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 (), 210 guests, and 14 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    streble, DeliciousPizza, prominentdigitiz, parentologyco, Smartlady60
    11,413 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 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    FYI, Linda Silverman is currently in the process of collecting WISC-V extended norm data. According to Pearson, she had collected 6 of an anticipated 50 cases by March 2016, using a convenience sample (presumably of clients otherwise referred). The research update document says the anticipated length of study/data collection was 1.5-2 years. So if she's only 6 cases in, she probably just started data collection, which means extended norms probably won't be out for a little bit--but at least they're in progress.


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 816
    L
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    L
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 816
    Thank you for the information, aeh! I've always found it interesting to hear how these tests have changed through time and I also ran across this explanation from Linda Silverman's GDC: http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/bl...-do-new-iq-tests-pose-identifying-gifted

    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    Can you help me understand what this means for my DD6 who just took the WISC V? She scored 99.9 percentile or greater on two composite scores. Does this mean her scores might not be accurate? Her tester didn't discuss this. Thanks!

    Joined: Feb 2012
    Posts: 1,390
    E
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    E
    Joined: Feb 2012
    Posts: 1,390
    ChasingTwo, the scores you got are accurate in the sense that they are a lower bound or her possible composite scores. Any subtests that she got a 19 (or possibly an 18) on could go higher, pushing her "real" score even higher. If you didn't get the raw scores from your tester, ask for them. You will be able to recompute her extended norms score from the raw scores, possibly with help from aeh, as long as the tester went all the way to the discontinue criterion and didn't stop because it wasn't possible for her to score any better on that subtest anyway.

    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    I did get the subtest scores, 2 19s (>99), an 18 (>99) and a 17 (99). Is this what you mean?

    Joined: Oct 2015
    Posts: 228
    A
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Oct 2015
    Posts: 228
    These are the scaled scores, not the raw score.

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    No, though the two 19s do suggest that the extended norms may add information to your child's assessment. Raw scores indicate the number of actual points obtained or credited on a subtest. The numbers you have are subtest scaled scores, which indicate performance relative to age peers. 10 is the mean. 19 is 3 standard deviations above the mean. Since one would expect the typical 14-year-old to do better in absolute terms than the typical 6-year-old, using raw scores confounds high performance due to typical development and high performance due to unusually high cognition. Using age-normed scaled scores allows a child to be compared to her age-peers, which should minimize the impact of differences due to normal development.

    At age 6, you would be looking for multiple 19 scaled scores for extended norms. (not 18s or lower)


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    Ok thanks for that information. It sounds like you are saying it's not super likely that her score would be much different, but the raw scores could help determine that, even without extended norms? Is that correct?

    If so, I can request the raw scores. Thanks.

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    Actually, I meant that it is possible that her score could be different, but this cannot be determined without the use of extended norms, which would require raw scores.

    The criterion for using extended norms is generally two scaled scores of 19 anywhere in the core subtests. If those two scores are in the same index, then that index would definitely be a candidate for extended norms.

    In short, you may wish to obtain raw scores, as the extended norms, when they are released, may be applicable to your child.


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    Aha. Thank you smile

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    Not exactly extended norms, but it appears that, as of March 2017, Linda Silverman and Susan Engi Raiford of Pearson have developed an Expanded General Ability Index ("Gifted Index"), which is somewhere between the old WISC-IV GAI and the new WISC-V GAI. It consists of the four subtests in the Verbal Expanded Crystallized Index (VECI) and the four in the Expanded Fluid Index (EFI), combined into an eight-subtest composite index. Unfortunately, I have not yet determined how anyone other than GDC can calculate this.


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Dec 2015
    Posts: 109
    S
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    S
    Joined: Dec 2015
    Posts: 109
    Thanks aeh for this information. I got an opportunity to attend Dr. Silverman's session on the expanded indices, last month. My DS was tested with WISC-V too, but I think the psychologist did not administer all of the tests in each section. In this case, I believe he may need to be retested when the extended norms are out. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 83
    L
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    L
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 83
    AEH,
    I saw Dr. Silverman's presentation with the Dr. from Pearson at the NAGC conference last Nov. She mentioned that together they had put together the new testing model (EGAI). She passed out a large packet of presentation notes although I am not sure I still have the copy. Anyway, there was mention of her office (GDC) doing the testing for the 1st 6-12months if I recall correctly. I am assuming that after that time, Pearson would release the technical report on the changes so that testers could utilize the changes. I am going to call GDC as we are having updated testing done in October (here locally ) so if available, I would like to have it included as part of our testing.

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    Updating this old thread:
    The publisher has released the EGAI (Expanded General Ability Index) tables that Linda Silverman and GDC were working on with them:



    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    M
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    M
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    Thanks for this information! My dd is missing the arithmetic test, but it seems like this measure could be very useful for her if we could get that test added later (it's been about 3 months since she was tested).

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 833
    F
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    F
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 833
    Its still not extended norms.

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    Yeah. It's looking less like that's a priority for them (both Pearson and GDC).


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    M
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    M
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    Which is such a shame for children who have spikey profiles and would have more benefit from extended norms by subtest than this measure, which is of course still very interesting and useful.

    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    I apologize if this has been discussed already, but it looks like extended norms were finally released for the WISC-V in November.

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    Nope! We didn't discuss it earlier. Looks like they'll have some utility for children up until about age 11 or 12, with diminishing returns beyond that age.



    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Aug 2019
    Posts: 6
    P
    Junior Member
    Offline
    Junior Member
    P
    Joined: Aug 2019
    Posts: 6
    Is it possible to use the table in the link to arrive at extended scores if you know your scaled scores (but not raw)? It seems to make sense for the subtests (table 2) but I'm unclear about the composites. Is the left column in table 3 ("sum of scaled scores") referring to the sum of the original scaled scores of the subtests that make up that composite, or the sum of the extended scaled scores derived in table 2? I'm just curious if it is worth it to go back to the neuropsychologist and ask for an addendum to our report.

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    It is not possible to use the ExNorms tables to arrive at extended scores if you do not have raw scores for the relevant subtests. The sum of scaled scores used for each composite is derived from the extended scaled scores. If you used the original scaled scores, you would end up with the same non-extended composites as you had originally on the standard norms.

    It may be worth pursuing an addendum if your child
    a) has more than one scaled score of 19 (or possibly 18, if it is an older child)
    b) was a preteen at the time of testing (with some older exceptions).

    In a few cases with more extreme extended scale scores, the ExNorms will make a difference for an older child, closer to the age-limits of the test (the norms end just before the 17th birthday). I have had one adolescent where the Extended Norms resulted in a modest, but significant, increase in one composite.


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    Can you talk a little bit about what extended norm values mean? I think I have a good understanding about the opinions out there on what scores up to 160 may represent, but beyond that, do we have enough data to categorize students by scores? Is a sample of 108 children large enough to create meaningful information? What is the goal or expected outcome of creating extended norms? How can we use this information? Thank you for your thoughts.

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    The rationale behind extended norms is that there is as much diversity in the top 1% of the population as there is between the 50th %ile and the 99th %ile, but much less data--and ExNorms are an attempt to "spread the curve" in that last percentile (or fraction thereof).

    Do we have enough data to make meaningful distinctions (from 108 students)? Well, more data would, of course, be better, but 108 is certainly a whole lot better than what exists in the standard norms. There were 2,200 students in 11 age groups in the original standardization pool, which means about 200 students per age bracket--which you could think of as about three students-worth in the entire pool, at all age levels, representing everyone of IQ 145+ (or, if you like, 0.07 of a person representing everyone in the data set of 160+). I think it's fair to say that 108 is a much better sample size than 3 (let alone 0.07).

    We readily acknowledge that there is a significant functional difference (including in educational needs) between someone of IQ 100 and someone of IQ 130. The ExNorms are in service to the idea that a similar functional difference exists between the individuals of IQ 160 and 190. (BTW, having assessed individuals with IQs below the floor of 40, at the opposite extreme, I can attest to analogously significant functional differences between someone assessed in the 40s and someone who is not formally assessable, such as adolescents for whom one can obtain standardized-ish data only using infant measures.)


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    Thank you, aeh. I understand what you are saying, but I still have two main questions.
    1)Is the data good enough to be better than no data? Are most professionals in this area pretty confident of that? Can we say the extended norms are valid and reliable?

    2)If we differentiate between 160 and 175 and 190, what is the utility of this and what do those numbers mean for a child in terms of an educational pathway (this may be a question best answered with specific data for a specific individual, but just in general)?

    Thanks!

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    1. I think the data is better than no data, and I do think that most professionals would take it into thoughtful consideration. I would treat them as valid and reliable, insofar as testing data generally is. For example, the psychometrics are not substantially different in quality than, say, the linking data for predicted achievement between the WISC and the WIAT, or the KABC and the KTEA (not as good at that between the WJ Cog and Ach, which are truly co-normed), which are the basis for the kind of aptitude-achievement discrepancy analyses used in several learning disability diagnostic models.

    2. I would agree that this is probably easier to discuss in the particular than in the general...so here's an anecdotal example, using SBLM data (which is, of course, based on a completely different quantitative model of IQ, but just for the sake of discussion...). A sibling group was assessed with scores in the GT range, with a range of scores on the same instrument upwards of 40 points. An illustration of the functional difference in educational needs, using a simple metric: the lowest scoring individual finished K-12 education with four years acceleration, while the highest scoring person reached that milestone accelerated eight years.

    Here's another example, with better group data: some years ago, Lubinski & Benbow published research compiling a selection of outcomes for a cohort of students scoring in the top one in 10,000, which includes some comparisons to the top 1%.
    http://www.appstate.edu/~webbrm/jap2001.pdf

    Of course, in making educational decisions, more than IQ ought to be considered, but it certainly suggests some starting points for discussion. In the first example, while one can propose a situation in which the most-accelerated person might possibly have been maintainable with fewer skips, it is extremely unlikely that the least-accelerated person could have handled four more years of acceleration.

    Last edited by aeh; 01/04/20 08:25 AM.

    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 78
    Thank you, aeh! I read the study you linked. This motivated me to go down the rabbit hole of pubmed. I think I’ve now discovered more questions than answers 😆

    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    M
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    M
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    Can anyone comment on what value the extended norms might have where a child had a very spikey profile even without them (ie multiple 19s in one area and the rest of their testing more uniformly in the 120 sort of range)?

    It's intriguing to know that one or more of those 19s might be 20/21/22 etc. I like the idea of more specific data. But what further conclusions might we draw? How specifically might we use this data?


    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    Mainly, I think it would give a bit more specificity to the magnitude (not so much the nature, since the lows are sufficiently different from the highs even on standard norms) of the spikiness. So it would likely provide the same kind of information as for a more evenly-developed child for whom extended norms were relevant. Just a matter of degree. For spiky profiles in particular, it would highlight the asynchronies even more (and all the sequelae of same).


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    M
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    M
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    Thank you AEH! Yes and I guess for a child who was "somewhat" spikey with standard norms you might find they were actually "extremely" spikey...

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    No worries! If you do have raw scores and would like help with them, pm me.


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

    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
    New, and you'd think I'd have a clue...
    by astronomama - 03/24/24 06:01 AM
    For those interested in astronomy, eclipses...
    by indigo - 03/23/24 06:11 PM
    Son 2e, wide discrepancy between CogAT-Terranova
    by astronomama - 03/23/24 07:21 AM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5