Journal of Learning Disabilities

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Share, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Silva, P. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Share, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Silva, P. A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 36, No. 1, 4-14 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/00222194030360010201

Gender Bias in IQ-Discrepancy and Post-Discrepancy Definitions of Reading Disability

David L. Share

Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel, 31905, Haifa, Israel, dshare{at}construct.haifa.ac.il

Phil A. Silva

Auckland University of Technology

The present study investigated the hypothesis that the higher prevalence of reading disability (RD) often observed among boys is partly an artifact of gender bias in the prediction of reading from IQ. The relevant regression statistics derived from a sample of more than 900 children revealed a statistically significant intercept bias. Predicted reading scores for boys were systematically overestimated, thereby inflating IQ—reading discrepancies; the converse was found for girls. When defined separately for girls and boys, severe underachievement in reading was found to be equally prevalent in both genders and, furthermore, was associated with qualitatively and quantitatively similar patterns of deficits. Because the bias arose from general differences between boys and girls in reading score distributions (a lower mean and greater variance for boys) rather than from differences in IQ scores, gender bias poses a potential threat not only to traditional IQ-discrepancy definitions but also to post-discrepancy definitions that are based solely on reading score cutoffs. Future classification criteria for RD need to take heed of the possibility that when the distributions of reading scores for boys and girls are not identical, performance cutoffs designating low achievement that are based on data pooled from both genders are likely to result in the overidentification of boys with RD and the underidentification of girls with RD.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Learn DisabilHome page
L. S. Siegel and I. S. Smythe
Reflections on Research on Reading Disability with Special Attention to Gender Issues
J Learn Disabil, October 1, 2005; 38(5): 473 - 477.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J Learn DisabilHome page
J. Liederman, L. Kantrowitz, and K. Flannery
Male Vulnerability to Reading Disability Is Not Likely to Be a Myth: A Call for New Data
J Learn Disabil, April 1, 2005; 38(2): 109 - 129.
[Abstract] [PDF]