Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment WISC extended norms

I don't have raw scores for my ds's WISC4 testing, just scaled scores. If he has a percentile rank of 99.9 on a particular subtest, would that mean his composite score would likely be higher? What if the percentile rank was 99? Or does it just depend on the subtest?

Not that this applies to my particular situation, but what is the ceiling on the extended norms?

Here's info on the extended score. Hope it helps!

http://www.pearsonassessments.com/N...C-8E4A114F7E1F/0/WISCIV_TechReport_7.pdf

I was just looking over that report. This is striking:

These norms are used to further
differentiate highly gifted children (FSIQ or
GAI above 150) from gifted children (FSIQ
or GAI 130�150). The extended norms are
useful when a child�s score is the
maximum (ceiling) on two or more
subtests (e.g., obtains scaled scores of 18
or 19 points). These norms extend the
WISC�IV upper scaled score range to 28
points for subtests and 210 points for
composites. It is important to note that the
extended norms are not useful for most
children. Among the 2,200 cases in the
WISC�IV standardization sample, only
one child obtained a GAI score of 151 and
none obtained an FSIQ score of 150 or
higher. According to the bell curve, out of
20,000,000 same-age peers, only one
child would be expected to obtain a FSIQ
of 180 or higher.


That Bell curve is out of whack, if you ask me.

I really have to agree as well. I have only had one child tested with one test (Wisc IV) and he ceilinged (is that even a word? ) in one or maybe two subtests but I did not go back for extended scoring or anything although figuring out his GAI index was more helpful as he scored only slightly above avg. in proc. speed etc.
The most helpful piece of information I have found would still be Dr. Ruf's levels of giftedness. Unfortunately schools like hard data and not parental anecdotes. Then there is the cheetah reference coming into play. School is a cage for so many gifted kids. So how do we get public schools to see that these kids need something different. Not we want, but THEY need. My cheetah is getting lazy!

I agree about the problem with the EXIQ norming sample. It seems odd to not have included any kids over 150 full score. I think the extended score just serves to further muddy the waters where IQ scores are concerned. And I do have 2 kids with extended scores calculated higher than the sample group, so this is not sour grapes.

I've always liked the snapshot view of testing. On a good day, I might appear at my personal best in all ways- hair neatly styled, face looking its best, clothes just the right color and shape to accentuate the positive and distract from the negative. On a bad day, my hair might be a disaster, I might have obvious blemishes, dark circles under my eyes, and my clothes could be a complete fashion-don't. Most days, however, are somewhere in the middle. Likewise, testing should not indelibly stamp a person with X IQ. To me, scores should be a starting point for learning more about a child, and not a final word.