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 (), 591 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 3 of 3 1 2 3
    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 39
    Likes: 1
    A
    Junior Member
    Offline
    Junior Member
    A
    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 39
    Likes: 1
    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?

    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    M
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    M
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    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.

    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    M
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    M
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    A quick google found a number of links back to this forum discussing the extended sbv:

    http://giftedissues.davidsongifted...._Extended_scoring_for_SBV.html#Post57100

    http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....0108/Question_about_SBV_scores_ceil.html

    There were others I didn’t read.

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    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...
    Joined: Jan 2019
    Posts: 41
    P
    Junior Member
    Offline
    Junior Member
    P
    Joined: Jan 2019
    Posts: 41
    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.

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    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...
    Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

    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