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
    1 registered (sunnyday), 0 Guests and 226 Spiders online.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    liny, Joo, Breef, Camss70, Ms Jules
    10821 Registered Users
    September
    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
    Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
    Topic Options
    #246903 - 03/01/20 04:25 AM Re: Exceptionally gifted children by Miraca Gross [Re: MumOfThree]
    Alannc44 Offline
    Junior Member

    Registered: 03/30/18
    Posts: 38
    Thanks again. Yes, the SBLM apparently does trigger some negative impressions. I can see why.

    The more I think about the Binet 5, which my DD had done well on prior to trying the LM, the more I think I should've demanded our local psychologist do the extended parts. She topped out a subtest (19), and hit 17-18 on a few more. The psychologist who gave her that test looked like she was going to chop my head off when I inquired. Would it have been worth it?

    Top
    #246904 - 03/01/20 10:53 AM Re: Exceptionally gifted children by Miraca Gross [Re: Alannc44]
    MumOfThree Offline
    Member

    Registered: 04/07/11
    Posts: 1641
    Loc: Australia
    Originally Posted By: Alannc44
    She topped out a subtest (19), and hit 17-18 on a few more. The psychologist who gave her that test looked like she was going to chop my head off when I inquired. Would it have been worth it?


    I don't actually know how the extend part of the SBV works, but it seems extraordinarily rare to be “worth” running them. I think it’s quite different from extended norms on the WiSCV, or adding some extra sub tests on the WISC in order to form some of the specialized factors.

    I have two children with FSIQ 145/146 on the SBV, both have 6 sub tests 18/19. I was told the extended portion was not worth running. I have a friend with a child with FSIQ 150+ on the SBV, also told no. I’ve never actually heard of anyone having them used. I suggest that you not feel like you did something wrong here.

    Top
    #246906 - 03/01/20 11:10 AM Re: Exceptionally gifted children by Miraca Gross [Re: MumOfThree]
    MumOfThree Offline
    Member

    Registered: 04/07/11
    Posts: 1641
    Loc: Australia
    A quick google found a number of links back to this forum discussing the extended sbv:

    http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/B....html#Post57100

    http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/B...cores_ceil.html

    There were others I didn’t read.

    Top
    #246907 - 03/01/20 12:49 PM Re: Exceptionally gifted children by Miraca Gross [Re: Alannc44]
    aeh Offline
    Member

    Registered: 04/26/14
    Posts: 3663
    I would agree that there is no need to sweat not having pursued the ExNorms more on the SB5. As on the WISC, they are most likely to add information when learners obtain multiple 19 scaled scores.

    I should note, though, that not all evaluators have access to the ExNorms, as they are in a sold-separately interpretive supplement, with which not all schools will have resourced their psychologists. Private psychs may also choose not to expend the resources on it, since the ExNorms are probably the most concretely useful aspect of the supplement, but are only going to be referenced with regard to a tiny percentage of clients. The WISC, in contrast, has freely-downloadable reference tables for the extended norms, which makes it a bit more user-friendly in that regard.

    As to what would have been necessary for the ExNorms: as long as the examiner was following standard basal/ceiling/discontinue rules, all of the raw score data should have been obtained. It's the transformation to scaled/standard scores that would be different. The issue typically is that some examiners discontinue as soon as the student has reached the maximum scaled score, even if they have not either triggered discontinue rules or completed the last available item on the subtest. (In some cases, very young children may have been administered the Early Years edition of the SB5, which lacks the highest-level items, and is specifically not recommended for GT. Obviously, not only would ExNorms be not obtainable using the EY, but even good general scaled/standard scores would not.)

    Unless one of the caveat situations listed above pertains to your DC's case, it is unlikely that the ExNorms would have made a substantial difference in the composite scores.
    _________________________
    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...

    Top
    #246976 - 03/22/20 02:55 PM Re: Exceptionally gifted children by Miraca Gross [Re: Eagle Mum]
    pinewood1 Offline
    Junior Member

    Registered: 01/25/19
    Posts: 39
    Originally Posted By: Eagle Mum
    I don't expect any IQ test to produce a 'normal' or Gaussian curve because many factors influence or impact intellectual function. If a measurable outcome is affected by multiple factors, I'd expect a log Gaussian curve. If the magnitude of the effects of these factors on the measurable outcome are very different and there is genetic clustering, I'd expect a nonparametric curve. I suspect that the actual distribution of intellectual function in the general population would predominantly resemble a log Gaussian curve with non parametric waves which would be more evident in the long right tail of the log Gaussian curve. Both of these would explain why there are far more HG, EG & PG individuals than predicted by a test which assumes the population is normally distributed.


    As far as I know, deviation-based tests are designed to make the distribution they produce be a Gaussian curve, no matter what the actual distribution of whatever they're trying to measure is. I'm not sure how successful that actually is at the tails, but that's the goal.

    Top
    #246978 - 03/22/20 04:41 PM Re: Exceptionally gifted children by Miraca Gross [Re: pinewood1]
    aeh Offline
    Member

    Registered: 04/26/14
    Posts: 3663
    The tails are usually represented by a very tiny number of actual persons in the standardization sample (typically about 100 samples go into each age bracket). So yes, the real number at an extreme right-hand tail position may be quite different from the theoretical distribution.

    The left hand tail is also overrepresented, likely owing to the many ways that cognitive development can be disrupted. And both tails appear to be especially overrepresented among males.
    _________________________
    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...

    Top
    Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3


    Moderator:  M-Moderator 
    Recent Posts
    Rallying to Protect Admissions Standards in VA
    by Wren
    Today at 04:01 AM
    Thoughts on work of Drs E Frattura & C Capper?
    by indigo
    09/22/20 08:52 AM
    books for adults
    by indigo
    09/22/20 08:43 AM
    The (Gifted) Kids Are All Right
    by MumOfThree
    09/21/20 08:04 PM
    How to calculate GAI ?
    by indigo
    09/21/20 12:39 PM
    Davidson Institute Twitter