{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04215304798962387, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02464332036316472, 'mean_word_length': 5.37603305785124, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Traditional IQ Is Irrelevant to Learning Disabilities—Intelligence Is Not

This investigation examined the relationship between intelligence and phonological coding when ability was redefined according to the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) cognitive processing model. This study directly tested the hypothesis that traditional IQ tests may be irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities, but a different theory of intelligence may be more sensitive to deficiencies related to reading failure. Normally achieving students (n=30) and students with reading disabilities (n=30) ranging in age from 7.7 years to 15.3 years (mean = 11.9 years, SD = 2.4 years) were administered measures of the PASS cognitive processes, the Woodcock-Johnson Pyscho-Educational Battery-Revised pseudoword reading, and the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R) reading recognition tests. Results showed that the sample with reading disabilities earned significantly lower scores on the WRAT-R Reading (mean = 69.3) than the nondisabled subjects (mean = 91.4) and, similarly, on pseudowords those with reading problems earned a mean of 78.9 while the nondisabled earned a mean of 96.3. For the sample with reading disabilities, pseudoword reading scores were significantly predicted by successive processing scores (R 2 = .267), but no other processing variable added to the prediction; successive scores (R2 = .212) and the combination of successive and planning (R2 = .296) were significant predictors of WRAT-R Reading scores.