What Happened to the “Superior Abilities” in Adults With Dyslexia and High IQs? A Behavioral and Neurological Illustration

Abstract

Observable behavior, such as test scores, is the gold standard by which we make judgments about levels of function, grade placements, and the presence/absence of pathology. Individual differences in test performance have long intrigued researchers and clinicians, and some have noted how people can come up with essentially the same answers using different strategies. Thus, product, or overt test score, does not always tell us about the underlying cognitive or neurological process involved. We provide results from an ongoing brain imaging study of spatially superior–reading disabled adults, showing how different, hitherto unseen, neural processes can yield similar overt test behavior in some domains and not others. These data raise our awareness of how individual differences in neurology might be considered alongside behavioral observations. Implications for practice and how these data address assumptions in the twice-exceptional field are discussed.

Keywords:

• dyslexia
• fMRI
• giftedness
• learning disabled adults
• neurology
• neuropsychology
• nonverbal IQ
• reading disability
• spatial abilities
• twice exceptionality

Notes

1. These subjects were recruited as part of a larger study along with typical readers and RD-only individuals.

2. It is important to point out that the G and GRD samples were carefully selected such that they matched as much as possible on verbal and Full-Scale IQs and that the GRD group presented a reading history and test profiles consistent with a diagnosis of a reading-specific disorder. The procedure was to interview each potential subject in person. If the interview indicated that the person might fit the criteria of one of the groups, he or she was then given an IQ test. If the results of the IQ test were within required ranges, the person was advanced to the psychometric portion of the study that included the reading tests and other measures. Finally, those who met the requirements to be classified as G or GRD were admitted into the MRI portion of the study. Overall, approximately 35% of the subjects interviewed were ultimately given an MRI.