Yeah, I think that Ruf feels that her levels are essentially infallible. Not so cool.
Yes, that's exactly my problem with it.
Perhaps she needs to add to the list as possible explanations
1. LOG are just something I made up and have barely studied with a small fairly homogeneous sample of kids so they might not be at all accurate.
2. This tool is not accurate for kids with disabilities which is a big problem given the large percent of the gifted population that is 2E.
3. An online predictor tool that you pay $45 for is simply not as accurate as a complete educational assessment conducted by a trained individual who has actually met your kid using instruments that have been studied and used on thousands of people. Duh.
My child has had two totally independent comprehensive educational evaluations. They were not with testers who are known for high scores. (let's read between the lines and guess she's likely suggesting the GDC). Our child tested on different instruments more than a year apart and has subsequently been tested on out of level instruments like the SAT. His results have been absolutely consistent from one test to another and consistent with his extremely high level of acheivement.
As we had developmental concerns from the beginning of his life we have comprehensive notes on milestones. So, not one of Ruf's excuses for the inaccuracy of her levels applies. They simply do not work for our asynchronous kid. Perhaps that wouldn't be much of a problem if asynchrony wasn't widespread in the gifted population. I hate to think about parents seeking out this kind of tool and absolutely being led down the wrong path to understanding their child.
