Oral Reading Test – Fourth Edition (GORT-4) (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001).

Reading Comprehension:

Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT) (Wiederholt & Blalock, 2000)

Spelling

WRAT 4 (Wilkinson & Robertson, 1993) spelling subtest

Writing Speed and Quality:

A 20 minute free writing sample on an academic topic e.g. something to do with

clients' courses (Backhouse & Morris, 2005). Writing speed (25 words per minute is

average at university level), and/or handwriting legibility may warrant extra time

Intelligence 19

and/or a computer in exams and/or Dyspraxia diagnosis). Assessors note

communication of ideas, structure & composition, spelling, vocabulary, and

grammatical & technical accuracy.

Phonological Processing:

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) (Torgesen, Wagner, &

Rashotte, 1999a)

• Elision

• Non-word Repetition

• Rapid Letter Naming

• Blending Words

TOWRE (Torgesen et. al., 1999b)

• Word Naming

• Non-word Naming

Gross – Glenn et. al. (1990) Non-word Reading Test

Working Memory:

Digit Memory Test (Turner & Ridsdale, 2004): all ages.

CTOPP (Torgesen et. al., 1999a)

• Phonological memory

Processing Speed:

Symbol Digit Modalities (Smith, 1982)

CTOPP (Torgesen et. al., 1999a)

• Rapid Digit Naming

• Rapid Letter Naming

Alternative Tests

Intelligence 20

With clients of unusually high or low ability, it may help to use some of the

following:

Adult Reading Test (ART) (30 mins) (Everatt, Brooks & Fidler, 2004)

Spadafore's (1983) Spadafore Diagnostic Reading Test (SDRT) (30-60 mins) – in

depth.

WRAT-E (Wilkinson & Robertson, 1993) reading comprehension subtest – in depth

Singleton and Simmons (2001) Advanced Reading Comprehension Test (ARC Test) –

normed on Hull university students – above average for UK.

WRAT (Wilkinson & Robertson, 1993) Extended – reading comprehension &

mathematics.

Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning WRAML2 (Sheslow & Adams,

2003)

The SpLD Working Group 2005/DfES Guidelines (DfES, 2005) give a

comprehensive overview of all tests available, age ranges, time-scales and test

ceilings. Assessors should use at least 1 test per area, and assess for a maximum of

2 ½ – 3 hours, giving clients adequate breaks (Turner, 2000).

Screenings

Visual Stress Screener (Bartlett & Moody, 2000).

Hannell (2005)'s check-lists for the following SpLDs: Speech & Language

Difficulties, Autism, Asperger's, Tourette's Syndrome, Attention

Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, DCD/Dyspraxia.

Morrisby (1998). Manual Dexterity Test (MDT) for Dyspraxia

Portwood (1996). Motor Skills Screening for Dyspraxia.

Spiky Profile

Intelligence 21

According to Stanovich's (1991) controversial discrepancy definition, people with

Dyslexia/SpLD experience significant difficulty learning to read despite adequate

intelligence, instruction and socio-cultural opportunity.

Miles (1983) proposed the 'spiky profile' definition of Dyslexia, which also applies

to other SpLDs (Grant,2010). People with Dyslexia/SpLD have much more

pronounced differences between their strengths and weaknesses than average.

When a graph is drawn, differences between heights of bars are relatively large,

producing a 'spiky profile.' People without Dyslexia/SpLD often have a 'flat

profile.'

Each person with Dyslexia/SpLD has a unique combination of strengths and

weaknesses. Dyslexia/SpLD is complex, its definition difficult and controversial. As

yet there is no comprehensive understanding of what causes Dyslexia/SpLD. Frith

(1995) proposes a shared theoretical framework. This provides a working model for

theorists and practitioners to gain an overview of Dyslexia/SpLD, both in general

and regarding individual clients. Frith (1995) finds Dyslexia/SpLD arises through

interaction between biological, cognitive, behavioural and environmental factors

(Figure 6).

Intelligence 22

Figure 6: Frith's (1995) shared theoretical framework for Dyslexia/SpLD.

For simplicity, this section describes underlying causes of pure cases of Dyslexia,

Dyspraxia and Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder (AD(H)D). However,

assessors should be aware of less frequently occurring SpLDs, such as

Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD), Asperger's, Autism, Dyscalculia and

Tourette’s Syndrome (DANDA, 2011). Assessors should be aware individuals often

have one or more overlapping SpLDs (DANDA (Developmental Adult Neuro-

Diversity Association), 2011).

Dyslexia

Weaknesses

Phonological Deficit

Biologically, people without Dyslexia/SpLD have left hemisphere dominance, whilst

people with Dyslexia/SpLD may have right or mixed brain dominance (Geschwind &

Galaburda, 1987). Sounds of words are processed by the left hemisphere, (Lishman,

2006). Cognitively, this results in phonological deficit, or difficulty processing

Intelligence 23

sounds of words (Snowling & Stackhouse, 2006). Behaviourally, this manifests in

poor reading speed, reading accuracy, phoneme awareness, and spelling.

Working Memory & Processing Speed

Biologically, people with Dyslexia have cerebellar deficits. The cerebellum

specialises in motor control, planning, organisation and automaticity. Cognitively and

behaviourally, this leads to difficulties in balance, handwriting, structuring and

composition of assignments, acquisition of language dexterity, and timekeeping.

People with Dyslexia have difficulties with working memory and speed of

information processing (Nicholson & Fawcett, 2001).

Visual Sensitivity/Disturbance

Biologically, people with Dyslexia/SpLD have a deficit processing information using

the Magnocellular visual pathway. Text may blur and/or move around, and

black/white contrast may dazzle. There may be binocular instability, and

difficulties controlling convergence (Stein, 2001; 2003). This is also known as

Scotopic Sensitivity (Wilkins & Huang, 2004), and Meares-Irlen Syndrome (Meares,

1980; Irlen, 2005; Wilkins & Huang, 2004). Cognitively, this leads to difficulties

perceiving graphemes, words, correctly, and learning relationships between

graphemes and phonemes, the sounds of words. Behaviourally, this leads to

difficulties reading and writing.

Strengths

Perceptual Organisation

People with Dyslexia often have unusual & creative strengths in visual-spatial

abilities, lateral thinking and intuition (Cohn & Neumann, 1977; Everatt, Steffert, &

Smythe, 1999; von Karolyi et. al., 2003; West, 2009; Xtraordinary People, 2011).

This could be explained by mixed/right brain dominance, leading to strengths in

Intelligence 24

right-brain skills (Gilger & Wilkins, 2008). It could also be explained by

compensation for left-brain deficits using a normal right brain (Grant, 2010).

Comprehension Strengths

People with Dyslexia display strengths in verbal comprehension (Moody, 2010), that

is, understanding concepts and meanings of words. This is associated with holistic,

right-brain thinking (West, 2004).

Dyspraxia

In pure Dyspraxia, there is no phonological deficit. However, there are deficits in

working memory, perceptual organisation and processing speed. People with

Dyspraxia have similar cerebellar difficulties to people with Dyslexia, which may be

more pronounced. People with Dyspraxia may experience visual sensitivity (Colley,

2006).

Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder

Biologically, deficits in the frontal part of the brain and basal ganglia (Nigg, 2006)

cause attention difficulties at cognitive and behavioural levels. This results in

difficulties with working memory and processing speed (Frith, 1999).

In pure AD(H)D there is no phonological deficit, and people with AD(H)D may

experience visual sensitivity (Grant, 2010).

Dynamic Assessment

Individuals often have a combination of 2 or more SpLDs, or unusual profiles.

Assessors should use Dynamic assessment (Elliott, 2003; Budoff, 1987; Sternberg

& Grigirenk, 2002) to identify unique cognitive profiles. Dynamic assessment was

introduced by Feuerstein, Rand and Hoffman (1979), who developed the Learning

Intelligence 25

Potential Assessment Device (LAPD). This assesses individual capacity to improve

cognition when provided with correct instruction.

During Dynamic Assessment, assessors monitor client performance, making

judgements regarding which tests should be applied next. They form hypotheses

regarding responses to learning situations and problem-solving ability. These form

the basis of an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for the client, detailing strengths

and areas for development (Backhouse & Morris, 2005).

The above list shows areas to be covered during assessment, and tests available

for assessing them. Different tests provide options for assessing different ability

levels. Questionnaires give options for assessing for different SpLDs. Assessors do

not need to use all tests during each assessment, but should adequately cover each

area.

Interpretation

Test Scores

For each test, clients receive a 'raw score' for number of items correct. Standard

scores and percentiles can then be calculated using the relevant statistical manual

for that test (Backhouse & Morris, 2005).

Percentile scores are easiest for clients to understand. These describe the

percentage of the population their age clients equalled or outperformed.

Standard Scores allow assessors to find significant differences between scores on

different sub-tests. A difference of at least 15 points (1 Standard Deviation) is

significant.

Intelligence 26

Different tests have different age & ability ceilings. They may still provide useful

information for individuals above ceilings, but assessors should acknowledge

effects on test scores.

Standardised tests give the option of quoting age-equivalent scores. This should be

avoided if possible. Some teachers of young children may require them. As people

with Dyslexia/SpLD age, they fall progressively further behind their peers, and

age-equivalent scores become increasingly inappropriate.

Figure 40: Intelligence test Score Distribution. The bell curve shows distribution of test scores

across the population. More people fall within the average range (68%) than at either extremes

(32%). Standard scores give points along the range of possible test scores. A score between 85 and

115 is in the average range. A score lower than 85 is below average. A score above 115 is above

average (Backhouse & Morris, 2005).

Test scores should be reported such that reading reports is a positive experience

for clients. Instead of describing 'IQ' and 'Performance', assessors should

describe 'ability' and 'attainment.' Older manuals use derogatory terms e.g.

'feeble minded' (Cattell, 1937). The most recent guide to Interpretation of Scores

from PATOSS (the Professional Association of Teachers Of Students with

Intelligence 27

Specific learning difficulties) (Backhouse & Morris, 2005) provides more positive

descriptions, as shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11: PATOSS (Backhouse & Morris, 2005) Guide to Interpretation of Scores.

If overall ability is high, it enhances client self-esteem to report it. If low, it is

omitted to preserve client self-esteem. A profile of strengths and weakness is

reported with constructive recommendations for support (Moody, 2010).

According to the Flynn (1987) Effect, intelligence test scores are slowly but

consistently increasing over the years. Tests are continually re-standardised, and

Assessors use up-to-date statistics manuals.

Pattern of Results

Calculating test scores produces a pattern of results. These are examined to

determine diagnoses and individual patterns of strengths and weaknesses.

Simpson (2011a; 2011b) has produced guidance documents for this process.

This guidance also enables assessors to tackle the following diagnostic challenges:

• Borderline cases, people who may or may not have Dyslexia/SpLD.

• Complex cases, people who have a combination of two or more SpLDs.

Intelligence 28

• English as an Additional Language (EAL) with/without Dyslexia/SpLD.

• General Learning Difficulty with/without Dyslexia/SpLD.

Best Practice in Assessment

Screening

Clients should complete Dyslexia/SpLD screening prior to assessment. This first

point of contact enables clients to clarify reasons for referral, content of

assessment, the follow-up process, and importance of consent to disclose (The

Association of Dyslexia Specialists in Higher Education (ADSHE), 2009).

Information to be obtained includes education, qualifications, work experience,

present occupation, and family history including Dyslexia/SpLD incidence

(McLoughlin, Fitzgibbon & Young, 1994). There may be a questionnaire and/or

writing sample. Assessors review screening materials prior to assessment, and may

obtain additional background information (Backhouse & Morris, 2005).

During Assessment

Moody (2009a) describes three levels to best practice during assessment, the

practical, emotional, and spiritual.

Practically, assessors should prepare the materials and environment, give clients

time to relax, and structure the encounter, explaining what will happen with time-

scales.

Assessors should respond empathetically to client emotions. Emotions may pertain

to difficulties in study, work or life and/or assessment itself (Bartlett & Moody,

2000). It is important not to rush clients, and maintain a sense of calm. Assessors

should mention tests get harder as they go along, to preserve self-esteem.

Assessment should begin with ability tests, boosting confidence.

Intelligence 29

Spiritually, assessors should practice mindfulness (Gunaratana, 2002) being fully

present. This enables them to fully observe client responses, maintaining their own

calm and emotions.

Diagnosis

Clients may experience affective issues when diagnosed. Assessors should show

empathy, discussing any concerns regarding diagnosis. Clients should be given verbal

feedback after assessment, followed by a written report. Some clients may benefit

from referral to counselling regarding affective issues (McLoughlin et. al., 1994).

Report Writing

Moody (2010) finds reports should not quote general ability, unless high, to

preserve client self-esteem. Reports describe client ability and attainment in

different areas. They should be written such that all readers understand client

strengths and weaknesses, and their contribution to support. For example, it should

include a clear diagnosis for the DSA (Crown copyright, 2011), and an IEP for

specialist tutors (DfES, 2005).

Moody (2009b) suggests 6 golden rules of report writing: be focused, brief, clear,

appropriate, formulaic, and quick.

Jargon should be avoided, and complicated figures put in an appendix. Test scores

should be explained using a bell curve in the appendix, as shown in Figure 8

(Backhouse, & Morris, 2005).

Reports should include recommendations to other specialists as needed e.g. The

Institute of Optometry (2011) for visual sensitivity.

Intelligence 30

Conclusions

Intelligence tests form an essential part of Dyslexia/SpLD assessment for support

in H.E. Educational Psychologists use the WAIS-IV (Wechsler, 2008), whilst

Specialist Teachers use the WRIT (Glutting et. al., 1999). Assessors test for

phonological awareness, working memory, processing speed, single word reading,

reading speed, reading comprehension, spelling, and writing speed and quality using

approved tests. Assessors should know the cognitive profiles of Dyslexia and other

SpLDs. They use a battery of standardised tests, and select tests to reflect the

needs and emerging profiles of clients, using dynamic assessment principles. During

assessment, assessors should be well prepared, structure the encounter, put

clients at ease and respond appropriately to affective issues. Assessors should be

aware of the history of intelligence theories and testing, and how this may impact

client concerns. They should reassure clients intelligence testing is to help, rather

than discriminate. When interpreting test scores, assessors should have a thorough

understanding of statistics, and identify clients' unique cognitive profiles. They

should write a report that is positive, clear and easily accessible to all readers.

31

Bibliography

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Anastasi, A. (1967). Psychology, psychologists, and psychological testing. American Psychologist , 22 (4), 297-306.

Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA, United States: ASCD (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).

Backhouse, G., & Morris, K. (2005). Dyslexia? assessing and reporting, the Patoss Guide . London: Hodder Murray.

Bartlett, D., & Moody, S. (2000). Dyslexia in the workplace. London: Whurr Publishers.

Binet, A. & Simon, T. A. (1905a). Méthode nouvelle pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectuel des anormaux. L'Année Psychologique, , 11, 191-244.

Binet, A., & Simon, T. A. (1905b) in Matarazzo, J. D. (1972). Wechsler's measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

Black, E. (2003). War against the weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.

Brody, N. (2000). History of theories and measurements of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg, Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 16-33). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brody, N. (1992). Intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.

Budoff, M. (1987). The validity of learning potential assessment. In Lidz, C. S. Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 52-81). New York: Guilford.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities : a survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology , 57 (5), 253-270.

32

Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: its structure, growth, and action. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

Cattell, R. B. (1937). The fight for our national intelligence. London: P.S. King & Son, Ltd.

Cianciolo, A. T. & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Intelligence: A brief history. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Clay, O. J., Edwards, J. D., Ross, L. A., Okonkwo, O., Wadley, V. G., Roth, D. L., Ball, K. K. . (2009). Visual function and cognitive speed of processing mediate age-related decline in memory span and fluid intelligence. Journal of Aging and Health , 21, 547-566.

Cohn, R., & Neumann, M. A. (1977). Artistic production in dyslectic children. Neurol. , 18, 65-69.

Colley, M. (2006). Living with dyspraxia: A guide for adults with developmental dyspraxia (revised ed.). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Crown copyright. (2011). Disabled students' allowances (DSAs). Retrieved July 6, 2011, from Directgov: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/EducationAndTraining/HigherEducation/DG_10034898

DANDA (Developmental Adult Neuro-Diversity Association). (2011). Neuro-diversity. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from Danda: http://www.danda.org.uk/pages/neuro-diversity.php

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London: John Murray.

Deary, I. J. (2001). Intelligence: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Deary, I. J., Spinath, F. M., & Bates, T. C. (2006). Genetics of intelligence. European Journal of Human Genetics , 14, 690–700.

Department for Education and Employment. (2009, 3 13). Special educational needs and disability act (SENDA) 2001. Retrieved January 23, 2010, from Office of Public Sector Information: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010010_en_1

33

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2005, July 19). Disabled student allowances. Retrieved July 06, 2011, from The professional association of teachers of students with specific learning difficulties: http://www.patoss-dyslexia.org/DSA2.html

Elliott, J. (2003). Dynamic assessment in educational settings: Realising potential. Educational Review , 55 (1) 15-32.

Everatt, J., Steffert, B., Smythe, I. (1999). An eye for the unusual: creative thinking in dyslexics. Dyslexia , 5, 28-46.

Everatt, J., Brookes, P., & Fidler, R. (2004). Adult reading test. Oxford: Pearson.

Eysenck, H. J. & Kamin, L. J. (1981). Intelligence: The battle for the mind. London: Macmillan.

Eysenck, M. W. (2002). Simply psychology. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press Ltd.

Farlex, Inc. . (2011). Psychometrics. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from The Free Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/psychometric

Favier-Townsend, A. (2010). High IQ and academic underachievement: Repercussions in adulthood. European Mensas Annual Gathering. Prague.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y. & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, Theory, Instruments and Techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M.B. & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Rynders, J. E. (1988). Don't accept me as I am: Helping "retarded" people to excel. New York, United States: Plenum Press.

Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin , 95, 29 - 51.

Frearson, W. & Eysenck, H. J. (1987). Intelligence, reaction time (r-l-) and a new ‘odd-man-out’ rt paradigm. Person. Individ. Diff, , 7 (6) 807-817.

Frith, U. (1995). Dyslexia: Can we have a shared theoretical framework? . Journal of Educational Psychology , 12, 6-7.

34

Frith, U. (1999). Paradoxes in the definition of dyslexia. Dyslexia , 5, 192-214.

Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary Genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan.

Galton, F. (1875). The history of twins, as a criterion of the relative powers of nature and nurture. London: Anthropological Institute.

Galton, F. (1883). Inquiry into human faculty and its development. London: Macmillan Press.

Ganzach, Y. (2011). A dynamic analysis of the effects of intelligence and socioeconomic background on job-market success. Intelligence , 39 (2-3), pp. 120-129.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic books.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books.

Geschwind, N. & Galaburda, A. M. (1987). Cerebral lateralization. London: The MIT Press.

Gilger, J. & Wilkins, M. (2008). Atypical Neurodevelopmental variation as a basis for learning disorders. In M. M. (Eds.), Language impairment and reading disability: Interactions among brain, behavior, and experience. (pp. 7-40). New York: Guilford Press.

Glutting, J., Adams, W., & Shelow, D. (1999). Wide Range Intelligence Test (WRIT). Lutz, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Grant, D. (2009). A comparison of the WRIT Verbal Analogies test and the WAIS-III (UK edition) Similarities subtest: Implication for diagnostic assessment. Assessment & Development Matters , 1, 4,.

Grant, D. (2010). That's the way i think (2nd ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Gross-Glenn, K., Jallad, B., Novoa, L., Helgren-Lempesis, V., Lubs, H. A. (1990). Nonsense passage reading as a diagnostic aid in the study of familial dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 2 (2), 161 – 173.

35

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gunaratana, B. H. (2002). Mindfulness in plain english. Somerville, MA, United States: Wisdom Publications.

Hannell, G. (2005). Identifying children with special needs: Checklists and action plans for teachers. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Horn, J. L. & Cattell, R. B. . (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallised intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology , 57, 253 – 70.

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1967). Age differences in fluid and crystallized intelligence. Acta Psychologica , 26, 107-129.

Irlen, H. (2005). Reading by the colors (2nd ed.). New York. Perigree.

Johnson, B. (2010). Is the WRIT a safe test? Dyslexia Review , 21 (2), 32.

Kevles, D. J. (2004). In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity. New York: Harvard University Press.

Kirman, B. H. (1958). The "ineducable" child. Journal of Mental Science , 104, 167-173.

Kozulin, A. and Presseisen, B. Z. (1995). Mediated learning experience and psychological tools: Vygotsky's and feuerstein's perspectives in a study of student learning. Educational Psychologist , 30 (2), 67-75.

Lishman, W. A. (2006). The dyslexic brain. In M. J. Snowling, Dyslexia speech and language (pp. 36- 53). Chichester : Whurr Publishers Ltd.

Matarazzo, J. D. (1972). Wechsler's measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

McKay, M. (2011). Oils for clumsy child syndrome. Retrieved July 27, 2011, from Mail Online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4176/Oils-clumsy-child-syndrome.html

McLoughlin, D., Fitzgibbon, G., & Young, V. (1994). Adult dyslexia: Assessment, counselling and training. London: Whurr Publishers.

Meares, O. (1980). Figure/ground, brightness contrast, and reading disabilities.

Visible Language, 14 (1), 13-29.

36

Meeker, W. Q. and Escobar, L. A. (1998). Statistical methods for reliability data. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

Miles, T. R. (1983). Dyslexia: The pattern of difficulties. London: Priory Press.

Moody, S. (2009a). Aspects of assessment. Dyslexia Review , 21 (1), 28-32.

Moody, S. (2009b). Writing disabled students' allowance - DSA - assessment reports: A guide for the perplexed. PATOSS bulletin , 22 (2), 8 - 13.

Moody, S. (2010). IQ? Leave it out! Cognitive profile? Leave it in... Patoss Bulletin Winter 2010 , 23 (2), 11-15.

Morgan, H. (1996). An analysis of gardner's theory of multiple intelligence. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education , 18(4), 263-269.

Morrisby (1998). Manual dexterity test (MDT) for dyspraxia. Hemel Hempstead, Herts: Educational & Industrial Test Services Ltd.

Musinger, H. (1975). Children's resemblance to their biological and adopting parents in two ethnic groups. Behavior Genetics , 71, 174 – 175.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J. , J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). "Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns". American Psychologist , 51, 77-101.

Nicholson, R., & Fawcett, A. (2001). Developmental dyslexia: The cerebellar deficit

hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Neurosciences, 24 (9), 508-516.

Nigg, J. T. (2006). What causes ADHD?: Understanding what goes wrong and why. New

York: Guilford Press.

Office of Public Sector Information. (1995, 3 13). Disability discrimination act. Retrieved July 7, 2011, from Office of Public Sector Information: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/ukpga_19950050_en_1

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgement of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Pollak, D. (2009). Neurodiversity in higher education: positive responses to specific learning differences. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

37

Portwood M. (1996). Developmental dyspraxia: A practical manual for parents and professionals. London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.

Portwood, M. M. (2006). The role of dietary fatty acids in children’s behaviour and learning. Nutrition and Health , 18, 219–232.

Restak, R. M. (2001). The secret life of the brain. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

Sameroff, A. (2010). A Unified Theory of Development: A Dialectic Integration of Nature and Nurture. Child Development , 81 (1), 6–22.

Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (1976). IQ test performance of Black children adopted by White families. American Psychologist , 31(10), 726-739.

Sheslow, D., & Adams, W. (2003). Wide range assessment of memory and learning second edition administration and technical manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Shields, J. (1962). Monozygotic twins brought up apart and brought up together. London: Oxford University Press.

Silver, H. F. Strong, R. W., Perini, M. J. (2000). So each may learn: Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. Alexandria, VA, United States: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Simpson, R. (2011a). Cognitive processes. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.

Simpson, R. (2011b). Cognitive processes and other factors which have an effect upon tests in an spld assessment. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.

Singleton & Simmons. (2001). Advanced reading comprehension test (ARC test).

Smith, A. (1982). Symbol digit modalities test (SDMT). Torrance, CA, United States: Western Psychological Services.

Snowling, M. J. & Stackhouse, J. (2006). Dyslexia speech and language. (2nd ed.) Chichester, West Sussex: Whurr Publishers Ltd.

Spadafore, G. J. (1983) Spadafore diagnostic reading test (SDRT). Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications

Spearman, C. (1923). The nature of "intelligence" and the principles of cognition. London: Macmillan.

38

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan.

Stanovich, K. E. (1991). The theoretical and practial consequences of discrepancy definitions of Dyslexia. In M. a. Snowling, Dyslexia: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 125 - 143). London: Whurr .

Stein, J. (2001). The magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia. Dyslexia , 7, 12-36.

Stein, J. (2003). Visual motion sensitivity and reading. Neuropsychologia , 41, 1785-1793.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Death, taxes and bad intelligence tests. Intelligence , 15, 257-269.

Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence: how practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Sternberg, R. J. (1 9 9 9). Successful intelligence: Finding a balance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3 (11), 436-442.

Sternberg, R. J. & Grigirenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic Testing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

The Association of Dyslexia Specialists in Higher Education (ADSHE). (2009, June). Guidelines for quality assurance in specialist support for students with splds in higher education. Retrieved July 29, 2011, from The Association of Dyslexia Specialists in Higher Education: http://adshe.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ADSHE-Guidelines-June-20091.pdf

The British Dyslexia Association. (2011). Associate membership of the british dyslexia association (AMBDA). Retrieved July 7, 2011, from British Dyslexia Association: http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/quality-mark-and-accreditation/professional-membership-accreditation/ambda.html

The Higher Education Academy. (2009, May 26). SENDA: Special educational needs and disability act 2001. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from UK Centre for Legal Education: http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/directions/previous/issue4/senda.html

39

The Institute of Optometry. (2011). The institute of optometry. Retrieved August 16,

2011, from The Institute of Optometry: http://www.ioo.org.uk/

Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Toga, A. W., and Thompson, P. M. (2005). Genetics of brain structure and intelligence. Annual Review of Neuroscience , 28, 1-23.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999a). Comprehensive test of phonological processing (CTOPP). Austin, TX, United States: PRO-ED.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R.K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999b). Test of word reading efficiency (TOWRE). Austin, TX, United States: PRO-ED.

Tuhus-Dubrow, R. (2007). Designer babies and the pro choice movement. Dissent , 54 (3), 37- 43.

Turner, M. (2000). Psychological assessment of dyslexia. London: Whurr Publishers.

Turner, M. & Ridsdale, J. (2004). Digit memory test. Retrieved July 26, 2011, from Dyslexia Action: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dyslexiaaction.org.uk%2FHandlers%2FDownload.ashx%3FIDMF%3D79ee17c9-cf0b-4e5a-9d69-cf097d3168d2&rct=j&q=turner%20and%20ridsdale%20digit%20memory%20test&ei=yBsvTrfMF8Oy8gOas

von Karolyi, C., Winner, E., Gray, W., & Sherman, G. (2003). Dyslexia linked to talent : Global visual-spatial ability,. Brain and Language , 85(3), 427-31.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale—fourth edition (WAIS–IV). Oxford: Pearson.

West, T. G. (2009). In the mind's eye. New York: Prometheus Books.

West, T. G. (2004). Thinking like einstein. New York: Prometheus Books.

Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2001). Gray oral reading test (4th ed.) (GORT-4) Austin,

Texas: Pro-ed.

40

Wiederholt, J. L., & Blalock, G. (2000). Gray silent reading test (GSRT). Austin,

Texas: Pro-ed.

Wilkins, A. J., Huang, J. & Y, C. (2004). Visual stress theory and its applicaton to

reading and reading tests. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 152-162.

Wilkinson, G. S., and Robertson, G. J. (1993). WRAT-4 - wide range achievement test 4. Lutz, FL, United States: PAR Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Xtraordinary People. (2011). Famous celebrity x's. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Xtraordinary People: http://www.xtraordinarypeople.com/help/7/The-British-Dyslexia-Association-%28BDA%29/