Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 167 guests, and 10 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    parentologyco, Smartlady60, petercgeelan, eterpstra, Valib90
    11,410 Registered Users
    March
    S M T W T F S
    1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    1. Once you've ruled out some kind of sensory difficulty (i.e., vision, etc.), underperformance from anxiety about risk-taking, recent emotional disruptions, fatigue, etc., I would say you should take a serious look at 2e.

    2. The PRI, as it stands, is consistent with MG, but it appears to be bimodal, with two subtests in the upper end of the Average range, and two in the Superior/Very Superior range, which suggests that the PRI itself is not a good representation of her ability. As it happens, the split is along the lines of the new WISC-V Indices, which divide PRI into Visual Spatial (in this case, most like Block Design and Picture Completion), and Fluid Reasoning (most like Picture Concepts and Matrix Reasoning), which further suggests that there may be a visual-spatial deficit overlaying Very Superior fluid reasoning.

    3. This is consistent with the PSI subtests, which are largely in the same range as the VS subtests, except for Cancellation, which differs from Symbol Search mainly in the amount of visual organizational scaffolding provided (i.e., much less). I should note that PSI can be affected by anxiety, perfectionism, fatigue, as well.

    4. Not entirely clear whether the low VCI score overall reflects relative verbal weakness, or the impact of visual-spatial deficits on reading, which then interferes with the acquisition of knowledge--and especially vocabulary--which, in turn, caps Similarities performance because of not knowing one or both of the stimulus words.

    5. Working memory is the first thing to get hit when testing conditions are adverse, so it's a little harder to interpret.

    There are lots of asterisks about the testing situation, as you reported, but I do think that the PRI>>VCI, WMI, PSI is worth investigating further, as is the FR>VS within the PRI. Possibly, if you pursue a neuropsych in the next year, you can inquire about the WISC-V, making sure to mention that there is both this profile that I have described, and that you have some doubts about the validity of the WISC-IV administration, given the unfortunate conditions.


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: May 2014
    Posts: 18
    M
    Junior Member
    OP Offline
    Junior Member
    M
    Joined: May 2014
    Posts: 18
    Thank you all for your advice. We will definitely be looking into vision issues. DH and I both have horrible vision, so it would not surprise me if she has vision problems as well. I may have made a false assumption that she would indicate any issues to us.

    My DD does have issues with clumsiness, tilting of the head, wiggling around in her seat constantly, and messy eating. I have noticed that she prefers to read books on paper instead of a tablet. I am not sure if this could relate to that issue. I guess we will be looking into this issue as well.

    Her grade skip was done based upon grade level achievement scores that are state level, OLSAT scores, and teacher recommendations. I don't know her exact scores on the OLSAT, but her score had to be over 97% to be placed in our district's gifted program, which she was.

    The interesting part is that I have always deemed her a verbal kid. She started talking at a very young age. She was using five or more word sentences at 13 months. She loves reading and being read to. Recently she increased two grade levels in reading in four months.

    I guess we will start with a trip to the optometrist and go from there.

    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    2
    22B Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    2
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    Originally Posted by squishys
    I have heard and read that mathematically gifted kids- boys, as far as I have discovered- reach their peak IQ at around 10.
    Originally Posted by 22B
    What's the source of this (and what does it mean)?
    Originally Posted by squishys
    I read it online in random scholarly articles (don't have the sources on hand, but you can google it), and I have heard this from a few parents, who had their sons tested, then retested a few years later to find a big jump in the VCI and a mild jump in the PRI. They tended to have first tested around six or seven, then again at 10 or 11.

    I don't know why, but it seems like, in a verbally gifted world, that the mathy kids don't become "noticeable" until their verbal ability levels up. When I was looking up info about mathematicians, one thing I also noticed was a lot of them didn't become "gifted" until 10.
    That makes sense. I do think mathy kids that (younger) age get short changed by the WISC IV compared to their math scores.

    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 816
    L
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    L
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 816
    I think achievement REALLY matters. Whether it is great reading capabilities or math ability - that achievement is important and can indicate giftedness, IMO, in and of itself. I don't think IQ tests even claim to measure everything that goes into talent or achievement; rather, I think they only look at certain aspects of what MIGHT make a person become an achiever. They are but one measure. Achievement, on the other hand, speaks for itself. That is, if a child is consistently high achieving, but has lower ability/IQ scores, it would seem the ability/IQ test is missing something (or perhaps identifying something that the child struggles with, although they STILL manage to achieve).

    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    2
    22B Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    2
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 1,228
    Originally Posted by Loy58
    I think achievement REALLY matters. Whether it is great reading capabilities or math ability - that achievement is important and can indicate giftedness, IMO, in and of itself. I don't think IQ tests even claim to measure everything that goes into talent or achievement; rather, I think they only look at certain aspects of what MIGHT make a person become an achiever. They are but one measure. Achievement, on the other hand, speaks for itself. That is, if a child is consistently high achieving, but has lower ability/IQ scores, it would seem the ability/IQ test is missing something (or perhaps identifying something that the child struggles with, although they STILL manage to achieve).
    Exactly.

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    The most commonly-used IQ/cognitive instruments only sample a handful of dimensions of cognition, while the current premier model (Cattell-Horn-Carroll) posits nine to 16 broad abilities, and multiple dozens of narrow abilities. The only major instrument that samples more than five of the broad abilities is the WJ family, which also has some issues (I am hopeful that the WJIV cleans up some of those issues, while retaining the strengths of the III.)

    For those of you who are interested, this is a brief summary of the latest iteration of the CHC model, from Dr. Kevin McGrew's webpage, the rest of which is also a fascinating read:

    http://www.iapsych.com/chcv2.pdf

    Note he considers achievement to be a broad ability under general intelligence.


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Jul 2012
    Posts: 1,478
    Z
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Z
    Joined: Jul 2012
    Posts: 1,478
    I don't recall seeing a test that addresses the learning efficiency measures. Achievement, fluid intelligence,and working memory together are probably an ok proxy. Always struck me as a bit of an elephant in the room to put so much effort into other measures and ignore the cluster most germane to learning which is also more trainable than many cognitive areas.

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    By learning efficiency, do you mean the cognitive efficiency/cognitive proficiency clusters? On the WISC-IV, CPI can be computed from the WMI and PSI, if you have the supplementary tables (in sold-separately reference book). On the WJIII/IV, they are obtained when the relevant supplementary cognitive subtests are administered. CPI will be available in the standard kit on the WISC-V.

    Fluid reasoning is not usually included in cognitive efficiency/proficiency composites. Working memory almost always is, as is processing speed. RAN (rapid automatic naming) sometimes is (draws on retrieval efficiency and ps).

    Fluid reasoning is not particularly trainable. Speed is somewhat trainable, and memory somewhat less. The available evidence suggests that working memory training does work, a bit, but only in a very narrow sense, with limited to negligible transfer. Even the best studied wm training program, CogMed, has unimpressively tiny effect sizes, but a masterful marketing program.

    Phonological processing, on the other hand, is quite trainable, especially if one catches students when they are young, before they have developed their own kludge-y bad habits for approximating decoding. There are not sufficient tests in the standard battery that routinely assess phonological processing at all, let alone in any depth. This should be changing with the release of the WISC-V and WJIV, which both have PP clusters. Or one can throw in the CTOPP-2 or PAL-II, which are not comprehensive, but have nice PP measures.


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Jul 2012
    Posts: 1,478
    Z
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Z
    Joined: Jul 2012
    Posts: 1,478
    Actually was referring to learning efficiency as delineated in the CHC model link you posted. Long term memory encoding, association, all that good stuff. So training in this case would be specific practice in active listening, associating incoming information with existing knowledge, etc. Formal rather than incidental metacognitive training in general has been my min-soapbox since college.


    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    Got it now. Some aspects of the three LTR narrow abilities grouped as learning efficiency on the current McGrew/Schneider model are addressed on measures of memory and learning, such as the WRAML-2, CVLT, CMS, and WMS-IV, of which the most comprehensive is probably the WMS-IV, valid only for age 16+. Second would be the WRAML-2, which is my go-to for memory assessment (partly because of my population).

    I guess I think of the strategies you are identifying as memory training as compensatory strategies (when taught to students) or accommodations (when scaffolded by staff), which I do often suggest in the recommendations section of my evaluations. And I agree that systematic instruction in these techniques is a bit spotty, despite the long history of active listening/reading approaches (KWL, SQ3R, etc.). Here and there, I find a high school English teacher who explicitly teaches one or more of the strategies to every class, but more often, my recommendations are applied (sometimes grudgingly) only to the special education students for which my evals are written.


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Testing with accommodations
    by aeh - 03/27/24 01:58 PM
    Quotations that resonate with gifted people
    by indigo - 03/27/24 12:38 PM
    For those interested in astronomy, eclipses...
    by indigo - 03/23/24 06:11 PM
    California Tries to Close the Gap in Math
    by thx1138 - 03/22/24 03:43 AM
    Gifted kids in Illinois. Recommendations?
    by indigo - 03/20/24 05:41 AM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5