| M. A. | IQ | Age | Years at School | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reading Group | 6—8 | 69 | 9—8 | 2.2 |
| Non-reading „ | 7—10 | 68 | 11—8 | 4.8 |
It is thus seen that the non-readers have every advantage, being one year higher in mental level, having had a double amount of schooling, and being of the same IQ[[12]] as the readers. The investigators then had before them two groups of generally inferior children, of which the members of one had ability to learn reading, not possessed by members of the other.
Tests based on investigations of the psychology of reading were then given. These were for auditory and visual acuity, ability to perceive and reproduce articulate sounds, ability to cross out A’s and to check numbers, to attend to several impressions instantly, and to associate numbers and other symbols through the eye and through the ear. No significant differences in group scores were found, except in the last tests mentioned—those of forming associations between symbols. Here the readers made reliably higher scores than did the non-readers.
The investigators did not measure the reading ability of their subjects, but selected the children from the school reports, as to “reading” and “not reading.” The precise extent of specialized discrepancy between general intelligence and reading ability among the children cannot, therefore, be calculated. However, it may be inferred that two of these children had some degree of special ability. One of these, IQ 67, mental age, 6 years 7 months, is described as the best reader in the group, and it is said of her that she “reads well.” Another, IQ 79, mental age, 6 years 7 months, is said to “read very well,” being then in the second year of attendance on school.
A few cases of superior ability to read, occurring in combination with low IQ, have also been reported by Bronner.
X. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LITERACY
Reflection will show at once the great importance of reading for school progress, since our schools are virtually reading schools. Almost no subjects included in the curriculum can be learned without mastery of reading. Also the importance of literacy for life in modern times can scarcely be overstated. Those who learn to read easily at an early age thus have a natural advantage; while those of good intelligence, who have difficulty, should be assisted in every way to learn.
There are certainly very few children of IQ over 100, with normal eyes and ears, who do not learn with ease to read. A census would doubtless show that most cases of special disability in this respect lie between 50 and 100 IQ, that is, in the lower half of the distribution for general intelligence. Fildes, who measured the general intelligence of twenty-six non-readers, whom she studied, found them distributed as follows, with respect to IQ (Stanford-Binet):
| IQ 111 | 1 | child |
| IQ 82–88 | 4 | children |
| IQ 70–79 | 8 | children |
| IQ 50–69 | 13 | children |
It may be argued that children who cannot read necessarily tend to fall low on Stanford-Binet, because the tests composing the scale are weighted against non-readers. The validity of this argument is doubtful, in view of the fact that but four out of seventy-four tests (not including alternates, of which none require reading) directly involve ability to read or spell. As a matter of fact, Fildes found no correlation among her twenty-six subjects, between IQ and ability to read, as measured by reading tests. “Two of the worst readers were the least intelligent and most intelligent boys. The three worst cases examined, i.e., cases with no reading power at all, had intelligence quotients of 61, 79, and 78 respectively. Many defective boys with such high intelligence quotients read quite well.”[[13]]