https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/3/4/137" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/3/4/137

This paper critically examines whether intelligence testing and other cognitive assessments can effectively guide educational interventions for children with reading disabilities. Traditionally, IQ tests were developed to estimate a child’s general learning potential and determine whether they could benefit from schooling. Over time, however, their use expanded to include diagnosing learning difficulties and identifying cognitive strengths and weaknesses in order to inform teaching strategies.

One major focus of the paper is the IQ–achievement discrepancy model, which was historically used to identify reading disabilities such as dyslexia. Under this model, children who had average or above-average IQ but low reading achievement were considered “unexpectedly underachieving” and thus classified as dyslexic. However, research reviewed in the paper shows that this approach is not educationally useful. Studies demonstrate that IQ differences between poor readers do not reliably predict reading development or response to intervention. Instead, the severity of reading difficulty itself is a much stronger predictor of progress than IQ scores.

The paper also evaluates more recent approaches, including cognitive profiling and assessment of executive functions. Cognitive profiling attempts to identify patterns of strengths and weaknesses across different mental abilities, with the hope that this information can guide individualized instruction. Similarly, executive function measures focus on skills such as working memory, attention control, and cognitive flexibility. Although these skills are clearly related to learning, the paper argues that evidence does not support their use for designing specific reading interventions. Findings across multiple studies show that these cognitive measures add little value beyond what is already known from basic academic assessments.

Another area reviewed is dynamic assessment, which differs from traditional testing by incorporating teaching or feedback during the assessment process to measure learning potential. While dynamic approaches are theoretically promising and rooted in Vygotskian ideas of learning potential, the paper notes that they remain complex, time-consuming, and not sufficiently validated for practical classroom use. There is limited evidence that results from dynamic testing can reliably translate into effective instructional strategies for children with reading disabilities.

The paper also critiques cognitive training programs, such as working memory training, which aim to improve underlying cognitive abilities in the hope that this will lead to better academic performance. Although some studies show short-term improvements on specific cognitive tasks, there is little evidence of meaningful transfer to reading skills or long-term academic gains. This raises concerns about the cost-effectiveness and educational value of such interventions.

Overall, the paper concludes that while intelligence testing and cognitive assessments may provide descriptive information about a child’s thinking processes, they have limited practical relevance for instructional planning in reading disabilities. The strongest predictor of reading intervention success is not cognitive profile or IQ, but the child’s actual reading skill level and progress over time.

As a result, the authors recommend that educational efforts should prioritize direct, structured, and evidence-based reading instruction, particularly within a response to intervention (RTI) framework. This approach focuses on early identification of reading difficulties, systematic teaching of reading skills, and ongoing monitoring of progress.

In conclusion, the paper argues that resources are better spent improving instructional quality in reading education rather than relying on intelligence testing or cognitive training, which have not shown sufficient impact on reading outcomes.

The Role of Intelligence Tests in Supporting Children with Reading Difficulties