Hi,
Dottie mentioned the "Extended norms" for WISC-IV a few days ago, and I was wondering... how often (and in what circumstances) do testers really use these when reporting the score? Does DYS accept them? I'm just curious and, like Dottie, a bit of a score junkie.

My own ds got 5 19's-- 4 in verbal and 1 in perceptual reasoning.

My tester never mentioned extended norms; do the testers popular for assessing the gifted use them as a matter of course?

I think they're a fairly recent thing, but if I understand it correctly, they should apply in any case where the kid can keep answering questions after they hit the regular endpoint. So in theory at least, the tester might still have the raw data around to calculate extended scoring on old data. Unfortunately I know that our tester stopped asking when DS reached the 19 because, he said, there wasn't any point in going on... so we'll have to be satisfied with the old fashioned kind!

How annoying! But how would the tester know a kid had hit a 19 during the test? Wouldn't they have to score it first?

Theoretically yes, but I'm guessing some testers have done this long enough that they can eyeball it. I should ask anyway, since he probably didn't cut off right at the single question that hit the 19 -- maybe we could squeeze a point or two out of it anyway... LOL

On the other hand, since he didn't have a whole lot of spread anyway (no really low scores dragging him down) I think the number we got is probably not too far off "reality" (whatever that is!) And there's really nothing else we could get for a higher score... Where we are now it's really more about achievement I think.

But I do go through phases of being really curious how high it might go if we had all the data....

Pearson sent me the technical report for the extended norms earlier this week - if anyone would like to PM me their email address I'd be happy to forward it.

I'd actually asked them about the compressed qualifying scores for LOG in WPPSI-III that are on the Hoagies site, but haven't managed to get myself clear about this yet. They may have mistaken me for someone who really understood much about this!

Excerpt:

These norms are used to further
differentiate highly gifted children (FSIQ or
GAI above 150) from gifted children (FSIQ
or GAI 130�150). The extended norms are
useful when a child�s score is the
maximum (ceiling) on two or more
subtests (e.g., obtains scaled scores of 18
or 19 points). These norms extend the
WISC�IV upper scaled score range to 28
points for subtests and 210 points for
composites. It is important to note that the
extended norms are not useful for most
children. Among the 2,200 cases in the
WISC�IV standardization sample, only
one child obtained a GAI score of 151 and
none obtained an FSIQ score of 150 or
higher. According to the bell curve, out of
20,000,000 same-age peers, only one
child would be expected to obtain a FSIQ
of 180 or higher.

DS8 was tested with extended norms too for his WISC-IV. I didn't try to find out more. Oops!
Just knew from the tester that he used it since DS has hit the ceiling for some.

According to my psychologist, ds7 topped out in some VCI subset and he used SB-5 to confirm his score. Is it how it's normally done?

Oh, I just finally realized that I have enough data to calculate this myself! Thanks, as usual, Dottie.

My test administrator actually had already figured the extended scores for my kids when I contacted her to get raw score data. She was going through her records calculating for all her high scorers. The EXIQ figures widened the very tiny gap that two of my kids had into a fairly large one.

Were you glad to have that information-- or would have have preferred to stick with the very tiny gap?

Do you see the "fairly large gap" played out in real life?

Well, these two are very different kids. We've always known that. One is more globally advanced, while the other has a "spikier" profile. I think their personalities come into play during assessment too. The more global kid is a hard worker and a people pleaser, whereas the sibling is less inclined to keep going when things get challenging. I still see them as definitely in
the same ballpark, but it makes sense to me that the teased apart scores should show more than a two point difference.

FWIW, the EXIQ did not give us scores in the same range as the SBLM, which was well over 200.

OK, I finally read the Extended Norm manual and converted the scores. It really only changed his VCI, which went from 148 to 170. GAI also went up a lot (to 167), FSIQ not so much because the WMI and PSI were still low.

So I now have a picture of a kid who's even MORE wildly uneven...

Makes sense, actually.

It was only his vocabulary score that was crazy high (scaled score 25)

By the way the more I try to explain these results to my husband-- to say, look there really is something funny about this kid and we have to do something-- the more crestfallen he looks at my obsession, his eyes sort of darting to the piles and stacks of papers accumulating on the desk...

I don't know about Canadian test results, but the extended norm technical report and conversion charts are online, just google WISC Extended norms


Obsessively yours.

Well, here you're in good company with your obsession!

On the bright side, that does fade somewhat with time. Unless you just get interested in testing in general and become an expert on it, Like Dottie. (And bless her for it!) But I think that's really sort of a different animal.

I think it's probably safe to generalize and say that most of us find that we take what info is useful to us from the testing and get past the test scores eventually. Just part of the process of coming to grips with having an HG+ child, I suspect.

I just got DS4's test results back today. She used the EXIQ to extend his scores for the SB5. I am new to this so hope I am using the correct terminology. She also used CSS to interpret age equivalent data since she tested him out of level. I am grateful to have all the information...but I had a hard enough time dealing with the original FSIQ before turning the page to see the EXIQ. I wish I could have eased into it a little more. I am sticking with the FSIQ, even if she does feel that the other is a more accurate representation. ; ) Maybe that is denial but it works for me.

IMO, the CSS was really the most shocking thing to read in our SB5 results report. Since DS6 was only 4 years 9 months at the time some of his CSS were 8 years old+ (almost double his age!!!). I still think that that page should not be given to the parent on the same day as the FSIQ. It's too overwhelming.

I totally agree. I felt the same way. I think his "lowest" area was 8 years 8 months. I just stared at it. One area was greater than 30 (fluid reasoning I think). I looked at DH (who is 31 like me) and we kind of laughed about how he tries to reason with us. sometimes you laugh instead of crying. Or at least that'a how I am. I make everything into a joke.

Lorel wondered how you handle the spikier one when she wants to stop at a challenge? I may have one of those. She is in a GT progam but no individual testing. It is frustrating when I know she can do things but decides not to try but instead gets frustrated and dancing around or guessing random answers to whatever the subject is as an avoidance technique to avoid challenge. I guess this goes more under parenting so maybe you can PM me some suggestions for encouragement. I should say mine has spent almost 2 yrs not being challenged at this point.

Sigh... so far, we've been trying to talk her through it and then change her materials when she really seems to balk. Math is becoming more and more of an area of contention. She was so intuitive with it in her early years- did all of the Singapore earlybird math when she was two and a new three. I'm looking into a tutor for next year, as I am tired of the strife.

Not being challenged often leads to kids who are afraid to take intellectual risks, and end up in a habit of underachieving. It is a real and very serious issue, and you are right to be concerned.

good luck!

Thanks so much for answering back. I was trying to think if we had a process or not. Mainly I guess I have been talking through things on whatever days we have issues and then backing off at our next session and doing smaller chunks to show DD8 that she can do it. She is capable of more than she knows I think just judging from what I see her figure out with no explanation. I definitely agree with the comment about risks and I was thinking on that one. I'm hoping it's a matter of building confidence and that maybe she will cope better as she gets older.

I doubt I will ever convince my DH that two engineers need to PAY a tutor for math ....But I have been using mentors/friends for other issues. Non-academic example, bike riding wo training wheels. DD8 had refused to try or mostly even ride her bike even w/training wheels due to an accident over a year ago where she fell. Finally a friend worked with her and basically goaded her into trying and it took less than 10 minutes. I'm afraid it's a bit of perfectionism. She absolutely hates to be wrong.