Our oldest daughter, 9.3, currently enrolled in 4th grade, was recently given the WASI to see if she qualified for the Missouri PEGS program. She received a FSP of 99.9, and a FSIQ of 148. Her current school uses the NWEA MAP, and she scored over 230 on both areas.
We moved on to the next stage, the SBV, today. We are waiting for test results, but the tester did say that she was losing attention during the last section, the Working Memory portion. I've read that it is recommended that the Working Memory section not be included in the overall score when it is used to evaluate for selection into Highly Gifted Programs, but now I'm concerned that this could keep her from the program.

Sorry can't assuage your concerns. Things I've read on SBV and our own experience says it is not a predictable tool for rating HG kids. When three other sources say 99.9% and another doesn't I suspect the oddball.

We just got partial results back for her SBV. Despite the tester's comment that she didn't do well on the WM portion, that was not her lowest area.

Her FSIQ was 124, with a NVIQ of 115 and VIQ of 130.
The Factor Index Scores we received were not broken into Verbal and Nonverbal :
FR 123, KN 120, QR 111, VS 126, WM 123.

Our daughter strengths have always been in the verbal area, but I was thrown when she only got a High Average score in Quantitative Reasoning.
Does the QR seem out of line enough to make the test suspect, or is it just not her strong point?

I don't think it necessarily makes the test as in the tester's delivery suspect. It might be an outlier, but I'd more strongly think the SBV itself is suspect. We had glowing reports of curiosity and inquisitiveness about our DS7 from the tester. She also mentioned he was very confident, but his typical M.O. is to take a wild (confident) guess first then apply more reasoning if needed (of course an IQ test doesn't support that.) It reads confident but spoils the results for some testing.

His results were quite similar except his low outlier was in VS rather than QR. And none of it matched other testing he's had (except I anticipated the NV and VS being lower because of his vision problems.) If you have the option to use an alternate IQ, I'm considering the WISC IV for my son, but the SB5 (and some writing problems) messed him up for the HG program this year.

Zen scanner I would love a link to research suggesting the SB is suspect for HG kids, its the test of choice with the majority of gifted experts here. And certainly both my kids, including miss HG+ scored higher on the SB. In part due to better engagement with the test due to better rapport with an expert tester. But both of them the SB5 just seemed to suit them better, particularly in the non verbal. There verbal scores were only margin of error different from the wisc or WPPSI they had taken earlier (2-3 points).

My 2nd child actively threw an entire subtest on the WPPSI because it was both boring and poorly explained (she was not told to do as much as she could in the time limit, so she did only what she reasoned demonstrated mastery, and then sat and stared at the tester for the 2nd half, what she did do was perfect).

Hi MumofThree,
Here's one of the articles I had found through a thread here from 09:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gifted+and+highly+gifted+students:+how+do+they+score+on+the+SB5?-a0150850213

And that thread:
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....6335/Gifted_and_HG_how_do_they_scor.html

I started running across a few different ones. I'll see if I can find those.

Zen Scanner, I really think that the "how do the gifted score on the SB5" stuff is NOT about a problem with the SB5. That it's about the fact that children tested on old style tests have an appreciable drop on newer tests. This is a combination of the flynn effect in action and also that each time it's adjusted the test somewhat changes what/how it is measuring. The same thing happened between versions of the WISC. I think it looked worse with the SB5 because a lot of SB users (rather than Wechsler users) were still determinedly using the SB-LM when the SB5 came out, making the gap HUGE, as the LM was more than one generation older and using a completely different approach to both testing and scoring (so a worse comparison between the two than say the WISC3 & WISC4). I fully expect a whole new slew of articles like this when the new round of updated IQ tests come out. In fact it already seems there are a bunch of people unhappy with results from the norming of the WPPSI... Kids tested at the end of an IQs life cycle are more likely to test high than those kids caught in the crossover to a new system.

And there is the secondary problem that kids who have scores like 145 on the SB5 or WISC not being seen as having remarkable scores, especially when the tests first came out, because teachers and other relevant parties just did not understand the changes in how scoring worked from older tests to the current ones.

What I will say is the gifted specialist we use a) does not give out age equivalents and b) insists that, as much as a number from any given day is comparable to another day, that SB5 scores should be viewed as equal to WISC4 scores. Which is to say they do NOT support the idea from that Hoagies chart that 124-133 on the SB5 is more like 130-138 on the WISC4.

Davidson also considers both tests valid and the cutoff scores for both to be the same.

There is research showing that the majority of children will do the same on both the WPPSI and SB5 but that a minority will do markedly better on one or the other, but with no predictor of WHICH will yield the better score - the upshot seems to be that some kids do have particular strengths or weaknesses that are hidden or revealed by either test, or maybe it was just good day / bad day.... There is always a risk of random fouling of an IQ test for whatever reason. For my kids they both test better non verbally on the SB, and for my severely 2E kid the SB5 "hides" her biggest weakness (WM is "easier" on the SB5 than the WISC4)...

Personally I find it hilarious that in Australia parents with SB5 results regularly get the eye roll and dismissive "Oh well EVERYONE is gifted on the SB5" response from other professionals and will be told to go get a WISC done (with the implication it will show that their child isn't really gifted at all), while in the USA the SB5 is often viewed as the "Harder" test.

OP, do you know if there were 2 or 4 subtests on the WASI your dd was given? And do you have the subtest scores from the SB-V?

Just a guess, but I'm wondering if the difference in the two FSIQs isn't perhaps due to scatter in subtest scores (areas of strengths), particularly since the WASI is an abbreviated form of the WISC used as a screener, in which either two or four (depending on the version) of WISC-type subtests are given (if I understand it correctly). I think if you wanted a fair comparison between SB-V and Weschler for any given student, you'd need to give the full WISC. I am also stating this from memory.... so don't hold me to it - I could be way off! But... is there a chance that the WASI was only testing Verbal, not Non-verbal ability? That's perhaps another reason for the difference in FSIQ.

polarbear

OP. I got completely sidetracked from saying that although I personally like the SB5, any test on any given day can go wrong for whatever reason. Bad mood, bad tester/subject fit. It's possible your child's profile is unexpected/uneven. It's also possible that the SB5 results are inaccurate for whatever reason. I just don't think the most likely reason for that is the SB5 being weird. For what it's worth my DD's lowest score was QR too...

I read that particular study differently. Here's a key point:
"Since the assumption of normality can be questioned with scores this extreme, Kendall's tau b and Spearman's rho were calculated. The correlation between the SB5 and the WISC-III using Kendall's tan b was .341. Using Spearman's rho the correlation was .457. The correlation between the two tests for all IQ levels was .82 (Roid, 2003)."

Also some anecdotal stuff they included was interesting:
"Two students in the highly gifted program scored so low on the SB5 that they would not meet intelligence test criteria for giftedness even if the cut-off were lowered to 115..." "To check on whether these children were misclassified as gifted or highly gifted, anecdotal information was requested from their teachers. These data suggest that these children's original classifications were probably correct. For example, one of the highly gifted children had successfully completed a high-school level course as an elementary student; it is unlikely that a non-gifted child would perform in such a manner."

And ultimately that's the pivotal point: What gateway is most likely to get kids matched to the appropriate resources?