Hi,
I do just want to point out something here (and I'm by no means suggesting that Ruf is without flaws, but just so that people are aware), she does actually say in the book that the levels aren't fixed (I don't have the book here, but have found a reference to it online: "There is no magic line between gifted and not gifted, nor is there a stationary or fixed line between different levels of intelligence" (p. xiv) - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6470/is_3_29/ai_n29341502/?tag=content;col1 - from memory she talks later in the book about movement between levels being dependent on appropriate educational arrangements/stability of environment etc).
Is this clear on her website? No, I don't think so. Does she touch on 2E - not at all that I can remember from the book and I can only find 3 references on her site. Neither of which is helpful. But if your child is 2E (even if you're unaware of it) or you had a late developer (who would have to have some other identifiers that make you think they might be gifted, otherwise you wouldn't be looking at Ruf's website), I would assume you would find that there would be indications that this text was not meeting all your needs and you'd look elsewhere. Surely that is why you are looking in the first place, for an explanation, because you suspect something is up and you're trying to fit the pieces together. I think it sells parents short to suggest that on finding that Ruf they'd decide that was the be all and end all and they'd give up. I don't think Ruf's concept is ideal, but I agree with others who view it as one tool amongst many. To me it's like suggesting this board is no use to anyone because you wont get an exact answer - which of course is ridiculous, it is hugely beneficial because it is another tool, another place where you can pick up some information and look in to it further. If a parent new to giftedness turned up on this forum and used nothing else, that would be a concern. Granted the forum itself doesn't purport to be expert advice, but people (including myself), take the advice on here seriously. There have been numerous times where I have doubted my daughter was HG+ (which I know her to be), based on the information on this site. Does it mean I walk away and leave my daughter to her own devices? No, it gives me another avenue to explore. You know as parent when the answer you get just doesn't feel right.
I do worry that there is an assumption that people aren't capable of identifying their children. I felt I knew that dd was gifted (though I felt ridiculous suggesting it) when she was 18 months old. Granted my daughter is very HG + (for want of a better description), so the difference was marked compared to other kids from a very early age. I don't know how many parents would think their very young children are intellectually gifted based solely on physical milestones - certainly I didn't, dd was very verbal, using humour at 1 etc in addition to early physical milestones. And as we know, there is much more that just verbal ability that indicates a child might be gifted, so while that might not be a marker for you, it's probable there will be something else to have got you looking. You know when your kid is different. I can't for the life of me find the reference, but I have read it in a reputable publication and it was appropriate cited there and referred to elsewhere, that 85% of parents who identify their children as gifted are correct based on subsequent IQ assessments. That figure raises to something like 95% once you take into account 2e. If we're going to talk about people being warned off and not taking action as early as they can, then I worry about the debate on this site about whether or not you can identify gifted kids when they are little. I don't know that you could predict a LOG, but I think that if a parent of a toddler has found this site then they're looking because their kid is different enough to warrant investigation. Granted sometimes I am surprised when people provide milestones that don't seem particularly gifted to me, but then this board is geared toward the top end of the range, so perhaps my comparison point is skewed (and as we've talked about, some are late bloomers). Ruf's book/questionnaire would give these parent's one tool to test whether or not there was any evidence that what they are seeing in their kids is unusual.
What worries me more than parents identifying their kids as gifted is schools that identify kids as gifted based on floored methodology, schools that parents of ND kids evidently think are going to offer their kids something that the standard curriculum can't. That is where problems with false identification lie for me, and where decisions are made that can really impact our kids negatively. I think there is a real suspicion within the gifted community of parents who are new to giftedness at times and I think rather than worrying so much about whether or not they are diluting the gifted brand, as a group we should focus more on educating the wider community on what giftedness actually is. A scary thought I know, given how secretive many of us (including me) feel the need to be - but without wider education, I can't see how anything will change.
