Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment curious...how well did scores match your estimate

Dude, on current IQ tests the tail is so compressed that 130 / 98th is usually considered the started if gifted (MG) while 138 / 99th is generally considered the start of HG and 145 / 99.9th is HG+/EG/PG (depending on who you speak to). My DD has a FSIQ of 146, I'll refer to her as HG+, but not EG or PG because I really think that 146 is accurate, not a failure of the test to measure how far beyond that she is, where as there are plenty of kids on this board who may have the same score but could have gone way beyond that with more test. But that is ultimately the problem wih modern tests and the Hg+, it's fairly well impossible to distinguish beyond 145, or even possibly a bit below that for a quirky kid who misses some "easy" early questions. What 145 is mostly telling you is "beyond the test's ability to measure accurately" (within the realm of assuming the test is accurate in the first place).

If you look at the technical reports of the SB5 there are charts showing scores for kids that did the SB5 and the LM and kids testing 140+ mostly tested in the 170-180 range on the LM.

Thanks for that. I know a lot of confusion gets generated here because people are using the same terminology to refer to different things. It also doesn't help that MG can stand for "mildly gifted" or "moderately gifted," which I consider two very different things. I normally refer to my DD8 as MG, by which I mean the second thing, and she'd just clear the hurdle to HG according to your scale.

Minor correction: 135 is the 99th and 140 is slightly past the 99.6th on a test with a 15 point standard deviation (see this link). As has been noted here, people have different definitions of levels of giftedness. I tend to think of HG as the 140 mark, as it includes a minority (slightly less than 20%) of gifted people. Drawing the HG line at the 99th percentile would include the top half of gifties, which could also be a definition of HG, albeit more liberal.

The numbers are all kind of fuzzy anyway, and would presumably vary if you test the same person on different occasions.

Thanks of the correction Val, I should have double checked.

The tester we used starts attaches the HG appendix on the report at 140, EG at 150, I've never heard of them giving any child a PG appendix (and know only one that got the EG appendix, plenty with the HG). They use the SB5, so clearly have different views to the chart on Hoagies that gets linked to often.

My favorite topic. My DS9 was id'd by the District back in 1st grade when he was 6. (OLSAT) Given his lack of (as this thread is referring to it!) Doogie Howser qualities, I assumed he'd barely squeaked in so I had him sit for the WISC-IV right after he turned 8. 144 FSIQ/151 GAI. Not quite like some of the superhuman kids of the folks on this board, but enough to overwhelm me for a brief time.

I don't think that every EG/PG/whatever person has Doogie Howser-like qualities, though the media and even a few books about giftedness perpetuate that idea (err, myth IMO). Everyone is different. Plus, factors unrelated to cognitive ability play roles. Take motivation, which isn't necessarily tied to giftedness.


As an example, my HG or HG+ eldest started rolling over when he was only 2 months old (well ahead of schedule). It wasn't because he's smart. It was because, as we realized, he hated sleeping on his back.

He wasn't a huge talker (still isn't), though he was somewhat ahead of the curve. But my second son: he was and is a YAKKER. He started talking sooner than the first and his sentences were way more sophisticated at the same ages. IMO, this was because he had a lot to say, and my eldest didn't. So, motivation was presumably a large part of what was driving him, as his IQ isn't higher than the first son's.

BTW, the second kid hated being on his tummy. He'd cry, so we just stopped positioning him that way. He never rolled over. When he was 4 months old, I put him on his tummy to see what would happen. Presto! He rolled over and then started playing with his toes.

Sometimes motivation is key.

I agree-- it's also downright startling to realize just how much some HG+ kids are capable of showing you what you need/want to see. Even parents and teachers who know them VERY well can easily be fooled by some kids who are super-perceptive super-authority pleasing types.

My DD absolutely does NOT come across as Doogie-bright; most of the people who know her in real life know that she is "super-smart" but have NO idea just how smart. Honestly, we don't really know either. All we know is that what we've tried to challenge her with so far-- hasn't. Not even remotely, in most instances.

Would it change my opinion if she were tested and found to have a FSIQ lower than 150? Probably not. I'd probably chalk that up to having something weird going on that got in the way of testing, because in practical terms, we've seen those flashes of "OMG--WOW" often enough to know that she's the real deal. Which is why we haven't bothered.

Motivation. Yes. And think carefully about what it means when your child is motivated to please others. "Please" means a lot of different things, doesn't it? A kindergarten teacher that expresses age-normed expectations certainly isn't "pleased" when those expectations aren't met, now, is s/he?

Some kids are complete and total chameleons socially-- they give everyone they know a slightly different version of themselves, and try to aim for the one that is most useful in the relationship.


My DD gives people what makes them feel comfortable and allows them to be relaxed and open. What that means in functional terms is that pretty much NOBODY sees all the way down. No way is being with a PG person in full intellectual flight a "comfortable" experience. Exhilarating, maybe-- but not relaxing or comfortable. So that isn't who she is for others.

Hi Dude,
The scale that I worked from is from the Hoagies website for the WISC IV (attached). Highly gifted (on that site is 138+ FSIQ). There is a lot of explanation about the General Ability Index, but 2 main points 1) it includes only the verbal and perceptual scores (both considered most closely associated with gifted) and 2) is recommended when the processing and/or working memory is far below (20 something points or more) the highest score. My son received a low processing score in relation to high verbal score. The National Association for Gifted Children wrote a position statement about the WISC IV.

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_profoundly.htm

http://nagc.org/index.aspx?id=2455

Labels aside, the subtest results are the most telling when it comes to strengths and challenges. In our house, my son's verbal reasoning operates like a Ferrari, and his processing operates like a Honda (good and reliable but not fast).

That 146 GAI has been important because it explains some of DS's frustrations (and he's six:). For instance, he took a timed math test on our computer this morning (for fun!) and had 2 meltdowns because he couldn't spit it out quickly and get the "high" score. This kind of thing happens three times a week, and he hasn't started formal homework yet!

As the years pass, I think the 141 FSIQ and high subtest scores are close to accurate- his educational psychologist was highly experienced both in testing and in public school gifted programs. His lower processing speed is probably accurate, and not "performance anxiety" based on what I see at home.

Additionally, DS has exceptional reasoning skills - taught himself how to do 2 digit to 1 digit multiplication in kindergarten (at 6AM because he woke up excited about math), was able to do double digit addition and subtraction in his head by age 4 and can read virtually anything that interests him (anywhere else this would be obnoxious bragging- here, it's considered "average!"). He's not teaching himself calculus, or writing symphonies, or inventing something to fund his early retirement plan. So, 150+ is probably off the table.

cammom's post also brings up one of the many things that can influence how "gifted" a child seems. When you think of "gifted" as "prodigy" or even just "remembering all the states at 2", "learning times tables at 3", or on being "really fast" - these are all skills that are dependent on gifted to VERY gifted working memory and/or processing speed, as well as interest in the sorts of things that draw that sort of attention.

Children who are truly gifted at reasoning, but not necessarily gifted in terms of WMI, PSI, and/or are not academically/fact collection inclined as small children are less likely to appear overtly gifted. It's a lot easier to underestimate how unusual a child's vocabulary is for a 2 or 3 or 4 yr old, or how unusual their ability to argue their side of a negotiation is, than it is to overlook them delving deeply into science, memorizing countries of the world, playing the violin precociously, etc. What if your gifted reasoner doesn't bother to talk much either, because they are too busy in their own heads?

I agree completely with the comments on Doogie Howser qualities. I should note that my ignorance regarding expectations of such qualities predated my exposure to this board. I have learned much from the people on this board so I didn't make the same mistake with my DD who is going into 1st grade and just turned 6 yesterday. Her teacher recommended District testing for the GT program and, although she is quite a different creature than my DD9, I certainly didn't hold to my prior stereotypes, so I agreed. She tested in as well. I don't know if I will have her sit for IQ testing. I don't see a need in the near term future unless things change.