Originally Posted by passthepotatoes
Originally Posted by Mia
It's just another way of grouping, as Grin puts it, the "mildly PG" and the "wildly PG." smile

To me it just seems sort of like nonsense on the level of a quiz in Glamor Magazine quiz or something. I don't understand why anyone puts stock in these levels because the sample size was minute and the questions clearly indicate a particular cultural bias. It concerns me when they are at times elevated to a position of meaning beyond more validated measures like IQ scores or achievement. It doesn't seem to me that at all even consider where 2e children (and that's a pretty sizable part of the PG population) might fit.

Our child is on I guess what you'd call "wildly" PG in terms of scores on IQ and acheivement, SAT scores while young. He's been highly achieving including young entrance into college. As I recall he would get maybe a three on the Ruf scale. So, say I'd gone to these scales when he was a preschooler before he'd been tested. What would my take away message have been? Don't bother?

I disagree with this approach: The all or nothing attitude. I think you are valid with the fact that her case study was minimal but to then jump to the conclusion that her work is equal to quizzes in magazines ... really not a fair comparison. I know that a lot of parents laugh at the line up of their child(ren) to Ruf's levels and yes it is not absolute and Ruf admits that in her book but her work definitely has its place in the gifted community. She really opened my eyes for what I was seeing. And yes my daughter is the poster child for Ruf's levels through the infant and toddler years.