As I was researching "What it all means", I came across reference to a table in the test manual that gives age equivalencies for WISC scores. I haven't been able to find anything beyond a brief mention and the website I read specifically said that the table was strictly for tester reference, not for reporting purposes. But, being obsessive curious, I was wondering if anyone had heard of the table or possibly had access to it.

Thanks!

Is it this? http://vcbconsulting.com/gtworld/iqgrade.html

I'm not sure how valid it is for WISC scores...

We got age equivalents for each of the subtests in her WISC scores, but not for the 4 areas (VCI, PRI, etc) or the FSIQ. It makes sense to me that way... I wouldn't think the age equivalency of a full scale would have too much meaning (since the exact same numerical scores can come from so many different profiles).

Wow, if that chart is correct, even children with IQs 1 SD above the mean should be working significantly above grade level. For instance, it places kids with IQs of 115 one full grade level or more above the avg grade level for that age. For kids in the 125 range (which should be about the 95th percentile -- not quite MG), it puts them two full grade levels+ above the presumed grade in which they would be enrolled.

Given that the Iowa Acceleration Scale does not recommend grade skipping any child with an IQ below 130, I wonder what the expectation is for kids who, apparently, could do work in the next grade level but don't meet that 130 mark. It also makes me wonder about kids who are presumed to be gifted by their parents or schools due to high achievement (1-2 grade levels advanced) who, in fact, may just be bright avg -- especially b/c our local schools are in the habit of identifying kids as gifted utilizing achievement scores alone and even grade skipping kids without the IQ piece. We're apparently a rarity in that we have the IQ scores for our kids but only b/c we tested privately.

Perhaps this goes back to the reason why ALL of these age and grade equivalents should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Aren't these equivalencies just saying that a child with the given IQ has the same capability as the AVERAGE child of the age or grade stated? It seems to me that that is a far different thing from saying that the child should be accelerated to that grade or even doing work for that grade level. After all, how many of us would be happy if our child were operating at an average level for a particular grade in an average school? And we're talking national averages, not just in a upscale communities with "good" schools.

Right, I don't but it is not uncommon where I live. Most of the kids who are working above grade level are identified as gifted in the two local schools we have attended (which may be why btwn 20-40% of the kids in my girls' school have a gifted id) and we personally know two kids who were skipped a grade without IQ scores -- b/c the parents really pushed for it & the kids were performing at least one grade level above level in most or all subjects.

I know that this is a pet peeve of mine, but b/c so many of these kids (bright, high achievers) are not in the traditional classroom, but rather in a GT pull-out class for part of the day, the traditional classroom really doesn't offer enrichment appropriate for kids who need more than avg grade level work -- at least where we live.

I wouldn't certainly. The only reason we agreed to move dd#1 up a grade was b/c we were as confident as we could be that she would still be an above avg student in the next grade up, which thus far she has been.

I just hadn't seen a chart like that before and I guess that it caught me off guard to see what the expectations were for bright, but not gifted, kids in terms of achievement. It also gave me insight into why our TAG classes are so full when achievement scores are all you need to get the kids in.

I guess that chart also explains why most of the independent schools in our area work. Most of them claim to be a year ahead of the public schools. I guess that is a good fit for many of those bright kids who need a little more.

Yeah, we got some of that too including from family members who said that so many of the other kids in the family were really smart, too, but none of them needed to skip a grade, so why should dd? From other parents, I tend to take it as defensiveness. From my parents, I don't know what it is, but I didn't really care what the other kids in the family needed nor was I prepared to comment on their needs. I only know about my kid.

Given that both of my girls are in those GT pull-outs that I mentioned, I guess that I also shouldn't care whether the std classrooms are meeting the needs of other kids. The GT classrooms generally aren't, either, though b/c they are stuffed with bright high achievers whose parents have them in extra tutoring.

My sibling and I required different yardsticks. I was considered "off-the-charts" with some testing, but I was probably just slightly off-the-chart -- maybe into the margin at the edge of the page.

My sister, though, was not only "off-the-charts," but also off-the-wall, out-the-door and down-the-hall.

Is that "normal" - children who are bright average work 1-2 grades ahead and children above bright average (like Superior and higher) work more than 2 grades ahead?

According to the chart posted on pg 1 of this thread, I guess that is typical. Of course, I would have to assume that this is given reasonably decent teaching that is geared toward teaching somewhat above avg for an above avg kid.

eta: (prefaced with the note that both of my dds are gifted to some degree, so in that superior-very superior range on IQ tests) anecdotally, dd#1 works on average 4-12 grades above level in her areas of strength depending on the year and how high the achievement tests she takes go each year and btwn 2-4 grades above level in her weaker area (math). Dd#2 is such an erratic human being, that it is hard to say where she is working from day to day.

Thanks for answering. My dd, though young, recently tested in the superior range and is working 2 grades above. Apparently that doesn't make sense in terms of that chart, huh? It's hard for charts to really take into account every aspect of a child, I guess.

My oldest, whom I was describing above, was tested on the WISC-IV at 7 yrs 4 months and also the WJ-III (achievement) at the same time. She was right on the cusp btwn the 98th and 99th percentile on the WISC at that time. Her total achievement scores were about 2-3 grades above level as well, but within the WJ, her scores varied from grade 18+ (writing), 11-12 (reading), to 2nd (math calculation). Over time she has evened out more, but the total scores did average out some pretty disparate scores. I wouldn't let achievement scores lead me to believe that a child isn't as gifted as her ability scores say she is.