Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment CogAT vs. ITBS

My kids' district is starting a brand new gifted program this year, and I nominated our son for assessment. The district stated that they were going to use a 95th percentile cutoff: 95th composite on CogAT, ITBS, *and* SIGS. I estimated this would limit their applicability to about 1% of the population or less, and the cover letter that came along with the test results confirmed that this was the district's intent. They didn't expect more than one student to qualify, K-12.

Now, I knew that my son is not PG. But it turns out that he did score in the 9th stanine on the CogAT. (98th percentile verbal/98th quantitative/97th nonverbal) Which seems to confirm my instinct that he's a pretty high ability learner. However, his ITBS results were quite mediocre. His ELA total was 72nd, his math total was 90th, and his composite was 79th.

The district has disqualified him for services, but I guess I would just run these scores by y'all. Doesn't this seem to indicate a discrepancy of some sort? Any suggestions about how to start resolving it?

Hi sunnyday - if we take the CogAT and ITBS seriously, your DS showed higher learned reasoning ability (via the CoGAT), than he did achievement (the ITBS). The irony is, he could be a bit underachieving (his scores are not low!) due to lack of adequate challenge at school (so he might be one of those high-ability learners in need of additional challenge).

Actually, I would think that it would be easier to improve achievement levels, than it would be to see the reasoning abilities change. I will leave that to others (aeh?) to comment on, though!

Our schools use some of the same assessments, along with other tests and measures, in their G&T selection process. I am again surprised that the CogAT, which I thought was intended as a simple screening measure, being used more like a high-stakes test. Also, our school uses the ITBS as an either/or measure (student has to do well on ITBS or another measure that is used, not both). Still, the students in your schools are subjected to less testing overall (I think our's school's criteria may be overkill) and layers of it. Our school uses a multi-tiered process that feels a bit like a student running through a gauntlet.

Our district is similarly crazy. They require CogAT scores over the 98th percentile PLUS achievement scores over the 95th percentile (higher for the highly gifted program). The quant AND the verbal sections of the CogAT BOTH need to be high and the Composite does not matter unless it's at least 139. So a kid could have a 137 Composite CogAT score and high achievement scores in both math and reading, but not qualify for g/t services if they screw up, say, the verbal section of the CogAT. It's infuriating and shows how clueless the district admin are. They are just looking for nice simple numbers to plug into their eligibility matrix. I doubt even the makers of the CogAT intended it to be used that way.

Achievement scores depend a lot on what the school is teaching. So it is nonsensical for them to say a child is not gifted because they are not achieving, when the child never had access to higher level material or concepts. I don't know anything about ITBS (whether it measures above-level skills), but on tests which have a high ceiling, kids who are scoring above the 95th percentile generally have mastered concepts that are a few grade levels advanced and the test measures those skills. Just because a student hasn't mastered them yet doesn't mean they are not capable of learning the skills.

I don't know if this helps. Our district required 96% or above on the cogat and 96% or above on verbal or math ibts. In a class of 88, 10 made it (5 boys, 5 girls)...much more than 1%. More like 10%.

Sounds like you guys are seeing what I am: if he's bright, per the CogAT, but he isn't testing well on content areas, per the ITBS, then it kind of seems to indicate that he is *particularly* in need of some special educational focus?

But be that as it may, I am not too concerned about their not considering him for the program. His teacher this year sees his spark and is doing what she can to enrich his classwork, and we do a decent amount of work outside of school.

What does worry me is the possibility that this underachievement means A) even enriched, the school's expectations are just too low (it's a Title I district with lots of disadvantaged kids) or B) that there is a learning disability there that's being masked by his quick intellect. (I'm also feeling pretty guilty about my laissez faire parenting style how how this may have impacted his achievement.)

I just don't know if I should act on this information, or if someone would offer me a little reality check slap and a reminder that if his scores didn't qualify him for gifted education, it's because he doesn't have the pressing need for differentiation that a HG+ child would!

Not necessarily. It could mean he just had a bad test day, it could mean he hasn't been taught the material, it could mean his score was artificially low because the test was timed and he's not a rapid-fire-fast kid with calculations, or it could mean he's just not really that interested in math and hasn't moved ahead in achievement by leaps and bounds. *IF* you are seeing a discrepancy in test scores (achievement vs ability) *and* issues with his academic performance or other things going on that appear to be challenges either inside or outside of school - then I'd look into the possibility of a learning disability or some other type of challenge.


What grade is he in? Are the gifted services something he would benefit from?

I have no knowledge of your school district, but in some districts, it's possible to appeal this type of decision if you have independent testing that can be used in place of the CogAT or ITBS scores. I'm also not sure what the SIGS is, but how did he score on that? Is it a rating system? Does his teacher believe he should be in the gifted program? A teacher's advocacy also goes a long way in our district - as well as parents who advocate for their children. It definitely helps to have data to back up your advocacy though!

Best wishes,

polarbear

Thanks for this.


I suspect that a big chunk of it is that he just wasn't taught the material. But what's bothering me a little is that he does love math, works 1-2 years ahead in school and at home and craves a challenge, yet he mentioned that some of the problems on the test were "impossible" -- he keeps mentioning the problem that he swears required a negative answer but there was no such option. Is this lack of experience with multiple choice tests, or inability to understand the directions? Failure to read carefully? Assuming complexity and overlooking simplicity? I don't know.

When he was 6, I read The Hobbit to him and every night when we started back up he could narrate back what had happened in the previous chapter. Months later he could recall small important details, and now he still recalls the plot -- even for sections that weren't in the movies. At just-turned-8, his current independent reading is Harry Potter (just finished PoA, I am stalling him from starting GoF) and Ender's Game. So why did he only score in the 59th percentile for Language, the 71st for Reading?

These are the things that are flummoxing me.


He's in second grade, and since it's a brand new program I don't know what benefit it would offer. We'd been hoping that it would be a way to connect with peers, other "kids who love learning" as we call it (he has been isolated as "the smart kid" in every classroom situation since the beginning of first grade), and that there might even be some guided interest-led work on science, math, and reading (DS was eagerly hoping for "work at his level" ie. without concern for grade segregation.) But if they really don't expect to offer services to more than 1 student district-wide, there's no peer group there, and probably nothing there for us even if we muscle in. I did also somewhat hope that qualifying would give us room to talk about getting EPGY materials or similar in the classroom, since the district would theoretically be able to access extra funding for gifted education at that point. No hope of that now.

However, his sister is even more academically advanced than he is. I worry for her opportunities as well.

The SIGS is a nationally normed survey for parents and for teachers. They haven't given us that result yet, but we had teacher conferences last week and his teacher seems impressed with him. I wouldn't be surprised if she scored him highly. (I scored him as honestly as I could, and tried not to inflate my judgment, so he didn't stand out very much per the survey questions. He's a thinker, not a leader, and his ongoing speech issues preclude a precocious grasp of vocabulary and grammar. C'est la vie.)

I don't plan to pursue independent testing unless it's for the purpose of identifying a learning disability we can help him with.

I think at this point I'm just going to step up the outside work we do with him, and try to be more observant about whether there's something else going on.

First, I am sorry to hear that your DS was denied services. Perhaps you should at least look into the possibility of an appeal or retest. My first guess was that he must have had a bad test day or is just bad at standardized test.

Second, the district's math seems off. ITBS is a solid on-level assessment. It's well-respected but not meant to be particularly difficult. 95% Cogat plus 95% ITBS should yield much higher than top 1%. I have seen stats somewhere but can't recall that estimate IQ & achievement overlaps. Anyhow, my guess would have been 3% to 4% qualifying. I realize that not every district is huge like ours, but even using their 1% estimate to arrive at only 1 qualifying student (per grade?) would mean that there is only about 100 students total per grade in the whole district? Our elementary school (one of dozens in our district) had more than 150 students per grade.

Anyhow, the scores are quite low in view of the fact that your DS is working 1-2 levels ahead at school and supplementing at home as well. Other possibilities may be he has gaps at his own grade level. For example, a 2nd grade test would still have phonics type questions although vocabulary and reading comprehension questions should not require any special teaching at the 2nd grade level.

WRT the discrepancy: Keep in mind that we are talking about a group ability and group achievement test, so any interpretive discussion is in the context of the imprecision inherent in using this kind of group measure for diagnostic purposes (i.e., not recommended). That being said, this is just under a 1.5 SD difference between his ability and language achievement, which approaches significance as a discrepancy. (Math is pretty much in line with the ability measure.) My first question would be, do you see this IRL, as well (that his math is stronger than his reading/writing)? If this appears to represent a clinically significant difference (not just a fluke of testing), then I would be inclined to view it as more "real" than just an artifact of lack of exposure to higher-level instruction, mainly because it is in the language area, rather than the math area. Unlike for mathematics, most academically-advanced students are able to continue developing their language and vocabulary through outside reading, even when not formally instructed in their ZPD. So a gap in the language area suggests more of a need for follow-up than a gap in math. It is not a huge gap (again, assuming it is real), and is certainly above the mean.

And, btw, I would not describe all of his ITBS results as quite mediocre. 90th %ile in math is not too shabby (+1.3 SD).

FYI, this old study using the WAIS-III found negligible correlation between ITBS scores and FSIQ:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3666826/

Interesting Belin-Blank presentation on use of CogAT and ITBS in gifted selection process (cut & paste into search engine). Doesn't recommend using the CogAT composite score, but the Verbal paired with Reading, and the QN paired with Mathematics:
faculty.education.uiowa.edu/docs/dlohman/icn_full_day_using_cogat.ppt?

Our entire district is about 930 students, K through 12. I estimate there are 2-4 classrooms of 15-24 students per grade. But here is the quote from the superintendent. "Typically, across the student population, only 1-2% of students are found to qualify as highly capable. In (our district), out of 46 nominations, one student will proceed to receive services."

Their math is definitely flawed, and this is where the inequity of the whole thing starts to irk me. Many of the brightest second graders I know weren't even nominated (parents and teachers were invited to nominate last June.)