Well, I'll speak up for Ruf, since hers was the book that was most helpful for getting me over my PG-specific GT denial with DS6.
For DS6's whole life, I thought that he was MG, since that was what DH and I were as kids. Sure, he did some pretty amazing stuff with reading and puzzles and patterns, but I just figured all MG kids were like that. Denial, denial, denial...
Then I saw his WJ3 test scores from K and freaked! They were a full standard deviation higher than I expected them to be across the board! I had a moment of "How cool!" and then several days of "OMG!!! What does this mean? Was this a fluke? How can I tell? Help!"
Ruf's book--and especially her approach toward LOGs and her specific examples and lists of traits--helped me to get over my denial and see the reality of my son's abilities. Her lists aren't perfect, certainly, and it would be handy if they were less fluid and reliant on parent memory. But I have yet to see someone build that particular "better mousetrap." Since GT kids are not one-size-fits-all, I'm not sure there *is* any way to be more specific and less fluid. Test scores? With tests not designed to test the tail? (Especially since part of what I was trying to do personally was to figure out if further testing was even warranted!) School IDing? We all know how bad teachers and adminstrators can be at even acknowledging the existence of LOGs! So what else is there?
It seems to me that a list of traits like this is about the only thing that's going to be at all useful for a parent trying to figure this LOG stuff out. Ruf's lists are far from perfect, but they're very helpful for someone who is unable/unwilling/afraid to see just how GT her child is. When I finally sat down with DS6's baby book in front of me instead of just working from memory, it was very clear that he is not a level 3 (as I kept supposing he was), but is at least a level 4, and is a level 5 kid when it comes to the things he loves to do. There was no doubt about it when I took the time to really check.
Certainly Ruf does a better job of establishing the difference between level 1 or 2 and level 5 than between, say, a 3 or 4 and a level 5 kid. But in fairness, that top end is hard for all of us to distinguish. Still, I do think there's a real difference between those levels, and I'm glad she tried to find some way to muddle them apart.
I guess what I'm arguing is that test scores aren't always a good enough tool for us (and are really expensive!), especially at the start of this journey, so what else could we use? Ruf's lists and levels are an imperfect tool, but they validate parental observation, and I think that's laudable. We parents *are* the experts when it comes to our own kids. And hopefully Ruf's work will provide a starting place for the work of others to build upon, perhaps finding some tool for distinguishing PG kids that is less flawed.
