This is a new thread from discussion which sprung up here. This new thread is being created to prevent ongoing hijacking of that thread to discuss IQ test administration, especially parent observation of IQ testing.

Good idea, Indigo.

DS12 was tested by his school last year. I wasn't present.

DS was tested at 6.5 and I was in the room for all of the testing (WISC-IV, WIAT-III, WRAML?, Conners, and maybe some more that I've forgot). I was there to ease his anxiety and to help with getting him to refocus when needed. He spent almost one whole session under the desk answering questions from there as an example of the fun the tester got to deal with. It was frustrating to watch knowing we were paying a LOT of money but at the same time it was exactly the type of behavior that led us to testing in the first place.

While I can see why they wouldn't want parents knowing the questions to avoid test prep, I'm exceptionally grateful that I had the chance to see the testing. My DS had results ranging from 2%tile to 99.6%tile and it was useful to have an idea of what was going on in the room during each one to add additional context to the results. The one that he scored 2%tile was particularly interesting since he was completely sidetracked about a particular part of it and never really answered the questions (I'd say more but don't want to risk revealing part of the test). The tester didn't really pick up on what he was rambling about and chalked it up to his 2e-ness which I'm not sure of but we'll have to wait and see. There were questions and answers that the tester even wrote up in the final report because his answers were "so gifted" (in this case I mean hilariously odd especially for someone his age).

We will end up retesting him again at some point to have an update on his 2e issues. We'll likely also test his younger sister at some point as well. I have no intention of ever trying to prep either of them since I want to know what the actual results are to aid in making the best decisions I can for them. DS easily qualifies for the school programs, I suspect DD will as well but if she doesn't that is fine. If I've learned anything over the past 7 years with DS it is that there are some kids that NEED gifted programming and shoehorning kids that don't meet the criteria is a disservice to both groups.

Yes, from an adjacent room via a 2-way Mirror and 'piped' audio - WISC IV.

I had a 'side on' view so I could not see the actual questions but I could hear the questions/answers and observe my DDs reactions which is why I now regret not providing a drink and a snack because she was flagging towards the end, the test having more than spanned her normal lunchtime.

Between 2 kids there have been 5 IQ tests, I was in the room for the first two, listening from the next room for the next two and not present at the last one (which incidentally was the worst result for that child). The tests were I was listening from the next room I didn't pick much up, but that round of testing was the most positive experience for both my children (both in terms of scores and coming out positively buzzing with happiness)...

I think one of my kids in particular behaved better with me not directly in the room BUT for the other test of that same child, where I was in the room, there were issues with her performance that the tester either would never have discussed with me OR which she grossly misinterpreted my DDs behaviour and what it might mean about the resulting scores. For example in the coding subtest DD did exactly two of each type of question (100% accuracy) and then, having proved mastery (in her own mind at least) she put down the pencil and watched the timer for the remaining half of the available time. Now she could have been 1) in pain, as we now know she has a handwriting disability 2) bored witless, it's a mind numbing test 3) completely unable to comprehend at 4 yrs old why more than 2 correct samples of each one should be necessary to prove mastery, there are various other possibilities too, but "Too anxious to continue" or "Did not know what to do" (the tester's suggestions) are so wrong it's funny.

We also would have missed out on hearing the tester mutter "Never seen that before..." as the same DD completed one of the subtests, it certainly didn't make it to the report. And thus we would not have known that her 17 on that subtest was actually a hard ceiling for her age - she completed the whole test perfectly in the available time but could not score more than 17 because of her age. And we would not have know that this tester could not be that experienced with HG kids if she had truly never seen that before, because my DD is NOT that far out there.

Oh and we would also have missed the tester telling DD "That doesn't usually work" and stopping her from continuing a method of problem solving before her time was up. Maybe it wouldn't have worked, but still she deserved the opportunity to use the time she had and after that she stopped trying so hard in the rest of the items for that section.

So, two edged sword having the parent there...

No. I could hear a little if I strained but not see anything.

I was not present for any of the testing, but I did see a number of the questions and answers at our meeting with the neuropsych after testing.

Elizabeth's post reminds me that the tester where I was listening from another room seemed to have far better notes on my daughters' actual replies, much of which made it into her report. The tester where we sat in the room seemed to be pretty much ticking boxes not writing down quotes of what DD had said, so we would not have known much of what happened without being there... Interesting difference in practice.

Three tests, all with different testers. They were all in a room with a closed door. Results did not include any idea of what was in the test.

I should clarify that I didn't necessarily see the answers designated as correct - I saw what my DD wrote for some questions.

My older son has been tested four times and I was in the room for the second administration. My younger son has been tested once and I was in an adjacent room where I could hear what was going on.

I am grateful that I was able to observe both times as it has given me much greater insight into what my children's IQ scores mean (and don't mean).

My DS5 was tested at 3.5 with the WPPSI III and I was in the room. I was blown away with his ability to follow directions and attend to tasks as he certainly doesn't display either in everyday life. Now I know what he is capable
Of in those areas as well as Intelligence level!

WPPSI IV with a 4 year old. Adjacent room with a white noise maker. Heard nothing... But reading that so many are allowed to sit in, I am no longer surprised when I hear that there are neighborhoods were everybody seemingly scores at 99%...

RIAS and two other "pre-tests" at age 6. I was not present nor even in the building or, heck, within a 3-mile radius. I have no idea what she got wrong and right, nor did I ever meet the psych who administered the test.

I haven't observed any of my daughter's testing. My DS had developmental delays (he is now academically advanced) and I was usually present for his assessments. Interestingly, this even included an assessment with the psychologist who did my daughter's first assessment without me present. My DS once shut down and wouldn't do anything in an evaluation when I wasn't there (it was awful because they reported very severe delays rather than saying he just didn't cooperate). So I think the psychologist made an exception to usual policy based on thinking he would be much more comfortable with me there and that the results might not be meaningful otherwise. I just stayed in the background, but it was interesting to see which specific questions gave him difficulty. It gave me much more insight than just knowing the scores would have.

My twins were tested at school and I wasn't there. I didn't even know they were going to tested on that particular day. I was supposed to be notified in advance, but they "forgot."

I did meet with the psych later for the report, and she shared some interesting observations. One being that she though that possibly one of my sons was not really paying attention during one subtest, since he didn't score that well on it, but did really well on a similar subtest that is usually "harder."

DD8 and DD9 were tested at same place (a top state college) and DH and I were not present in the testing room either time. Both girls were 7 at the time of testing (DD8 was closer to 8, however). Both girls separated from us easily and went with the tester - this was even mentioned in both reports.

With DD9 we tried to do our best to explain to her how things would work, but we weren't sure ourselves. The tester spoke with DD, DH and I in the waiting room for a little bit while DD played with some toys there. The tester asked if she was ready to get started, she gave us hugs, and off she went. With DD8 we were much more prepared since we had already been through it. We were able to explain how she would go into a room with the tester, there would be cameras in the room, etc. I walked part way down the hallway with her (at her request) and then she went the rest of the way on her own.

Our first testing experience with DD9, we naively asked if we could watch the video that was being taken while the testing occurred. We just wanted to see how DD reacted and if she gave silly answers like she was notorious for doing. The grad student working with us said she would ask, but came back with a "sorry, we don't allow that". I know DD9 gave at least one "wrong" answer because she told us about it later. She thought it was funny and that she was being tricky. We had tried to forewarn the tester that she liked to do that, but not sure how much they took that into account.

I'd still love to see both videos - 1. to see if DD9 did give goofy answers with that little smirk she gets 2. see how DD8 answered to score so well - considering we were just hoping for her to make 130 3. to compare the two, just to see the difference in how each girl answered the questions in order to determine the results they each got.

I would think that just sitting in wouldn't be enough for most parents to subsequently prep a kid to the level needed for a gifted level score. You would need to remember all of the questions given orally as well as be able to generate all of the printed material for the tests that require it.

Exactly. This was exactly my experience. There are what... 8 to 10 subtests? Many of the them visual and paper and pencil - you'd have to take a picture of the block design the child was suppose to reproduce or take a picture of the picture presented for picture concepts. I mean really. And I couldn't write any questions down - the testers could see me (plus they had me filling out forms). It's really not what people seem to think. As someone who has sat in while her child was being evaluated I find it really silly to think that one would be able to effectively cheat that way...

I am not thinking of an average kid pulled up to 99...But perhaps a 90+ kid pulled up to the gifted level. In the verbal part, wouldn't you then just have to remember the harder questions? Also, the test doesn't change for quite a while, correct? So knowledge of questions can spread in a community of friends. Where we are, testing isn't all that common, I don't think, so this may be less of an issue, but NYC etc. may be a different story. They don't even want to have kids retake a test within a year since the memory effects may artificially increase scores - so to add an adult's memory to that (whose only focus may be to remember questions) certainly gives rise to the possibility of cheating.

Both of my kids have been screened at school, just two sections of the WISC IV and the NNAT2. The WISC IV screening when they were 5 and the NNAT2 when they were 6.

I was not permitted to be present, nor was there any discussion of results, apart from a description of which two sections of the WISC IV were used.

I agree that it would be hard to improve a kid's score. Yes I heard the questions but I only heard my DS's answer to them and they weren't things like what is 5+5 where there is clearly a correct answer that could be taught and memorized. In most cases I don't know what would have scored points and impressed the tester and what would have been average or below average. Many of the tests also had something visual involved which I didn't see and even if I did would have a hard time reproducing.

The tests are also done in such a way that the tester keeps asking progressively harder things until they get a few wrong. Having sat in on testing for my 6 year old wouldn't likely help me coach him when he retakes it in a few years.

I agree. A parent can never prep their child for most of the things in an IQ test - and age (and complexity of questions are related to age), geographical location, cultural references, hitting the ceiling etc factor in when a child is tested. So, a parent of a PG child who hits the ceiling on a subtest would never hear all the questions in that subtest if they were present. Similarly, if my 7 year old was tested, my 6 year old neighbor would not have the same set of quesions. And they also ask questions about ethics, morality etc (things like what does truth mean to you? - there is no way to know which topic the questioner would choose).

IQ testing consists of a battery of tests. Psychologists do not always ask the same quesions - they cover several areas of testing. One question that comes to mind was that my son was given a picture of intersecting geometric figures and asked to count how many polygons he could see. In the previous test taken 2 years ago, he was given a similar question using a different group of interesecting geometric figures - but they were a lot simpler than in this recent test. I know because he came out excited that he remembered doing similar things a couple of years ago. (I am not violating the integrity of the IQ test here, because the Critical Thinking Company puts out a workbook they say is useful for review before IQ testing with the exact same concepts and any parent can buy it for under $10).
And the answer to such questions really depends on the perception of the child at that instant - for example, if there were 10 intersecting triangles in the picture (this is not an IQ test question, I am making it up), then there could be 15, 20 or 30 triangles that can be counted by the child based on how he is viewing that picture. There is no way to coach a child to come up with the correct number for such a question. What I am trying to say is that an IQ test does not contain a set of questions for which the answers can be memorized and reproduced. The questions are problems that need to be solved by the child using his thinking skills and attention to detail.

So, if a parent wanted to prep a child for the tests, there are a ton of ways to do it - NY has prep schools for this purpose charging thousands of dollars. But, none of them might work. They might provide a level of familiarity to the child, but the child is on his own during the test.
A parent cannot sit in on a test and then leak the test for other kids to do well or use it to coach their own child to get 99+percentile. It is almost impossible.

Disclaimer: I did not sit in on my child's test and I would not - even if I got the chance - because he is excitable and I might prove to be a big distraction to him. The tester had another person present in the room (a third party observer).

While I wasn't present at the official test I did hear parts of the wppsi 4 they did for the morning study. Most of it wouldn't have helped but I think I could have coached the vocab section pretty well. I don't think that would help a lot tbh though unless the child did equally/almost as well in the other sections. It would look suspicious if they were on the 99th percentile for one test and around the 70th for everything else.

I don't think it's that uncommon to be on the 99th percentile for one test and lower for everything else, puffin, especially when you're talking about a 2e kid.

The test that I think you could most easily "prep" for based on observation is probably Information. For example, there was a question about who a particular historical personage was that my DD got right (probably because she happened to have received a picture book about him/her as a gift from a family friend a few months before the test). I agree that Vocabulary could also be problematic. (I'm trying to speak in general terms here so I am not guilty of revealing test questions.)

I was not in the room when testing was conducted at by the gifted and talented department of the nearby university. I was, however, only about 10 feet outside the room, which had clear glass near the bottom (so I could see a bit of what was going on, but my child couldn't see me). I know him well enough to know that my presence would Not Have Been Helpful. lol. He would have been trying to get me react instead of paying attention.

He had pretty frequent breaks at which I saw him, offered snacks, etc.

I was not present for all of the testing for my ds8 at the time; it went ok, but post-discussion with the dr. did seem to indicate some odd interpretations on the dr's part as to what is meant by the 'modern child' in normal speech . For instance, my son used the word 'Like' at the beginning of an answer or two, which the dr. then marked as wrong -- as though my son was making a comparison between two things instead of just using 'like' for a pause in speech, ex: saying, 'yeah, like, this is the answer'. Odd to me anyway.
I did overhear some of my dd4's testing (just 1 test, didn't take too long at all). I was surprised by a couple of questions towards the end (geometry ), and surprised she got them correct, but otherwise things lined up as expected.

In a way it makes sense the more complex the questions and test, the more room for interpretation. I think for the younger test there were LOTS of pictures and pointing (no room for interpretation issues).

I was shooed out of the entire building for DD's test (WISC IV, at 6.5, at Ed Psych's office). She did it in 2 x 2-hour blocks a few days apart, and loved it. She wants to do it again
I was shown a couple of examples of puzzles and drawings she did, but definitely not every question and answer.
I wouldn't have wanted to sit in or observe - too nerve-wracking! And DD would have looked to me for reactions/encouragement and I would have been too tempted to butt in to "clarify" things, both for DD and the Ed Psych. DD is quietly confident and excited to try interesting new things, so she was good without me

Did not even think to be present for any such testing, but just assumed it had to be without any influence from the family (completely independent), especially since the school seemed more likely to view parents as pushy rather than perceptive. To this day, no one from the school has ever said anything close to good catch, or thank you for bringing it to our attention, or thank you for advocating for the student. Also, I would not want anyone to be able to say or give even the perception of impropriety. As it was, the school never offered to have us or mentioned it was a possibility, so we got the indication we were not invited. Honestly, if it were not for the best interests of our child, some of the school personnel were the last people I would ever choose to join this topic discussion. It feels like a touchy, sensitive, not popular and maybe politically incorrect topic. Glad to hear that so many parents felt comfortable being there or nearby because it may have made the student feel more comfortable which is such a nice approach and probably the way it should be. Thanks for sharing.

Wesupportgifted, it sounds like your testing was administered by the school. I would not expect to be present for that, either. Many of us (including me) had IQ testing done by an independent psychiatrist or neuropsych.

Nope... it was drop off and pick up visits with the psychologist. Maybe I should have been there - he was hard to settle down and difficult to test (and she couldn't even calculate his IQ because the range between his highest and lowest score was too wide). Waste of money.

RIAS given to 5 1/2 yr. Old 2e (ASD) by his private pysch. I was not allowed to sit in. It was given over the course of several visits and took twice as long than the 30 minutes average they say it takes. There was one day that I was asked to come in the room to console my child.He got upset at a question asked and started to have a aspie shutdown. He needed a hug and some reassurance from Mommy that he just needed to do his best and it was okay to not know or understand something. I was shown briefly what upset him just so I could have an idea what was wrong. But That was it. I was able to hear the pysch. through the closed door on occassion but not enough to know what all was being asked or shown to my child.

All this said, I certainly wish I had been able to observe because I would love to know why my DD bombed one subtest out of 4. (The RIAS is short.) Her MG score would have been rather different if she hadn't done that. However, I think there are extremely good reasons not to allow parents in, so on balance I think the policy is correct. A GOOD psych (not the one we had) would be able to provide good notes on what might have happened. I have no idea. Ours just says "DD appears to have average skills in this area" whch does not in any way match up with what we see.

I'm really a bit nervous about DS5's coming test, because he has a tendency to blurt out wrong answers within .0001 microseconds. If I just say, "Hold on--think again" he'll go, "Oh, wait. No! It's ____." This happens most with hard questions. (DD will use another strategy--"I don't know.") Will a good psych ever do this or allow this? Any suggestions on how to handle that problem?

DD9 is like this too. She speaks before she even has time to think and just says the first thing that pops into her head. I'm sure sometimes that works out fine, but we have to constantly tell her it is not a race. We tell her she needs to take a breath first, to give her time to process, then answer. We've also tried to tell her to repeat the question (either in her head or out loud if she needs to) hoping that might give her some time to think about it. However, these things might be more difficult to get a 5 year old to do.

I would practice with your DS to get him used to stopping to think before he answers. We did this with DD9 recently when she asked us to give her some spelling words for the spelling bee. She would immediately start spelling as soon as we said the word, so we made her repeat the word and take a breath before she could spell it. She would get the hang of it and then the next time she asked for some words she would revert right back to immediately starting to spell. It took some practice (and patience), but we just kept working with her and reminding her to take her time.

We also tried to be as upfront with DD9's tester as we could and explained she likes to give goofy answers sometimes just to see if you are paying attention, thinking she is being tricky. You should probably do the same - just explain to the psych that your DS has a habit of blurting and see if they will intervene somehow by maybe giving the question then immediately saying he should think about it before he answers.

Good Luck!

Thank you all for your wonderful, in-depth, and heartfelt replies.

Our experience is similar to yours and momoftwins. Testing was conducted at the school and was treated as a relatively nonchalant non-event.

Unfortunately, gifted high-IQ kids may still often be unwelcome as they do not fit the mold of standardized education. Many/most schools do not enjoy the addition of a gifted pupil to their ranks, often because the schools do not know how to support the gifted pupil's unique learning trajectory... also because other parents may tend to complain when the school does find a way to support a gifted pupil's learning trajectory.

Beyond those who join the discussion, many thousands of others read the forums over time, especially topics/posts found via web searches.

By having open, honest, polite & respectful discussions about unique circumstances and authentic lived experiences (both positive and negative) regarding our gifted children, we can come to an understanding of the impact of those varied experiences (if any). For example, although this discussion thread does not represent research and is not a comprehensive or random cross-section of all parents whose children have taken IQ/achievement tests... certain themes emerge:
- Does parental presence = influence?
- Is there inherent advantage/disadvantage to the child being tested, of having a parent present?
- Does having a parent present contribute to the Flynn effect?
- Some parents have mentioned test prep - What role, if any, does test prep play in IQ test scores? In contributing to the Flynn effect?
- What role does subsequent re-testing play in the child's IQ score?
- Are there ethical considerations to parents being present?
- If parental presence is statistically of no impact, might it still have significant impact on an individual child?
- What are best practices?
The answers may be complex and boil down to "It Depends."

In discussing complex issues we may come to an understanding of whether certain differences in test administration may impact a child's individual scores and/or the future score trends within the community. From my quick read of posts on this topic over time, parental presence may be a precursor to fishing for reasons to invalidate a test's results (failure to establish parental desired level of: rapport, depth of probing, breaks for snacks, test session length, etc) if the parent is not pleased with the IQ score(s) of their child. This is just an observation, it is not to say the parental concerns are with or without merit. Knowing these concerns may arise, testers may wish to address these issues proactively. For example, it may be possible to manage expectations about level of rapport, length of test, snacks/breaks, etc.

I believe that another poster has accurately described that public schools typically do not have parents observe testing; it may be when parents are having children tested privately that parents may in some cases observe. Some schools accept private testing done outside the schools, other schools do not but these independent, privately administered tests may help parents know their children better, illuminating aspects of the child's processing which the parent may have previously been unaware of.

It is my understanding that test administration guidelines would be determined by the test publisher (Pearson?) and the American Psychological Association (APA)? Although I previously understood that parental presence was forbidden, the powers-that-be may have wisely left the decision of whether a parent may be present to the individual tester, because "It Depends."

There has been discussion of parents coaching kids by learning the questions, but it seems to me that subtle things (like encouraging a child or giving subtle hints) could play a bigger role. A tester might even test differently with a parent present (e.g., maybe being more patient and allowing more time than if the parent weren't in the room). I don't know if any of these things happen, but it does seem like there could be an effect. At the same time, some kids may need to have a parent (e.g., very young children too anxious to be left with a stranger). I think it must come down to a judgement call on the part of the tester.

Apm221 - while I was in the room we were positioned behind our child so they couldn't interact with us without obviously turning and instructed not to speak. We did occasionally speak with the tester, such as "They seem to need a break, do you want to take them for a quick walk?" "Sure, childname want to go for a walk?"

Same here. The time I was in the room with my son I was positioned behind him so he couldn't see me. I was silent unless the tester talked directly to me.

I am currently sitting in the waiting room at the university pschology clinic while my older son is being tested.

The few people we discussed testing with (when DD was 4-6yo) wanted us to NOT be present in the room.

That meant no testing-- as an absolute thing, actually-- because of her (relative) medical fragility. Line of sight was a critical make-or-break factor for us, although we completely understood why policy had parents deprived of that during testing.

Catch-22 for us personally.

I'm surprised that so many parents were present with children this age. Not judging-- just surprised, since our sample indicated that this would be rather uncommon. Might be a regional/local thing.

This. And the child might test differently, too. Better or worse. My DD knows I hate it when she punts and says "I don't know," so she might have been less likely to do that with me there. OTOH, on a day when she was irked with me, she might have been MORE likely.

DS will be tested by the school, as DD was. Though it is a different school and may be a different test (interestingly, this is not consistent across schools in our district), if past experience is any guide, we will never meet or speak to the tester.

I think your advice is good, though. He probably should have a little practice with learning to think before he blurts. I think this is associated with being underchallenged. I have been telling him to use his "chess brain," as he is NOT impulsive when playing chess.

I have never been present at an IQ test adminstration although I have probably lost count of the number of tests, both by schools and by medical centers/hospitals over the last decade. None of the psychologists with whom I am familiar allows parents to be present. This was true even during the one test where DS was fairly fresh from the rehab hospital and accidentally banged his head halfway through testing. I think the tester might have been ready to make an exception but DS was much better after they found him a room to nap.