Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment TalentIgniter (Dr. Ruf)

I know several people now who have done the assessment online and all are happy they did- even if it only confirmed testing results they already had. I don't know anyone who was disappointed or frustrated. So for that alone, I think it's worth it to give some parents peace of mind. So often new parents are told they exaggerate, overestimate or are just too proud to see their kids as they really are. This is a way (if one is honest) to look and say "Okay I wasn't totally wrong." I see it more as a way to rule in, not rule out. Anyone who does it and comes out "not gifted" or whatever the output is, should not consider that the end all be all. Just as anyone who comes out "Level 3" or whatever, should not consider it done either. It's just a step in the road.

I appreciate Ruf's Levels because it was the first book I read that really laid out that it's not gifted vs. non-gifted. So much other literature for parents on the subject (not academic research) is simply a yes or no. When you have a kid that doesn't fit the box yes and doesn't fit the box no, you need more info. I just consider Ruf to have more info.

CAmom it sort of sounds like you are saying if your kids score high feel good about it, but if they don't ignore the result. Does that seem very scientifically accurate to you or more like a matter of horoscopes and fortune cookies?

For people who have already had kids assessed but are now seeking out this service, I wonder if that suggests some people are getting very limited, poor information as a result of testing. Having been through two assessments it was so clear to me that we were getting a lot of individualized specific information about our child that would go so far beyond any milestone quiz. I am aware though that we were lucky to get really good assessments. It seems like it is far too common for parents to be sent away without a lot of helpful information.

I did think it was nice to confirm what I thought. DS6 didn't have the best kindergarten year, the test confirmed what I believed. I would have guessed a level 2 and that's where she put him. At his last school he appeared to be even more gifted than moderately because it was a lower income school, he was years beyond his peers in some cases. With this assessment I can see I was right in moving him to a different school, I was right that while he's clearly gifted he is likely not profoundly so and I chose a school environment where he should fit in. It did serve to reassure me and give me a sense of what to expect next year.

I did find the milestones hard to remember, some were things I didn't notice at all and what I put could be off so I know the test isn't dead on accurate but I think it's close enough to give me a better sense of where he's at.

Well yes, actually it does seem slightly more accurate than fortune cookies but certainly not as accurate as a one-on-one assessment. It's based on some research (whether or not you deem it valid personally) and it can and should be just a piece of the puzzle. I'd like to see people who use it say "Okay, now I'm pretty sure she's gifted, so I'll do more reading and get a private evaluation." If most people who come to the topic hit google first, I don't think the worst thing they could do would be to use Ruf's tool to decide if they should pursue the topic further. Considering I came to the topic from a teacher who was insistent my son needed ADHD medication at 4, there are worse leaps to make than "I need more information."



A lot of people I know who have kids identified GT got it from their school assessment that did everyone in one grade in a sweeping group test. The report is oh... two sentences long. It IS a YES or NO. They don't have the kind of information that we get from an individualized report. This is probably fine for mildly to moderately gifted kids who are happy and successful in school, and feeling challenged enough.

I guess I feel like you're trying to persuade those of us who were helped by Ruf to renounce her work. Maybe that's not what's happening, but you're making some pretty harsh statements--fortune cookies? Wow...

I guess I don't understand why we can't simply make the points about what's problematic with her work--and those of us who were helped by her have granted many weaknesses!--and let it go at that, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Why attack one of the few tools that's out there to help parents get a handle on what's up with their gifted kids? I don't get that. Even if it didn't help you, is it so terrible if it did help some people? I think it's important to make the points about what's wrong with it, but I think it's equally important to hear that it *did* help some of us. Both perspectives are valid. I don't feel like you think the "helped by Ruf" perspective is valid. Am I wrong? (I'm happy to be wrong!)

I feel like you're expecting more than any book can give and expecting less from any parent than they will give. That's what I meant there. I think parents are smarter and more persistent than you're giving them credit for. Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part--though I did say that was what I was feeling, not that anyone said those words--but my point is clear, I hope. I meant no offense.

Oh, and again, I am not defending the website. Haven't used it, have my doubts about it. But I will defend Ruf's work, with caveats about the weaknesses in it.

It was really late when I wrote my initial comments and I was thinking of just delayed in general, not necessarily 2E kids. That being said, one of the parents sets are both gifted (probably more in the MG so not quite at the same level as your son) and their child now that she's older seems to be more in line with possibly being gifted although it's still too early to say (the kid is 3). Now that the speech delay is over, they're starting to look into giftedness but initially, no.

I wonder, though, just from a scientific perspective. If there aren't signs for 2E kids also. DH certainly had a lot of signs despite a speech delay (he actually fits pretty well into the Einstein syndrome at least from what I've read online). It seems like a lot of this would be alleviated if Ruf would just mention at the beginning of her book that she's not including 2E kids in her study.


I'm just going to quote the top part but I agree with a lot of what Kriston said. Like I mentioned before, I think a lot of Ruf's stuff would be more useful if she'd give a disclaimer about her research (and, seriously, as a scientist it's important to explain exactly what your research covers and what not... not that every scientist does that, many do overclaim their results but that's not the way it should be).

As for the newbies. I see what both sides are saying. One one hand, a parent of a gifted child has a good chance of being gifted themselves and, well, most of the gifted adults I know rarely just accept the first answer. But I totally understand the emotions behind trying to find the right answer. I can just say from my own personal perspective but if I've ever suspected something I never just looked at one website (or one book) but that might very well be my personality.

These latest comments have brought another thought to mind for me. I see that a lot of posters are concerned about gifted kids who don't meet those early milestones and them being overlooked by Ruf's work. How about kids who do meet those early milestones? Do we think that it is safe to assume that they all are gifted (assuming no misrecollection or exaggeration on the parents' behalf)?

I'm less and less certain about fixed levels of intelligence the more I find out. However, I do lean toward believing that we all come with a range. Otherwise, what would one make of studies on heritability of intelligence especially in cases of adoption where the child's adult intelligence more closely resembles that of the birth family than the adoptive family?

It's obvious to me that there is a maximum level of capability theoretically attainable by each person. Just a few reasons:

1. I assume that some things cannot be learned; I am talking about savant-type talents. If these are functional advantages (obviously so), they may properly fit in to an assessment of intelligence. No matter how limitless we assume our malleable intelligence areas to be, this would represent one type of limit.

2. We are time-limited. No matter how efficient and otherwise perfect teaching methods may become, unless and until we solve the problem of infinitely prolonging intellectual vigor, there is a practical limit of how much information can be transmitted and absorbed by a person.

3. We are physically limited. Unless and until we can store an infinite amount of information in our brains, even an immortal person taught by perfect methods for an indefinite time would hit a limit on retained knowledge, which is one important basis of intelligence.

4. It is easy to conceive of theoretical intelligence far beyond the capabilities of even our most brilliant minds to date-- and so far beyond that it is pointless to debate whether such intelligence is attainable within our species, at least without evolution. One way to conceive of this would be to posit someone for whom everything is instantly laid bare: perhaps someone who instantly perceives truths which have so far required extensive life's work of the John von Neumanns et al. among us. That is, even the von Neumanns would simply be in a different class, plodding by comparison. It would not be a stretch to think that such a mind could reach greater heights, and due to the obvious difference in classes of intelligence, I don't see a reason for faith that such heights would be attainable by mere learning, at least for members of the human species as it exists today. Another way would be to simply directly posit an intelligence which can tackle problems untacklable by our greatest geniuses.

5. For intelligence to be malleable, it must be shaped by the environment. It seems more likely than not that reaching heights unattainable by the von Neumanns, by an average baby, would have to be done as a result of carefully orchestrated stimuli, rather than by chance occurrence. But now there arises a boot-strapping problem: we have to have super minds that are able to comprehend how to stimulate minds to infinite heights; something would have to know how to stimulate a mind to reach a never-before-reached level, and obviously one not reachable under their own steam by the "level fives" of today.

If these theoretical sorts of intelligence are considered to lie outside the scope of argument, as ridiculously unattainable, then limits exist too. They're inescapable. Though the limits of potential might not be practically reachable in many ways and for many reasons, and may not even be knowable, they must exist.

I don't know if my child is PG and hate to label her as such since I haven't gone through the testing process. There are days where I've even question if she is gifted but have come to accept that I have grown accustom to her abilities and it just feels normal now. I do believe her to be in the HG+ range and am comfortable with that label.

I also want to add something to this 'fixed' intelligence: environment; that doesn't really seem to be considered here. I still believe that IF the parents are not exaggerating and the child is consistent with the data Ruf has collected that the odds of the child being gifted is high. Is it a guarantee of the levels she claims? I really have no idea and still ponder this but I don't think it would be a huge difference in the range but more a level off. If the said child gets into school and isn't challenged and doesn't progress to the level they were before starting school does this prove them not to be gifted? I don't think so ... just a sign of the environment and personality.

And again ... I fully believe that Ruf overlooks 2E and late bloomers in her book.

Oops ... seems like I wasn't the only one thinking about environment... was discussed while I was typing this post.