Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment TalentIgniter (Dr. Ruf)

The results we got for DD was interesting and kind of split the levels.

She was classified as a level 4 to 5 which I didn't think possible from the book. We even got special information about what a level 4 to 5 kid is and what needs to be considered for schooling. In that break down they clearly make a distinction between level 4 kids versus level 4 to 5 kids. On the breakdown of the areas, DD had categories that were marked as level 5 but her overall was a level 4.5.

I am a bit late in entering this discussion, but have been reading it with great interest, as I also used the program as a beta tester. I have mixed feelings about it.

The mechanics of it are pretty straight forward, but it as others have mentioned there is no room for special circumstances. My DS8 did not talk beyond three or four words and some animal sounds as of age two, which is when I pushed the pediatrician to get help through early intervention. Turns out he needed tubes and was practically deaf, so of course he did not speak (a "worst parent ever" moment for not realizing it sooner.) However, he had compensated for his inability to speak by teaching us his own sign language (including signs for bulldozer and train.) And I remember at some point that he signed in sentences for all practical purposes. So, would this count as speech? Probably, but did I make notes of this milestone? Of course not.

I also had a child who may have been able to read as early as four years old, but hid it quite well until late kindergarten when we realized he was reading his Pokemon Cards. Plus he was never much into puzzles or mazes, but did love educational computer games geared to third grade before he was in kindergarten. There are more questions about puzzles than computer games on the assessment.

Net result on the assessment put him between level one and two. This did not quite correspond to his WISC-IV which put him comfortably into DYS territory.

Once you finish answering the questions, a graph is generated that shows several different areas and the corresponding level for each as well as an overall level. I would have been interested in all the information offered as suggestions for schools etc, except that the level generated was way off base so the information was not helpful. I already know for a fact that he does not get what he needs from a regular classroom supplemented by the gifted pull out.

I guess my main conclusion is that if you have a level four or five child, you have already figured out something is going on (especially some of the two and three year olds I see posted about around here) and don't know if it will really tell you something you don't already know or can't find in a library book. Ultimately, I think I would have been disappointed if I had paid for this assessment unless I fell into it before he was in Kindergarten. At that time, it might have helped me realize that he was not a typical child and we were not crazy for being overwhelmed by one child while people around us had two and three and did not seem so stressed.

Hope my rambling made sense.

We do disagree there. You are defining giftedness solely by testing? Really? Were there no gifted people before there were IQ tests?

I think giftedness is *far* more than that, different than that. There's a creativity, a drive, a need that has zilch to do with testing. If there had never been an IQ test, giftedness would still be very evident in the world.



Again, I think you're not taking this in the spirit in which I intend--a common problem with this sort of conversation about brain development. Subtleties get lost.

I completely agree that Polgar's chess situation demonstrates that her brain has an incredible capacity for chess. The brain is amazing! It *is* fluid and develops over time. It grows, it changes. No argument from me. That's why I say I don't think intelligence is fixed.

But I also think there is some sort of ultimate top limit, if only because if there weren't, everyone would know everything. There would be no developmental delays. No brain damage. No left side of the Bell Curve. These things exist because for now, at least, there are limits.

I think the brain still has many, many secrets, and there may come a day when we know enough about it that there will be basically no limit, at least in a practical sense. But I think that will require artificial enhancements to achieve. Though you don't like the comparison to the athlete, I think it has to be acknowledged that the brain is a part of the body, and we come with some hardware and software preinstalled.

Of course, the best part of my argument is that as long as someone achieves something--regardless of what it is--I can just say that it was within the limits of what their brain could do. Basically I can't be proven wrong!

As I said, this really is more philosophy than anything useful. You were warned. And seriously, I think we really agree almost across the board. (Except for the definition of giftedness, interestingly). I just don't believe that potential is 100% unlimited in one person. Really amazingly high--almost certainly higher than we can ever imagine. But not utterly unlimited.

I think it is a useful tool for many parents. Certainly, I would have bought it, when I first started wondering whether my then three year old was gifted or was I just imagining things.

Dr Ruf extensively knows my child and I believe, my child's test results plus my playing with the site has been incorporated along with others to bench mark the results. We have done btw three rounds of beta testing plus various feedback.

Is everything perfect with this online assessments, probably not... But I still think this online assessment is very helpful for many parents, who are trying to figure out whether their preschooler / preker / ker is gifted or not. As I wrote, I certainly would have spent the 45 dollars on it, if it had been available to us, as a tool at that time.

A question for those who've taken their child to Dr. Ruf for an evaluation: Did any of you have a 2E child and/or late bloomer and if so how did Ruf address this and factor this information in? I see a lot of criticism about her book and website but I don't think I have seen any criticism about her personal evaluations.

That's a good question. Maybe it should be broadened to include not only late bloomers, but regular bloomers.

Wow - it's taken me awhile to read through this very interesting thread! I'll pipe in to say that some of the things I've appreciated about Ruf is that she does market herself. She was quoted in an article when my DS was 3, describing preschool behaviors in gifted kids, and two people saved the article for us because they thought of our DS. We then decided to get her book. We are one of the families with the kid who fits into her profiles. At the time I read the book, I knew nothing of levels of giftedness, so if that theory had been around since 1942, it was news to me and a revelation. I read through the stories and thought, "That's my DS!" and even "Hey, that's me!" Even though I was in some gifted pullouts in grade school, I never realized how different I was until I read Ruf's book. I then tried to find every book imaginable on gifted education, and some of the books were helpful, some were not. There are not a whole lot of books out there on giftedness, and even less on HG+, so I think it's positive when more information is getting out there.

I have not yet looked at the new website, so I cannot comment on that, but I bet before I knew very much about my son's giftedness, I would have paid the $45. Heck, I think I paid $70 for Miraca Gross's book! But I wonder if the service will discredit her individual services, as someone else mentioned here. My DS was assessed by her, and we were given an incredibly detailed write-up and had an extremely informative meeting after the assessment. Her assessment has been dead-on so far.

It sounds like a few disclaimers on the website service would be appropriate, such as the limitations of such a service in assessing 2e kids or kids who are not globally gifted.

we took the test and my DD4 actually scored a little lower than I thought and she was one of those kids who learned letter sounds at 1.5 and started reading at two, did complex puzzles early, did skip counting easily and early, started adding and subtracting early etc. I am still in gifted denial so if nothing else, it challenged my denial. We don't have any test scores that I can truly compare Ruf's LOG to though. We had one test done when she just turned 3 but I'd like to have another one done as she gets a little older so that we can get a better picture. Once I have that score, I can let everyone know if if lined up with Ruf's LOG.

I'm glad you wrote this, because I've been thinking of dd as one of the "late bloomers", but that's just in comparison to some/most of the Level 4+ stuff. So my "late" bloomer is really an early-just-not-THAT-early-bloomer.