For kids between 10-13 what is the guidance between using PSAT vs SAT for assessment. My thoughts is unless the are hitting ceiling in PSAT why put them through the extra time commitment on SAT.

Thoughts?

This depends on your family's needs. I can tell you that I've had my kids take the SAT or ACT at that age, partly because I'm using it as a form of progress monitoring for homeschool documentation purposes, and partly because it's a whole lot easier to find a testing site and date for SAT than PSAT (which is administered only once a year).

aeh I thought that the PSAT score are the same that you would receive on the SAT except they cap out earlier. So will progress monitoring not be accurate across them?

Progress monitoring generally is not as useful when a student is repeatedly scoring near the ceiling of the test. Actually, scores in general are not as accurate at that point (other than to say, "really high").

If your GT/advanced child is 11 to 13, then they should probably take the SAT so that you have meaningful statistics for comparison to other GT/advanced kids. For a GT/advanced child who is 10 and not grade accelerated, then the SAT 8/9 is the assessment of choice. That is the NUMATS practice as SAT and ACT testing are for 6th graders and up.

The problem with the PSAT is that it is not only easier, it is shorter. A huge part of the SAT is the endurance/focus aspect. That is one reason why (at least theoretically) College Board didn't approve of super young kids signing up for the SAT and only working 1/3 of the test - I imagine that the score may be somewhat inflated compared to students who are exhausted from working the whole test. While there is vertical alignment and therefore significant correlation between the PSAT and the SAT, it is probably not valid to compare one kid's PSAT score to another kid's SAT score.

It is more meaningful to see statistics for other GT/advanced kids because the grade level standards are so low. If your kid takes the PSAT, you won't find much meaningful data. The new SAT 8/9 is replacing the Explore, so that will provide meaningful data if your kid is not quite ready for the SAT.

Not sure I follow the 1/3rd of test. Do young kids take only part of the SAT?

In our case our DS9 did not cap out on Explore (Composite score was 20). So I imagine there is plenty of room in PSAT before she caps out. Is that an accurate assessment?

aeh how do you judge scoring near the ceiling. For example in Explore given the max of 25. Does one say withing ~10 of max, i.e, 23 and above?

IMO, I'd say if you're within two standard error of the max score, then you're at or pushing the ceiling.

By that standard one could pretty safely say 22+ on subject area scores and 23+ on composite would be in the ceiling range.

I wouldn't say there is plenty of room before the cap above a composite of 20, considering that the next score would likely be at the ceiling.

aeh, so what is your guidance on choosing SAT/PSAT for Explore takers of last year. Any particular cut off score?

Keeping in mind that this is just my opinion...

According to ACT, the growth rate from 8th to 9th grade in students on-target for college readiness was about 2 score points. This suggests that the lower limit for growth in a GT child taking Explore as an out-of-level would be about 2. If we take my guesstimate of ceiling as accurate, then those scoring 20 or above would be at the point where subsequent assessment with Explore is likely not to capture their full range of achievement.

PSAT 8/9 is, of course, a different instrument, though designed for the same grade range, so one may or may not be able to extrapolate a similar truncation effect. I don't believe there is sufficient longitudinal data on the PSAT 8/9 to speak confidently about growth rates on the combined PSAT89/PSAT10/SAT score scale.

My inclination would be to move any Explore taker who appears likely to go off the end of the Explore/PSAT89 on their next administration to a higher level of the SAT or ACT suites. So probably those scoring in the 20s and maybe upper teens, and those who have already had math beyond algebra I.

Thanks aeh. Something to think about!

By 1/3, I am referring to kids who only did 3 out of 10 sections on the old SAT because they were only interested in a Math score or a CR (Critical Reading) score. Sometimes they may ending up doing 4 sections if the experimental section happens to be in their subject of interest. The other 6 or 7 sections they just rest, pretend to work or just casually answer some of the questions. I was told that CB frowns on this but some younger test takers do it anyway. I am not making a judgment against this practice, but simply pointing out that testing for 70 minutes with long breaks between the three sections is a different experience from testing for 225 minutes over ten randomly ordered sections. Of course, with the new SAT format, the essay section is optional/last and the CR and Writing are each one big section but form a combined score while the math are two smaller sections so not as huge a difference as on the old SAT if you are just interested in one score.

Interestingly, Davidson had changed their SAT criteria from just one qualifying score to at least two in 2015. For example, now an 7th grade applicant would need two of three: Math 660, CR 640, Composite (Math + CR)1300. Obviously, if you meet both the Math and the CR, you would also meet the composite but it is also possible to score really high in one (800) and just average (500 - slightly below 50th percentile in the other) in the other and still meet the composite of 1300.