Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Spooky.

Given the subjective nature of the methodologies and the lack of specific criteria defining the stages, it is somewhat difficult to determine whether the stages reported by Anbar (1986) and Lass (1983) corroborate or contradict each other. ... No research studies, however, have used more objective means to define the stages, and, without such research, a true understanding of the process of early reading remains subjective.

Both studies also revealed that more intelligent early readers (median IQ = 146.5) failed to maintain the earlier large gap between their skills and those of nonearly readers. The gap between more intelligent early readers and IQ-matched nonearly readers tended to decrease over time. In contrast, precocious readers of average intelligence tended to increase the gap between their performance and that of nonprecocious readers. That is, although precocious readers with higher intelligence tended to maintain higher overall reading achievement, their reading achievement test scores failed to increase at the same rate as the nonearly readers. Durkin explained this phenomena in terms of regression toward the mean, the natural tendency of extremely high (or low) test scores to regress toward the mean over time, and ceiling effects, the tests’ limited ability to accurately assess the progress of the precocious readers due to scores that were already near the tests’ ceiling on initial assessments.