Hi, all - these questions were raised in my mind by another thread, but I didn't want to hijack that thread. So here are my 2 questions:

1) What is the best ability test for a young, math-loving boy? DS just turned 6, is a good reader, but prefers (and seems VERY good at) math. I was thinking of having him tested on the WISC when he turns 6 (so possibly this summer), but I wonder whether the WISC favors "verbally gifted" kiddos (like my DYS DD). DS is quiet when compared with his sister - so I just have never thought of him "verbal," although in my case it is probably all relative (he seems very, very bright).

2) What is the best age to IQ/ability test? DS will almost certainly face various ability testing in the future through school (G&T program), but not until about 3rd grade. That is a LONG wait. Also, the school typically favors abbreviated tests, and if I had it to do over again (hindsight is 20/20) - I'd prefer to have a full test performed first (although I would have to do this on my own, and fully realize that the current school may still feel the need to do its own testing).

Testing now might allow DS to join his sister in some activities she is enjoying - which would be great. Also, depending on how school goes this year for both DC, we could be considering a school switch at some point (and testing might be needed, depending on the new school).

TIA!

An ability test for your own unofficial use could be a placement test for Singapore Math http://www.singaporemath.com/Placement_Test_s/86.htm , a curriculum that is fairly popular among parents of gifted children (we have used it). You could give him successively harder tests (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, etc.) until he struggles and then order the appropriate Singapore Math books to work with him.

Thanks, Bostonian - I probably wasn't clear. I am looking for IQ testing, which would be accepted by our local gifted school (full IQ), as well as possibly DYS (testing that is useful for more than a single purpose is preferred).

Actually, he will probably need updated achievement testing, too.
The current school will do plenty of achievement testing, although not the kind useful for DYS.

Thanks, squishys. It it interesting to hear a positive review of the SBV. It seems more popular outside of the US. I was told by one tester that he saw many HG kiddos NOT test as gifted on the SBV (while they tested as HG on other tests). So I have a fear of false negatives with the SBV. It is good to hear that it DOES catch some of the gifted children.

I actually will not be able to wait until he is 10 y.o., because the current school will test him with their abbreviated/screening tests before that.

Right now, because of prior comments here and elsewhere, I honestly trust the WISC more. It does not sound like the gifted schools in my area will take the WJ Cognitive. Still, I am not certain that the WISC IV is likely to identify a "more mathy" than verbal child. What is confusing is that I understand a new version will soon be available, but it seems like every time a test has a new version there is a great deal of confusion about what is actually "gifted" on the newer test. I am just trying to understand the pros and cons. Thank you for any opinions or information!

DS6 was tested in May. He's a voracious reader and has a great vocabulary as a result. We never worked on any math at home and the math in his K class was skip counting and patterns. He was tested with the WISC and hit ceilings on all PRI subtests. He scored mid-3rd grade on the KTEA. The psych noted she would like to test him with the SBV because she thought it would better illustrate the math.

Mine tested on the WISC IV but it does not have the testing needed for his mathematical abilities. His psychologist will be testing him on the SBV so we can get an actual mathematical IQ. He averages 4 grades above level in math right now.

Thanks, everyone! I appreciate the information and experiences of others. Also wanted to share this older post that I stumbled across:

http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/116455/1.html

My DS with 160s across the board on the WIAT math sections had compeletely irregular and nowhere near that on the SB5. The SB5 is very visually oriented and that seemed to have a huge negative effect.

DS is the same as yours and there was a large verbal-nonverbal gap(nonverbal being a lot higher) on the WISC, although his GAI was high enough (133?) to qualify for gifted programming assuming the school takes a GAI. My concern with the WISC is that it seems like it really favors kids who are "expressive" on the verbal section. My DS's common response when he doesn't feel like explaining or elaborating is "I don't know". He may actually do better on the stupid CogAT in terms of verbal ability. I also think that my DS keeps improving in terms of verbal ability and at 6-7 we are still not seeing his full abilities in that area. He seems to have very uneven brain development which I think is common in visual/mathy kids. I don't know if we're going to need another test but I'm going to wait as long as possible, then probably re-test on the WISC (only reason to re-test is because I doubt the school district will accept a score from kindergarten, plus it wasn't done by one of their accepted providers).

The WISC doesn't test specifically for math that I'm aware. I would suggest a WISC (or SB if your DS hits the ceiling), then follow it with an individual achievement test.

The achievement test doesn't test ability, but I think (just my opinion) some sense of math ability can be discerned if some scores fall far outside of "normal" for the age.

We had a privately administered Woodcock Johnson Achievement.

Plus, DS HATES being put on the spot or feel like he's being quizzed. Even if I ask him math questions that are obvious, he will sometimes refuse to answer. He apparently acted kind of silly while taking the WISC and was actually up and pacing around the room which is not like him at all (he does things like that when anxious)....I'm surprised he did as well on it as he did. I just can't see him defining vocabulary words for a stranger with more than one or two words, and it has nothing to do with his verbal knowledge, it's just something that he wouldn't want to do. HOwever if they asked the same questions on the computer and gave it to him in multiple choice format (even if there were 10 answer choices), he'd probably do great. It doesn't make sense to me that he scores so well for reading comprehension (school computerized testing over the 99th percentile) if his verbal IQ is average.

Thanks, everyone! Squishys and blackcat - yes, I wonder, too, whether the WISC doesn't work better for identifying the strengths of a chatterbox (like my DD, but NOT like my DS)! Ideally, a test would pick up on the various strengths and weaknesses of various children, so that we know how to best help them learn.

blackcat - it sounds like your DS did very well on the WISC. But he might do even better on another (better for him) test in the future. Also, I wonder if some DC just may do better when they are older (if your DS is retested in a couple of years) - I think that testing a younger child just might have many variables (and that is why I am wondering about whether my DS is old enough). Perhaps your DS will be a great CogAT test taker (I know, not the favorite test), and he might excel on the EXPLORE? I do not think a single test is very useful for understanding any of our children, anyway. Multiple data points over time give a much better picture. Thanks, again!

Yes, I'm actually debating having him take the CogAT and just see what happens....but then it's stuck in school records and we've had an awful experience with it in the past as have other parents. First I'm going to see if they'll just accept his old WISC, and if not, then we'll have some decisions to make.

DS also had a huge gap between math achievement score and IQ score. It shouldn't really be possible to have such a difference. I do think younger age mathy kids get short changed by the WISC IV compared to their math scores.

There was research done in Australian on younger subjects comparing the SB5 and the WPPSI which indicated that the two tests were fairly comparable but for a certain percentage of children their scores would be quite significantly different and there was no apparent pattern, there were kids going high or low on both tests and they checked for which order they were given and various other possible causes (ie the kids weren't doing much better on the first test or the second test, etc). In the end the conclusion was that the effect was due either to one or both of 1) small kids have variable performance 2) some kids may simply be better suited to one test or the other.

What I personally have seen is that my girls who have both done at least one Wechsler test and the SB5, their verbal scores were almost identical across all tests used (no more than 2-3 points variability) but both my girls do far better on the non verbal of SB5, half a standard deviation or more better. There is something about the WISC non verbal that doesn't work for them (and it's not the block design, it's the cartoon based tests).

Also being tested by a gifted expert helps, particularly with my more gifted child the gifted specialist did a far better job of drawing her out and of moving at her pace.

I was going to suggest the WJIII cognitive plus the matching achievement but if no-one will accept it where you are there isn't much point. I can fairly confidently state that it it good for mathy kids.

FWIW, DS6 was tested with the WISC. It did manage to capture some of the abilities that I was seeing. FSIQ was DYS range, with GAI about a standard deviation above (which is very, very close in overall reasoning abilities to his more verbal sister). To be fair, DS has more "verbal" strength than I gave him credit for - he qualified for the use of extended norms in the VERBAL section (just lower than his more extreme-verbal sister). Apparently, I am a poor judge of verbal ability, because I was comparing my quieter DS to my super-verbal DD. Overall, he has a more even profile than his sister (he is higher than her on PRI), but their FSIQ/GAIs are freakishly similar.

We will do achievement testing. It is very helpful to hear the experiences of others here with either the WIAT or the WJ.

DD tested on the SB5 and I wouldn't say she is particularly mathy. She did get a DYS qualifying score. Her FSIQ is a bit lower then her WJ ACh and her RIAS, but I would say it is valid. One thing to ask is if you think your DC may ceiling out in a few areas on the SB5 ask the tester in advance if they have the manual to calculate the EXIQ. I found that many psychs and some even recommended on Hoagies didn't think the SB5 had the ability to calculate extended norms and none had the manual. I think most psychs who administer the SB5 don't administer it as often as the WISC, and when they do use the SB5 they don't come across those who qualify for extended norm calculation.
On a side note, I was told multiple times the SB5 is coming to the end of its life and a new version should be out within a year or so.

You have to purchase the extended norms separately for the SBV, unlike the WISC. Also, HMH-Riverside is heavily promoting the rollout of the WJIV this year, so I imagine the SB6 can't be out any earlier than next year. You may have encountered people involved in standardization, which usually finishes about a year before publication.

And, BTW, it is possible to derive predicted achievement from the SB to the WJ, if you want to know if the achievement scores are comparable to the cognitive. A few points difference is generally not a big deal.

Our 7 year old's strength is math (I wouldn't call him a verbal kid) and he got a DYS qualifying score on the Wisc-iv. You may want to see what tests your school district will accept (ours will not take the sb5).

Aeh, thank goodness there are people like you around! You would not believe the grief I went through trying to find someone who could calculate EXIQ. I truly doubted myself at one point that it existed based on the reactions I got from some people in the field.

Just trying to do my job well!

Just to clarify... a derived WJ score is used to check for relative consistency between the SB IQ score and an actual WJ achievement score... in other words, the derived score is not an actual WJ achievement score... calculating a derived WJ score does not eradicate the need for WJ achievement testing?

Correct.