Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Technical Report #7 WISC-IV

Girl-FRIEND! You are a hot topic!

Regarding the possibility that testers don't expect to see 19, so quit before they get there - it's a time honored idea in science that the preconcieved notions of the observer will effect what is observed, even with the best of intentions. ((This Confirmation Bias applys to us also - sadly))

My son has had a few tests, and the problem I see is that it takes so long to get to the questions with the 17+ scores on them. I hear comments over and over about the process taking 3 times longer than they expected. And also the comment about he made more mistakes during the easy boring questions early on. I also got comments about him "not allowing" the tester to stop in what appeared to be an anxious way. Never thought that perhaps he was reading their social cues for him to stop, and reacting to keep them at it. Maybe 19s are for the stupporn and obnoxious? ((Sorry if you have compliant kids with 19, reader!))

Makes me wonder if they had read the previous reports before they dove in...and if kids like him are being discriminated against in that they have to sit for three times longer than their agemates...KWIM?

This is all very interesting. My reports are probably squished into a corner of my desk somewhere, as I have taken them apart to copy for DITD and don't think I ever got around to stapling them back together. I was a thinking the other day that I should take more care with them. I have no idea if I ever was given a GAI for oldest ds, and I know they did not give me all the subtest info. My two middle kids do have GAIs well above that 150, so maybe their numbers will change.

I have mixed feelings about this. I agree that it is a nice effort to discern the higher ability kids, but it also further muddies the waters as far as program cut offs and public perception goes. There are so many variables!

What IS the real difference between a subtest score of 18 and a subtest score of 19? Why don't they throw out all the old tests and come up with something new?

As an example of how hard it can be to know what a number means, a couple days ago, someone told me that their daughter had an IQ of 160. I asked her what instrument was used to test her, and the parent didn't actually know! The girl is a young adult now, and was tested before she could read, so it is quite possible that it was the LM. The implication for an SBLM score of 160 is vastly different from the implication of the same score on a Wechsler.

LOL, and if we armchair psychs are confused, the average layperson doesn't have a chance! Never mind apples to apples, we can't even talk apples to kumquats or bananas to passionfruit!

I am looking at page one of the technical report. It looks like this boy had a full scale IQ of 158 with GAI of 160, and they changed these to 192 full scale and 208 GAI. I'm curious as to whether they are trying to make the scores line up with the old SBLM. I haven't looked through the whole report yet- do they include any data from the LM? I know that Linda Silverman likes the LM and I believe this boy came from her data. If I use my son's GAI (I still haven't looked for the subtest pages) and assume that it will change according to the table on page 16, then his new extended score is just a handful of points lower than his LM score.

I told ds 11 his score a few years ago when he asked. Previously, I'd drawn a bell curve and explained where he is on that. We talked about different tests measuring slightly different skills and the idea of a test score being just a snapshot of performance on a given day. He would never talk about this stuff with his friends. DD hasn't really been curious yet, though of course she was aware that she scored high enough for DITD.

Blah... have to go wash the dishes! Hey, BTW, I am deep cleaning the house for my Bright Minds Party on Monday night. If anyone wants to order (they do all those cool critical thinking workbooks, Greek and Latin roots, and more, for preschool through high school) please send me a pm with your email. I can send you to my Bright Minds rep's web site, and you can mention that it's for my party. I'll pick up your shipping costs.

Shameless, I know, but I am starting to get desperate! I have only two confirmed guests and a handful of maybes. I never should have planned this for the winter- nobody wants to go out at night! I really love the products though, and my kids do too.

Dottie,
Time to go brew a nice cup of herbal tea, find a quiet spot (I know 3 kids...) and read anything not related to gifted, education or legislation for at least 30 minutes.

Hi, Dottie,

I know you love this stuff, and I've been busy and away from the action over here. So I looked at the report and I have all the raw and scaled scores for DS. The thing is, I don't know which ones to include in any recalculation. For instance, there are subtests in parentheses. I know those are optional. Do they go into the calculation? (information and word reasoning in vci and picture completion in PRI)

I know they don't go into the calculation of the GAI - that's just the sum of similarities, vocabulary, comprehension, block design (just one of the two, right?), picutre concepts and matrix reasoning. I don't think DS's score will move, but it's fun playing the game.

Thanks!

I think they have just opened a can of worms. My dd's scores went up for the PRI score by 6 IQ points and her FSIQ went up by 3 points. However, All it still tells me is that she is in the >99.9%. I already knew that.

Also, when my dd was tested the psychologist stopped when my dd "had gone far enough and had already hit the subtest ceiling". If these new score norms had been available she would have gone further.

I guess I just don't feel I have gained any more information.

Actually my dd's 18 did change but one of her 19's didn't.

It does say on page 2 that "Dr. Linda Silverman of NAGC also provided two cases categorized as extremely gifted to beta test the extended norms" so I took that to mean that KO was a real boy.

I have to catch up on this thread, then I'll see if I have anything else to add!

Hmmm...the Slosson is a state approved screener. Maybe in my "fight" with the school I should request that for DD. LOL! Honestly, I really don't want to go there. I'm just ready for a WISC at this point. It's tempting, though.