A few years ago, when my dd was about 4, she was tested with the WPPSI. I recently dug out the results and re-read the comments/summary. The psychologist wrote that dd appropriately told her "I think that's enough for me" which ended the testing session.

Knowing little about the administering of the WPPSI, I wonder what the psychologist meant by "appropriately." Dd was telling her she was tired and didn't want to continue. (Does the psychologist mean that dd can communicate those feelings appropriately?) Is this what happens with the WPPSI? Are sections of the test continued during the next testing session? (Dd was tested over two days.)

Thanks,
Kate

I think maybe my question is unclear. That'll teach me to post when I'm tired.

I'm wondering if this psychologist strikes you all as a good tester based on how she handled dd's comment.

Something else happened during the testing that surprised the psychologist. Dd came home from the first testing session and told me, with a mischievous grin, that she had "tricked" (dd's word) the tester. Dd said that the tester was showing her pictures of things and dd was supposed to match them (or was it 3 out of 4) according to shared characteristics. She told me that she was choosing all the "shiny" or "pretty" pictures instead of the things that "went together." (words in quotations are dd's words) I, of course, called the psychologist and reported what dd had said. She told me that dd's score in that section seemed lower than expected, so she would retest on that section first thing during the next session. After the next session she told me she got the same results, so dd couldn't have been tired. She suggested that dd was probably at her limit and, not being able to understand the directions, just made up her own.

What do you think? I have no idea, but I would love to hear your take on this.

(BTW The tester was recommended by a gifted school and website advertises experience with gifted kids.)

Thanks!
Kate

Well, based on your first post, I wouldn't say I could tell. Some of the second post makes me think, 'huh'? You weren't telling the tester your dd was tired, why did she think that's what you were saying? You were telling her she was being tricky. Maybe she had no way to deal with a tricky child, which I think must be at least 50% of the gt kid population...

anyway, you must be thinking she's ready for more testing? Were her scores ok, or do you think there is more to find out? Is she having issues in school? How old is she now?

ps, check out this thread if you have not already -
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....2_US_testers_to_assess_hi.html#Post36728

and also -
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....ble_WIAT_II_experience_Wh.html#Post37293

Tricky? Yes, one could certainly call her that!

I had seen that first thread, thank you. Familiar with one of the testers mentioned, though no personal experience with her.

How can we tell if a tester is one of the good testers? (I only have the one experience, so no comparisons.) How do we know if we've had a tester that didn't get the right info? Does experience with gifted kids usually mean a good tester for gifted kids? (I did read that second thread, too.)

I do wonder if this particular tester we had, who advertises her experience with gifted kids and was suggested by a gifted school, was a good experience. I don't think there were any issues with dd's scores. I think the psychologist may have substantially underestimated my older child's scores though (either that or I am a little dilusional, which could be possible I guess as I am his mother). The tester's report stated that the VC scores were best understood as an estimate due to the scatter in the subtests. So, would the fact that she noted that make her a good tester? Or, could some of the scatter have happened because of a mismatch (tester/child)? I told her that ds has severe issues with time limits, so she didn't tell him he was being timed on one of the perceptual reasoning subtests. She also told me that she let him continue after the time limit and that he completed all the tasks (although she could only count the ones he completed before the time ran out). I think it was block design, but I'm not sure. Which one of those subtests is timed? She mentioned a possible attention issue and suggested more investigation (possible ADD). Now that he's older it is obvious that he does NOT have ADD, but I can see how she may have had trouble keeping his attention during the testing. His mind does tend to wander from the task at hand when he's not interested. Testing was 2.5 years ago.

I do have to say that I like the type of information from ds's WISC-IV better than the more limited info from dd's WPPSI. We don't need more testing, so I don't plan to do more. Dd homeschools, but is having issues with reading (reads two grade levels above age/grade level, but constantly loses her place, eyes tire quickly, and sometimes struggles to sound out words possibly due to not seeing all the letters in the correct order). She has an appointment with a neurodevelopmental optometrist next month. Hope to discover something that is treatable. She is nearly 7 (WPPSI was done at 4). I want her to enjoy reading.

Thanks for any thoughts you can share.
-Kate

Hi Kate,
I think that DD found that part of the test 'too easy' and wanted to make it more interesting. A bit scary that the tester didn't seem familar with this common behavior amoung gifted kids, especially the young ones. Sometimes kids just won't 'play the game' enough to score well, and this can be very frustrating if the scores are needed for placement in a program that the parents suspect might be useful.

LOG, level of giftedness means that there are plenty of professional, in schools and in offices that have very strong experience with MG (moderatly gifted) kids but not much experience with HG or PG kids. Because of the shape of the tail of the Bell curve, a huge majority of Gifted Kids are pretty close to the cut of line between 'identified gifted' and 'not' - no matter where the line is placed! LOG is sort of easy to ignore when your tools work well for 70% to 85% of the gifted kids one interacts with, and it's easy to just blame the rest for being 'difficult' instead of looking at one's tools and searching for something more. But I think that the tide is changing. Instead of only noticing 'MG' and 'prodigies' I think that there is slowly starting to be an awareness of the range and variety of giftedness.

Thanks, Grinity.

Dd did manage to score high enough for the gifted school admission, though we chose to homeschool her (school too much $$ and too long of a daily drive).

I was wondering why, if dd was really just bored by the section, the tester didn't pick up on that. (It was easy for me to just accept the explanation that dd didn't understand the directions and so was following her own rules.)

We're not likely to re-test the kids' IQs. Even if those scores from a couple of years ago are not the most accurate, they did give us permission to walk away from the GT-denial. If we do more testing (possibly for a future school placement), we'd do achievement testing. Am I right to think that achievement testing results would be more useful for grade level placement?

Thanks,
Kate

Yes, achievement testing is more useful for grade level placement. Like everyone has said, IQ testing only goes so far and is only so accurate with GT kids.