Special talents and defects : $b Their significance for educationHollingworth, Leta Stetter
Science
Special talents and defects : $b Their significance for education
Hollingworth, Leta Stetter
Educational psychology; Educational tests and measurements; Exceptional children
A year ago a child was brought to the present writer for mental
examination, because he could read newspapers fluently at the age of 4
years. Upon being measured for speed and accuracy in oral reading, he
fell at the 10-year norms (fifth grade). An IQ of over 200 would be
inferred from this, assuming the ability in mechanics of reading to be
in no way special. As a matter of fact, IQ fell at 142. Scores for
comprehension of reading fell at 7 years (second grade norms),
corresponding with general intelligence.
Upon retests this year, the scores were as follows: mechanics of reading
English (speed and accuracy), fifth grade norm; comprehension in
reading, high third grade norm; mental age, 8 years 6 months; IQ 147.
This child’s ability to read is special, though general ability in
mental work is very superior, too.
These are all cases of generally gifted children, where mastery in the
mechanics of reading is, however, in each case much beyond performance
in other respects. Cases where test scores have been presented to show
special discrepancies in reading, in children of very inferior IQ, have
been reported by White, in collaboration with Poull, from the
psychological laboratory of the institution for feeble-minded children,
in New York City. The children in the school who could read were
canvassed, and those who could not read were similarly canvassed, until
two groups of five each were selected, all members being above six years
mental age, where reading can typically be learned. The two groups
compared as follows in age, general ability, and schooling.
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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account