Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion What is giftedness?

I am not suggesting that it is easier to gain acceptance to the Academy than to DYS as that is obviously not the case. In fact, I would posit the opposite. For the Academy, you would also have to travel to Reno and interview, test, and shadow, etc, etc. I am only comparing the minimum acceptable test scores.

Thank you for mentioning prepping, multiple testing and super scoring - for some reason, that actually did not occur to me. I know the prevalence for high school juniors and seniors but did not think younger kids would pursue SAT scores in the same way or to the same extent.

We both learned something from this conversation.

I believe that they are synonyms, at least the way Davidson defines profoundly gifted and the way I've seen many parents identify their child's LOG here (many seem to find HG+ a more comfortable term than PG). See their FAQ for how Davidson defines PG.

Everyone does not use the term PG in the same way. Even the Hoagies page you've recently linked to says that there is no common agreement on how any of these levels of giftedness are actually defined. Neither does that mean that there are no differences between a child with a 145 IQ and a 160 (or higher) IQ.

You could certainly argue that Davidson paints the HG+ group with a broad PG brush, and I would agree with that. But you can't take something that Davidson clearly defines (their notion of PG) and then apply your own definition of PG to it and then suggest that, somehow, Davidson is not targeting their program at HG+ kids. HG+ isn't a term they use, ever.

Being that Davidson itself is still the organization setting criteria and determining acceptance of applicants to their programs, I don't think you have to worry about that. More likely it seems to me that people generally dislike change if it has the potential to adversely affect them.

I think the focus has shifted away from achievement and more towards ability. If that's the case, it explains why an applicant no longer needs a qualifying achievement test score if they have a qualifying IQ index but now need two indices from achievement tests like the WIAT or WJ if there is not a qualifying IQ index.

HG+ is not synonymous with PG, specifically PG is farther to the extreme right tail of the bell curve as compared with HG. HG+ is an attempt to be more inclusive, by combining kiddos with lower scores (HG) together with kiddos in the PG range.

The link you provided is to a document titled "Frequently Asked Questions: Profoundly Gifted Students & Gifted Education", and is a mash-up of topics, some focused on giftedness in general (without regard to LOG), and some focused on PG: "Profoundly gifted individuals score in the 99.9th percentile on IQ tests and have an exceptionally high level of intellectual prowess. These students score at least three standard deviations above the norm on the bell curve..." This is how Davidson has defined Profoundly Gifted (PG). Again, this is not synonymous with Highly Gifted (HG).

This is an attempt to be more inclusive, by combining kiddos with lower scores (HG) together with kiddos in the PG range.

There is agreement that Profoundly Gifted is 145+, 3SD from the norm. HG is not as far to the extreme right tail of the bell curve. HG and PG are not synonymous.

Not too many years ago, kiddos who were globally PG (as measured by PG scores in each area) were labeled Profoundly Gifted.

Then parents whose kiddos who measured one score in the 99.9th percentile against a backdrop of MG began describing their kiddos as PG.

Parents with kiddos on the ASD spectrum began describing their kiddos as PG, based on similar behavioral traits.

GAI was created and replaced FSIQ in some cases.

Now many gifted kiddos are described as PG, or at least HG+.

As inclusion increases, are the globally PG children well-served? Or is there a growing notion that "they'll be fine on their own", and that other children are more in need of gifted advisory services?

Where does Davidson define HG and/or otherwise "paint the HG group with a broad brush"? I find no Davidson reference to "HG". As you have said, "HG+ isn't a term they use, ever."

1) Davidson has clearly defined PG this way: "Profoundly gifted individuals score in the 99.9th percentile on IQ tests and have an exceptionally high level of intellectual prowess. These students score at least three standard deviations above the norm on the bell curve..."
2) I have not applied my own definition to PG. I have quoted Davidson, and provided links to the sources.
3) I did not "suggest, somehow, Davidson is not targeting their program at HG+ kids." Actually, it was you who said that Davidson is targeting HG+, and I questioned your source, quoting Davidson webpages as stating they serve the PG population, which is farther to the extreme right tail of the bell curve.

Yes, that is what "supplant the profoundly gifted kiddos which Davidson set out to serve" means. Several posters have commented on this concern, throughout this thread.

The Hoagie's Gifted page that attempts to quantify levels of giftedness defines "highly gifted" as 145+, and "profoundly gifted" as 152+, 175+, or 180+ depending on the instrument used to test. (It does not include the WISC-V, the most recent test edition, in its definitions.) Davidson, on the other hand, defines "profoundly gifted" as starting at 145. I think that George is correct in stating that Hoagie's and Davidson are using these words differently, and that "Davidson PG" is roughly the same as "Hoagie's HG".

My impression of the term "HG+" as used on this forum (it might even be exclusive to this forum) was to say it's 145+, by whatever other names it goes by. I am unaware of anyone using the term to indicate that it refers to those with a score less than 145. Indigo, can you find a post that suggests this?

To clarify, Hoagies webpage summarizes the approximate equivalent test scores. These are overall test scores, Full Scale IQs, not individual subtests nor GAIs. Various tests have different scores corresponding to 3SD+ from the norm, 99.9th percentile.

The roughly equivalent scores for Profoundly Gifted, depending upon test instrument, are given as: 152-160, 175+, 145++, 180. (You omitted reporting the 145++, appearing to cherry-pick data to make a point.)

One ought not to conflate scores from different tests, as the levels of gifted (LOG) are distinct and represent progressively higher scores.

On Hoagies the gifted ranges are described as:
1) Gifted (G) or Moderately Gifted (MG)
2) Highly Gifted (HG)
3) Exceptionally Gifted (EG)
4) Profoundly Gifted (PG) <== defined by DITD: 3SD+, 99.9th percentile, minimum 145.

HG is not synonymous with PG.
HG+ is not synonymous with PG.
HG+ would include those who are Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted.

The real question may be, George C, can you find a post which states that HG+ means 145? Stated another way, what informs your impression that HG+ means 145, and/or is synonymous with PG (as you stated in your previous post)?

Hoagies webpage summarizes the approximate equivalent test scores. These are overall test scores, Full Scale IQs, not individual subtests nor GAIs. Various tests have different scores corresponding to 3SD+ from the norm, 99.9th percentile.

One ought not to conflate scores from different tests, as the levels of gifted (LOG) are distinct and represent progressively higher scores.

On Hoagies the gifted ranges are described as:
1) Gifted (G) or Moderately Gifted (MG)
2) Highly Gifted (HG)
3) Exceptionally Gifted (EG)
4) Profoundly Gifted (PG) <== defined by DITD: 3SD+, 99.9th percentile, minimum 145.

HG is not synonymous with PG.
HG+ is not synonymous with PG.
HG+ would include those who are Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted.

That is not my understanding. Can you please provide examples which lead you to believe that the term HG+ is meant to include kids who have scored lower than a 145? Because I cannot find anything that suggests that.

Who is agreeing about this? Here's another source ("adapted from Hoagies") that suggests that PG is 6 or more SDs from the norm. There is a school for the "highly gifted" in California whose cutoff score is the 99.9th percentile. Call that what you will, but please don't call that agreement.

Yes, and no. I think having a kid score within the error range of 145 or higher on a standardized intelligence test means two things. First, it means that it's very likely that they will have educational and advocacy needs that go beyond (or sometimes well beyond) what most schools can provide. Second, it means "forcing the issue" of treating the child as a unique learner with unique needs and meeting them where they need to be met. DITD clearly must feel that they can help provide with the needs of the global PG kid as well as the one-index PG kid or the PG kid with a high IQ index but not high achievement. We should be celebrating that notion that they can cast their nets wider now than when the program first started.