Thanks Cathy. Sorry to be persistent - I get all that, but to me all those kinds of variables are more likely to result in a reduced score on an early test than inflate it. My understanding (which I am willing to admit is minimal) is that the tests are designed in such a way that luck can only play a small role in the result. A well rested, well fed kid who is fit a healthy and confident with the tester is obviously likely to score better than a kid who is sick/tired/hungry etc. To me it would seem that the kid in the optimal circumstance is simply likely to achieve the score that represents what they can really do. They might regress a bit on a subsequent test in the same conditions, but given the nature of the tests, there is only so much you can fluke. If you're not in that optimal space, you're much more likely to get an underestimate. Which was the point of Miraca Gross and our tester.
I can kind of see how a child might start out strong and then have their development slow down, but I don't know enough about children's development to know whether that is possible or not.
And please don't hesitate to tell me I've got that all wrong - you'll have to forgive me as I'm not terribly sequential and if I'm missing a piece of the puzzle often I miss the whole picture!
Last edited by Giftodd; 05/02/11 12:37 AM.
