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 (), 60 guests, and 12 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
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,432
    Q
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Q
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,432
    I don't want to start an emotionally charged debate but rather a respectful discussion as this may be of interest to parents with gifted children. Most parents probably only have at most one set of IQ test scores but many real life observation points over many years. I must admit this has been an item of curiosity for me due to my oldest DS (initially 2E)who has been IQ tested many times over a period of a decade and whose index scores have fluctuated 1 to 3 standard deviations between tests. For example, medical issues that equate brain trauma/damage dropped many of his indices 2 to 3 standard deviations between two administrations of WISC-IV. What was interesting was that the Perceptual Reasoning index was most impacted initially but also the index that naturally rose the most as the brain partially recovered over the period of several years even with minimal academics (about 15%-20% of normal academics). During this same period of brain recovery but minimal academics, the Verbal Comprehension index actually dropped another standard deviation, which the Psychologist attributed to lack of exposure. Interestingly, the Verbal Comprehension index indeed regained this "loss" after a few years of exposure to regular academics. Our observations and other testing (i.e., achievement) also positively correlated to the IQ test results. Obviously, my observations/conclusions/extrapolations may not be valid but here are some of my thoughts as regard PR and VC.

    As a giftedness measure, Verbal Comprehension is probably more important for K-12 academics (particularly elementary, followed by middle) and probably more obvious in social settings (even for adults) as well. However, Perceptual Reasoning appears to me to be a more "true" measure of raw intelligence in that it doesn't appear susceptible to factors including enriched/deprived environments, cultural bias, etc. Might these issues result in relatively higher identification of more verbally gifted kids as well as more enriched kids, particularly in elementary and to a lesser extent middle school?

    Last edited by Quantum2003; 08/22/14 12:54 PM.
    Joined: Jul 2012
    Posts: 1,478
    Z
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Z
    Joined: Jul 2012
    Posts: 1,478
    For an overall system, I'd erase the fairness, potential, and competitive aspects of testing and aim only at what tools get a kid to stay in their zone of optimal learning. And I would look to have services that meet their needs across their spectrum of abilities.

    Given that that zone includes content as well as rate and other presentation factors.

    As long as there are resource constraints, limited seating, norm-based testing, poor professional development, and "Jones" concerns, it's wishful thinking on my part.

    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 74
    H
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    H
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 74
    I would love to offer my DS8 to test that theory but curiosity does not out weigh the cost factor. I wonder if my son would test higher now- he was tested at age 6 with the WISC-IV and his PR was considerably higher than the VC. 145/ 126

    He hated school so we skipped him that year from 1st-2nd. He really flourishes with challenge and exposure- he can test at a high level in reading but his talent lies in music and math. It has been amazing to watch him learn the piano this year- he plays at the level of 6+ years after 1 year of lessons. With the grade skip and increased mental challenges of the last two years, I wonder if all the exposure would shift his VC?

    It's an interesting idea- I remember the testing psychologist mention "crystallized intelligence" vs. "fluid intelligence."


    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    There is research out there on IQ stability, but I'm going to focus on some qualitative observations for now.

    At this point I've worked in secondary schools for long enough to see two, three, four, or more cognitive assessments of the same child for many, many students (and even to have assessed some of them multiple times). I have absolutely seen many LD kids show drops in IQ over time, in language, perceptual, or both. I have also seen quite a few children with early language delays who looked intellectually disabled in the primary years, but turned out to be at least average in intelligence, once they had overcome those early s/l deficits.

    I think there are a couple of primary factors involved here: first, of course, there is regression to the mean, which would predict that extreme scores (high or low) would become less extreme on subsequent re-testing. Second, there is the impact of early environment, which is huge for preschool and primary achievement--and, after all, cognitive assessment is unavoidably a form of achievement testing that attempts to sample skills that don't usually receive direct instruction, as a proxy for native learning ability. Then, there is the plasticity of the brain, and the possible changes in brain development that might occur as a result of the early environment--whether due to nutrition, stimulation, access, trauma, etc. Associated with plasticity is innate developmental courses, which differ from one person to another.

    Under optimal circumstances, IQ is fairly stable from age 3 to adulthood, but what is "fairly stable?" Antisocial/prosocial personality traits are equally stable from age 3 to adolescence/early adulthood (e.g., predictive of juvenile delinquency), but instead of immediately locking away mean preschoolers, we try to teach them--and do succeed (not as often as we should, but that's another story for another day) in modifying the trajectory of some of them in a healthier direction.

    The existing instruments are relatively high in reliability, with test-retest numbers usually in the .90+ range for global scores, but as others have mentioned, they are not designed to account for life. The bottom line is that cognitive assessments are samples of behavior that we associate with an abstract quality we call intelligence, but there is no way to directly measure intelligence entirely free of environmental factors. This is why we can only use tests with individuals who have membership in the normative group of which the standardization group was supposed to be a representative sample. Except that anyone who is EG/PG or 2e is by definition not well-represented (or represented at all, really).


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,432
    Q
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Q
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,432
    I agree with you that such a system would be beneficial for all kids. In actuality, I did not intend to make a judgment as to fairness or even relative "importance" of the different indices. It has simply been my observation that you truly need that verbal comprehension ability to appear gifted in typical GT classrooms, particularly in the elementary/early middle school years. It has also been my observation that kids who appear to have become less gifted by late middle/high school seem more likely to fall into the category of higher VC to lower (and not gifted) PR as a young child.

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,432
    Q
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Q
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,432
    LOL - I hear you. DS would never have been tested multiple times by both medical professionals and school psychologists were it not for medical issues. In your DS' case, even the 126 VC is closed enough to the gifted range that he would have not have appeared "behind" in the typical gifted classroom.

    I suppose crystallized intelligence versus fluid intelligence is a more accurate way to divide the abilities. However, I believe that while the PR index is far closer to fluid intelligence, it is not purely fluid intelligence and similarly for the VC index.

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,432
    Q
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Q
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,432
    I hear you. Block Design requires strong fine motor skills and speed so certainly the PR index is not a pure measure of fluid intelligence. I can see why GAI is sometimes used although in school and real life working memory and processing speed really matter. If you are unfortunate enough to be deficient in both, it is truly a challenge to even keep up much less appear gifted. When DS had gifted WM and average PS, he managed okay but it truly became a struggle when he deteriorated to average WM and low PS.

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,432
    Q
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Q
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,432
    I see what you are saying. Your DS' first test was more accurate but the tester was trying to get his practical IQ in a non-ideal environment. I do agree that a stable child may simply look variable. However, I also think that while a broad IQ range may most often be stable, there is at least some fluctuations in IQ for most individuals. While your choice may not have been the best in terms of IQ, it is also possible that a failure to focus on the social aspects would have created other impediments to maintenance of IQ. I am right there with you on the loss of IQ points with time!

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,432
    Q
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Q
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,432
    You make excellent points that are generally true. Even a 0.9+ range for global scores may manifest as around a one standard deviation change in some cases such as 150 to 135 or 130 to 117. I would imagine that the shifts in different indices may also cancel out each other in certain cases as well. You are absolutely right that there is no way to directly measure IQ independently of environment. I have often advocated that in my DS' case, his real life functioning lies below what IQ results suggest. I also mentioned that direct observations and other measures like achievement tests were used in reviewing the IQ scores as I would truly question IQ results that contradicted real life observations.


    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