When people do cite research about this, they point to longitudinal studies showing that IQ results varies by [insert points here, usually up to twenty or thirty] in a certain quotient [insert something like a third] of the population tested at various points in childhood.
However, even if very few children show as much variation as 20 or 30 points (note the "up to"), a lot of children may show smaller variations. As we all know, up to ten points or so more or less in scored by a child isn't even that significant: could be a bad day, bad rapport with the tester, variations in testing emphasis, an intellectual growth spurt or plateau...stuff that does get rarer after third grade, simply because kids have been exposed to a lot of testing situations until then. And as pointed out by polar bear, if academic achievement is taken into account, variation in exposure to academics evens out as children progress through grade school.
But as most kids identified as gifted (if we go with the usually accepted definition of scoring over 130 on a recognised IQ test, for whatever it's worth) will score closely above the 130 threshold, where 10 points more or less on two different occasions can make all the difference in a gifted/not gifted dichotomy, a very large proportion of kids is affected by even very small variations in the results, even though the variation meh not have any real significance. Which then gets generalized, by educators, to sayings such as the above.
This is a statistical phenomenon that rarely applies to the HG+ kids represented on this board, simply because even larger variations in iQ scores do not affect "gifted status" as long as the score does not drop below 130...however, once educators have accepted a generalization, good luck trying to explain distinctions.
Last edited by Tigerle; 10/08/15 12:15 PM.
