I couldn't get the search feature to work at all in order to look up the thread on this topic, hence this new post on the subject.

I just received a newsletter saying that Dr. Ruf's new site, TalentIgniter, is now up and running.

Sorry if this has already been posted.

TalentIgniter

Does anyone have experience with this program? I know some of you assisted with piloting - is it worth the $45?

Thanks! :-)

I personally wouldn't pay for it. (I wouldn't pay for her book either, but that's just me.) Since the website seems to offer the same content as her book, perhaps you could find a local library that has the book and escape paying for the website. There just seem to be better ways to spend $45 on a child's education.

I don't know anything about Dr. Ruf or this website, but I took a quick look at the descriptions of levels of giftedness and the I.Q. ranges they are supposed to correspond to seem way off to me.

One of my kids is very consistent across different areas and has taken the WPPSI-III (140), WISC IV (148), and SB V (140, but he was quite sick and rescheduling wasn't an option). This testing was done with two different testers. Because of his extreme consistency I doubt his I.Q. is being underestimated, but it's not being overestimated either. He is physically healthy and has been in a simulating and secure environment since birth, so no issues there. IOW, I am reasonably confident that his I.Q. is no lower than 140 and no higher than 148. So going by I.Q. he should be in the level 4-5 range. He is no where near what is described for level 5, and it would be a stretch to describe him as level 4. Level 3 I could go along with, but even some of those criteria seem too advanced to describe him. However, Dr. Ruf says the frequency of level 3 children is one in 100 - my son is clearly more unusual than that. In fact, I would argue that he is not 1 in 200 either (what Dr. Ruf estimates as the frequency of Level 4). So going by frequency and I.Q. he is clearly level 4-5. But the descriptions seem a little, uhh...insane?

Now, I know my children and I am very confident that they aren't "out there" smart. I do realize that there are other children doing exceptional things - I don't think it's a fairy tale for a child to read at 2. But I also don't think that judging a child's intellect on such criteria as, "They have favorite TV shows before 6-8 months" has much value. And although my kids happen to have been extremely alert infants I'm sure there are a lot of babies who were not who turned out to be smart.

In short - these levels of giftedness seem way, way out of whack to me. I'd be curious to hear what other people think. I have another son who is not so consistent who i could not even attempt to categorize using Ruf's descriptions.

I agree. They don't work for my kids either. I think her lists probably speak most to the clientele she is serving. If it is useful info to people, great. But if your child doesn't neatly fall into those particular groupings, I don't think it's necessarily very telling.

Edited to say, I'm quite sure I wasn't too alert when my kids were born either. ROFL! Those early milestones are a blur to me as well. I watched old video of my daughter (now just turned 6) in the past year of her at about 3 months. She was laying in DH's lap saying her own name over and over. Ummm ... really? I filmed the video and I never picked up on it at the time.

Good points. I don't know if the apparent problem is lack of sufficient data, gross over-generalization, or what. The Ruf levels don't seem to account for different flavors of 2E, delayed verbal development of some exceptionally math-talented children, etc. The Ruf levels (in the overviews I have read) seem to potentially have conflicting criteria, as well as to place extreme emphasis on early precociousness (which I think is certainly quite telling but just as certainly not the whole picture in predicting maximum potential in any area).

I also read some comments elsewhere on the web questioning the accuracy of the Ruf levels on various grounds, which whether true or not, made me feel in the end that I just wasn't interested enough to pay to read her book. But maybe I am grossly oversimplifying myself-- I know of the Ruf levels only from browsing websites.

I did notice that the Ruf website says that parents can get the main thrust of the Ruf classification from her book, so if I were interested, I would probably buy that instead of subscribing to the website. I am a book person, though.

I guess I'm one of the few that it does work for and was my wake up call when I read her book. DD and our experience with her was all in the examples. We had that infant who was alert from birth, even helped deliver herself during the c-section. She was also a very early verbal baby. Obsessed with books from 3 months on and learned ABCs by 9 months which was not my doing but her own obsession with some letter books we had in the closet and brought out for a toddler who came for a visit one day. What she isn't is a child interested in puzzles. My sister bought her a shape sorter for Christmas when DD was barely a year and DD was able to use it but didn't really care for it, so it sat in a box forever.

I went ahead and paid for the assessment because price wasn't much and since we have no plans of testing DD right now. I wasn't shocked by the results but found it interesting that Ruf's assessment places DD higher than I did by reading the book.

Thanks for the comments - I, too, have some hesitancy about the LOG descriptions. DD6 tested at 139, which places her at Level 3 or 4, but many of the bullets on each list don't seem to describe her. I also don't remember how alert she was at birth, as she screamed for the entire first 8 months of her life (until she figured out how to walk), and I was too busy trying to figure out what was wrong with her! Her sister was born when DD was 13 months old, so those first couple of years are pretty much a blur. *I* wasn't very alert myself!

Anyway, DD has never been that interested in traditionally "academic" pursuits - she's learning to read only slightly ahead of the "norm" (I'd estimate 1-2 years above grade level) and was never that interested in learning her letters, etc. as a toddler. However, by ages 3-4 she had a massive vocabulary and was asking complex questions about evolution, sex, and religion - questions I don't know if many people EVER contemplate. But she certainly wasn't adding 3 digit numbers in her head or working with fractions just for fun. So after reading Ruf's book, I have often wondered if the testing was wrong??

It makes me feel better to hear some of your opinions regarding the LOG issue....thanks for your thoughts! :-)

I suspect a lot of people's child(ren) will test a little lower because from posts I've read in the past a lot of people don't agree with Ruf's alignment of levels. Some have even argued that their child is in DYS which means the child has to be profoundly gifted but Ruf only categorizes them as a level 4.

And yes I paid for the assessment and did it really to answer my own question of where Ruf would classify my child by her standards; basically, I did it more for curiosity about my interpretation of her book. I would definitely need to pay for an IQ test if I wanted to really get into it all, but like I stated; I have no plans at this point to do so, because we are happy with our school choice at the moment. If this changes and we need to move DD we will have no problem taking the steps of testing her. But from the assessment I received about DD, I didn't find it off base.

I am a Ruf fan, in spite of the flaws in her methods and reporting.

Now, I would caution anyone and everyone to resist getting too worked up about the levels, just as I would caution people not to reduce a child to an IQ number. The levels are a tool. Tools are good for some jobs and utterly destructive for others. The levels don't work well at all for most 2E kids or for late-bloomers, for example. I find that very problematic and limiting.

But to jar a parent--like, say, ME!--out of gifted denial, Ruf's book is very useful. I thought DS9 was "just" moderately gifted, and we were prepared to spend years trying to jam the square peg that he is into the school's round hole, no matter how disasterous the results. Ruf's book changed all that for me. The anecdotal evidence of other gifted kids was useful to me because I could see my son in the children she described. I could see where he was "more this, but less that" than the kids she discussed. That was more useful to me at the time than test scores, which were just numbers on a page. Ruf's book brought the kids to life for me so I could understand levels of giftedness in a way I hadn't understood it before.

As a hard-and-fast way of nailing a kid's IQ or future achivement or whatever, though? Not so useful. And while I think she goes too far about what "must" happen for gifted kids, since personality matters a lot and all kids are different, I will be forever grateful to Dr. Ruf for giving me permission to homeschool from a pro when I needed it. Her book saved our DS9 and our family from all sorts of headaches and heartaches. I'd go so far as to say that it was life-changing for us.

With numerous caveats about its weaknesses, I still recommend her book to parents who seem to need a wake-up call, as I needed. More than anything else I've read about gifted kids, it serves that role. I wish there were better, less anecdotal research out there to fill that role, but to my knowledge there is not. It's not perfect, but it really, really helped our family!

As for the website, I think it's like the book in that it's a first step/wake-up call. It's a computer applying the lists in the book to a given child. Any parent could do the same thing without paying the money. I don't think it is anything definitive, nor is it really supposed to be, I suspect.

Oh, I will also add that it never pays to assume that everyone is using the same definition of PG. Ruf's scale, the various IQ tests, and DYS requirements do not line up neatly. Personally, I like the Davidson definition of "beyond the capacity of the current testing instruments to measure accurately" because a kid who fits that bill is almost certainly in need of some sort of special educational attention, but that isn't unanimously accepted as a definition. There are certainly level 4s and even some level 3s in DYS, not just level 5s. <shrug> The kids need help, so I personally don't see a problem with that.

A friend was just telling me that a tester who is experienced with testing HG+ kids recently told her that her child isn't PG because she doesn't have a 180 IQ. The WISC only goes to 160-ish, even with extended scoring! A different tester is sure the child is PG. Clearly Tester #1 has a more restrictive definition of PG than Tester #2.

Who's right? It depends entirely on how one defines the term PG. That the gifted/testing community(s) aren't all together on this issue only adds to the confusion.

Same here. It was my very first book about gifted children I read. I was quite shocked by the discovery that not only was my older one gifted but he was much more than MG. I enjoyed the anecdotal evidence much more than Ruf's list of milestones. Reading what other parents had to say and comparing my child to theirs was an eye opening experience. It was exactly what I needed at that time.

I, like others don't buy into her way of basing LOG on early milestones, but I do like the idea of different LOGs and the fact that the needs of MG and PG are not exactly the same.

If I remember it correctly both of my DYS fit nicely into the Level 4 category when they were around the age of 4. I based more decision more on the anecdotal evidence than the lists. It has been a while since I opened the book, perhaps it's time to see what I would think about it now.

BTW Was it only me or were there others who were slightly surprised by the LOGs Dr. Ruf assigned to her own children?


I too would suggest the book just to see what other parents dealt with, what they children used to do, what problems they faced. It's really interesting from that point of view.

That said I could see myself paying for the test way, way back, when I knew close to nothing about gifted children.

I have huge issues with the levels...but I agree with Kriston that they can be useful. In particular, they were helpful in making DH see that DD is gifted, and likely HG+.

We did participate in the beta test. Honestly, I think that even if one believes in the levels one can probably get a better idea of where one's child fits in by reading the book. The online system, by it's very nature, focuses on a very few developmental skills, which, as we all know, are not the whole picture of a child. But, if you want to convince a reluctant spouse, and you don't want to read the book, that could be worth $45. We did have results that were in line with what we expected (though, to our amusement, we did it twice with oddly different distributions).

I also think that there is a risk that anyone familiar with the levels will "remember" milestones that will place the child at the LOG that the parent believes the child belongs at. It's just the nature of memories of things that happened years ago that, unless you've got them written down, it is so easy to convince yourself that they happened at a slightly different time than when they really happened. And it is also easy to interpret many of Ruf's milestones differently. I imagine that a person who wants a child to be gifted will apply a much more liberal definition to "plays with a shape sorter" than someone who is hoping the child is not gifted, for example.

Okay, I've babbled long enough.

An accurate baby book that noted many of the same things that Ruf notes was really necessary when we walked through the levels. I think that's a big drawback, particularly for second and later children. I didn't even bother to try to figure out the Ruf LOG with DS6 because I just hadn't paid as much attention to those things.

I find the whole thing to be problematic and I would actively discourage parents from this service. I feel very fortunate that I read this book AFTER our child had already had good assessments and after he was old enough to have revealed a high level of acheivement. If we'd relied on this when he was a preschooler we absolutely would have been lead down the wrong path.

According to the book our child is maybe a level two or three. According to comprehensive educational evaluation and acheivement (DYS, over 700 on every section of the SAT by age 11, etc.) he's PG without a doubt. So, I can only say it not at all difficult for me to imagine a parent of a preschooler doing this test and thinking "whew level two, nothing to worry about" when in reality they were dealing with a very different situation. This may delay a parent from seeking out needed and appropriate testing and educational planning.

Also, I just have to say I find the title of "You can find out how smart your child is today" to be totally deceptive.

I read the book, looked at the assessment but haven't done it. I have a DYS who is a strong level 4 with some spikey 5s. BUT... and that's a big BUT... he is only a strong level 4 with any milestones that come after age 2.

My DS is a preemie (just by one month but born sickly with an APGAR score of 0 and a 10 day stay in the nursery). His medications made him basically comatose or screaming bloody murder for months. He didn't roll, sit, look at books, watch TV or really anything at all until 7 mo when he came off the medications. It was obvious within a month that he would have been a very attentive baby but he was too ill.

I have an accurate record because we were keeping one for medical issues. If I subtract 6 months to a year off of every milestone to account for his slowed development, he's easily a high Level 4 with more 5s.

$45 will get you halfway to testing with our university's ed.psych program in training... not the best results but better in my own head than any online assessment...

I don't know about paying the money to get the online report...but reading the info about levels of giftedness helped convince me to have my son tested. I wouldn't rely on historical information as a diagnostic tool, but reading the characteristics was good for pushing me to pursue official testing because I was wishy-washy in my head. Is he gifted or not? back and forth. Nan

I too am one of the ones the book worked for, as dd falls fair and square within the levels, which also correspond with her testing - though I'd also agree the anecdotes were much more telling than the lists. I also found the book significantly more useful than the online lists.

I don't know that her sample is really big enough to make definitive statements about LOG, but they were useful for me to fill out our test results. They were also useful to me in the early stages of thinking about dd being gifted and, because it matched what was going on for dd, it convinced me it was something I needed to follow up.

In terms of this test, I don't know that it is something I would pay for. I probably would have prior to dd doing her SB5 because I was so hungry for confirmation that it wasn't all in my head. I think I would have still been unconvinced though, given it's online, it's me trying to remember etc.

Wow - now I wish we had that as a local option! Dr. Ruf is within probably 10-15 miles of us, but we just can't justify the expense as homeschoolers. Especially now that we've seen 2 years of consistent PG level achievement scores that only cost us $100.

I will say even though I'm not a fan of the Ruf levels for my own kids or necessarily this online tool, I am a fan of Dr. Ruf and what she's done for the local GT community. I think all parents just need to read parenting and education books with a grain of salt and realize that their mileage may vary.

Kimck- you could probably fly to me in CA and get it done for cheaper than Ruf's going rate :-)

I just got back from vacation last night and found this same email in my large bunch of emails. I, too, have wondered about the levels just as a whole b/c dd11 fits very clearly into level 4 with a few level 5 and a few level 3 areas. She isn't nearly that highly gifted from what I can tell though. IQ puts her at MG and achievement at HG.

In re to paying for the online assessment, like others have said, I'm not sure what one could do with the info since it seems unlikely to get one's child into any programming. I am also a bit cautious about retrospective studies which is essentially what these levels/milestones are. I know too many parents, for instance, who have told me that their kids were speaking in sentences at 18 months whose kids were barely saying a few words at that age (and not combining any of them). I wonder if it might be subject to parental misrecollection especially if the parent is prone to over or underestimating their children already.

This has been a fantastic thread so far.

Cricket, I agree with you about the flaws inherent to retrospective studies, but I wonder about this:

No doubt some of these parents were overrepresenting their kids, or being lax on the meaning of the word "sentence", but how do you know their kids were "barely saying a few words at that age". Pretty much every kid I know does way more in the comfort of their house than they do in public. Now this is perhaps an extreme case (and it's not about age; just about the fact that the evidence in front of a person may not be all the evidence there is), but my dd spent her 2nd year in a day care with three fantastic "teachers" who were very loving to her, and whom she was fond of and at least one of them never heard her say a SINGLE word for over half the year. DD is not 2E, she is not particularly shy, and she talks (and at that time was talking) like a parrot at home. Her teacher didn't know she could say two words (except for the fact that I kept on reassuring her that she talked, and relating anecdotes from day care that dd would tell me about), much less would she have guessed that dd is gifted. So... MMV?

How do you go about finding this info out?


I'm curious about my daughter who will be 5 soon. I doubt we'll be able to get her tested through the school as she will probably comply and do the 'easy' work and won't have the behavior issues our son somewhat had. She was a 29 week preemie but once she hit about 18 months or so she really took off and is almost on par in some ways as her brother was at her age.

Careful, this is starting to sound a lot like 'they all even out by X'.

I understand Clay's point because I, too, have one of those kids who was talking in complete sentences by 6 months and I'm not talking about made up words but real sentences. I was over at my mother's house one day and was exhausted since my crazy baby did not nap so I took advantage of the extra hands and crashed on my mother's bed while my mother and grandmother played with DD. They were begging her to take a nap and pointed to me in the other room sleeping. DD wasn't having any of it and said "I'm not my mother." Very clearly and meant it. She was also asking her "what's this" and "what's that" questions none stop at this time. YET out in public she was tight lipped and hardly ever said anything. Only when she was distracted by something that excited her did she forget where she was and open up which was met with open mouths and complete shock by strangers. And btw, may just be my experience but have noticed how this attitude extended into school time and DD's need to just fit in.

This said, I know a few people who exaggerated their children's speech ability and one in particular couldn't remember half of what she told people. One day her daughter was talking crazy sentences yet by age 2 she hadn't formed a sentence and needed to be tested, etc. It got to the point that I took in the information with a wait and see approach. But this is also a person who is VERY competitive and was clearly trying to hothouse her child. Whenever she heard stories from others about what their child was doing she ran home and set up shop to teach curriculum to her daughter even though her daughter had shown no interest in anything she was trying to teach her.

LOL ... I know you weren't but just had to chuckle and maybe make a poke at you at how close we are crossing into the 'famous' saying. Trust me ... I have never thought you roll your eyes at people on this board. You are definitely a major supporter and helper on this board.

-hugs!

I haven't read all the responses but this online assessment is perfect for someone like me. I don't think my dd is "off the charts" or even Davidson material. And I don't want to pay a high price to get her tested when there's really no need (we home school).

But am I curious? Absolutely. So here's a low priced way to satsify my curiousity.

It doesn't matter to me if her LOGs are completely perfect. I think a lot of people who will use this are going to be like me - you suspect and have a low cost way to confirm (or disprove).

ROFL - not to mention I'd get to visit California! I'd take a visit to wine country or San Francisco any day.

Ditto K's Mom. I love this board and the frequent flyers! I have learned a lot here and know I will continue to do so. I guess I'm just concerned about someone being overlooked because there are so many "false positives". Of course, it's not our responsibility to screen for giftedness, BUT I think to the degree that we have a heads up on a lot of people (having done some of the research and knowing about online resources), and to the degree that IMHO some people seem to emphasize the wrong thing when their kids exhibit any signs of precociousness, I at least want to be a helpful source to potentially gifted kids and their parents, which means checking my assumptions -- which was the point of my original post.

From my experience, I wouldn't recommend it for kids under 6 or 7. The testers are young and new- they are ed.psychs in the process of finishing their credentials and coursework. They don't often have experience testing young children.

For example, when we tried it with my son who had just turned 5, he asked what the giant mirror in the room was for. The tester replied "Oh there are people in there watching you!" She thought she was being funny... she scared the living daylights out of him.

However, it can be a very inexpensive and useful way to get some information! I called our university's education department and asked if they offered IQ/Achievement testing for a reduced rate for their psych in training. They said yes, scheduled an appointment and I paid $75. I believe the going rate is now $90.

Another option is to call a neighboring school district and talk to their school psychologist. Some have psychologists who do private testing on the side. Our "real" tester is one of these and has worked fabulously with my son.

I agree. I do recall dd9's ped asking me if she was saying any words yet at around 12-18 months b/c she was totally silent at her dr apt. She had been speaking since 5 months and was a non stop chatterbox at home. That said, I am as certain as I can be in some of these instances that there is some significant overestimation going on. I don't believe that it is a result of malice but more parental insecurity and comparing their children to others who were somewhat delayed. Things like, "uh, uh, uh!" were interpreted as "sentences" the same as reading DRA level 8 books in 1st grade (exact # reported to me by the mom) was interpreted as "third grade level."

I'm really not a fan of gauging a child's LOG based on parental reports unless there is significant data to support this (and not just a child who reads above grade level).

This is me, for the most part. I remember in particular that my mother-in-law, who often took care of DD when I was at work, would tell me these wild tales of all these things DD had said...and I never believed a word of it. I had a strict rule that until she said a word clearly and in context 3 times, without hearing someone say it earlier in the conversation, I wouldn't count it as a word. I do think that sold her short a bit, but if I'd counted everything she said that sounded like a word or a sentence with meaning, I'd have seemed (and felt) insane. I still don't know whether she was just good at making a variety of sounds and combining them in a variety of ways earlier than other babies (which certainly was true) or whether she was really trying to talk. At the time I really did not believe that babies could talk, but I've come to accept that it is possible.



LOL. But this is me too. Not with the exaggeration thing, but with the memory. I just have a lousy memory. People have caught me changing my story and I just say, "Well, the way I told it first must be the truth." I don't lie, but my memories fade rapidly.

If I thought that was true of Ruf's work, I wouldn't like it either. I agree completely that intelligence isn't fixed. Frankly, I can't really imagine anyone would say that it is these days. Maybe 100 years ago, but not today, with all the scientific evidence to the contrary.

But I never took Ruf's work as claiming that intelligence is fixed. I think of her as a detective looking for clues. Some of the clues pop up early. Some don't. I think her book focuses more than it should on the early stuff that most people didn't notice. But I don't think she's saying that nothing ever changes when it comes to intelligence or that late-bloomers don't ever occur.

I think perhaps you're taking things further than Ruf intended. Certainly I wouldn't sign on to what you're describing.

I would be curious to hear everyone's reaction to this part of the FAQ:

"Sometimes the Ruf Estimates indicate a lower result than previous testing indicated. There are three possible explanations for this:

* The parent couldn�t fill in enough of the questions on the Ruf Estimates form to make it possible to estimate the child�s relative intelligence, strengths and weaknesses. Remember, it is important to have good records or a reasonably good memory of your child�s early interests, behaviors and milestones in order to make the Ruf Estimates effective for you.
* On very rare occasion an assessment professional will score children too high. In my experience, you will find a surprising number of parents who report exceptionally high scores for their children and it will trace back to a particular assessment professional. This is very rare but it does occasionally occur.
* Most test companies, such as Riverside Publishing and Counseling Psychology Press, recommend waiting at least six months between testing sessions for the same child so as to rule out "practice effects." Very bright children should wait at least one year, however, because their memories are so good. Finally, some gifted children remember too much even when more than a year has passed, and the resulting higher score will not indicate a more valid assessment for that child."

Yeah, I think that Ruf feels that her levels are essentially infallible. Not so cool.

I also thought this was funny:

I should be so lucky!

I think I'm missing the joke. Why is this funny?

Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds like what we say here all the time--that IQ is not really one number but a range. And the part about the profile seems very much in line with the "if it looks PG and sounds PG and acts PG (over time), it's probably PG"--or in this specific example, MG--philosophy that so many of us espouse.

What am I not getting?

Oh, I now get it thanks to Dottie.

I still think the notion of a range is better, since so many parents--especially newbies to testing--get locked on that one number. I don't think that's a bad idea at all. But obviously the quickie evaluation isn't better than the full one-on-one kind.

I think taking the marketing too seriously is probably not a good idea. They *are* trying to sell something, after all. As with anything, caveat emptor, for sure!

Wow!! That is REALLY interesting, essentially she is saying that her computerized assessment is more precise than a tester who actually saw and interacted with the child one on one.

Yes, certainly some testers test higher than others, but I don't think that would account for most of the discrepancies. As PP have said, there are some kids that fit the Ruf mold very well and others that do not. I know many gifted children who were early in physical milestones and many that were not.

I am pretty sure that the assessment would not provide me with a close estimate of where my DYS is. While she is certainly not PG (other than by the DITD definition) she is HG+. Her current achievement levels (both formally tested and simply observed by the type of things she is doing, would not be predicted by the LOG she would probably get from the assessment. She misses many of the level 4 marks from her lists in the parts of earlier development, but checks most from when she was 5. The things that stood out with her were items that are not found in Ruf's list like imagination, pretend play, problem solving, etc.

Oh, well, the funny thing for me is that of course an IQ number does signify a range. So the idea that knowing a LOG, and extrapolating from that a range of possible IQ scores, could be more helpful than knowing a single IQ score, and extrapolating from that a LOG, is just silly to me. And again it illustrates a sense of superiority that I don't believe is warranted.



But if I'd done that, I'd never have gotten to read your thoughts on testing accuracy, and I thought they were pretty interesting.

Superiority not warranted. But for a newbie with no real understanding of testing, the range idea is going to be a new concept. It's silly to *you* because you've been around the block, but I don't think this site is for you. Or me. It's step one in the journey and we're on step 12 (or whatever).

That doesn't mean that I think it's worth the money. I don't generally like online tests like this myself, and I don't think I'd have used this even when I was a newbie. But I feel like judging it from where we are now isn't really fair.

I know I'm late coming to this thread but I've read through the responses so far with great interest. About a year ago when I first came here, Ruf's book was the first thing recommended to me. I got it and it did help a lot. It was fun to hear about the other kids and it also was a little eye opening that maybe DH and myself weren't just "hard workers" as I also thought but possibly higher up on the gifted spectrum than we thought (after know more about giftedness and comparin test scores that I know I've had, at least, it seems to confirm this). So I'm thankful in that respect. It showed me that I needed to learn how to be more of a hard worker and that I was in fact coasting by a lot of the time.

As for how it relates to DD. I read it with a grain of salt, but then again I knew already that it was possible to have even large delays in your milestones and turn out gifted (because that's exactly what happened with DH). But I could definitely see how a parent who had a kid that for whatever reason was a slow starter could read that book and get the wrong impression. But then again, I doubt that parent would be as likely to pick up that book, you know?

So as for the online test... I guess, sure it has its flaws, which most of you have pointed out well already but I still think it could have some uses. We're not going to fork over the money ourselves, because, well, I'm cheap! But I could understand why somebody would do so. I'd rather pay for real testing when DD is a lot older and it's needed for school (if we go that route).

I also wanted to add....


That sounds EXACTLY like DH. When it comes to work related things his memory is great but for DD's milestones, watch out! I've heard him talk to other people and they are all over the place. I've actually kept records of them so I have a good idea of when she did everything but he can be anywhere from 1 month to half a year off! He certainly doesn't do it on purpose, because he'll go both directions with them, it's just that he doesn't worry to much about them.

If I had seen this and believed it when my child was a preschooler it would have been step one down a totally messed up and inaccurate path. I haven't done this test but I have read the book thoroughly. If she uses the same measures what I would have been told is that my kid was MG at most when in fact he's high level PG. This type of inaccurate tool may have led me to not have him individually evaluated or to believe that he needed something totally different educationally than he needed.

I think people with more experience are EXACTLY the ones who should feel free to speak out about this and discourage reliance on this sort of tool. If was posting about my four year old I may well have said "great tool, loved the reports, appreciated getting this information" because I might have had no idea the information I got was totally wrong.

Yes, that's exactly my problem with it.

Perhaps she needs to add to the list as possible explanations

1. LOG are just something I made up and have barely studied with a small fairly homogeneous sample of kids so they might not be at all accurate.

2. This tool is not accurate for kids with disabilities which is a big problem given the large percent of the gifted population that is 2E.

3. An online predictor tool that you pay $45 for is simply not as accurate as a complete educational assessment conducted by a trained individual who has actually met your kid using instruments that have been studied and used on thousands of people. Duh.

My child has had two totally independent comprehensive educational evaluations. They were not with testers who are known for high scores. (let's read between the lines and guess she's likely suggesting the GDC). Our child tested on different instruments more than a year apart and has subsequently been tested on out of level instruments like the SAT. His results have been absolutely consistent from one test to another and consistent with his extremely high level of acheivement.

As we had developmental concerns from the beginning of his life we have comprehensive notes on milestones. So, not one of Ruf's excuses for the inaccuracy of her levels applies. They simply do not work for our asynchronous kid. Perhaps that wouldn't be much of a problem if asynchrony wasn't widespread in the gifted population. I hate to think about parents seeking out this kind of tool and absolutely being led down the wrong path to understanding their child.

I'm not saying don't speak up. I'm saying don't judge it as if you were using it today, when you already know a lot of these things. Two very different issues. I think it's absolutely fair to criticize. But it's not fair to say that "of course it's a range," when a lot of newbies don't know that.

If you feel that it would have led you down a terrible path, that's important to say.

I can't speak for other parents but I can say that we were picking up any and every book we could find. Books about giftedness, autism, auditory processing, Einstein syndrome, sensory processing, etc. You name it. We knew there was *something* but really had no idea exactly what it was. Given the many posts I've seen from parents in similar situations here I think that is probably not too uncommon.

My biggest worry, frankly, is the 2E issue. That tends to be a glaring hole for pretty much all methods of IDing giftedness, however, to some extent. I'm not sure this is worse than any other. I'm also not saying it's better than any other.

More options are better than fewer. That is always my standard line because I think all kids are different and what works for one doesn't work for another. We need more choices.

To me this seems clearly worse than any other. With an individual assessment with someone interacting one on one with our child they were able to give us very clear interpretations not just of the data but also of their observations of the child's behavior during the exam. They can provide analysis of patterns in subsection scores and how those may have been influenced disabilities. This confirmed some of what we knew and gave us further directions for testing and treatment. We also got very honest feedback about what was perceived to be accurate and inaccurate in the testing. I can't imagine anything remotely like that coming from this site where she's telling you if something doesn't work it is that your memory is faulty or that you had a bad assessor.

I guess, I'm surprised by this. This is completely anecdotal but I do have some friends whose kids had delays... none of them went in the direction of giftedness (at least that I know of). I'm curious... what made you think to pick up books on giftedness/Einstein syndrome? Was there giftedness in your family or where there some signs that might have been but weren't something as obvious as what Ruf discusses (stuff like early talking/reading etc.)? I guess, if DD had had delays in the beginning it's not something I would've thought of (then again, I knew very little about giftedness before having DD).

Oh, I'm probably only on step 2 or 3. But I'm not saying that it's silly to explain that an IQ score represents a range. I'm saying that it's silly to claim that a range is better than an IQ score. I don't think this is shorthand for beginners who might otherwise have trouble understanding; I think it is intentionally inaccurate and meant to deceive.



I wonder if making that statement would have an impact on her bottom line?

This might cheer you up, PTP: Perhaps because her program doesn't have much more information than her list of milestones did, it seems she's removed the list from her website. Perhaps that'll make her schema less prevalent rather than more. I'll also note that an online "test" for $45 that will tell me how smart my kid is sets of my b*llsh*t alarm big time. This isn't the only one out there, and it's probably not less accurate than most (not that I've beta tested any of the others).

Did your friends kids turn out to be gifted?

Yes, I'm sure some of our suspicion was due to family history. However, I suspect we also sought out information because there was an odd and confusing mix of behaviors. It was hard to know - are these sort of tricky savant behaviors or signs of something more indicating giftedness? If I read the first book I found on the subject didn't bother to discuss 2E kids or presented a list of milestones like in Ruf's book I might have been more inclined to dismiss it.

It has been a while since I read it, so correct me if I wrong, but it was not my recollection of Ruf's book that she says that one specific ability in a sea of developmental delays would still place a child at a high level of giftedness.

Everything Pass the Potatoes has said, and what Kriston said about identifying 2E kids, speaks strongly to my experience.

The parent's picking up that book and putting it down again isn't the worst of it.

Can you imagine the scenario of school staff reading that book and using it to exclude kids who don't meet the milestones from the "gifted" label? Arming the school with this kind of information that doesn't include the caveats PtheP mentioned leaves the 2E gifted with even more hurdles to overcome in negotiating the school identification process.

I'm all for meticulous research that includes not just the typical gifted (I know, ha ha) but also the outliers.

DeeDee

Thanks for sharing that gem No5no5. I appreciate that.

Just from another prospective. I never knew DS was GT until the end of kindergarten, at which time I started reading books. I got Ruf from the library shortly thereafter. And keep in mind, my child did hit the ceiling of a screener at school, but has never been fully tested by an expert.

So had I JUST picked up the Ruf book with my selective memory and hard grading, I would have pegged my kid level 1 or 2. Lucky for me I have that GT OCD syndrome, that forced me to read 20 books and spend hours researching this topic on the web. Honestly, I haven't even been comfortable calling my kid approaching PG until the past year where he pretty consistently hit some very high scores on achievement levels a few times (at age 9). And we run a pretty laid back homeschool in these parts.

Wow lots of posts to read since this morning.

Gratified:

I don't disagree with you, in that there are late bloomers and Ruf doesn't really account for this with her levels of giftedness. I have never argued against this reasoning but only offer that her study has some truth because I happen to have one of those infants/toddlers that matches up to her lists. I could almost use the book as a checklist for everything we were experiencing and because of that along with the stories the parents shared I finally had my wake up call. Before that I really had no idea what to make of it and was literally looking up issues on the spectrum freaking out and wondering if this is why my child was so abnormal in comparison to what I see and read. Milestones were a joke for me. I remember looking at them when DD was only 2 weeks old and laughing out loud at the absurdity of the lists because she had mastered all the milestones up to 3 months. I figured they were useless information and must be for the parents who had seriously delayed infants so they wouldn't worry. Sounds awful but is really what I thought. My grandmother was the one who kept pointing out how smart DD was and I kept rolling my eyes thinking of course you think that ... she is your great-grandbaby. So it wasn't until running a search on autism and a few others that I stumbled upon gifted which led me to this site. And when someone suggested Ruf's book I ordered it and read it and finally found some logic to what I saw. Do I think she has all of the answers? No and I completely agree that she overlooks a huge component in the gifted community: 2E, but I appreciate that she includes the infancy and toddler information. Before realizing that gifted is a term that doesn't start with school programs (yep that is what I thought it was for) we were set to send DD to local public school. We now realize that would not be in her best interest and absolutely love the school we discovered and she is very happy and growing there.

Now would I jump to the conclusion that you seem to have that my DD will flatten out? No, I don't. She will soon be 4 and her verbal skills are still growing. Her abilities are that of an adult. Even adding a second language hasn't slowed that down. We still see a vast difference in her verbal and that of a typical 4 or 5 year old. But she isn't only gifted in verbal. She is advanced across the board and we have all heard the bragging parents claims and what they focus on as 'brilliant' but I don't look at the typical tell tale signs. My focus is more on her sense of humor and quick wit; crazy imagination and over the top cognitive skills. These are the things that impress me and for me anyway ... are signs of giftedness.

But your right about kids who start late and grow leaps and bounds and will end up with the same IQ range as someone like my DD who showed signs from the start. I fully believe that every child is different and this means they all develop at their own pace.

There is no book that can adequately "diagnose" all gifted kids as gifted. Ruf's book resonated with enough of us--warts and all--that I get very nervous when people start sounding like they want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I'm not persuaded that the milestone list does more harm than good, but it worries me that it might. As the mom of one child who fit Ruf's levels (DS9) and one HG+/2E kid who does not (DS6), I can't really imagine reading one book, saying "well, that's not it," and giving up. The stuff DS6 is doing is too weird. I'd need more of an answer than that. So I have trouble imagining that anyone would really give up that easily. But I also realize that my experience and approach are not everyone's.

I don't think we need to assume that all newbies are idiots though. Sometimes it sounds like that's what's happening on this topic, and I don't think we have to do that. Nothing will work for everyone. This works for some people. It's one tool among many. Anyone who blindly follows the first book they pick up on this topic is in trouble no matter which book they pick!

I'm less sure that the website is a useful tool. I think I'm not 100% sure what the point is. It seems like the marketing is too aggressive, and I don't like that. As a babystep tool to help newbies, that might be okay--not ideal, but a starting point. But given the marketing, I fear it's just a moneymaker, and I don't like that. Psychologists are entitled to make a living, but there's a line there between getting the word out and exploiting people who don't know any better. I worry that the website might cross that line.

Quite interesting. I read her book last fall after considering it for few months. It did not help me much. I guess I'm too perfectionist to place DD on any level. She seems clearly more than 2 but not 5. Lot of Dr. Rufs level are based on things that are not very clear like: What kind of books (soft, board, normal) she means, what kind of puzzles and familiar or new puzzles? What does she mean adult level complexity in speech (at 3 DD speaks very well two languages but I obviously speak better at 30 so does that mean it is not adult level if I'm better) What does playing with shape sorter mean? DD played with one at 6mo when she got it as a gift but I don't think she could do it yet. What if you don't have a tv or believe that babies should not watch any. I basically had issues with most of the milestones as they are not clear to me. I could give different answers depending on what I decide she means (or how gifted I think DD is ). Maybe her theses would give clearer descriptions and seem more scientific from the methods point of view.

I checked the website and it said you can use the test for very advanced 3 year olds without saying what it means.

This has been an interesting conversation all - thanks! In re to this comment, I may be the outlier here, but I am coming from the perspective of living in an area where an outrageous # of kids are identified as gifted. Basically anyone who tests advanced on grade level reading or math achievement tests will likely be ided as gifted at some point if the parent so desires. I am, therefore, more concerned with people utilizing a checklist like this as "proof" that their children are gifted without further testing.

I've seen some kids for whom the label has become an albatross around their necks and has led to emotional challenges when they are trying to be someone they are not. I imagine that it would create some degree of internal dichotomy when you are believing that everything you encounter is related to your experience of being a gifted individual when that may not actually be the case.

It would be like telling my kids that, when they run into social problems, when they are bored or unhappy in school, etc., that it is related to their being autistic. They aren't autistic. My oldest could possibly be construed as having Asperger's by someone who really doesn't know what that looks like and I could likely have convinced her that she did when she was younger, but it wouldn't do her any good in the long run other than to cause internal discord. Gifted has a more positive connotation. I'm just concerned that parents seeking reasons for their kids normal bright kid behaviors might use a tool of this sort to convince themselves and/or their kids of things that are not true for that child.

Do you think this particular checklist would do that?

If anything, it seems to me that it would steer away some gifted kids, not make people think kids are gifted who are not. But maybe my memory of the checklist is flawed. (It has been several years...)

I could see either happening. A parent of a gifted late bloomer or one who doesn't fit neatly into her lists could be steered away, perhaps. A parent of a normal bright average child who has been led to believe that her child is gifted by the schools b/c the child reads above grade level, for example, could also misinterpret or misrecall early childhood milestones to fit in with the inaccurate perspective she already has.

It's been a while since I've seen this checklist as well, but I do recall that some of the items are very subjective: liking TV, reading chapter books, playing with shape sorters. As others have said, are we talking about a child who sucked on the shape sorter blocks and "played" with them or a child who was sorting hexagons into the correct holes? Are we talking about a child who watched Sesame Street like many other kids or a child who had some other unusual response to TV? Chapter books? A parent whose child loves to read and who reads well might call her 6 y/o reading Junie B. Jones the same as the child reading high level chapter books whereas I would call my 6 y/o reading The Call of the Wild her reading chapter books.

I didn't hear anyone suggest newbies are idiots. I haven't heard anything remotely like that. I sure don't think I'm an idiot, but I can very well remember what it feels like to be an overwhelmed parent of a complex 2E kid. It wasn't a matter of blindly following anything. Instead it was ab out being in a place of being worried, confused, terrified and reaching out for answers. I don't like to think of parents in that position being told for $45 they can get a report telling them how smart their child is. It is being presented as science and it is far from it.

I know several people now who have done the assessment online and all are happy they did- even if it only confirmed testing results they already had. I don't know anyone who was disappointed or frustrated. So for that alone, I think it's worth it to give some parents peace of mind. So often new parents are told they exaggerate, overestimate or are just too proud to see their kids as they really are. This is a way (if one is honest) to look and say "Okay I wasn't totally wrong." I see it more as a way to rule in, not rule out. Anyone who does it and comes out "not gifted" or whatever the output is, should not consider that the end all be all. Just as anyone who comes out "Level 3" or whatever, should not consider it done either. It's just a step in the road.

I appreciate Ruf's Levels because it was the first book I read that really laid out that it's not gifted vs. non-gifted. So much other literature for parents on the subject (not academic research) is simply a yes or no. When you have a kid that doesn't fit the box yes and doesn't fit the box no, you need more info. I just consider Ruf to have more info.

CAmom it sort of sounds like you are saying if your kids score high feel good about it, but if they don't ignore the result. Does that seem very scientifically accurate to you or more like a matter of horoscopes and fortune cookies?

For people who have already had kids assessed but are now seeking out this service, I wonder if that suggests some people are getting very limited, poor information as a result of testing. Having been through two assessments it was so clear to me that we were getting a lot of individualized specific information about our child that would go so far beyond any milestone quiz. I am aware though that we were lucky to get really good assessments. It seems like it is far too common for parents to be sent away without a lot of helpful information.

I did think it was nice to confirm what I thought. DS6 didn't have the best kindergarten year, the test confirmed what I believed. I would have guessed a level 2 and that's where she put him. At his last school he appeared to be even more gifted than moderately because it was a lower income school, he was years beyond his peers in some cases. With this assessment I can see I was right in moving him to a different school, I was right that while he's clearly gifted he is likely not profoundly so and I chose a school environment where he should fit in. It did serve to reassure me and give me a sense of what to expect next year.

I did find the milestones hard to remember, some were things I didn't notice at all and what I put could be off so I know the test isn't dead on accurate but I think it's close enough to give me a better sense of where he's at.

Well yes, actually it does seem slightly more accurate than fortune cookies but certainly not as accurate as a one-on-one assessment. It's based on some research (whether or not you deem it valid personally) and it can and should be just a piece of the puzzle. I'd like to see people who use it say "Okay, now I'm pretty sure she's gifted, so I'll do more reading and get a private evaluation." If most people who come to the topic hit google first, I don't think the worst thing they could do would be to use Ruf's tool to decide if they should pursue the topic further. Considering I came to the topic from a teacher who was insistent my son needed ADHD medication at 4, there are worse leaps to make than "I need more information."



A lot of people I know who have kids identified GT got it from their school assessment that did everyone in one grade in a sweeping group test. The report is oh... two sentences long. It IS a YES or NO. They don't have the kind of information that we get from an individualized report. This is probably fine for mildly to moderately gifted kids who are happy and successful in school, and feeling challenged enough.

I guess I feel like you're trying to persuade those of us who were helped by Ruf to renounce her work. Maybe that's not what's happening, but you're making some pretty harsh statements--fortune cookies? Wow...

I guess I don't understand why we can't simply make the points about what's problematic with her work--and those of us who were helped by her have granted many weaknesses!--and let it go at that, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Why attack one of the few tools that's out there to help parents get a handle on what's up with their gifted kids? I don't get that. Even if it didn't help you, is it so terrible if it did help some people? I think it's important to make the points about what's wrong with it, but I think it's equally important to hear that it *did* help some of us. Both perspectives are valid. I don't feel like you think the "helped by Ruf" perspective is valid. Am I wrong? (I'm happy to be wrong!)

I feel like you're expecting more than any book can give and expecting less from any parent than they will give. That's what I meant there. I think parents are smarter and more persistent than you're giving them credit for. Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part--though I did say that was what I was feeling, not that anyone said those words--but my point is clear, I hope. I meant no offense.

Oh, and again, I am not defending the website. Haven't used it, have my doubts about it. But I will defend Ruf's work, with caveats about the weaknesses in it.

It was really late when I wrote my initial comments and I was thinking of just delayed in general, not necessarily 2E kids. That being said, one of the parents sets are both gifted (probably more in the MG so not quite at the same level as your son) and their child now that she's older seems to be more in line with possibly being gifted although it's still too early to say (the kid is 3). Now that the speech delay is over, they're starting to look into giftedness but initially, no.

I wonder, though, just from a scientific perspective. If there aren't signs for 2E kids also. DH certainly had a lot of signs despite a speech delay (he actually fits pretty well into the Einstein syndrome at least from what I've read online). It seems like a lot of this would be alleviated if Ruf would just mention at the beginning of her book that she's not including 2E kids in her study.


I'm just going to quote the top part but I agree with a lot of what Kriston said. Like I mentioned before, I think a lot of Ruf's stuff would be more useful if she'd give a disclaimer about her research (and, seriously, as a scientist it's important to explain exactly what your research covers and what not... not that every scientist does that, many do overclaim their results but that's not the way it should be).

As for the newbies. I see what both sides are saying. One one hand, a parent of a gifted child has a good chance of being gifted themselves and, well, most of the gifted adults I know rarely just accept the first answer. But I totally understand the emotions behind trying to find the right answer. I can just say from my own personal perspective but if I've ever suspected something I never just looked at one website (or one book) but that might very well be my personality.

These latest comments have brought another thought to mind for me. I see that a lot of posters are concerned about gifted kids who don't meet those early milestones and them being overlooked by Ruf's work. How about kids who do meet those early milestones? Do we think that it is safe to assume that they all are gifted (assuming no misrecollection or exaggeration on the parents' behalf)?

I'm less and less certain about fixed levels of intelligence the more I find out. However, I do lean toward believing that we all come with a range. Otherwise, what would one make of studies on heritability of intelligence especially in cases of adoption where the child's adult intelligence more closely resembles that of the birth family than the adoptive family?

It's obvious to me that there is a maximum level of capability theoretically attainable by each person. Just a few reasons:

1. I assume that some things cannot be learned; I am talking about savant-type talents. If these are functional advantages (obviously so), they may properly fit in to an assessment of intelligence. No matter how limitless we assume our malleable intelligence areas to be, this would represent one type of limit.

2. We are time-limited. No matter how efficient and otherwise perfect teaching methods may become, unless and until we solve the problem of infinitely prolonging intellectual vigor, there is a practical limit of how much information can be transmitted and absorbed by a person.

3. We are physically limited. Unless and until we can store an infinite amount of information in our brains, even an immortal person taught by perfect methods for an indefinite time would hit a limit on retained knowledge, which is one important basis of intelligence.

4. It is easy to conceive of theoretical intelligence far beyond the capabilities of even our most brilliant minds to date-- and so far beyond that it is pointless to debate whether such intelligence is attainable within our species, at least without evolution. One way to conceive of this would be to posit someone for whom everything is instantly laid bare: perhaps someone who instantly perceives truths which have so far required extensive life's work of the John von Neumanns et al. among us. That is, even the von Neumanns would simply be in a different class, plodding by comparison. It would not be a stretch to think that such a mind could reach greater heights, and due to the obvious difference in classes of intelligence, I don't see a reason for faith that such heights would be attainable by mere learning, at least for members of the human species as it exists today. Another way would be to simply directly posit an intelligence which can tackle problems untacklable by our greatest geniuses.

5. For intelligence to be malleable, it must be shaped by the environment. It seems more likely than not that reaching heights unattainable by the von Neumanns, by an average baby, would have to be done as a result of carefully orchestrated stimuli, rather than by chance occurrence. But now there arises a boot-strapping problem: we have to have super minds that are able to comprehend how to stimulate minds to infinite heights; something would have to know how to stimulate a mind to reach a never-before-reached level, and obviously one not reachable under their own steam by the "level fives" of today.

If these theoretical sorts of intelligence are considered to lie outside the scope of argument, as ridiculously unattainable, then limits exist too. They're inescapable. Though the limits of potential might not be practically reachable in many ways and for many reasons, and may not even be knowable, they must exist.

I don't know if my child is PG and hate to label her as such since I haven't gone through the testing process. There are days where I've even question if she is gifted but have come to accept that I have grown accustom to her abilities and it just feels normal now. I do believe her to be in the HG+ range and am comfortable with that label.

I also want to add something to this 'fixed' intelligence: environment; that doesn't really seem to be considered here. I still believe that IF the parents are not exaggerating and the child is consistent with the data Ruf has collected that the odds of the child being gifted is high. Is it a guarantee of the levels she claims? I really have no idea and still ponder this but I don't think it would be a huge difference in the range but more a level off. If the said child gets into school and isn't challenged and doesn't progress to the level they were before starting school does this prove them not to be gifted? I don't think so ... just a sign of the environment and personality.

And again ... I fully believe that Ruf overlooks 2E and late bloomers in her book.

Oops ... seems like I wasn't the only one thinking about environment... was discussed while I was typing this post.

Albert Einstein
Temple Grandin
Helen Keller
Thomas Edison
Ramanujan

Let's say their parents had $45 and the opportunity to find out "how smart your child is". What do you think they would have been told?

Indeed I would hope that all parents would think about what is good not just for their children but for other gifted children as well. Say our public school system accurately identified one gifted child in ten and gave them an amazing education and let the other ones rot. I'd be against this even if my kid was the lucky one in ten.

While I'm sure this instrument scores more accurately than random chance, we should keep in mind that even with just random chance some people are going to get results they agree with and are happy with. It doesn't mean those results are accurate and it doesn't mean it is a good instrument and it doesn't mean we should support random chance. I'm hearing a lot of circular reasoning on this thread along the lines of "reading her book I thought my kid was a level three and doing this test I found out I was right." All that is telling you is that her test is the same as the book. It isn't telling you that level three has any real meaning. It isn't telling you that early milestones are a good way to identify giftedness. And, it isn't telling you "how smart your child is".

Ruf is telling parents if they see a difference between the talentigniter and a much more comprehensive individual educational assessment then it points to the lack of validity of the individual assessment or of the parent's memories. What message do you see being sent their Kriston? What is being said about parents? What is being said about the rest of the gifted community?



I don't appreciate this. I have a great deal of respect for parents and that's exactly why I have a problem with this sort of program.

It may be hard to understand if you haven't been there, but it can be an incredibly overwhelming and difficult thing to be a parent of a child with complex disabilities. There are only so many hours in the day and getting through the day with therapies, doctor's appointments, and all it takes to care for kids it can be hard to have an unlimited time for research. Parents who already have multiple kids, jobs, etc. can really struggle to wade through a lot of conflicting information.


I'd be much less bothered by the whole thing if Ruf was more honest about the limitations of this approach and made it clear that it doesn't apply to a lot of kids. Instead she is presenting the approach as infallible.

PassThePotatoes: I agree with everything you just said.

I would also point to the danger of confirmation bias: the tendency to give extra notice or favor to information that confirms what a person already believes.

DeeDee

So do I, except that I am not sure the online tool is better than random chance. It looks to be a good deal worse than random chance for a significant part of the gifted population. Perhaps the whole problem is a failure to distinguish between sufficient and necessary, but then there are the grand marketing claims.

passthepotatoes:

If you want me to renounce Ruf (again, I mean the book, NOT the website, which troubles me), then we'll have to agree to disagree. It was by far the most useful thing that I read, and I see no sense in renouncing something that many people have found helpful. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I am entitled to mine.

I am thinking of other gifted children, just as you are. We just see this differently.

Ruf's book is NOT a gifted program that leaves 9 out of 10 gifted kids in academic squalor. This is one possible *tool* for *parents* to use to help them *think* about their kids. That's two TOTALLY different things. If it helps, great. If not, move on to something else. That's how it works, time constraints or no.

No book fits all gifted kids perfectly. More options are better than fewer.

For the record, I thought DS9 was MG. He's a level 4 (and continues to be so). This is why Ruf's book helped me: I was deep in gifted denial. Far from confirming what I already thought, the book radically changed the way I understood giftedness.

I would not recommend the book to the parent of a 2E child. I did not use it with my own 2E child. But for parents in gifted denial, it is useful. Different tools for different jobs.

And again, the website gives me trouble. I think the marketing is more aggressive than it should be and the claims are overstated. I think that perhaps you should write to Dr. Ruf and explain your concerns. I intend to. Maybe she'll tone down the over-the-top claims.

I have to admit, nature/nurture discussions just seem to be mostly empty talk to me. It seems pretty obvious that there's *some* genetic component, and it seems just as obvious that environment affects growth and development. Both matter. After that we're just talking about how *much* they matter. How do you measure that? <shrug>

And frankly, whether the top of intelligence is fixed or not seems like a purely intellectual exercise to me. How would we know?

I will say that I don't believe that kids can be "made" gifted through hothousing. In that regard, I guess I think there is some upper limit. Athletics is a good analogy here: I could have run all day every day for my whole life, and I would never be a world-class sprinter. My short-legged little body is made for distance, not speed. Certainly I can improve my speed with training, and no one can say for sure how fast I could actually go if I worked obsessively on it. But there is some upper limit of a sort to how fast I can go.

I think brains work the same way. There is such a thing as native talent, and hard work isn't necessarily a substitute for it anymore than talent is a substitute for hard work. They're complimentary, but different.

The thing is that no one can say for sure how smart any one brain can get with training, so the "fixed" idea--even insofar as I am going with that, which is not far!--would really be just philosophy, not practice. Nor do I think that we can rule someone out as a wicked smart person because they didn't "sprint" intellectually right from birth. Development is too individualized for that. Brains grow and change over time.

I am a little disturbed by the implications of this offer:

"The Ruf Estimates Online Assessment is available with group rates for educational institutions needing Preschool and Kindergarten screenings."

Now it is not just a tool to give parents information, it is a decision-making tool for preschools and kindergartens?

Hi,

I do just want to point out something here (and I'm by no means suggesting that Ruf is without flaws, but just so that people are aware), she does actually say in the book that the levels aren't fixed (I don't have the book here, but have found a reference to it online: "There is no magic line between gifted and not gifted, nor is there a stationary or fixed line between different levels of intelligence" (p. xiv) - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6470/is_3_29/ai_n29341502/?tag=content;col1 - from memory she talks later in the book about movement between levels being dependent on appropriate educational arrangements/stability of environment etc).

Is this clear on her website? No, I don't think so. Does she touch on 2E - not at all that I can remember from the book and I can only find 3 references on her site. Neither of which is helpful. But if your child is 2E (even if you're unaware of it) or you had a late developer (who would have to have some other identifiers that make you think they might be gifted, otherwise you wouldn't be looking at Ruf's website), I would assume you would find that there would be indications that this text was not meeting all your needs and you'd look elsewhere. Surely that is why you are looking in the first place, for an explanation, because you suspect something is up and you're trying to fit the pieces together. I think it sells parents short to suggest that on finding that Ruf they'd decide that was the be all and end all and they'd give up. I don't think Ruf's concept is ideal, but I agree with others who view it as one tool amongst many. To me it's like suggesting this board is no use to anyone because you wont get an exact answer - which of course is ridiculous, it is hugely beneficial because it is another tool, another place where you can pick up some information and look in to it further. If a parent new to giftedness turned up on this forum and used nothing else, that would be a concern. Granted the forum itself doesn't purport to be expert advice, but people (including myself), take the advice on here seriously. There have been numerous times where I have doubted my daughter was HG+ (which I know her to be), based on the information on this site. Does it mean I walk away and leave my daughter to her own devices? No, it gives me another avenue to explore. You know as parent when the answer you get just doesn't feel right.

I do worry that there is an assumption that people aren't capable of identifying their children. I felt I knew that dd was gifted (though I felt ridiculous suggesting it) when she was 18 months old. Granted my daughter is very HG + (for want of a better description), so the difference was marked compared to other kids from a very early age. I don't know how many parents would think their very young children are intellectually gifted based solely on physical milestones - certainly I didn't, dd was very verbal, using humour at 1 etc in addition to early physical milestones. And as we know, there is much more that just verbal ability that indicates a child might be gifted, so while that might not be a marker for you, it's probable there will be something else to have got you looking. You know when your kid is different. I can't for the life of me find the reference, but I have read it in a reputable publication and it was appropriate cited there and referred to elsewhere, that 85% of parents who identify their children as gifted are correct based on subsequent IQ assessments. That figure raises to something like 95% once you take into account 2e. If we're going to talk about people being warned off and not taking action as early as they can, then I worry about the debate on this site about whether or not you can identify gifted kids when they are little. I don't know that you could predict a LOG, but I think that if a parent of a toddler has found this site then they're looking because their kid is different enough to warrant investigation. Granted sometimes I am surprised when people provide milestones that don't seem particularly gifted to me, but then this board is geared toward the top end of the range, so perhaps my comparison point is skewed (and as we've talked about, some are late bloomers). Ruf's book/questionnaire would give these parent's one tool to test whether or not there was any evidence that what they are seeing in their kids is unusual.

What worries me more than parents identifying their kids as gifted is schools that identify kids as gifted based on floored methodology, schools that parents of ND kids evidently think are going to offer their kids something that the standard curriculum can't. That is where problems with false identification lie for me, and where decisions are made that can really impact our kids negatively. I think there is a real suspicion within the gifted community of parents who are new to giftedness at times and I think rather than worrying so much about whether or not they are diluting the gifted brand, as a group we should focus more on educating the wider community on what giftedness actually is. A scary thought I know, given how secretive many of us (including me) feel the need to be - but without wider education, I can't see how anything will change.

This is a bigger problem.

I have become lost in the length of this thread and am somewhat confused. Has anyone on this discussion actually USED the online assessment tool? If so, was it helpful to you?

I am a little put off by the claims on the website but must say that we travelled to MN for our DS to be evaluated by Dr. Ruf two years ago. It was different than the first time we had him tested as Dr. Ruf's focus is on academic needs and his first assessment at the age of 5 was done by a clinical psychologist. But I have to say that we found our trip to see Dr. Ruf extremely helpful and well worth the time and money. She actually seemed to understand our son better than anyone who had met him. We had been struggling with behavior problems and she told us to address his abilities in math more accurately which would likely improve his behavior across the board. We had NO idea that he needed to be skipped two more grades in math until we met with Dr. Ruf.

I have to agree with others who have pointed out that Dr. Ruf is but one expert in the field and is not the person for everyone. But for some, her assessment approach may be just the thing they need.

Again, has anyone here actually USED the online tool?

Yes, I saw at least one post from someone who has used it.

Many of us have read her book and are familiar with the five levels. The assessment is an online version of that, from what I understand. So I think that people can have a meaningful discussion about the ideas behind her work without having actually paid the $45 to try the online version.

I used it, but didn't pay for it; I beta tested. I did not get more information than I'd gotten from Ruf's book, and in fact, I feel that I got less.

As I said before, I used Ruf's levels to persuade DH that DD has unusual abilities. Since he has little experience with NT kids, he believed that DD was typical, despite her level 4/5 milestones. (I think he still has trouble understanding how advanced she is, but at least he's convinced that she's gifted.) As a list of milestones, I found it to be a helpful, if extremely limited, piece of information. As an online test, I found it to be pretty ridiculous.

In a private email she had actually mentioned this but I had no idea it was going to be the same online assessment. I really do see this as a problem because A. how could they know the required information and B. it really will be a problem for parents of a late bloomer and/or 2E child. Talk about a potential road block!

Hmmm ... I do find this a bit disturbing as well unless it is used in conjunction with other screening tools. Use of this tool for my particular child pre-K would definitely not given me accurate information and he is NOT 2E. I worry most about kids that could fall through the cracks. Both my husband and I were kids that were NOT ided, so gifted was not remotely on our radar until my kid hit the ceiling of a screener at school. Had that screener not happened, he'd most like be a underachieving behavioral problem right now and probably labeled ADHD.

I've heard rave reviews on individual assessments from Dr. Ruf. I know plenty of people who've used her locally and who have been very pleased. I'd be more ok with this tool if it were free.

No, not change there. Level 3 says the book is 98th and 99th, level 4, 99th, and level 5 above the 99th.

So, in that it doesn't make sense to me that DYS would be level 3, unless the scores are inflated as per her explanation in the FAQs listed above.

And the jump is even harder to understand in terms of rarity when t is more personality driven.

The other thing that has not been noted is that her research/book/website seems to focus on more evenly gifted kiddos. She does say that level 5 are globally gifted, good at everything. She doesn't say this about the other levels, but I do think that it is geared more for the balanced kids.

Now, perhaps that is another category of kids that are missed by the assessment: those that are much more gifted verbally or non-verbally than in the other area.

If the online assessment is completed by only providing a list of your child's milestones to Dr. Ruf for her to read through, then I'd say no, it's not worth it. It was most definitely the combination of her history form (which asked for details of developmental milestones as well as medical history and educaitonal history), the personality profiles(of our son and both parents) and SB-5 testing that provided us with meaningful information. Our son does not fit the level 4 developmental milestones precisely but yet was placed as a level 4 by Dr. Ruf due to his test scores and math-specific ability as well as specific developmental markers. His milestones alone placed him at a level 2/3.

I have to agree that the website is a bit off-putting to me. I don't think I would have gone to Dr. Ruf had I seen that site first. We went based on feedback from others who had seen her and found it beneficial. I believe in the advice to test when you have questions and get the testing that will answer those questions. For some, Dr. Ruf can provide those answers. It's just not for everyone.
Just my 2 cents.

I think that when you define the levels by early milestones rather than by IQ, you're naturally going to have overlap. As I recall, she distinguishes level 5 insofar as these children must have the earliest possible milestones in every conceivable category. You can't be level 5 in one area; if you're not level 5 in every area, you're level 4. Hence the rarity. I'm not joking, but I do think it's funny.

Oh, she's not going to read through this stuff. It's a computer program that will tell you "just how smart" your child is, based on a handful of specially-selected milestones.

Actually a kindergarten/preschool entrance test is the first great use for such a tool I've seen yet. It looks more like a personality test than an iq test so it would group kids togeather with other kids at the same level of development with many similar needs at the target age of 3-6 when she says the test is most effective.
Also about her work I can see a huge public service announcement to parents who already knew their kid was gifted, exceptionally bright, but would only have thought of the higher levels of gifted as those talented in one domain.
I wouldn't think it very likely for someone to find her work before figuring out somehow they were dealing with giftedness, so it might help to see a very gifted child as maybe just beginning to read at three years old, not necessarily just prodigies who win world chess tournaments at 7, or play concert violin at 3.
But that school test almost seems ideal for ability grouping at that age for meeting their needs at that moment, without worrying how the parents may misinterpret what it may mean about the future.

In spite of claims on the website that the assessment will tell you "just how smart" your child is, I see over and over again on the site that the assessment is intended to be a screening and DOES NOT take the place of formal, standardized IQ testing. But if all it does is go through her milestone list then it would be much cheaper to get the book from the library and read it!

FWIW, the testing she did with our son was helpful precisely because he is NOT globally gifted. She pinpointed his specific strengths and helped us to realize just where he was in terms of math ability. But, as I said, this was not based on just the milestones. In fact, his milestone achievement was a bit misleading.

I'd like to see her publish her research on the correlation data and the standardization of the assessment. I don't see that information anywhere on the site.

The results we got for DD was interesting and kind of split the levels.

She was classified as a level 4 to 5 which I didn't think possible from the book. We even got special information about what a level 4 to 5 kid is and what needs to be considered for schooling. In that break down they clearly make a distinction between level 4 kids versus level 4 to 5 kids. On the breakdown of the areas, DD had categories that were marked as level 5 but her overall was a level 4.5.

I am a bit late in entering this discussion, but have been reading it with great interest, as I also used the program as a beta tester. I have mixed feelings about it.

The mechanics of it are pretty straight forward, but it as others have mentioned there is no room for special circumstances. My DS8 did not talk beyond three or four words and some animal sounds as of age two, which is when I pushed the pediatrician to get help through early intervention. Turns out he needed tubes and was practically deaf, so of course he did not speak (a "worst parent ever" moment for not realizing it sooner.) However, he had compensated for his inability to speak by teaching us his own sign language (including signs for bulldozer and train.) And I remember at some point that he signed in sentences for all practical purposes. So, would this count as speech? Probably, but did I make notes of this milestone? Of course not.

I also had a child who may have been able to read as early as four years old, but hid it quite well until late kindergarten when we realized he was reading his Pokemon Cards. Plus he was never much into puzzles or mazes, but did love educational computer games geared to third grade before he was in kindergarten. There are more questions about puzzles than computer games on the assessment.

Net result on the assessment put him between level one and two. This did not quite correspond to his WISC-IV which put him comfortably into DYS territory.

Once you finish answering the questions, a graph is generated that shows several different areas and the corresponding level for each as well as an overall level. I would have been interested in all the information offered as suggestions for schools etc, except that the level generated was way off base so the information was not helpful. I already know for a fact that he does not get what he needs from a regular classroom supplemented by the gifted pull out.

I guess my main conclusion is that if you have a level four or five child, you have already figured out something is going on (especially some of the two and three year olds I see posted about around here) and don't know if it will really tell you something you don't already know or can't find in a library book. Ultimately, I think I would have been disappointed if I had paid for this assessment unless I fell into it before he was in Kindergarten. At that time, it might have helped me realize that he was not a typical child and we were not crazy for being overwhelmed by one child while people around us had two and three and did not seem so stressed.

Hope my rambling made sense.

We do disagree there. You are defining giftedness solely by testing? Really? Were there no gifted people before there were IQ tests?

I think giftedness is *far* more than that, different than that. There's a creativity, a drive, a need that has zilch to do with testing. If there had never been an IQ test, giftedness would still be very evident in the world.



Again, I think you're not taking this in the spirit in which I intend--a common problem with this sort of conversation about brain development. Subtleties get lost.

I completely agree that Polgar's chess situation demonstrates that her brain has an incredible capacity for chess. The brain is amazing! It *is* fluid and develops over time. It grows, it changes. No argument from me. That's why I say I don't think intelligence is fixed.

But I also think there is some sort of ultimate top limit, if only because if there weren't, everyone would know everything. There would be no developmental delays. No brain damage. No left side of the Bell Curve. These things exist because for now, at least, there are limits.

I think the brain still has many, many secrets, and there may come a day when we know enough about it that there will be basically no limit, at least in a practical sense. But I think that will require artificial enhancements to achieve. Though you don't like the comparison to the athlete, I think it has to be acknowledged that the brain is a part of the body, and we come with some hardware and software preinstalled.

Of course, the best part of my argument is that as long as someone achieves something--regardless of what it is--I can just say that it was within the limits of what their brain could do. Basically I can't be proven wrong!

As I said, this really is more philosophy than anything useful. You were warned. And seriously, I think we really agree almost across the board. (Except for the definition of giftedness, interestingly). I just don't believe that potential is 100% unlimited in one person. Really amazingly high--almost certainly higher than we can ever imagine. But not utterly unlimited.

I think it is a useful tool for many parents. Certainly, I would have bought it, when I first started wondering whether my then three year old was gifted or was I just imagining things.

Dr Ruf extensively knows my child and I believe, my child's test results plus my playing with the site has been incorporated along with others to bench mark the results. We have done btw three rounds of beta testing plus various feedback.

Is everything perfect with this online assessments, probably not... But I still think this online assessment is very helpful for many parents, who are trying to figure out whether their preschooler / preker / ker is gifted or not. As I wrote, I certainly would have spent the 45 dollars on it, if it had been available to us, as a tool at that time.

A question for those who've taken their child to Dr. Ruf for an evaluation: Did any of you have a 2E child and/or late bloomer and if so how did Ruf address this and factor this information in? I see a lot of criticism about her book and website but I don't think I have seen any criticism about her personal evaluations.

That's a good question. Maybe it should be broadened to include not only late bloomers, but regular bloomers.

Wow - it's taken me awhile to read through this very interesting thread! I'll pipe in to say that some of the things I've appreciated about Ruf is that she does market herself. She was quoted in an article when my DS was 3, describing preschool behaviors in gifted kids, and two people saved the article for us because they thought of our DS. We then decided to get her book. We are one of the families with the kid who fits into her profiles. At the time I read the book, I knew nothing of levels of giftedness, so if that theory had been around since 1942, it was news to me and a revelation. I read through the stories and thought, "That's my DS!" and even "Hey, that's me!" Even though I was in some gifted pullouts in grade school, I never realized how different I was until I read Ruf's book. I then tried to find every book imaginable on gifted education, and some of the books were helpful, some were not. There are not a whole lot of books out there on giftedness, and even less on HG+, so I think it's positive when more information is getting out there.

I have not yet looked at the new website, so I cannot comment on that, but I bet before I knew very much about my son's giftedness, I would have paid the $45. Heck, I think I paid $70 for Miraca Gross's book! But I wonder if the service will discredit her individual services, as someone else mentioned here. My DS was assessed by her, and we were given an incredibly detailed write-up and had an extremely informative meeting after the assessment. Her assessment has been dead-on so far.

It sounds like a few disclaimers on the website service would be appropriate, such as the limitations of such a service in assessing 2e kids or kids who are not globally gifted.

we took the test and my DD4 actually scored a little lower than I thought and she was one of those kids who learned letter sounds at 1.5 and started reading at two, did complex puzzles early, did skip counting easily and early, started adding and subtracting early etc. I am still in gifted denial so if nothing else, it challenged my denial. We don't have any test scores that I can truly compare Ruf's LOG to though. We had one test done when she just turned 3 but I'd like to have another one done as she gets a little older so that we can get a better picture. Once I have that score, I can let everyone know if if lined up with Ruf's LOG.

I'm glad you wrote this, because I've been thinking of dd as one of the "late bloomers", but that's just in comparison to some/most of the Level 4+ stuff. So my "late" bloomer is really an early-just-not-THAT-early-bloomer.