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 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
    #5675 12/11/07 02:35 PM
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 180
    Mom2LA Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 180
    How are the different level of giftedness defined? I suppose I could try and look this up but I'm here and figured that this is where the experts hang out anyway! wink

    I'm not referring to Ruf's levels of giftedness but rather the commonly used acronyms I see on this site. For ie: When we say MG, EG, PG...is it based on IQ? And if so, what are the defining numbers?


    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 180
    Mom2LA Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 180
    Ok, so I looked online. Is this correct?

    MG - Moderately Gifted (IQ 130 - 145) (2 standard deviations from the mean)

    HG - Highly Gifted = (IQ 145 - 160) (3 standard deviations from the mean)

    EG - Extremely Gifted = (IQ 160 - 180) (4 standard deviations from the mean)

    PG - Profoundly Gifted = (IQ 180+) (5 or more standard deviations from the mean)

    *I was going by the DITD's statement of "profoundly gifted kids with IQ's 145+" but according to this PG is 180+. So if these are the actual levels then dd is MG to HG.

    Last edited by Tammiane; 12/11/07 02:48 PM.
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 864
    Q
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Q
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 864
    Yep, that's what I've gathered from reading these boards and others - they say 145+, but they're looking for those 160's. Worth a try anyway, but I wonder how many children are actually accepted with scores closer to that 145...

    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 778
    D
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    D
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 778

    http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_profoundly.htm

    The Psychologist who tested my son on the SB-5, included this information in his report.

    I think the answer, to many, is determined by which version of which test the scores result from.

    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 180
    Mom2LA Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 180
    Interesting!

    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 778
    D
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    D
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 778
    No offense taken. Of course, you�re right, it is controversial. It sure seems to fit in my son�s case, though.

    This other link, that was posted under SB-5 info, seems to support the assertion that, at least WISC-III scores, are markedly higher than SB-5 scores for several (is that conservative enough) previously identified HG students.
    I case anyone hasn�t seen the link;
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gifted+and+highly+gifted+students%3a+how+do+they+score+on+the+SB5%3f-a0150850213

    The psychologist (who tested my son) did make an interesting comment. He said that the SB-5 scores were increasing since the initial normative study, in which he participated (BTW, he said that most participants that he tested had previous scores into the 140s). He mentioned the fact that the test publisher also develops curriculum products as one possible reason for the increase in scores. Curious, don�t you think?


    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,231
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,231
    Hey Tammy,

    There does seem to be a little controversy especially with the newer tests.
    Here is my understanding and please feel free to jump in and correct me if I am misunderstanding any of this. Truly, I wouldn't be offended because I am summarizing the info as I understand it.
    There was a study done recently because of the changes to the tests, whereby, they administered the WISC-IV to children who had previously scored 130+ on the previous test. The average score was 123 or something along those lines. They determined that the kids were getting scores about 3-10 points lower on the newer WISC. The accepted understanding about why this is happening is investigated on another thread, I believe, about processing speed.
    That's why the Hoagies's chart shows lower scores for the newer tests, pushing kids into the category of HG, EG, or PG that wouldn't have been there for the older tests.
    The tester may have given you a percentile. This tells you how your child compared to all other US children taking the test. For example, a FSIQ of 140 puts your child in the 99.6th percentile, I believe. Meaning, your child scored higher than 99.6% of the children in the US that have taken that particular test.
    I am guessing the 145+ number is chosen because I believe that number puts one in the 99.9th percentile for WISC-I mV.
    I said Guessing, so please correct me nicely if I got this wrong smile
    I believe this is important because a 140 on the newer tests is more significant than a 140 on the older tests, for example, even for the newer WPPSI. If your school administrators are not hip to this information they could possibly be misperceiving your child's abilities. Although, it sounds like at Tammy's DD school they are doing a good job of accomodating her, so that's awesome.
    I brought this up to the gifted coordinator for our entire school district and she was not understanding how these newer tests scores are different from the older ones and what it means. That was pretty disappointing, although, she promised to look into it and attended the NAGC conference recently, so I am hopeful.
    I think percentile is key and I think any kid scoring in the 95th percentile and above should definately get "special services". And those in the top one tenth of one percent........

    I said "I beleive" and "to my understanding" alot.
    Do I sound more like Bill Clinton or George Bush? wink

    Incog




    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,231
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,231
    Okay, several typos, there is no such test WISC-I mV
    I meant WISC IV.
    Sorry

    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 180
    Mom2LA Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 180
    That makes sense, incog. Yes, on her WISC IV test result it does say full score 99.6% (verbal is 99.9%). Crazy...fractions of a percent make a big difference!

    Last edited by Tammiane; 12/11/07 04:42 PM.
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 778
    D
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    D
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 778
    I thought that was interesting too. It may be similiar to having a "preview" of the EXPLORE test. I know a group (school) that he said was included as part of the "validation report" (thanks for the clarification)are DYS level. They have to have tests at or above 145 and strong recommendation, ect. to attend the program.

    A third measure, besides score and percentile, is the age equivalent. The author of the above study brought up the perceived discrepancy between standard score/ percentile and the age equivalent. Again, this rings true in my son�s case. Even though he just cleared the traditional gifted cut-off, his age was equivalent was 55. He tested the same week that he turned 10. I'm not too sure about this number either.




    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,231
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,231
    Thanks Dottie and delbows for clarifying. And thanks for being kind in responding to my first attempt at " I think I know what I'm talking about"! smile

    If I remember correctly concerning the Harcourt Study(thanks, I'm great at pulling data out of the air and not remembering where I got it from), the kids chosen had previously scored 130+ on the previous WISC.
    Does anyone have the link, I could probably find it if needed.

    Is that what you meant by not sure how the children were chosen?
    Also, Dottie, I really am pretty new to this and it was explained to me "all the children who took the test".
    Could you explain the term norming sample. Remember, I'm not the math/statistics person and someone told me there are no stupid questions..........right????
    Please don't say only stupid people smile

    Thanks,
    Incog

    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 778
    D
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    D
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 778
    True. The 99.9 percentile for AE may be 26 or 27.

    Joined: Mar 2007
    Posts: 797
    acs Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Mar 2007
    Posts: 797
    Originally Posted by delbows
    No offense taken. Of course, you�re right, it is controversial. It sure seems to fit in my son�s case, though.

    This other link, that was posted under SB-5 info, seems to support the assertion that, at least WISC-III scores, are markedly higher than SB-5 scores for several (is that conservative enough) previously identified HG students.
    I case anyone hasn�t seen the link;
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gifted+and+highly+gifted+students%3a+how+do+they+score+on+the+SB5%3f-a0150850213

    I've thought a lot about this study since I have a kid who has been tested on the SB5 and has a score that is PG by the Ruf/Hoagies scales but is below a 145. I really wanted this study to prove that he "should" have been over a 145 *if* we had the "right" test!

    But I don't think it does. There are a lot of factors that go into this score difference.
    1) The SB5 was designed to give a score that is about 3-4 points lower than previous tests to compensate for the Flynn effect (the observation that IQ test scores increase over time). I think one of the things that is contraversial is that this effect has not been shown to exist at the tails of the curve.
    2)The tests are measuring different kinds of intelligence, different skill, knowledge, processing etc, so a child with the skills to do well on one test might lack the skills to do well on the other. This does not mean that one is more or less smart, just differently smart.
    3) Regression to the mean. The statistical principle whereby outlyers on a test tend to get scores closer to the mean when the test is repeated and
    4) the kids got older between test 1 and test 2. They may have hit fewer test ceilings on the first test and more ceilings on the second because as they got older they were working at the higher levels of the test.

    What we need to really prove the difference (to go along with this study) is the opposite study--the one that tests kids first on the SB5 and then retests the highest scorers on the WISC3. You might confirm that the SB5 consistently gives lower scores. But one might find that the kids that do well on the SB5 don't do as well on the WISC. You just don't know until that study has been done.

    I do know that when I discussed all my ideas about why DS's score showed he was PG with the DITD counselor after we had not been accepted, she just said, "well, we have plenty of kids who do score over 145 on the SB5." For those of you applying, though, with an IQ score below the cutoff, keep in mind that we had invalid AT scores (we had thought they were accepted subtests but they weren't). For kids with high enough AT scores, they might look more closely at those close, but not quite, IQ scores.

    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 175
    P
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    P
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 175
    Originally Posted by Dottie
    There ARE a lot of studies being done. What I want to know, is how I can get my kid signed up for them (and the free IQ tests that go along with that!!!!)

    I have a very good friend who is a child psychologist. He doesn't routinely do IQ testing, but he is trained in this area and does it from time to time to keep in practice with it. He called me the other day and asked if my girls would be willing to be guinea pigs for him by letting him give them the SB. My kids jumped at the chance because they love him. He's great with kids, and my girls know him from church and feel comfortable with him. He won't write up a formal report because he's doing it for practice and because he's such a good friend. However, he says it will give us an idea of their abilities.

    This is great for us because DD9 has never been formally tested at school. She was only given a screener (NNAT) and was denied further testing because of her score. However, she's very verbal and not good at visual-spatial stuff. DD6 is going to be screened by the school soon.

    Joined: May 2006
    Posts: 865
    C
    cym Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: May 2006
    Posts: 865
    I wonder how these well-known tests (WISC IV and SB5) compare to the RIAS (Reynolds) that our school district uses.

    acs said in 1) that intelligence increases over time...based on my DS 13 and his teenage sluggishness and failure to listen or understand these days, I'm not so sure.


    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 347
    Isa Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 347
    I wonder if a more useful number wouldn't be the 'mental age' of the child, so you know your child is 4 but his/her mind operates like one of 4+X years old.

    This way you know if s/he can work with abstract concepts and to which level and then adapt the teaching style accordingly.

    #5804 12/13/07 09:35 AM
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,231
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,231
    Aha Kcab, I think you are on to something. I do not think an IQ test can determine the ability to be creative and/or unconventional. Yet, these two traits are what are responsible for turning a man's name into a definition for unmatched, unmeasureable brilliance.
    Einstein

    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 6,145
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 6,145
    Hmmm...Very thought-provoking post, J.

    I, too, like the more global approach that CFK and Isa suggest, but am having a wee bit of trouble with the straight "What can they show us?" of this age/grade level scale idea.

    The info GT kids choose to pursue does seem relevant to the discussion and gets left out of the "What grade level are they operating at?" approach. The intensity of the interest also matters, and I think that intense but untraditional interests get left out altogether when looking at age/grade level alone.

    For example, liking cars is one thing, and may even be age-appropriate for a 2yo. But at at age 2, knowing EVERYTHING about cars--how they work, the makes and models of every car on the road, etc.--is not age-appropriate (!) and it does indicate a depth of interest and ability that wouldn't show itself in testing or in this above-age-level strategy. I'm solidly into middle-age, and I haven't learned these things about cars yet, but my DS did well before his 3rd birthday! I used to joke that if we needed to ID a getaway car, I'd have to turn to my toddler and say, "What kind of car was it, honey?" How'd that be for a witness!?

    I don't mean to be just a wet blanket here... I'm afraid I have no helpful suggestions about how to catch these kids whose interests are so far off the beaten path. *sigh* I suspect that if there were an easy, straightforward way to ID these kids, someone smarter than me would have found a way to do it long ago! smile


    Kriston
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,231
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,231
    Hey Gratified,
    I wasn't implying that Einstein would not test well. My point is there had been and will continue to be scientists that are estimated or have been identified as having IQ's equal or greater that Einstein's.
    He was creative and unconventional, which allowed him to totally reject the "current day thinking" in the physics world. Had he gone along with the crowd, one assumes he may not have developed his yet unmtatched theories.
    See where I'm comming from? These are qualities you cannot test for. From what I understand there is a test that measures creativity, however, I'm not sure anyone can tangibly measure it.


    Incog

    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 6,145
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 6,145
    Originally Posted by Dottie
    Originally Posted by J
    I suppose I'm not that curious about my kids' abilities unless there is some reason I need to act and advocate for them. By the time they are school age, I like the idea of comparing grade levels.

    Oh I can really agree with that statement J! For us, it wasn't a problem...until it was a problem, if you know what I mean. I sent DD1 in somewhat blind, but when it was DS's turn, I knew pretty early on things weren't going to work with the lock-step plan.

    But, see, I worry that because I thought DS6 was just MG before he started school, I missed opportunities with him--and that seems to be a common thread here! Many of us fear that we should have done more to nurture our kids' gifts earlier.

    As of late K, DS6 wasn't achieving as much in math as he was in reading (only 1-2 grades above level for a 144 Broad Math score on the WJ). Well, I'm an English-y person, so I tended to pay more attention to his verbal skills. Did I hamper his development because I didn't see just how capable he was? I think I probably did.

    He seems to be catching up, but that doesn't mean I didn't get in his way. Early ID is best for these kids. It just is, even if there's no formal schooling to advocate for yet. Informal schooling at home matters, too.

    What's more, I should probably have been advocating with the schools much more strongly for my son from the beginning of preschool, certainly by K. But if a kid isn't IDd before school starts, how can a parent do that? DS6 was really languishing, but because he's not a troublemaker by nature, rather is a go-along kid, he got the short straw.

    And just because my example was with a preschooler, that doesn't mean only preschoolers have "weird," not-strictly-academic interests. What about the 1st grader obsessed with philosophy? That's not taught in any school I knew of before college. How do you rate that kid in terms of grade-level? He's not thinking at a college-level yet, but he is thinking ABOUT something college-level, how do you rate that?

    Or the kid who can do crazy calculations in his head, calculations that no one is going to ask him to do...ever! Not in any grade! I know a kid like this. I'd guess he's at least HG in math, but he had a hard time even being IDd for the GT program at school. Offbeat stuff like that is just not on anybody's radar, at least not around here.

    Again, I'm not trying to be obnoxious or difficult. And maybe I'm asking for more than is possible. I know that. I just think the issue is a lot more complicated than we're making it seem here...


    Kriston
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 6,145
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 6,145
    P.S. And I'm not even factoring in the creativity argument, which I think is important.


    Kriston
    Joined: Dec 2005
    Posts: 7,207
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Dec 2005
    Posts: 7,207
    Originally Posted by gratified3
    I guess I can't see any reason to identify a kid at the age of 2,

    One example comes to mind right away, J.
    My 2 year old was in daycare at least 5 hours a day. I think many things would have turned out differently if he had had other children to play with who were interested in the same things he was interested in. Perhaps at 2 he was still 'close enough' to his agemates, but by age 3, I'm quite sure he would have benifited from being able to spend at least some of the day with older kids.

    And although I agree with the idea that it would be nice to wait for an issues to deal with it, I think you know what the waiting lists are like for some of the testers. 6 months can be a long time for a child who is activly suffering. In addition, it took me at least 18 months to clear away the gifted denial, so it seems likely that it would be useful to help parents of preschoolers get together earlier for support.

    Smiles,
    Trinity


    Coaching available, at SchoolSuccessSolutions.com
    Joined: Dec 2005
    Posts: 7,207
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Dec 2005
    Posts: 7,207
    I've heard it said the some research on 6 month olds is a pretty good indicator of future IQ scores. ((LOL - it wasn't are they talking? are they reading? I think it was, how quickly to they get bored by seeing the same old, same old visual stimuli - that sure would explain alot about my son's early alert and please entertain me years)) Anyway, I think that if we are going to check developmental milestones and offer early interventions, it would make sense to use a yardstick appropriate to the child. Not that I want to lable anyone at 6 months, but oh, to live in a world where that kind of information would be applied kindly and thoughfully! Poor tounge-tied Dottie's - DS!

    That would be cool.
    Trinity


    Coaching available, at SchoolSuccessSolutions.com
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 155
    A
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 155
    sorry to ask but I'm new how does the DD , Ds terminology work?

    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 180
    Mom2LA Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 180
    dd = dear daughter
    ds = dear son

    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 155
    A
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 155
    Thanks! It was obviously son and doughter but thought that the first "d" might have been esoteric.

    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 155
    A
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 155
    Thanks.

    I find that I am reading (and I guess writing, too) as a gifted adult of a gifted daughter. In many ways I think that I profited by the lack of programs and structure as a kid. I skipped four grades, took university classes in seventh grade and generally did whatever I wanted to. It's fascinating to see the pros and cons of 'standardizing" gifted education options. Luckily my daughter is in a small school with a remarkable set of asynchronously developing kids.

    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 6,145
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 6,145
    Originally Posted by gratified3
    I think this quote illustrates much about why we disagree and basic parenting philosophy differences that explain reactions to this subject. In retrospect, I wouldn't have changed anything about parenting or fostering ability or what I do with my kids based on their scores.

    Hmmm...You make it sound like you think I'm obsessed with achievement, gratified3. I don't think that's true or fair.

    I, too, think character development and play are vital to a child's development. Of course I do! And I did a good job on those things, doggone it! But giving a child those important things and offering developmentally appropriate intellectual stimulation are NOT mutually exclusive!

    Maybe part of the problem is that my DS6 was in many ways a stealth-HG+ kid. I knew he was GT. But I didn't realize just what I was dealing with. And I'm sorry, but there's a big difference in the needs of a kid who's ND or just "a little" GT and one who is really extraordinarily bright. I am having a hard time believing that you don't think so! I don't think I met my son's intellectual needs until I knew just how smart he was. I'm glad you feel that you did exactly the right things for your kids, gratified, but I don't feel I did. More info would have helped me.

    I'm not one to dwell on regrets; moreover, my regret wasn't really my point. My point is that there are, indeed, VALID REASONS for some of us to want to know about a child's abilities before school. This isn't just about advocacy, and it's certainly not about status-seeking, as I feel you are implying. (I admit, I'm a bit offended, though trying not to be...)

    No. It's about providing a sufficiently stimulating home environment. DS6 has always been relatively quiet and polite and happy to entertain himself. Those are fine things. They make him easy to deal with. But they also masked his level of GTness.

    I feel like my point is being trivialized here. You may certainly disagree with me. I can be easy to disagree with. But please don't try to make it sound as if I'm one of "those" hothousing moms with some wacky "parenting philosophy" that differs from your common sense one. Truth be told, I would describe my parenting philosophy just as you do yours. But my son could read at the 4th grade level in K, and I had absolutely nothing on his shelf that was above the 4th grade level; most of his books were a grade-level or three lower than that. I mean, I though having some books that were 4 years above grade level would be enough. I was wrong. And the math...ugh!

    Maybe I was an idiot. Maybe I was inattentive. Maybe I should have known. Maybe we weren't providing an adequate learning environment for any kid. But I didn't know, and I'd argue that the learning environment we provided would have been exceptional for a kid who was ND or MG. But it was NOT enough for an HG+ kid. And I know for a fact I'm not the only person who was surprised to find out her child was smarter than she realized.

    Do I favor early testing? No, of course not. The only reason we figured out DS6's level of GT was because the K teacher wanted him tested. I didn't have him tested at all. I did no advocacy whatsoever. I wasn't hothousing. I wasn't pushing. But do I have regrets that he languished, when I see how happy he is now that he's not languishing? You betcha.

    And I think that's a valid reason to want to ID these kids as early as possible. Through some means. I'd love a better means than testing!


    Kriston
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 312
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 312
    I never needed a test to tell me I had a PG child. I just knew. I guess when they are little you just give them what they ask for and let them lead the way. Before my DD started school we made a weekly trip to the bookstore. I must have spent thousands of dollars on books because she was reading them faster than I could get them. I don't think knowing her IQ score would have made a difference at that age.

    I finally seeked testing in order to apply to a gifted school. I had to admit I didn't know how gifted she was, but I knew she wasn't an average kid. I knew a regular school would not be able to provide the challenge she would need.

    I hope that had I known her IQ score earlier I would not have done anything differently.

    Joined: Mar 2007
    Posts: 797
    acs Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Mar 2007
    Posts: 797
    Originally Posted by Kriston
    No. It's about providing a sufficiently stimulating home environment. DS6 has always been relatively quiet and polite and happy to entertain himself. Those are fine things. They make him easy to deal with. But they also masked his level of GTness.

    Hi Kriston, I really think that this the key piece of information. My kid was never quiet and he certainly wasn't stealth about his GT. He was the kind of person who at 3 would ask questions relentlessly (and not in that "why? why? why?" monotone that ND kids use). It was more like "Why does that sign say "danger", but the other one says "warning'?" And "why does that sign say 'employees only beyond this point' what do you think is beyond that point? why can't we go there?" And he moved around all the time wanting to know about everything. So I did not need any testing to tell me he was smart and he was such a fireball and so demanding that I did everything he needed just by doing what he asked me to do, including checking out the 6th grade books from the library because he asked for them. He does the same in school--he keeps all the teachers on the ball and doesn't let a mistake go unnoticed. Nope, he's not even polite! So I cannot regret anything, but I don't think I can take credit for that--it was DS's doing.

    But your kid seems to have a completely different temperment and I think that changes a lot. I know I am frequently guilty of assuming that other people's children will respond like my child (my "n" of 1 to use statistical speak) does and I am frequently wrong, which isn't statistically surprising. LOL.

    acs #5896 12/13/07 08:07 PM
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 6,145
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 6,145
    True, acs. We all do that. I think I was falling into the "all kids are like mine, right?" trap when I misread DS6's level of GT. When you only have one data point, it's not hard to misread the data. He's all I knew, so I figured he was significantly closer to average than he is. I knew he was GT. That was never in doubt. But I significantly underestimated how GT. And that makes as much difference as the difference between ND and "vanilla" GT. It's a drastic change in the needs of the child.

    I did follow DS6 where he led, Bianca--I read the "Consumer Report" car edition to him while he potty trained, for goodness sake! I followed! It's not like I plopped him in front of the TV and ignored him. But the fact remains that he can only lead as far as his environment allows.

    DS6 was always curious and active and incredibly verbal, but he was the sort of kid who was writing grand stories in his head or building things or staging auto races with his toys, not nagging for constant attention. He's an introvert, as am I, so I was happy to let him do his own thing a lot.

    He has always asked a lot of questions, but they were the sort I expected from your garden-variety GT kid...because I didn't know any better. Don't all MG kids obsess over alphabet puzzles at 13 months and know their letters and numbers to 0-9 by 15 months? I simply didn't know better. Once I read Dr. Ruf's book with baby book in hand, I realized how wrong I was. (But I just did that this past fall, a few short months ago.)

    So I maintain that earlier ID would have helped us. Maybe it was just us. Maybe no one else made the mistakes we made. But we made them, and that should be taken into account. I guess I'm saying please don't dismiss early ID just because you think it wouldn't have helped you. As acs says, we all think that our own experience is what others experience, that our kids are the norm for everyone else's kids. I'm telling you that in this case, that's not true. Maybe we're the exception, but we exist.

    Was our son in agony his whole young life? No. But he was bored. Did he find ways to entertain himself? Yes, absolutely. It's one of his strengths. But to me, prolonged boredom is a problem even if a kid can find ways to cope. And he was bored not just at school, but at home, too. I'm not sure he even knew he was bored--it was just his life. Just how thing were.

    That makes me sadder than anything else.


    Kriston
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 13
    Junior Member
    Offline
    Junior Member
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 13
    When you think about levels of giftedness, what about varying levels among your own children? My oldest is moderately gifted and my youngest (I have only 2) is highly gifted. So when he started mastering things that she was only just beginning to get, even though she was 2 grades ahead of her age, since he was 2 years younger than she is, she felt "stupid."

    It wasn't until she spent 6th grade in a school (she had homeschooled until then that she finally believed she wasn't really stupid.

    How do you deal with several gifted siblings at various levels of giftedness?

    Joined: Feb 2006
    Posts: 802
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2006
    Posts: 802

    Quote
    How do you deal with several gifted siblings at various levels of giftedness?
    You concentrate on different things.

    Hi Kathi.
    I also have two. Boy 12, girl 10.
    Opposite situation as the first one is more academically gifted the the second. But my D is EXTREMELY gifted socially. Everybody loves her and she knows how to take advantage of that.
    She is pursuing her older brother and maybe it is more natural in my house because the more gifted one is the older one? I don't know. But I know that it is very important, VERY imortant, to find some above average feature in your "normal child"
    She is a model, straight A student loved by all. He, while popular, is an adjective :-)

    Ania #5912 12/14/07 06:06 AM
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,231
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,231
    Hi Ladies,

    I'd like to skip back and address the conversation between Kriston and Gratified. Yes, we probably have some parenting ideas that are different and some that are the same.
    We had both of our daughters tested before 5 and DD7 was tested twice.
    DH and I have valid reasons for doing so. Some will agree, some will disagree, it doesn't really matter to us, we did what we felt we needed to do.
    Yes, I'm sure some PG babies are just drooling at 6 months. DD7 did some unusual things from 6-12 months. They weren't subtle. They were somewhat disconcerting. It was a good thing to be able to put this information in some sort of context.
    Coming from a minimizing, gifted denial family, those scores helped me. It gave me permission to give my DD's way above level appropriate material. If I hadn't known their potential abilities I would have dismissed some of their requests when they were younger, thinking, Oh you can't do that.
    Everyone has a different story and a different set of circumstances.........Let's respect that.
    Kriston, you can't go back and do anything different, cut yourself some slack.
    You are an awesome mom and DS is lucky to have you. Can't remember if you have other children?? Sorry The caffeine hasn't jump started my brain yet.
    I love this forum, it exposes me to different opinions. Often, I get the most out of reading posts that are so different from my own ideas. It allows me to expand my point of reference which is cool.

    Peace,
    Incog

    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 1,134
    K
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    K
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 1,134
    Incog - beautifully stated.

    I think there are good and not so good reasons to test early. Whoever spoke about their child spending a lot of time in day care was a great example. I was (and am) a stay at home parent. I bought my preschooler lego set's for teenagers (and I assumed all 4 year olds could assemble them) and had a science lab in my kitchen. I taught my 4 year old how to play chess. He was highly demanding. His preschool was very open ended and active. He wouldn't have been ready for formal curriculum, although I wish I would have left some early readers laying around, instead of going from baby books to Roald Dahl. I'm sure he would have read much earlier with minimal effort.

    I found he was only limited once he got to all day kindergaten. And unfortunately for him, now is very well behaved and is more than satisfied with blending into the crowd. I feel like I'm much more in tune to DD3.

    And I can totally relate to being in a gifted denial family. That was completely my family growing up. It is comforting to be validated. When I found out DS was highly gifted it really made so much of my childhood make perfect sense.

    Joined: Dec 2005
    Posts: 7,207
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Dec 2005
    Posts: 7,207
    Originally Posted by gratified3
    My kids tended to go play Monopoly by themselves for hours at age 4. We let them do that and offered little guidance.

    Wow J!
    DOK ((drooling on the keyboard))
    Children in families, even with varying LOG, seem to be much closer together in ability than children in classrooms, or daycare. I remember smiling when Dottie called it her homecluster! or something like that. If your least gifted one was willing to play monopoly at 4, my guess is that that one is pretty gifted also - even if they did make bad trades.

    My son is an only, and if I could have rented some 4 year olds to play monopoly with him, I would have! Basically at our house, it was "me or TV" because my extroverted son wasn't a 'go build something' kid.

    Strangly, lots of parents will hear a child ask for a very specific thing and assume that they know better, and put the book back on the library shelf. Perhaps those parents need the scores early as permission to follow the child's lead?

    Slightly OT, my son knew just what to do with those stiff toddler books. Get me to stack them so he could knock them down.

    Smiles,
    Trinity



    Coaching available, at SchoolSuccessSolutions.com
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 6,145
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 6,145
    gratified3: I appreciate your efforts to clarify for me. For my part, I hope what follows is clearer, but if it isn't, I probably won't try again. I think this is the 3rd time I've explained/justified myself, and if it's not better by now, it probably is just not going to improve...

    Where I come from, saying that someone has "a different parenting philosophy" is just about the nastiest way to slam a fellow parent that there is. It's a highly judgmental comment, usually made in a holier-than-thou tone, and it's not even remotely nice.

    Apparently that's not what you meant. But in the context of the rest of your post, that's how it sounded to me. Even your last post sounds like you're making a *lot* of incorrect assumptions about my family and my parenting. (One case in point: DS6 isn't an only child, as you imply. I just don't know if DS3 is GT or not yet, so I don't post about him a lot here. He may be GT with an LD--yet another reason for early ID!--or he may be ND. We dunno.) These assumptions you're making about me/us seem to be an important part of our problem here.

    I repeat: my parenting philosophy doesn't seem to me to be any different from yours based on what you've written. The things you describe doing with your kids, I do/have always done with mine, too. I, too, set my kids loose at the library. But our library has two distinct areas: the kids' room and the adult section. If I only set them loose in the children's room--as I have always done, because why would an MG kid need anything else?--and never in the adult section, then they will never know that the adult room is an option for them. I've closed off opportunities to them because of MY assumptions. If DS6 wanted to get an adult book, I'd reply with a wholehearted yes. (I don't censor books.) But if he doesn't ever even SEE the adult books, how could he know to ask?

    That's very much what happened at home, too.

    So you see, it's not about a parenting philosophy. It's about my assumptions about his abilities and how those assumptions closed off opportunities. I'm not a "helicopter parent" AT ALL, as I explained already. I certainly encourage my kids to play by themselves and offer them little guidance. I have always followed their lead on what interests them. That stuff is not what I regret. I regret not giving DS6 more opportunities for challenge that were appropriate to his abilities, which were much higher than I recognized.

    I still stand by my statement that early ID is best for these kids pretty much without exception. But I think you're reading that statement far too narrowly. I would argue that your kids *WERE* ID'd early--by you! Early ID doesn't necessarily mean testing--that's the whole point of this thread, right? We were exploring what else could we do to ID HG+ besides testing? I never said I believe in early *testing*. I flat-out said I do NOT believe in early testing. I don't think an IQ score at age 3 tells us any more than you think it does. But I do think that knowing how a child learns and what he needs is vital to his development at any age.

    For us, DS6 was pegged (by us) as *GT* practically from birth. But he was not ID'd as *HG+*, and I do think that distinction would have been helpful to know sooner, through some means, because there's a significant difference between the needs of HG+ kids and those of MG or plain GT kids, a point I think you made yourself in another thread about your very own children.

    I don't like most blanket statements about HG+ kids either. I certainly would argue against anyone who said that public school is unworkable for all HG+ kids! But if you don't realize that a kid is HG+ and that HG+ kid more self-sufficient and easygoing than most HG+ kids (as DS6 is), then my experience demonstrates that it's hard to meet that child's needs, no matter what his age.

    That's where I'm coming from. Thanks. smile


    Kriston
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 347
    Isa Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 347
    Originally Posted by Trinity
    I've heard it said the some research on 6 month olds is a pretty good indicator of future IQ scores. ((LOL - it wasn't are they talking? are they reading? I think it was, how quickly to they get bored by seeing the same old, same old visual stimuli - that sure would explain alot about my son's early alert and please entertain me years)) Anyway, I think that if we are going to check developmental milestones and offer early interventions, it would make sense to use a yardstick appropriate to the child. Not that I want to lable anyone at 6 months, but oh, to live in a world where that kind of information would be applied kindly and thoughfully! Poor tounge-tied Dottie's - DS!

    That would be cool.
    Trinity


    Does anyone have a link with the study?

    I think too like Kriston and Trinity that for 'EG' or 'PG' an early id is/would better.



    Back to read the rest ....




    Isa #5991 12/15/07 01:02 AM
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 347
    Isa Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 347
    Ok, let's see if I can post now.

    I do agree with Kriston that the higher the IQ the better an early identification, by the parents themselves or testing or whatever means.

    Officially speaking DD4 is 'only' MG but I am (almost?) certain she is EG at least and that I have (by what I did or did not at home), as well thanks to her preschool, contributed to her underachievement.

    For me, an earlier identification of DD's capabilities would have made a big difference.



    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Originally Posted by Mom2LA
    When we say MG, EG, PG...is it based on IQ? And if so, what are the defining numbers?
    I'm updating this old thread to link to Hoagies Gifted Education Page, which offers a chart for comparing the scores from various IQ tests: Highly/Exceptionally/Profoundly Gifted ~ What does it mean?

    Hoagies webpage summarizes the approximate equivalent test scores. These are overall test scores, Full Scale IQs, not individual subtests nor GAIs. Hoagies shows four levels of gifted, each with progressively higher scores:
    1) Gifted (G) or Moderately Gifted (MG)
    2) Highly Gifted (HG)
    3) Exceptionally Gifted (EG)
    4) Profoundly Gifted (PG)

    This shows G/MG < HG < EG < PG.
    The term HG+ would apply to HG + EG + PG.

    The equivalency table may be seen as similar to a conversion between centimeters and inches. The numbers will change when a different measurement instrument is utilized (cm side of tape measure vs. inch side of tape measure), even when the same object is measured and found to be the same (equivalent) size.

    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 57
    B
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    B
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 57
    WISC-V is not there...

    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Yes, the Hoagies' IQ test score equivalency chart pre-dates the WISC-V.

    At the bottom of the Hoagies' webpage, there is a feedback form. The feedback form also provides a contact e-mail address for the Hoagies' webmaster.

    Using the communication method most convenient for you, feel free to contact Hoagies' to inquire whether information is available to possibly update that webpage to include the WISC-V in the equivalency chart.

    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 39
    Likes: 1
    A
    Junior Member
    Offline
    Junior Member
    A
    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 39
    Likes: 1
    Seems like a lot of confusion could be straightened out if they'd just use percentages among peers. Perhaps not all tests show a percentage?

    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 39
    P
    Junior Member
    Offline
    Junior Member
    P
    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 39
    Is this chart outdated in terms of the cut off values? I thought that the newer tests/revised tests gave lower scores compared to the older ones? I am thinking of this in context of/referring to Dr. Deb Ruf’s work on the 5 levels of gifted ness. Your thoughts?

    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Originally Posted by Alannc44
    percentages
    The following resource may be of interest: IQ Comparison Chart

    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Originally Posted by Hoagies
    The terms for the levels of giftedness -- moderately, highly, exceptionally and profoundly gifted -- are not standardized, and they seem to mean different things to different people, and based on scores from different tests. Let's start with the numbers that various folks suggest...
    Different tests have different ceilings.

    While it is helpful to understand that there are different levels of gifted, and to know the names of the levels and how they relate to eachother, it may be counterproductive to overly focus on an IQ score (which is a snapshot at a particular point in time) or on a label... as being overly focused on either of these may come across as being elitist.

    Focusing on a child's needs, and on meeting those needs, may be more productive.

    Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

    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