In a forthcoming report in Behavioral Genetics, Professor M. van Leeuwen of VU University (Amsterdam, NL) and colleagues reported that the vast majority of variation in children’s reading performance is heritable, with most of the variance in reading attributable to IQ and memory. The researchers studied twins and siblings (only some of whom had reading disabilities), and they measured children’s reading rate, how many times they could correctly tap blocks in a sequence that had just been displayed, the number times the children could correctly recall the location of a part of a visual display (a catepillar in different holes in an apple), repetition of sequences of digits, and IQ.
Before folks begin using this study to argue that there is a simple causal relationship between IQ and reading, please remember three things: (a) this research also implicates memory as an explanatory factor; (b) there are likely other factors that affect IQ, memory, and reading; and (c) even if lots of variance is explained by such factors as IQ and memory, the remaining variance is sufficient to allow fairly substantial instructional effects.
This study investigates the genetic relationship among reading performance, IQ, verbal and visuospatial working memory (WM) and short-term memory (STM) in a sample of 112, 9-year-old twin pairs and their older siblings. The relationship between reading performance and the other traits was explained by a common genetic factor for reading performance, IQ, WM and STM and a genetic factor that only influenced reading performance and verbal memory. Genetic variation explained 83% of the variation in reading performance; most of this genetic variance was explained by variation in IQ and memory performance. We hypothesize, based on these results, that children with reading problems possibly can be divided into three groups: (1) children low in IQ and with reading problems; (2) children with average IQ but a STM deficit and with reading problems; (3) children with low IQ and STM deficits; this group may experience more reading problems than the other two.
van Leeuwen, M. van den Berg, S. M., Peper, J. S., Hulshoff Pol, H. E., & Boomsma, D. I. (2009). Genetic covariance structure of reading, intelligence and memory in children. Behavioral Genetics, [forthcoming].
Link to the PubMed abstract I’ve reproduced here.
Sphere: Related Content
LD and chiropracty–NOT
Chiropractors are likely to complain about the treatment that their methods receive in posts on this blog. I’ve posted recently that I find wanting the bases for the the (currently-on-tour, see-’em-in-your-neighborhood-soon) Brain Balance Music program. This post will be even more alarming to supporters of those sorts of treatments for LD.
The fundamental problem with the therapies for Learning Disabilities recommended by some chiropractors is that those therapies are bogus. They may be advocated by people who honestly believe that they’re recommending helpful stuff. The hypothetical relations among the neurological and behavioral factors may sound sensible, but that is, in large part, because we’re listening to the words rather than the facts. The folks may have seen what they believe are legitimate improvements in children’s academic and social behavior after the children received the therapy. Parents may have told them how much better the children seem.
None of that counts as scientific (i.e., objective, generalizable, refutable) evidence of benefits. The advocates may be as seriously misled as they mislead their potential clients. They just don’t have the data. Their explanations are post hoc and untested, at best.
In addition to the probably benign Brain Balance Music methods, consider one of the other chiropractic therapies: Cranio-sacral therapy: The hypothesis is that something about the connection between the child’s head and tail causes learning problems (even mental retardation and autism!) and it can be corrected by chiropractic manipulations.
Continue reading ‘LD and chiropracty–NOT’
Sphere: Related Content