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
DITD Logo

Learn about the Davidson Academy’s online campus for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S.

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

  • Davidson Fellows Scholarship
  • Davidson Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute
  • DITD FaceBook   DITD Twitter   DITD YouTube
    The Davidson Institute is on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube!

    How gifted-friendly is
    your state?

    Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update

    Who's Online
    0 registered (), 0 Guests and 246 Spiders online.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    MPerez, mauricezaiss, nialcoxworth, BethSmi, hi_coco
    10788 Registered Users
    July
    Su M Tu W Th F Sa
    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
    Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
    Topic Options
    #246795 - 02/15/20 08:00 PM Levels of Giftednes
    MumOfThree Offline
    Member

    Registered: 04/07/11
    Posts: 1612
    Loc: Australia
    Is anyone aware of an up to date statement or table, from a reasonably reputable source, to define levels of giftedness on current IQ tests (ie the WISC-V, with or without extended norms).

    So much of the literature about highly, exceptionally or profoundly gifted children still references the SBLM, or other ratio based formats.

    When guided to read the work of Miraca Gross for example, how does a parent with a child who has current IQ scores make sense of where their child fits within the context of Miraca's work (obviously one will find stories which are more or less relatable in a qualitative sense).

    Top
    #246797 - 02/15/20 08:29 PM Re: Levels of Giftednes [Re: MumOfThree]
    aeh Offline
    Member

    Registered: 04/26/14
    Posts: 3612
    So this is Deborah Ruf's article on the SB5's extended norms, written under the auspices of the publisher.

    SB5 ASB3

    This is Linda Silverman's definitions of LOG. She collected data for, and helped to develop, the WISC-IV and -V extended norms:

    GDC HG/PG

    They are both referring to deviation IQs (contemporary test design, not the ratio IQ of SBLM days), and use essentially the same 1 SD brackets for each tier of GT-ness, with +2SD G/MG, +3SD HG (highly), +4SD EG (exceptionally or extremely), +5SD PG (profoundly). Ruf also includes an approximate concordance table for SBLM to SB5 comparisons.


    Edited by aeh (02/15/20 08:33 PM)

    Top
    #246798 - 02/16/20 12:47 AM Re: Levels of Giftednes [Re: MumOfThree]
    MumOfThree Offline
    Member

    Registered: 04/07/11
    Posts: 1612
    Loc: Australia
    Thanks AEH, I had not seen that one regarding the SB5. I will take some time to digest it.

    With the second I had to stop myself from skimming and go through a second time, it reads like one I have read before, which did not seem to have been updated, but indeed it does have current references despite the start (where numbers are mentioned) seeming identical to an older article.

    So those numbers are quite out of step with Davidson's requirements to join DYS or apply to their school (not an option for us anyway due to location). And also the Hoagies Gifted "Levels of Giftedness" which are often recommended as a guide.


    Edited by MumOfThree (02/16/20 12:52 AM)

    Top
    #246799 - 02/16/20 01:06 AM Re: Levels of Giftednes [Re: MumOfThree]
    MumOfThree Offline
    Member

    Registered: 04/07/11
    Posts: 1612
    Loc: Australia
    The SBV article seems to clearly lay out the problem I am grappling with. But I can't seem to highlight text to quote any of it to discus here.

    It seems to both be saying "We are still setting the boundaries at the same sorts of standard deviations, but our current tests don't really allow you get there." The artcile includes references to test subjects with SBLM scores over 200 and SBV scores below 145 and this is described as reflecting the nature of standard score vs ratio IQs, not the "Extremely high abilities" of the subjects.

    This article doesn't really help with clarifying how to understand, in a current context, all the literature written about children identified and described using the SBLM.

    Top
    #246800 - 02/16/20 06:29 AM Re: Levels of Giftednes [Re: MumOfThree]
    Alannc44 Offline
    Junior Member

    Registered: 03/30/18
    Posts: 38
    Does Davidson have such a chart showing correlations between SB 5 and LM? Seems like they would have accumulated quite a data base.

    Top
    #246802 - 02/16/20 11:20 AM Re: Levels of Giftednes [Re: MumOfThree]
    indigo Offline
    Member

    Registered: 04/27/13
    Posts: 4224
    This webpage from Hoagies Gifted Education Page may be of interest:
    Highly, Exceptionally, Profoundly Gifted

    Not exactly what you are asking for in your post, but may also be of interest...

    ...from Hoagies:
    - WISC, WPPSI V SB-LM
    - Don't throw away the old Binet
    - About SB5...

    ...from members of this forum:
    Old discussion thread WISC-IV V SB (November 2011)

    Top
    #246805 - 02/16/20 12:48 PM Re: Levels of Giftednes [Re: MumOfThree]
    aeh Offline
    Member

    Registered: 04/26/14
    Posts: 3612
    Well, in some ways, it's not possible to quite place the SBLM data in the current context, since they're not the same type of scaling, as I've discussed elsewhere. Ratio IQs were more intuitive, I think, to understand in terms of LOG, but also didn't always stand up well moving up through the developmental stages, because of the shape of the curve of normal development over time.

    And Davidson probably does not have a deep pool of comparative data on SBLM and other tests, since they did not come into existence until nearly 30 years after the last time the SBLM was re-normed (and about 10 years after the SBIV was released).

    The LOGs are more or less modeled after the levels of impairment on the other tail. Which brings up another angle on LOG. At the left tail, the field has moved away from using strict IQ ranges for classifying levels of impairment (at one point, they were strictly by IQ, and basically tracked the LOGs I listed previously, but with the SDs negative instead, and the classifications named mild, moderate, severe, and profound). In recent years, both the DSM-5 and the AAIDD have moved to a "levels of support" model--which is, of course, more positively phrased than "levels of impairment"--but also emphasizes that two adults with the same tested IQ can function very differently. So while measured IQ still plays a role (if you have an 80 IQ, intellectual disabilities are very unlikely to be part of the diagnostic discussion), the IQ score-based descriptors have moved to ones more like
    mild = can live independently with minimal support
    moderate = can live independently with moderate support (e.g., group home)
    severe = needs daily support for self-care
    profound = needs continuous care.

    Analogously, there might be value in discussing LOG in terms of levels of need as well.

    Top
    #246806 - 02/16/20 02:31 PM Re: Levels of Giftednes [Re: MumOfThree]
    indigo Offline
    Member

    Registered: 04/27/13
    Posts: 4224
    You've received great info from aeh, as usual.
    smile

    To clarify, when comparing scores between various test instruments, a collection of paired scores from each of the test instruments is assembled and analyzed. Each test-taker will have taken both of the tests, and submitted the documentation of their test scores.

    This Hoagies' webpage describes the process: Data Collection: Old and New IQ Test Score Pairs

    It may a bit like contriving an equivalence table between ACT scores and SAT scores... each of which measure different things.

    Top
    #246807 - 02/16/20 11:35 PM Re: Levels of Giftednes [Re: MumOfThree]
    MumOfThree Offline
    Member

    Registered: 04/07/11
    Posts: 1612
    Loc: Australia
    Thank you both.

    Indigo I had read many of of those articles before, MANY years ago, the "Don't throw away..." article was particularly helpful to re-read in the current context. The discussion you linked to I was part of :-), amusing trip down memory lane.

    Top
    #246810 - 02/17/20 08:30 AM Re: Levels of Giftednes [Re: aeh]
    pinewood1 Online   content
    Junior Member

    Registered: 01/25/19
    Posts: 33
    Originally Posted By: aeh
    In recent years, both the DSM-5 and the AAIDD have moved to a "levels of support" model--which is, of course, more positively phrased than "levels of impairment"--but also emphasizes that two adults with the same tested IQ can function very differently. So while measured IQ still plays a role (if you have an 80 IQ, intellectual disabilities are very unlikely to be part of the diagnostic discussion), the IQ score-based descriptors have moved to ones more like
    mild = can live independently with minimal support
    moderate = can live independently with moderate support (e.g., group home)
    severe = needs daily support for self-care
    profound = needs continuous care.

    Analogously, there might be value in discussing LOG in terms of levels of need as well.


    This makes sense to me. What would you propose the levels of need would be on the right hand side of the distribution?

    Top
    Page 1 of 2 1 2 >


    Moderator:  M-Moderator 
    Recent Posts
    Online school options during COVID
    by Wren
    Today at 03:57 AM
    Physics in elementary
    by Eagle Mum
    Today at 03:16 AM
    one proposed instructional response to covid
    by aeh
    Yesterday at 08:15 PM
    People Not Getting "It"; pre school and COVID
    by aeh
    Yesterday at 01:04 PM
    Taking a Gap Year or Dropping Out?
    by Wren
    Yesterday at 09:42 AM
    Davidson Institute Twitter