IQ Metrics
IIF Certified Assessment Start IQ Test
IIF Certified Assessment

Are Smart People Lonely?

Mind & Everyday Life

Are Smart People Lonely? What the Research Says About IQ, Friends and Loneliness

Are smart people lonely? No study shows a high IQ causes loneliness. One survey found friends added less to life satisfaction for the extremely intelligent, while older adults with lower ability became slightly lonelier. Here is the evidence on loneliness, gifted children and why the idea feels true.

Three finding cards on intelligence and loneliness: loneliness affects 1 in 6 people worldwide (WHO 2025); more frequent socializing with friends went with higher life satisfaction but the link reversed among the extremely intelligent (Li and Kanazawa 2016); and in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936, better cognitive ability at 73 went with smaller rises in loneliness by 76 (Okely and Deary 2019).

Are smart people lonely? No study shows that a high IQ makes people lonely, and the best-known findings point in different directions. In one survey analysis, more frequent socializing with friends went with higher life satisfaction overall but with lower life satisfaction among the extremely intelligent, which measures satisfaction, not loneliness. In a Scottish cohort of older adults, better cognitive ability at 73 went with smaller increases in loneliness by 76. And loneliness is common at every level: the World Health Organization estimates that 1 in 6 people worldwide is affected. This guide separates what the research shows from the “lonely genius” story, looks at gifted children and the effect of being labelled, and explains why the idea feels true.

  • How common: 1 in 6 people worldwide; 17% to 21% of 13- to 29-year-olds; about 24% in low-income countries against about 11% in high-income countries (WHO, 2025).
  • Friends and satisfaction: time with friends added less, and for the extremely intelligent went the other way, in a 2016 analysis of life satisfaction by Li and Kanazawa.
  • Older age: better cognitive ability at 73 went with smaller rises in loneliness by 76 in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936, a result not repeated between 76 and 79.
  • Gifted label: in a 35-year English study, children labelled gifted had more emotional problems than equally able children who were not labelled.
  • Emotional skills: understanding and managing emotions, not IQ, were linked with loneliness in 196 adolescents.
  • Rarity: by our arithmetic about 1 in 740 people score 145 or higher, so there are fewer peers at the same level.
Three finding cards on intelligence and loneliness: loneliness affects 1 in 6 people worldwide (WHO 2025); more frequent socializing with friends went with higher life satisfaction but the link reversed among the extremely intelligent (Li and Kanazawa 2016); and in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936, better cognitive ability at 73 went with smaller rises in loneliness by 76 (Okely and Deary 2019).
Three finding cards on intelligence and loneliness: loneliness affects 1 in 6 people worldwide (WHO 2025); more frequent socializing with friends went with higher life satisfaction but the link reversed among the extremely intelligent (Li and Kanazawa 2016); and in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936, better cognitive ability at 73 went with smaller rises in loneliness by 76 (Okely and Deary 2019).

This is part of our series on IQ and wellbeing, alongside IQ and happiness, high IQ and mental health, depression and IQ and anxiety and IQ. Withdrawal from others as a feature of a serious mental illness is a separate topic, covered in schizophrenia and IQ.

What do researchers mean by loneliness?

The WHO Commission on Social Connection describes loneliness as the painful feeling that arises from a gap between the social connections a person wants and the ones they have, and separates it from social isolation, which is a lack of contact with others. The two can come apart: someone with few contacts may be content, and someone surrounded by people can feel unseen. That matters for the IQ question. A person with unusual interests may have fewer people who share them without being lonely, and a person with a full calendar may still be.

How common is loneliness?

Loneliness estimates in the WHO Commission on Social Connection report (2025)
Group Reported feeling lonely
People worldwide 1 in 6
Aged 13 to 29 17% to 21%, highest among teenagers
Low-income countries About 24%
High-income countries About 11%

These are survey estimates, and loneliness is reported by the person, so figures depend on how it was asked. What they show clearly is that loneliness is widespread and tracks age and national income, not obviously intelligence. The Commission also links loneliness to an estimated 871,000 deaths a year, about 100 an hour (WHO news release, 30 June 2025); treat that as WHO’s estimate.

The best-known study: IQ, friends and life satisfaction

The strongest source for the “smart people are lonelier” idea is a 2016 paper in the British Journal of Psychology by Norman Li and Satoshi Kanazawa. They proposed the “savanna theory of happiness”: because the human brain evolved in ancestral conditions, situations that raised happiness then may still raise it now, and general intelligence, which evolved to solve novel problems, may weaken that pull. They tested it on two things that differ between ancestral and modern life, population density and how often people socialize with friends. As predicted, life satisfaction was lower with higher population density and higher with more frequent socializing with friends. Both associations interacted with intelligence, and for friends the main association was reversed among the extremely intelligent: more intelligent individuals reported lower life satisfaction with more frequent socialization with friends.

Read it carefully. The outcome was life satisfaction, not loneliness, and the finding concerns how much time with friends adds to satisfaction, which is not the same as having friends or feeling alone. It is one team’s hypothesis tested on survey data, so it is correlational, and the reversal was reported for the extremely intelligent only. It is a hint that frequent socializing may do less for some very intelligent people. It would be a stretch to say it shows smart people are lonely (our reading).

What older-age data show: the Lothian Birth Cohort

Okely and Deary (2019) used three triennial waves, at ages 73, 76 and 79, of the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 to test whether loneliness and cognitive ability predict each other. Better processing speed, visuospatial ability or crystallized ability at 73 went with less positive changes in loneliness between 73 and 76, but that was not replicated between 76 and 79. Loneliness at 73 and 76 did not predict later change in cognitive abilities. The authors read it as a slightly higher risk of becoming lonely among people with lower cognitive abilities at 73. That is the reverse of the lonely-genius idea, though it concerns older adults and was not consistent across waves. For how scores change with age, see IQ and age.

Gifted children: lonely, or labelled?

Joan Freeman’s study began in England in 1974 with 70 children labelled gifted. Each was matched on age, sex and socio-economic level with two comparison children from the same class: one with an identical gift who was not labelled, and one chosen at random. Tests and interviews with the pupils, their teachers and their parents continued for 35 years. The labelled children had significantly more emotional problems than either the unlabelled but identically gifted children or the random controls. For the whole sample, hard work, emotional support and a positive personal outlook mattered most, and, in general, the higher a person’s intelligence the better their chances in life.

That points to the label, and the expectations around it, as one source of difficulty rather than ability itself. Not every study is reassuring. In a small 2011 experiment, 22 mathematically gifted adolescents and 24 average adolescents played the Ultimatum Game, a two-player bargaining game. The gifted proposers made strategic but socially impaired offers and the gifted responders accepted less often, so they earned less, and the authors concluded that mathematically gifted adolescents have deficiencies in social valuation and mentalization. That is one task in one small group chosen for mathematical talent, and it does not measure loneliness.

Martin, Burns and Schonlau (2010) made a point that applies to the whole debate: most reviews of mental health in gifted youth include studies that do not directly compare gifted with nongifted young people, so claims about the gifted need population cohorts with comparison groups. For how giftedness is identified, see gifted cutoff scores and signs of a gifted child.

Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

Why the idea feels true

  • Fewer peers at your level. With a standard deviation of 15, about 2.3% score 130 or higher, roughly 23 in a school of 1,000, and about 1 in 740 score 145 or higher, roughly one student (our arithmetic from the normal curve; try the IQ percentile calculator). If sharing a level of reasoning or a set of interests helps friendships form, there are fewer matches. That is a hypothesis; none of the studies above tested it.
  • Survey headlines. High-IQ-society surveys report high rates of diagnosed anxiety and depression (see anxiety and IQ), and the authors of a European replication say who joins may explain it. Those stories travel even though they measured diagnoses, not loneliness.
  • Memorable cases. Isolated geniuses are easy to recall, in fiction and in biography. Ordinary highly intelligent people with busy social lives are not, which is an availability effect, not data (our suggestion).

What loneliness studies do link to: emotional skills

If any ability is linked to loneliness in the research we found, it is emotional rather than cognitive. Wols, Scholte and Qualter (2015) tested 196 adolescents aged 11 to 13 in England twice, ten months apart, on the youth version of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test and a scale of peer-related loneliness. Understanding and managing emotions were linked prospectively with loneliness in both boys and girls, and perceiving and using emotions in boys only. Emotional intelligence tests are not IQ tests; we compare the two in IQ vs EQ. The study is small, and links of this kind do not show which causes which.

If you are feeling lonely

Neither a high nor a low IQ decides whether you feel connected. Loneliness is a gap between the connection you want and the connection you have, and that gap can be narrowed from either side. If it is persistent, or your mood is low, talk to your doctor or a local mental-health service; an IQ test will not help with that. If you have always felt out of step with the people around you, interest-based groups where others share your pace may help. That last point is our suggestion, not a research finding.

Quick answers

  • Are smart people lonely? Not on the evidence we found. No study shows a high IQ causes loneliness.
  • Do smart people have fewer friends? One study found frequent socializing with friends went with lower life satisfaction among the extremely intelligent. We found no study that settles the question of number of friends.
  • Are gifted children lonelier? One 35-year study found the gifted label, not ability, went with more emotional problems.
  • Does loneliness lower IQ? In the Lothian cohort, loneliness did not predict later change in cognitive abilities between 73 and 79.
  • How common is loneliness? About 1 in 6 people worldwide, according to WHO.

Sources

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged are smart people lonely, do smart people have fewer friends, emotional intelligence, gifted and lonely, gifted children, high iq and loneliness, intelligence research, IQ Science, life satisfaction, loneliness, loneliness and iq, savanna theory of happiness, social isolation, who loneliness report

Marshmallow Test

Research & Evidence

The Marshmallow Test: What It Predicted, What Replications Found and the IQ Link

What does the marshmallow test really predict? The original studies linked waiting to teenage success, but a larger replication found the link half as strong and two thirds smaller after controls, and a 2024 follow-up found no reliable adult prediction. Here is the evidence, the IQ link and the trust factor.

Bars with the original marshmallow studies set to 100: a 2018 replication found the link between waiting time at age 4 and achievement at 15 was half the size (50), and about 17 after controls for family background, early cognitive ability and the home environment, by our arithmetic from the reported ratios.

The marshmallow test measures how long a young child will wait for a bigger treat. In the original Stanford studies, children who waited longer did better as teenagers, which made the test famous as a predictor of success. A larger replication found the link was about half as strong, and two thirds of that disappeared once family background and early cognitive ability were counted; a 2024 follow-up to age 26 found that the test did not reliably predict adult outcomes. Waiting also depends on trust, culture and strategy, not only willpower, and the marshmallow test is not an IQ test. This guide explains how the test works, what each study found, what it says about IQ and about delay discounting, and what the evidence supports for parents.

  • The original claim: 4-year-olds who delayed gratification longer in certain laboratory situations became more cognitively and socially competent adolescents (Mischel, Shoda and Rodriguez, 1989).
  • The replication: among 918 US children with valid wait data, an extra minute waited at age 4 predicted about one tenth of a standard deviation more achievement at 15, half the size of the original link, and one third of that after controls (Watts, Duncan and Quan, 2018).
  • Adult outcomes: in 702 people tested at 54 months and surveyed at 26, wait time correlated .17 with educational attainment, but almost all adjusted associations were nonsignificant (Sperber and colleagues, 2024).
  • Trust: 28 four-year-olds waited significantly longer after seeing a reliable environment than an unreliable one (Kidd, Palmeri and Aslin, 2013).
  • Culture: rural Cameroonian Nso children (76) waited better than German middle-class children (125) (Lamm and colleagues, 2018).
  • IQ: across 24 studies, higher intelligence went with less steep delay discounting, with a correlation of about -0.23 (Shamosh and Gray, 2008).
Bars with the original marshmallow studies set to 100: a 2018 replication found the link between waiting time at age 4 and achievement at 15 was half the size (50), and about 17 after controls for family background, early cognitive ability and the home environment, by our arithmetic from the reported ratios.
Bars with the original marshmallow studies set to 100: a 2018 replication found the link between waiting time at age 4 and achievement at 15 was half the size (50), and about 17 after controls for family background, early cognitive ability and the home environment, by our arithmetic from the reported ratios.

Self-control and its link with ability are also covered in grit vs IQ, which summarizes the replication in one paragraph, and in executive function vs IQ. This page goes deeper into the test itself.

What is the marshmallow test?

A child sits in a room with one treat, often a marshmallow, and is told that if they wait until the adult comes back they will get a second one; if they would rather not wait, they can eat the first. The adult leaves, and researchers record how many seconds the child holds out. The measure is called delay of gratification.

The first studies were run around 1970, four decades before Casey and colleagues re-tested participants, with preschool children from a university community at Stanford. They were designed to find out what children do with their attention while they wait; Mischel and Ebbesen’s 1970 paper is titled “Attention in delay of gratification”. Mischel, Shoda and Rodriguez’s 1989 review in Science concluded that specific cognitive and attentional processes allow effective self-regulation early in development, meaning that how long a child waits depends on what the child does while waiting as well as on willpower.

What did the original studies find?

The headline came from follow-ups. The 1989 review reported that 4-year-old children who delayed gratification longer in certain laboratory situations developed into more cognitively and socially competent adolescents, achieving higher scholastic performance and coping better with frustration and stress. Shoda, Mischel and Peake (1990) compared versions of the task to find when waiting would predict later outcomes, and reported coherent patterns of statistically significant correlations, in the versions they judged diagnostic, between seconds of delay in preschool and cognitive and academic competence in adolescence. The samples were small, with tens of children per analysis, and all came from a university community.

In 2011, Casey and colleagues re-tested nearly 60 of those preschoolers in their mid-forties. Those who had been less able to wait, and who consistently showed low self-control in their twenties and thirties, did worse at holding back a response to happy faces, an “alluring” cue, and imaging in 26 participants showed different recruitment of frontostriatal circuits. The authors concluded that resistance to temptation, as the delay task measures it, is a relatively stable individual difference.

What the 2018 replication found

Watts, Duncan and Quan replicated and extended the 1990 study on a larger and more varied sample, concentrating on children whose mothers had not completed college. The table sets out what they found.

The marshmallow link in the 2018 replication
Measure Finding
Sample 918 US children with valid delay data; main analyses on 552 whose mothers had not completed college
Raw link to achievement at 15 An extra minute waited at age 4 predicted about 0.1 standard deviations more achievement, half the size reported in the original studies
With controls Reduced by two thirds after controls for family background, early cognitive ability and the home environment
What mattered most Being able to wait at least 20 seconds
Behavior at 15 Associations much smaller and rarely statistically significant

Notice that the control list includes early cognitive ability. A child who can wait longer may also have stronger early reasoning, language and attention, and a home that supports achievement in other ways. Once those are counted, little of the link remains. In index terms, shown in the chart above and based on our arithmetic from the published ratios, if the original link is 100 the replication’s raw link is 50 and its controlled link is about 17.

Does the marshmallow test predict adult life?

Sperber, Vandell, Duncan and Watts (2024) followed a sample forward to adulthood. In 702 participants who completed the marshmallow test at 54 months and survey measures at age 26, a preregistered analysis found that performance was not strongly predictive of adult achievement, health or behavior. There were modest bivariate associations with educational attainment (r = .17) and body mass index (r = -.17), but almost all of the regression-adjusted coefficients were nonsignificant, and no clear pattern of moderation by socioeconomic status or sex appeared. The authors concluded that the test does not reliably predict adult outcomes.

For scale, a correlation of .17 means wait time accounts for under 3% of the variation in schooling (.17 squared is .029, our arithmetic). That is a real association, but nowhere near the fate-in-a-treat story the test acquired in popular retellings.

Is waiting self-control, or trust? What changes how long children wait

Kidd, Palmeri and Aslin (2013) tested 28 children, mean age 4 years 6 months, on the marshmallow task after placing them in an environment shown to be either unreliable or reliable. Children in the reliable condition waited significantly longer. The authors read the result as showing that wait times reflect a reasoned belief about whether waiting will pay off, not only self-control. A child who has learned that promises are broken is behaving sensibly by eating the first treat. The sample was small, so treat it as a strong hint rather than a settled rule.

Culture matters too. Lamm and colleagues (2018) compared 125 German middle-class preschoolers with 76 rural Cameroonian Nso preschoolers on the marshmallow test. The 4-year-old Nso children waited better, and wait performance was related to culture-specific maternal socialization goals and interaction behavior. In a later study of 207 children from Germany and Kenya, Koomen, Grueneisen and Herrmann (2020) found that children delayed gratification substantially better when their reward depended on both members of a pair waiting.

The common thread is that wait time is a behavior in a context. It carries information about the child, the setting and what the child expects from adults.

Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

The marshmallow test and IQ

The marshmallow test is not an IQ test, but the two overlap. Three findings bear on how much:

  • In the original follow-ups, longer delay went with higher academic and cognitive competence in adolescence. In the 2018 replication, much of that association disappeared once early cognitive ability was among the controls.
  • A 2008 meta-analysis by Shamosh and Gray pooled 24 studies of intelligence and delay discounting, the choice between a smaller reward now and a larger one later. Higher intelligence went with less steep discounting, a weighted mean correlation of about -0.23, a small-to-moderate effect.
  • In the Dunedin cohort, childhood self-control and IQ correlated .44, as we describe in grit vs IQ.

Taken together, more patient children tend to score somewhat higher on IQ-type tests and more intelligent children tend to be somewhat more patient, but the overlap is partial and the causal order is unknown. A high IQ does not guarantee waiting well, and waiting well does not guarantee a high IQ. For how well ability predicts later outcomes in general, see does IQ predict school success, and for the wider contrast between talent and effort see talent vs practice and growth mindset and intelligence.

Delay discounting in mental health research

The adult version of the same idea, delay discounting, has been studied across psychiatric conditions. A 2019 meta-analysis by Amlung and colleagues of 43 studies found steeper discounting, a stronger pull toward smaller, sooner rewards, in schizophrenia (Hedges g = 0.46, 12 studies), bipolar disorder (0.68, 4 studies), borderline personality disorder (0.60), major depression (0.37), bulimia nervosa (0.41) and binge-eating disorder (0.34), and shallower discounting in anorexia nervosa (-0.30). The authors found modest evidence of publication bias. See schizophrenia and IQ and bipolar disorder and IQ for how those conditions relate to IQ. A money-choice task for adults is a different measure from a child waiting for a marshmallow, and the figures should not be carried across.

What should parents take from it?

  • Do not use a marshmallow test at home to predict a child’s future. The best evidence says one wait time carries little long-term information once family circumstances are counted.
  • Trust and context shape waiting. Children waited longer where the setting had proved reliable (Kidd 2013, a small study), which is one reason to keep promises about small things.
  • Strategies, not just willpower. The 1989 review points to attention and thinking processes children can use while they wait.
  • A wait time is not a score. IQ-type tests sample reasoning, memory and speed; see IQ testing for children for what a child’s result does and does not show.

Quick answers

  • Was the marshmallow test debunked? Not exactly. A larger replication found a weaker link than the original, and a 2024 follow-up found no reliable prediction of adult outcomes, so it is weaker than its reputation.
  • What age is the marshmallow test for? The studies here used children about 4 years old; the US follow-up tested them at 54 months.
  • What does the marshmallow test predict? A modest association with later achievement that shrinks sharply after controlling for family background and early cognitive ability.
  • Does it measure IQ? No, though patience and intelligence overlap partly: about -0.23 across 24 studies of delay discounting.
  • Who created it? Walter Mischel and colleagues at Stanford, in studies from around 1970 onward.

Sources

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged child development, delay discounting, delay of gratification, intelligence research, IQ Science, marshmallow experiment, marshmallow test, marshmallow test and iq, marshmallow test debunked, marshmallow test results, replication crisis, self-control, walter mischel, willpower

Schizophrenia and IQ

Understanding IQ

Schizophrenia and IQ: What Research Shows Before and After Onset

Do people with schizophrenia have a lower IQ? On average slightly: about half a standard deviation before onset, and risk rises 3.7% per IQ point lower. But 31% of one first-episode sample kept an average or high IQ. Here is what changes before and after onset, and why speed shows the biggest gap.

Bars showing how far below healthy comparison groups people with schizophrenia score, in standard deviations: 0.43 for IQ before onset in 12 population-based studies, about 0.5 in an 18-study review, a grand mean of 0.98 across cognitive measures and 1.57 for digit symbol coding, a speed task.

Schizophrenia and IQ are linked on average, but IQ is not a test for the illness. Years before the first psychotic episode, people who later develop schizophrenia score about half a standard deviation lower on IQ tests as a group, and the risk of schizophrenia rises by about 3.7% for each IQ point lower. Yet in one sample of first-episode patients, 31% kept an average or high IQ, and the illness occurs at every level of ability. After onset the picture is more mixed: several studies find a further decline around the first episode, one finds IQ stable over three years, and processing speed shows the largest gap of any thinking skill. This guide goes through the main studies, separates the years before onset from the years after, and explains what an IQ score can and cannot say. It is general information, not medical advice.

  • Before onset: premorbid IQ is about half a standard deviation lower in an 18-study review, and 0.43 lower in 12 population-based studies covering 4,396 cases and over 745,000 controls.
  • Dose and response: risk rises 3.7% for every IQ point lower, and among 50,087 Swedish men the risk was higher at average IQ than at high IQ, so it is spread across the whole range.
  • Not everyone: of 129 people with a first episode, 25% had a stable low IQ, 31% a stable average or high IQ and 44% a deterioration of 10 points or more.
  • After onset: a decline around the first episode in studies that tested before and after; later change is debated, with IQ stable over three years in one study and declines of 0.28 to 0.66 standard deviations in some skills over ten years in another.
  • Biggest gap: speed. On digit symbol coding the pooled difference was g = -1.57, against a grand mean of -0.98 across cognitive measures.
  • Not a diagnosis: no IQ score can diagnose or rule out schizophrenia.
Bars showing how far below healthy comparison groups people with schizophrenia score, in standard deviations: 0.43 for IQ before onset in 12 population-based studies, about 0.5 in an 18-study review, a grand mean of 0.98 across cognitive measures and 1.57 for digit symbol coding, a speed task.
Bars showing how far below healthy comparison groups people with schizophrenia score, in standard deviations: 0.43 for IQ before onset in 12 population-based studies, about 0.5 in an 18-study review, a grand mean of 0.98 across cognitive measures and 1.57 for digit symbol coding, a speed task.

This is the next guide in our series on mental health and IQ, after bipolar disorder and IQ, depression and IQ, anxiety and IQ and OCD and IQ. The wider question of whether high-IQ people have more mental illness is in high IQ and mental health. Another brain-based condition whose effect on thinking depends heavily on when it starts is covered in epilepsy and IQ.

What is schizophrenia, and how common is it?

Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder. People may experience hallucinations, delusions or disorganized thinking and speech, often alongside “negative” symptoms such as reduced emotional expression, loss of motivation and withdrawal from others, and difficulties with attention, memory and planning. It does not mean having multiple personalities, a common mix-up. A clinician diagnoses it from the pattern of symptoms over time; no blood test, scan or IQ test can make the diagnosis. Whether intelligence relates to loneliness in the general population is a separate question, covered in are smart people lonely.

A worldwide systematic review by McGrath and colleagues found a median incidence of 15.2 new cases per 100,000 people a year, a median lifetime morbid risk of 7.2 per 1,000 people, and 1.4 men affected for every woman. Those baseline numbers matter below, because a relative risk is easier to judge against a small absolute risk.

Do people with schizophrenia have lower IQs? The evidence before onset

The most informative studies measured IQ before anyone was ill. Researchers followed people from childhood or conscription, then counted who later received a diagnosis. Two meta-analyses pool them.

Premorbid IQ in people who later develop schizophrenia
Meta-analysis Studies and people Finding
Woodberry, Giuliano and Seidman, 2008 18 studies About one-half of a standard deviation below healthy comparison subjects, a medium-sized impairment
Khandaker and colleagues, 2011 12 population-based studies: 4,396 cases, over 745,000 controls Effect size -0.43; verbal and nonverbal measures equally affected; a greater deficit went with earlier onset

Half a standard deviation is 7 or 8 points on a scale with a standard deviation of 15, and 0.43 is about 6 points (our arithmetic). So the typical person who later develops schizophrenia scored around 92 to 94 beforehand where the population average is 100, which is within the average band; see what an IQ of 85 means for the range just below. That is a group average sitting in the middle of a very wide spread. Most people with scores in that range never develop the illness.

Both reviews also asked whether the deficit grows in the years before illness. Woodberry found that cross-sectional comparisons by age, and studies that repeated IQ tests in one sample, did not support a relative decline during the premorbid period. Khandaker’s meta-regression likewise found no evidence of a progressively increasing deficit before onset. In both, the gap seems to be present early.

How much does each IQ point change the risk?

Khandaker and colleagues found a consistent dose-response effect: the risk of schizophrenia rose by 3.7% for every point lower in premorbid IQ. The largest single cohort points the same way. Among 1,049,663 Swedish men tested on conscription and followed for 22.6 years on average, each standard deviation (15 points) lower IQ went with an age-adjusted hazard ratio of 1.60 (95% CI 1.55 to 1.65) for a hospital admission with schizophrenia (Gale and colleagues, 2010).

To see what that means in absolute terms, here is our own arithmetic, not a published estimate. If the 3.7% held at every step, 15 points lower would multiply the risk by about 1.7 (1.037 to the 15th power). Against a median lifetime risk of about 7 in 1,000, that is about 12 in 1,000; 15 points higher would bring it down to about 4 in 1,000. The real curve need not be so tidy, and the effect describes groups. Even at the low end the large majority of people never develop schizophrenia.

The same Swedish cohort shows the pattern is not specific to schizophrenia. For each standard deviation lower IQ the hazard was 1.50 for mood disorders, 1.51 for neurotic disorders and 1.75 for alcohol-related disorders, and Gale and colleagues concluded that lower intelligence is a risk factor for the whole range of mental disorders. Our reading is that IQ works as a general marker of vulnerability; compare the anxiety figures in anxiety and IQ.

Can someone with a high IQ have schizophrenia?

Yes. Among 50,087 Swedish conscripts followed for 27 years, Zammit and colleagues found that a lower IQ went with a higher risk of schizophrenia, and that risk was higher at average IQ than at high IQ, which they took to mean that the risk is spread across the whole IQ range. There is no score above which the illness stops. In the first-episode sample described below, 31% had a stable average or high IQ.

The link with creativity is a different question and rests on occupations, not IQ. A Swedish register study found healthy siblings of people with schizophrenia overrepresented in creative professions; we describe it in bipolar disorder and IQ. It says nothing about the intelligence of people with the illness themselves.

When do the differences first show?

The Dunedin study, a New Zealand birth cohort of 1,037 people assessed from age 3 to 32 with 96% retention, offers the closest look. Reichenberg and colleagues found that children who later developed schizophrenia differed in two ways between ages 7 and 13. Developmental deficits, which emerge early and stay stable, appeared on tests of verbal and visual knowledge, reasoning and conceptualization. Developmental lags, growth slower than peers, appeared on tests of processing speed, attention, visual-spatial problem solving and working memory. Neither pattern was seen in children who later developed recurrent depression.

In the authors’ summary, children who will develop adult schizophrenia enter primary school struggling with verbal reasoning and fall further behind in working memory, attention and processing speed as they get older. That is a pattern from one cohort, but it fits the Swedish and meta-analytic data in showing that the difference starts long before any symptoms.

Does IQ fall after schizophrenia starts?

Studies disagree about what happens after the first episode, so the honest answer is that some skills decline and how much is debated. Four studies cover most of the ground.

Change in thinking around and after the first psychotic episode
Study Design Finding
Woodberry 2008 Review of studies that tested the same people before and after onset In all of them, IQ fell relative to comparison subjects with the onset of frank psychosis
Meier 2014 Dunedin cohort: tests at 7 to 13, again at 38 Declines in IQ and in processing speed, learning, executive and motor function; little decline in verbal ability or delayed memory; none in persistent depression
Leeson 2011 129 first episodes; 60 patients followed for 1 and 3 years IQ stable after onset; no evidence of a continuing decline in the deteriorated group
Zanelli 2019 65 with schizophrenia, 41 with other psychoses, 103 controls, up to 10 years Declines of 0.28 to 0.66 SD in IQ, verbal knowledge and memory; speed and executive deficits already present and stable

Putting these together is not simple. Processing-speed deficits widened gradually through the teens in the Dunedin data but were already present and stable at the first episode in the ten-year study; verbal ability looks static before onset in one study and to decline over the following decade in another. Differences in sample, tests and timing probably explain some of this. In a 2013 commentary, Kahn and Keefe summarized the position: several studies find that decline in cognitive functioning precedes the onset of psychosis by almost a decade, whether it continues afterwards is still debated, and cognitive function is related to outcome and little influenced by antipsychotic treatment.

Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

Which thinking skills are most affected? Speed more than vocabulary

A full-scale IQ blends many skills, and schizophrenia does not affect them equally. In a meta-analysis of 37 studies with 1,961 patients and 1,444 comparison subjects, Dickinson, Ramsey and Gold found that digit symbol coding, a timed task in which you match symbols to digits, showed the largest single impairment: a weighted mean effect of g = -1.57 (95% CI -1.66 to -1.48), against a grand mean effect of -0.98. The gap on coding was significantly larger than on widely used measures of episodic memory, executive functioning and working memory, and clinical and study-design differences changed it little.

Coding is a processing-speed task; see processing speed and IQ, and for two simpler cousins the digit span test and the reaction time test. In the Dunedin study the speed gap kept widening while the verbal gap, which appeared early, stayed static. The practical lesson is that a single full-scale IQ can hide an uneven profile, which is why clinicians look at the index scores; see how to read an IQ test report and full-scale IQ vs index scores.

Preserved, deteriorated or low: three IQ trajectories

Averages hide the fact that people with schizophrenia are not one group. Leeson and colleagues compared current IQ with estimated pre-illness IQ in 129 people with a first episode of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and found three subgroups.

IQ subgroups at the first episode (Leeson and colleagues, 2011)
Group Share What the study found
Stable low IQ 25% IQ low before and after onset; no change over 3 years
Stable average or high IQ 31% IQ in the average or high range; fewer negative and disorganization symptoms than the other two groups
Deteriorated IQ 44% IQ fell by 10 points or more from the estimated pre-illness level

Sixty patients and 27 controls were reassessed 1 and 3 years later. IQ stayed stable in the low group, and the apparent gains in the preserved and deteriorated groups were no greater than in healthy controls, which suggests practice effects. The low and deteriorated groups had longer first admissions, more core negative symptoms and worse occupational outcomes at 3 years. The authors concluded that IQ at the onset of psychosis, rather than pre-illness IQ, predicts a more severe illness. This is one clinical sample, and the subgroups depend on an estimate of pre-illness IQ.

Beyond IQ: choosing between now and later

Researchers also study how people weigh a smaller reward now against a larger one later, called delay discounting, the adult cousin of the task in the marshmallow test. A 2019 meta-analysis by Amlung and colleagues of 43 studies found steeper discounting, a stronger pull toward smaller, sooner rewards, in schizophrenia (Hedges g = 0.46, 12 studies), and also in bipolar disorder (0.68), borderline personality disorder (0.60) and major depression (0.37). The authors noted modest evidence of publication bias, which was statistically significant for schizophrenia, so treat the figure with some caution.

What an IQ test can and cannot say about schizophrenia

  • It cannot diagnose or rule out schizophrenia. Diagnosis rests on symptoms and history.
  • It describes a group gap, not a person. On our extrapolation above, the lifetime risk stays around 1 in 80 even 15 points below average, and people with high scores can be affected.
  • The profile matters more than the total. Speed, memory, verbal and executive skills can differ widely within one person.
  • An online IQ test is not a clinical tool. Scores depend on focus, sleep and mood, and carry a margin of error; see the margin of error explained and IQ test accuracy. Professional batteries are described in professional IQ tests.
  • If you are worried about yourself or someone else, speak to a doctor or a local mental-health service. An IQ test is not the way to find out.

Quick answers

  • Do people with schizophrenia have low IQs? On average slightly lower, about half a standard deviation before onset, but the range is wide: 31% of one first-episode sample kept an average or high IQ.
  • What is the average IQ of someone with schizophrenia? There is no single figure. Before onset, by our arithmetic from the pooled effect sizes, roughly 92 to 94 against a population average of 100.
  • Can you have schizophrenia with a high IQ? Yes. The risk is lower at higher IQ but is spread across the whole range.
  • Does schizophrenia lower IQ? A gap exists before onset, several studies find a further decline around the first episode, and later change is debated.
  • Which thinking skill is hit hardest? Processing speed: digit symbol coding showed the largest single gap, g = -1.57.
  • Can an IQ test detect schizophrenia? No.

Sources

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged cognitive decline, cognitive impairment, digit symbol coding, intelligence research, IQ Science, mental illness and iq, neurodevelopmental disorders, premorbid iq, Processing Speed, psychosis, schizophrenia, schizophrenia and iq, schizophrenia intelligence, schizophrenia iq level

Cerebral Palsy and IQ

Understanding IQ

Cerebral Palsy and IQ: What Research Shows About Intelligence in CP

What is the IQ of someone with cerebral palsy? There is no single level: about 1 in 2 children has an intellectual disability and about half do not. Here is how common it is, what predicts lower scores, why testing is hard, and why the headline figure may overstate it.

Bars showing three estimates of intellectual disability in cerebral palsy: about 50 percent (1 in 2) in a 2012 systematic review of population-based studies, 45 percent of 1,141 people on an Australian register, and 38 percent of 21 children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy in Stockholm; the remainder in each group did not have an intellectual disability.

Cerebral palsy and IQ are not the same thing: cerebral palsy is a disorder of movement and posture, and the intelligence of people with it spans the whole range, from intellectual disability to well above average. In a systematic review of population-based studies, about 1 in 2 children with cerebral palsy had an intellectual disability, which also means about half did not. The headline figure comes with a caveat: a 2020 review argues it may overstate the true rate, because the thinking skills of children with the most severe motor and speech impairments are often assumed rather than tested. This guide covers how common intellectual disability is in cerebral palsy, what predicts lower scores, why testing is hard, and what an IQ score can and cannot tell a family.

  • One in two: a 2012 systematic review found 1 in 2 children with cerebral palsy had an intellectual disability, 1 in 4 had epilepsy and 1 in 4 could not talk.
  • A register says 45%: of 1,141 people on an Australian population register, 45% had an intellectual disability.
  • Severity matters: intellectual disability went with not walking (47% against 8%), epilepsy (52% against 12%) and a quadriplegic pattern (42% against 5%).
  • The number may be too high: cognition in the most severely affected children is often assumed, not assessed, and an IQ below 70 has been confused with intellectual disability.
  • Profiles are uneven: 12 of 21 children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy showed uneven cognitive profiles.
  • Adapting the test: in a Swedish register, interpreters were used in 5% and augmentative communication in 13% of assessments.
Bars showing three estimates of intellectual disability in cerebral palsy: about 50 percent (1 in 2) in a 2012 systematic review of population-based studies, 45 percent of 1,141 people on an Australian register, and 38 percent of 21 children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy in Stockholm; the remainder in each group did not have an intellectual disability.
Bars showing three estimates of intellectual disability in cerebral palsy: about 50 percent (1 in 2) in a 2012 systematic review of population-based studies, 45 percent of 1,141 people on an Australian register, and 38 percent of 21 children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy in Stockholm; the remainder in each group did not have an intellectual disability.

Cerebral palsy is much more likely after very early birth, which we cover in premature birth and IQ. For the definition of intellectual disability used throughout, see what an IQ of 70 means and low IQ vs learning disability. A different kind of specific difficulty, with numbers, is the subject of dyscalculia and IQ.

What is cerebral palsy, and does it affect intelligence?

Cerebral palsy (CP) is a permanent disorder of movement and posture caused by a non-progressive problem in the developing brain. The defining feature is physical, not cognitive. But the same injury or maldevelopment that affects movement can also affect thinking, and CP often comes with other conditions such as epilepsy, vision problems and difficulty with speech. So intelligence in CP is best described as a wide range, not a single typical level.

How common is intellectual disability in cerebral palsy?

Three estimates of intellectual disability in cerebral palsy
Study Who Intellectual disability
Novak et al., Pediatrics, 2012 Systematic review: 30 population-based studies in the meta-analyses; children with CP 1 in 2
Reid et al., Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 2018 1,141 people on an Australian population CP register (study team in Melbourne) 45%
Tillberg and Persson, Seizure, 2024 21 school-age children with hemiplegic CP in northern Stockholm (47 invited) 38% (8 of 21); 62% had a normal IQ

Novak and colleagues searched 1,366 papers, appraised 82 and meta-analyzed 30, and turned the prevalence figures into plain messages: among children with CP, 3 in 4 were in pain, 1 in 2 had an intellectual disability, 1 in 3 could not walk, 1 in 4 could not talk and 1 in 4 had epilepsy. CP is not one condition but a pattern of overlapping ones.

The Stockholm figure comes from a very small group: only 21 of the 47 invited children took part, so it illustrates a subtype, hemiplegic or unilateral CP, in which most of these children had a normal IQ, rather than giving a rate for everyone with CP.

Why the headline number may be too high

Stadskleiv’s 2020 narrative review in Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology searched for original studies of cognition in children with CP and found 81 unique hits, and few had a representative sample in which every child was assessed individually. Cognitive functioning in the children with the most severe motor impairments was often assumed and not assessed. The review also found that an IQ below 70 had been confounded with intellectual disability, which may overestimate the prevalence: a diagnosis of intellectual disability needs difficulty with daily life as well as a low score.

Bias can run the other way too. In the Swedish register study by Alriksson-Schmidt and colleagues, children with less affected gross motor, manual and communication function, and those with spastic CP, were more likely to have been assessed. Samples of assessed children therefore lean toward the less severely affected, which pulls the average up. With assumption pushing one way and selection the other, the honest summary is a range: somewhere around 4 in 10 to 1 in 2 in the studies above.

What predicts lower IQ scores in cerebral palsy?

In the Australian register study, intellectual disability was strongly tied to how severe the physical picture was. The table gives the share of people with each feature among those with and without an intellectual disability.

Features of cerebral palsy with and without intellectual disability (Reid 2018)
Feature With intellectual disability Without
Not able to walk 47% 8%
Epilepsy 52% 12%
Quadriplegic pattern of motor impairment 42% 5%
Average age of first walking, in those who walked 2 years 7 months 1 year 9 months

Brain imaging told a similar story: grey matter injuries (13% against 6%) and malformations (18% against 6%) were more common in people with intellectual disability. In Stockholm, children with extensive brain lesions had more severe intellectual disability. The Swedish register data added that children with spastic unilateral CP scored higher than children with ataxic CP on verbal, performance and full-scale IQ, and that the ranges of scores were wide within every subtype and motor level. A motor label does not give an IQ.

Uneven profiles: one number can hide a lot

In the Stockholm group, 57% of the children (12 of 21) had uneven cognitive profiles, meaning some abilities were much stronger than others, and the authors recommend an individual cognitive assessment to ensure an optimal school start. A full-scale IQ averages across abilities, so an uneven profile can leave the total looking unremarkable while hiding a real strength or a real need. This is why the index scores matter; see WISC-V index scores explained and how to read an IQ test report.

Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

How IQ is tested when movement or speech is affected

Standard IQ tests assume a child can speak, point, handle materials and answer within time limits. When movement or speech is affected, the test may measure the disability as much as the thinking. The Swedish register study (Alriksson-Schmidt and colleagues, Child Neuropsychology, 2026) looked at Wechsler scores from two cohorts of children with CP (WPPSI-III/IV and WISC-IV/V). Psychologists reported using interpreters in 5% of assessments and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) in 13%. Adapted assessments went with lower mean verbal, performance and full-scale scores. The abstract does not explain why; a likely reading, and ours, is that adaptation marks children with greater needs rather than that adaptation lowers scores.

Stadskleiv’s review calls for longitudinal studies that include very young children and those with the most severe speech and motor impairments. For families, the practical points are to look for a psychologist experienced with CP, to ask how the test was adapted, and to treat a score from an unadapted test as a minimum estimate when movement or speech is limited (our advice; the studies do not prove it). Online tests, ours included, depend on clicking or tapping within time limits and are not suitable substitutes; see IQ test accuracy.

Cerebral palsy, prematurity and IQ

The risk of CP is high after extremely early birth. In the Extremely Preterm Infants in Sweden Study, which covered all Swedish children born before 27 weeks in 2004 to 2007, outcomes were identified for 467 children alive at 1 year. Forty-nine (10.5%) had a lifetime diagnosis of CP; 76% of them could walk, 29% were diagnosed after the age of 2.5, and 55% had severe disability overall. That is why the diagnosis can come late and why repeat assessments matter. Prematurity affects IQ on its own as well; see premature birth and IQ.

What an IQ score can and cannot tell a family

  • It describes performance on particular tasks at one time. Every score has a margin of error; see the IQ score margin of error explained.
  • It is only half of an intellectual-disability diagnosis. The other half is how a person manages daily life, which is why Stadskleiv warns against equating an IQ below 70 with the diagnosis.
  • It can change with age and context. In the Swedish data older age was associated with lower performance and full-scale scores; a single snapshot cannot say whether individual children changed, which is why the review asks for longitudinal work.
  • It does not measure the person. It says nothing about humor, friendship, determination or what a person can learn with the right supports.

Quick answers

  • Do people with cerebral palsy have a low IQ? Many do not. About half have an intellectual disability in the studies above, so about half do not.
  • What is the average IQ in cerebral palsy? No single average describes it; the ranges of scores were wide within every subtype and motor level.
  • Does a more severe movement disorder mean a lower IQ? It makes it more likely, but is not proof: some children with severe motor impairment have typical cognition that is hard to test.
  • Why do estimates of intellectual disability in CP differ? Because of who was assessed, and because a low score has sometimes been counted as the diagnosis.
  • Can a standard IQ test be used? Sometimes, with adaptations. Without them it may measure movement and speech as much as thinking.

Sources

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged cerebral palsy, cerebral palsy and iq, cerebral palsy cognition, cerebral palsy intelligence, cerebral palsy iq level, cognitive assessment, developmental disabilities, epilepsy and cognition, intellectual disability, intelligence research, IQ Science, iq testing children, learning disabilities, premature birth

Dyscalculia and IQ

Understanding IQ

Dyscalculia and IQ: Why a Maths Learning Disorder Can Occur at Any IQ

Can you have dyscalculia and a high IQ? Yes: it is a specific difficulty with numbers, not a low-IQ condition. Estimates of how common it is run from 3.4% to over 9% depending on the definition. Here is what the studies say, how it is assessed and how it differs from maths anxiety.

Bars from the Havana Survey of 11,652 children in grades 2 to 9, showing how the definition changes the share counted: developmental dyscalculia (a defective sense of numerosity) 3.4 percent, basic numerical deficits 4.54 percent and arithmetical dysfluency 9.35 percent.

Dyscalculia and IQ are separate things: dyscalculia is a persistent, unexpected difficulty with numbers and arithmetic that can occur in children of average or high IQ, so a child can have dyscalculia without having a low IQ. In one classic study, children selected for dyscalculia alone were clearly impaired on basic number tasks despite high-average scores on tests of IQ, vocabulary and working memory. This guide explains what dyscalculia is, why it is not a low-IQ condition, why estimates of how common it is run from 3.4% to more than 9%, how it is assessed, and how it differs from maths anxiety.

  • What it is: a specific difficulty with number sense and arithmetic. Researchers describe a core deficit in understanding sets and their numerosities.
  • Not low IQ: children with dyscalculia alone had high-average IQ in one study of 31 children aged 8 and 9.
  • How common: 3.4% under a strict definition, 9.35% for poor calculation fluency, in a survey of 11,652 Cuban children.
  • Official name: DSM-5 uses specific learning disorder with a mathematics specifier; its work group judged the word dyscalculia unhelpful as a disorder name.
  • Not maths anxiety: in 3,410 twin pairs, maths anxiety was only weakly related (-0.10) to the basic sense of quantity.
Bars from the Havana Survey of 11,652 children in grades 2 to 9, showing how the definition changes the share counted: developmental dyscalculia (a defective sense of numerosity) 3.4 percent, basic numerical deficits 4.54 percent and arithmetical dysfluency 9.35 percent.
Bars from the Havana Survey of 11,652 children in grades 2 to 9, showing how the definition changes the share counted: developmental dyscalculia (a defective sense of numerosity) 3.4 percent, basic numerical deficits 4.54 percent and arithmetical dysfluency 9.35 percent.

Dyscalculia is the maths counterpart of dyslexia, which we cover in dyslexia and IQ. The wider difference between a learning disorder and a low score is in low IQ vs learning disability, and how conditions that affect movement are measured is in cerebral palsy and IQ.

What is dyscalculia?

Dyscalculia is a specific, lasting difficulty with understanding and using numbers. In a 2011 review in Science, Butterworth and colleagues describe it as a core deficit in understanding sets and their numerosities, the quantities that numbers stand for, which is fundamental to all aspects of elementary school mathematics. Neuroimaging studies have identified neural markers of that impairment. The APA lists difficulties remembering number facts and inaccurate mathematical reasoning among the symptoms of a specific learning disorder in mathematics.

Is dyscalculia an official diagnosis?

Not under that name. The American Psychiatric Association’s fact sheet on DSM-5 says the manual now uses a single diagnosis, specific learning disorder, with detailed specifiers for reading, mathematics and written expression, and that the DSM-5 Neurodevelopmental Work Group concluded the many definitions of dyslexia and dyscalculia meant those terms would not be useful as disorder names or in the diagnostic criteria. Clinicians, researchers and parents still use the word dyscalculia, and a report may describe the same thing as a specific learning disorder with impairment in mathematics.

Dyscalculia and IQ: why a high IQ does not rule it out

Landerl, Bevan and Butterworth (2004) compared 31 children aged 8 and 9, selected for dyscalculia, reading difficulties or both, with controls. The children with dyscalculia only were impaired on a range of basic number-processing tasks despite high-average performance on tests of IQ, vocabulary and working memory. The authors concluded that dyscalculia is the result of specific disabilities in basic numerical processing rather than a consequence of deficits in other cognitive abilities. It is a small study, but it shows the key point: the difficulty can sit beside strong general ability.

This is what “unexpected” means. Maths skills are far below what the child’s age, teaching and other abilities would predict. The APA fact sheet adds that the difficulties must not be better explained by developmental, neurological, sensory or motor disorders, and must significantly interfere with school, work or daily life. A full-scale IQ blends many abilities, so a weak spot in number processing can sit beside a typical or high total (our reading). When a low IQ and a learning disorder both occur they are two separate findings; our guide to the difference explains how each is assessed.

How common is dyscalculia? Why estimates range from 3% to 9%

There is no single figure, because studies draw the line in different places. The Havana Survey (Reigosa-Crespo and colleagues, 2012) tested 11,652 Cuban children from grade 2 to grade 9 on enumeration and number comparison. Those basic numerical capacities alone predicted more than 25% of the variance in a timed arithmetic test, at younger and older ages. The researchers then estimated three prevalences:

How the definition changes the prevalence (Havana Survey)
Definition Share of children Boys to girls
Developmental dyscalculia (defective sense of numerosity) 3.4% 4 to 1
Basic numerical deficits 4.54% 2.4 to 1
Arithmetical dysfluency (poor calculation speed) 9.35% 1.07 to 1, no gender difference

In a class of 30, our arithmetic gives about 1 child under the strict definition and about 3 under the broad one. The authors conclude that dyscalculia defined as a defective sense of numerosity could be a distinctive disorder that affects only a portion of the children who are poor at calculation. It is one Cuban sample, so treat the percentages as illustrations of the range, not national figures.

Two more studies show how much the rule matters. Devine and colleagues (2013) assessed 1,004 British primary school children: with absolute thresholds, the prevalence of dyscalculia was the same for boys and girls whatever cut-off was used, but a gender difference appeared when dyscalculia was defined as maths performance falling below reading. Murphy and colleagues (2007) compared children scoring below the 10th percentile on an early maths test (22 children) with those between the 11th and 25th percentile (42 children) and a comparison group above the 25th (146 children). The groups differed in their profiles of related skills from kindergarten to grade 3, so a looser cut-off need not simply capture a milder version of the same problem. When you read a prevalence figure, check which percentile cut-off it used.

What goes wrong: number sense and working memory

The numerosity account says the weakness lies in grasping quantity itself, for example judging which of two groups has more or enumerating a small set at a glance, rather than in memory for facts or in general intelligence. Butterworth’s review adds that new interventions to strengthen numerosity processing, including adaptive software, promise effective evidence-based education, which is a promise rather than a proven cure.

Working memory plays a supporting role. Our write-up of a 2022 meta-analysis, working memory and maths underachievement, reports a pooled correlation of 0.31 with arithmetic in 11,224 typical children. That is a medium link, explaining under a tenth of the variation, and it also describes earlier evidence that children with both reading and maths difficulties show the most severe working-memory deficits. For the executive-function side, see executive function vs IQ.

Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

Dyscalculia vs maths anxiety vs finding maths hard

  • Dyscalculia: a persistent difficulty with number processing that continues despite adequate teaching.
  • Maths anxiety: tension and fear around maths. In a Twins Early Development Study sample of 3,410 twin pairs aged 16 to 21, maths anxiety correlated about -0.35 with maths performance but only about -0.10 with approximate number sense, the basic sense of quantity. That weaker link hints, in our reading, that anxiety and a core number-sense problem are different things. For how general anxiety relates to test performance, see anxiety and IQ.
  • Finding maths hard: many children score below average without a disorder. As the Murphy study shows, where the cut-off falls decides who is counted.

How dyscalculia is assessed

The APA fact sheet describes the diagnosis as a clinical review of the person’s developmental, medical, educational and family history, reports of test scores and teacher observations, and response to academic interventions. An educational or clinical psychologist usually looks at both ability and attainment. A cognitive test such as the WISC-V shows the wider profile (see WISC-V index scores explained), while an achievement test measures maths directly (see achievement tests vs IQ tests and the Woodcock-Johnson). An online quiz cannot make the diagnosis, and our numerical IQ test is a reasoning test, not a screen for dyscalculia.

What to do if you suspect dyscalculia

  • Start with the school. Ask the teacher or the school psychologist about an evaluation. The APA fact sheet stresses that early identification and intervention are particularly important.
  • Ask what was measured. A good report separates number sense, calculation fluency and reasoning, and says which percentile cut-off it used.
  • Keep the IQ question separate. A strong IQ does not make the maths difficulty imaginary, and a weak maths result does not lower the IQ. Both findings belong in the same report.
  • Be wary of promises. Adaptive software that trains numerosity is promising, but a promise is not a proven treatment.

For adults who want a baseline of their reasoning, you can take our IQ test. It does not replace an assessment by a qualified professional.

Quick answers

  • Is dyscalculia a sign of low IQ? No. Children with dyscalculia alone had high-average IQs in one study; it is a specific difficulty with number processing.
  • Can you have dyscalculia and a high IQ? Yes. The condition is defined by maths skills far below what other abilities and teaching would predict.
  • How common is dyscalculia? 3.4% in one large survey under a strict definition, and more than 9% for poor calculation fluency. The answer depends on the definition.
  • Is dyscalculia the same as maths anxiety? No. Maths anxiety is fear of maths and was only weakly related to the basic sense of quantity.
  • Is dyscalculia in the DSM-5? Not as a named diagnosis. The manual uses specific learning disorder with a mathematics specifier.

Sources

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged developmental dyscalculia, dyscalculia, dyscalculia and intelligence, dyscalculia and iq, dyscalculia prevalence, dyscalculia test, intelligence research, IQ Science, learning disabilities and iq, math difficulties, math learning disability, maths anxiety, number sense, specific learning disorder