I am just wondering if those of you in the know can help me understand what evidence there is that IQ scores from testing conducted when children are young (say from 4) are likely to be an overestimate and will often stabilise to a lower score when a child is older. I ask because I often see that comment here but it goes against the information I have been given from other (also knowledgeable) sources. I hope I am not sounding disrespectful to those of you who know significantly more about testing than I do - I guess I am just trying to straighten it out in my head (I should note my daughter was tested early, but the level she works at supports her test results). I know statistically regression toward the mean would indicate that all things being equal outlier scores should go down on subsequent tests, but it would be difficult for �all things to be equal� with early testing of gifted kids (which I guess would also contribute to how valid the norming sample is - apologies if I am using incorrect terminology). I have been scouring my uni�s journal library for information and can only find information saying testing prior to 4yo being unstable. I have heard Miraca Gross talking about this matter and she said that in her experience results before 6 are often unstable, but are usually an underestimate rather than an overestimate and this was also the experience of our tester, who preferred not to test before 4 but felt that the result from then were likely to be stable or an underestimate (she only tests gifted kids).
The reasoning that both Miraca Gross and our tester gave is that often younger children don't engage as well with testing when compared to older kids and they are often less likely to complete the subtests to the level they are able - simply due to test fatigue, lack of concentration etc. These kinds of things would seem to cancel out the regression to the mean argument because it means you don�t have an accurate position to begin with (I have only a very basic knowledge of statistical analysis so I am piecing together bits and pieces and appreciate my logic may be very flawed!)
Like I said, I tried to track down some studies, however the ones I found were either conducted with autistic kids or �at risk� kids. While each of the studies that I found on autistic kids stated testing in preschool and then follow up testing produced statistically stable results, I didn�t know whether or not that was likely to be the same for gifted children. The results for at risk kids showed a decrease that correlated to the number of risk factors they were exposed to, but this wasn't really the information I was looking for. I found a couple of studies on the stability of intelligence scores in general, but was unable to access them due to a system problem.
I am just wondering if those of you who know such things could shed some light on this for me. Thanks!
Webb, Gore and Amend in A Parents Guide to Gifted Children state that the accuracy of the (iq) test increases from age 3 to 14 - 15 and is quite accurate for children by 10 or 11.
Thanks for asking this! I was suprised when I saw it mentioned in the other thread as like you it's the opposite of what I had previously heard and I am curious.
It's possible that the scores of young kids are more subject to regression toward the mean because there are more random variables affecting their performance (did they nap, did they eat a snack, are they fussy, sick, afraid of the tester, etc. all these affect young children's performance more than older kids.)
Here is a quote explaining regression toward the mean
Consider a simple example: a class of students takes a 100-item true/false test on a subject. Suppose that all students choose randomly on all questions. Then, each student�s score would be a realization of one of a set of independent and identically distributed random variables, with a mean of 50. Naturally, some students will score substantially above 50 and some substantially below 50 just by chance. If one takes only the top scoring 10% of the students and gives them a second test on which they again choose randomly on all items, the mean score would again be expected to be close to 50. Thus the mean of these students would �regress� all the way back to the mean of all students who took the original test. No matter what a student scores on the original test, the best prediction of his score on the second test is 50.
If there were no luck or random guessing involved in the answers supplied by students to the test questions then all students would score the same on the second test as they scored on the original test, and there would be no regression toward the mean.
Most realistic situations fall between these two extremes: for example, one might consider exam scores as a combination of skill and luck. In this case, the subset of students scoring above average would be composed of those who were skilled and had not especially bad luck, together with those who were unskilled, but were extremely lucky. On a retest of this subset, the unskilled will be unlikely to repeat their lucky break, while the skilled will have a second chance to have bad luck. Hence, those who did well previously are unlikely to do quite as well in the second test.
The following is a second example of regression toward the mean. A class of students takes two editions of the same test on two successive days. It has frequently been observed that the worst performers on the first day will tend to improve their scores on the second day, and the best performers on the first day will tend to do worse on the second day. The phenomenon occurs because student scores are determined in part by underlying ability and in part by chance. For the first test, some will be lucky, and score more than their ability, and some will be unlucky and score less than their ability. Some of the lucky students on the first test will be lucky again on the second test, but more of them will have (for them) average or below average scores. Therefore a student who was lucky on the first test is more likely to have a worse score on the second test than a better score. Similarly, students who score less than the mean on the first test will tend to see their scores increase on the second test.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_meanAnecdotally, my son has been tested twice. The first time at age 4.5 on the WPPSI and the second time at age 6 on the WISC. His scores (both above 99.9 %ile) were within 2 points of each other. I think kids whose behavior is relatively stable at a young age can be quite consistent.
Thanks Cathy. Sorry to be persistent - I get all that, but to me all those kinds of variables are more likely to result in a reduced score on an early test than inflate it. My understanding (which I am willing to admit is minimal) is that the tests are designed in such a way that luck can only play a small role in the result. A well rested, well fed kid who is fit a healthy and confident with the tester is obviously likely to score better than a kid who is sick/tired/hungry etc. To me it would seem that the kid in the optimal circumstance is simply likely to achieve the score that represents what they can really do. They might regress a bit on a subsequent test in the same conditions, but given the nature of the tests, there is only so much you can fluke. If you're not in that optimal space, you're much more likely to get an underestimate. Which was the point of Miraca Gross and our tester.
I can kind of see how a child might start out strong and then have their development slow down, but I don't know enough about children's development to know whether that is possible or not.
And please don't hesitate to tell me I've got that all wrong - you'll have to forgive me as I'm not terribly sequential and if I'm missing a piece of the puzzle often I miss the whole picture!
What you have to remember when using the argument that young kids may be uncooperative/distractible/tired etc. is that all these conditions applied to the norming sample, too. If you take a sample now of kids testing, their scores will be "inflated" if they are on average less uncooperative etc. than the norming sample, "deflated" if they are more so. There's no reason that I can see to expect children being tested now to be *more* subject to those factors that might reduce their scores than the norming sample were, and therefore no reason to expect their scores to be underestimates as a group.
If we dispose of that set of arguments on those grounds, then what remains is the regression to the mean argument.
What an individual tester sees is going, of course, to be heavily dependent on which children come to that tester to be tested. That could be affected by a lot of different things. For example, a tester who draws testees from a population where high IQs are the norm and only a really exceptional child is likely to be brought for testing (or one, like Miraca Gross, famous for being interested in PG children) is more likely to experience that scores tend to be underestimates than a tester who tests from a more average population.
ColinsMum, I understand what you are saying - the "small child" type variables apply just as much to the sample group as to the individual child.
What I don't really understand is how the example of regression to the mean that Cathy posted applies to something like IQ testing. A multiple choice test sure, particularly one that where everyone answers randomly (which isn't really a test at all!). But an exam that requires knowing the material and being literate, or an IQ test, while I can see there being variability from day to day based on how good you are feeling, raport with the tester, etc, it still seems to me that these are tests based on skill/ability and that you aren't going to randomly swing from the 99.9th to the 50th? Maybe 5% but not 50%!
You can do well on a multiple choice by "getting lucky", but I don't see how you can do well on tests like Vocab, Block Design, Word Reasoning, etc by luck. "Having a bad day" aside I am just not understanding the idea that children tested young will swing back to the mean, or why this is only thought to apply to young children.
Under performing because of being young makes perfect sense, over performing really doesn't. So surely young children are more likely to trend up than other test subjects?
Trending upward on an IQ test might make even more sense for a young HG+ kid, because of psychological factors such as perfectionism that might be overcome as the child gets older, but also because reaching the child's limit on certain tests might take significantly longer than for an ordinary child (and in fact in some cases it seems that kids peter out before showing what they can do). An HG+ young kid might be significantly more able, but without significantly more stamina, and with significantly more performance anxiety.
What you have to remember when using the argument that young kids may be uncooperative/distractible/tired etc. is that all these conditions applied to the norming sample, too. If you take a sample now of kids testing, their scores will be "inflated" if they are on average less uncooperative etc. than the norming sample, "deflated" if they are more so. There's no reason that I can see to expect children being tested now to be *more* subject to those factors that might reduce their scores than the norming sample were, and therefore no reason to expect their scores to be underestimates as a group.
Yes - I think I agree, which was my earlier point about the norming sample possibly not being terribly valid because these would be issues all younger kids have that would mean the scores would potentially not be very stable in general.
If we dispose of that set of arguments on those grounds, then what remains is the regression to the mean argument.
What an individual tester sees is going, of course, to be heavily dependent on which children come to that tester to be tested. That could be affected by a lot of different things. For example, a tester who draws testees from a population where high IQs are the norm and only a really exceptional child is likely to be brought for testing (or one, like Miraca Gross, famous for being interested in PG children) is more likely to experience that scores tend to be underestimates than a tester who tests from a more average population.
But this seems to go against what others have said, which is that very high scores in young kids are likely to be very unstable? (Sorry, I can imagine better informed people reading my questions and thinking "what's not to get??") I also had the same thoughts as Mumofthree earlier today - I can see how regression to the mean would work on something like multiple choice, but from what I understand don't you pretty much have to earn your answer in an IQ test?
Hi Lucounu, yes - that's what seems logical to me...
if there are factors that would tend to make early high scores overestimates, I would say that they would almost certainly be found in the "crystallized knowledge" areas of the tests, such as vocabulary, where early environmental enrichment or deprivation could make a huge difference in test performance, giving very young children with relatively enriched environments an apparent "edge" that might not be maintained once children from relatively deprived environments entered school and, hopefully, had more exposure to opportunities to acquire the same level of knowledge.
if there are factors that would tend to make early high scores overestimates, I would say that they would almost certainly be found in the "crystallized knowledge" areas of the tests, such as vocabulary, where early environmental enrichment or deprivation could make a huge difference in test performance, giving very young children with relatively enriched environments an apparent "edge" that might not be maintained once children from relatively deprived environments entered school and, hopefully, had more exposure to opportunities to acquire the same level of knowledge.
That's pretty much the way it has been explained to me as well. Vocabulary, for instance: just knowing a few "hard" words will significantly up your vocab portion of the VCI (on the WISC) at a young age b/c there is more head room. If you know more harder words b/c of an enriched environment (or fewer due to a deprived environment), that will make a more significant difference in your IQ score at a young age than it will later.
FWIW, my dd's IQ score on the WISC dropped from the 99.9th at seven to 97th at eight. I don't know that I'm sure either IQ score is correct for her b/c she has ADD and significant anxiety, but I also don't have any data that supports either score as absolutely accurate. Her WIAT scores from the time of the second WISC testing fall closer to the first IQ number but other achievement scores fluctuate wildly.
My other dd has taken multiple above level tests that pretty consistently point to her ability scores falling somewhat above the 99th percentile, but not at the 99.9th. Her IQ at 7 was just into the 99th if we add extended norms. Given all of the other data that supports that and continues to support that even as she nears her teens, I'd have no qualms about saying that her IQ was not an overestimate and was possibly a slight underestimate. My youngest I am now comfortable saying is gifted and maybe HG in some areas (she had one subtest on the WISC that was at the 99.7th and still the 99th with the second testing), but I'm not sold on saying that the highest number ever obtained is the most accurate either.
In quickly looking over the article that I posted on the other thread, it does seem to have some studies of actual IQ tests as well and how one high scores doesn't necessarily indicate that the child will score as highly on a different IQ test or on a second testing of the same test. Here it is again:
http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/pdf/Gifted_Today.pdf
The psychologist who tested my son said that it is easier to score very high on tests when the child is younger, rather than older. They only need a few more right answers to score very high.
For example, some of the tests may test reading or pre-reading. If the child is an early reader, they will score very high on that part. However, other children later on may catch up as they also read, etc.
The discussion reminds me of my friend who was so proud that her son walked early. He walked at 9 months. All 3 of her kids walked at 9 months. Great! However, now that the kids are older, although they are doing well, etc., it's not like the kids have gone onto the Olympics!
What an individual tester sees is going, of course, to be heavily dependent on which children come to that tester to be tested. That could be affected by a lot of different things. For example, a tester who draws testees from a population where high IQs are the norm and only a really exceptional child is likely to be brought for testing (or one, like Miraca Gross, famous for being interested in PG children) is more likely to experience that scores tend to be underestimates than a tester who tests from a more average population.
But this seems to go against what others have said, which is that very high scores in young kids are likely to be very unstable?
I don't think so, if I understand correctly what you're asking. But it is all a bit delicate because we have Bayesian reasoning going on under the hood here! Here's an example, with fictional numbers, to show what I was getting at. Consider three situations.
(a) A school gets AvTester to test all 100 pupils. Of all the children AvTester tests, under 1% turn out to have IQs over 150. Jo scores 155.
(b) A school for the gifted gets GTester to test all its 100 pupils. Of all the children GTester tests, 5% turn out to have IQs over 150. Jim scores 155.
(c) Jane is taken to PGTester for testing because she is strongly suspected to be PG. Of all the children PGTester tests (she only does testing on children referred like that), 50% turn out to have IQs over 150. Jane scores 155.
Next year Jo, Jim and Jane are all retested by the same tester. Who if anyone will score over 150? We don't know; but the probability that the child will score over 150, given the information here, is NOT the same for all the children. Jane is far more likely to than Jo. Why? At bottom because the IQ score is not the only information about Jane - we also have the factors that led to her being tested in the first place, and this still matters. It has the effect of making Jane's high score less likely to be any kind of fluke than Jo's is. It's nothing, or not much, to do with being able to guess answers or not; it's to do with there being any uncertainty in the score from any cause. Happening to be asked a question you know the answer to, or happening to be in a good mood that day, or even the tester happening to make a mistake in your favour, or anything, will do.
Notice that the effect of this is that AvTester will see a strong regression to the mean effect, and will perceive that high scores in children this age are relatively unstable, compared with PGTester who will see a weaker regression to the mean effect (NB the mean that matters to her is the mean of the scores *she* sees) and will perceive that high scores in children this age are relatively stable. They're both right, for the populations they test.
What's true for one's own child? There probability gets tricky - you can quite legitimately get very different answers, depending on what population you decide to consider your child as a member of. I hate probability :-)
If you're confused by this you're not alone. It's the same problem as when doctors have to take into account the prevalence of a disorder as well as the test results in estimating the probability that someone with a positive test for a disorder actually has the disorder. They are notoriously bad at doing this. (The moral is, if you ever get a positive result on a screening test, talk to a statistician as well as to your GP :-)
Great post, ColinsMum.
I think aculady's point about crystallized intelligence is a good one, too. The effects of testing assumptions, made when crafting a test for a wide range, must be very different for young kids. For me, it goes back to my distrust of relying on any sort of early milestones as a hard predictor of intelligence levels or future performance, although I think a child who hits milestones early under her own steam will be more likely to be on her way to genius.
Ahhhh... now I have the puzzle piece, thank you ColinsMum
A great explanation.
What you said too, aculday, is very interesting. DD had lower scores in a couple of her verbal subtests (because of test fatigue according to the tester). When we were showing her results to a GT coordinator at a school we're considering she made the comment that the verbal stuff 'can be taught anyway'. I thought this was curious as I had never heard this mentioned before. Perhaps that's what she meant - that it's crystallised knowledge.
Thanks all!
But it is all a bit delicate because we have Bayesian reasoning going on under the hood here!
Thank you, ColinsMum for such a clear explanation of a tricky topic. That information is really helpful.
Indeed, thankyou! That really helps.
What I have experienced is that IQ scores do change if children are tested from a very young age. I have a friend with three very smart children. They walked, spoke, and acted pretty average throughout babyhood. Beginning at age two, she began teaching her children how to read, count, etc. Beginning with the oldest, his IQ was tested at age 5, where he tested at 140. By five his math and reading ability were at a second grade level. He began regular school, because the gifted program began at grade three. When he was tested at age 8, His IQ was only 116, which did not allow him to qualify for the gifted program. Due to the fact that she maintained him advanced academically by teaching him at home in addition to school, his achievement scores were at the 99th percentile, so she was able to advocate for her son to the point were an exception was made and he was accepted into the gifted program.
The next child, began a stronger regimen of academics at two, and tested at 140 at four. With these numbers, my friend placed her daughter in a private kindergarten (since public school wouldn't accept her at 4). At five she placed her daughter in first grade in public school. When the child was eight and tested for the gifted program, her IQ was 110. Due to the fact that she was advanced academically, 99% achievement scores, etc. She was allowed in the gifted program.
For the last child, she wasn't even tested. She placed her in private kindergarten at 3 1/2, where she did k, 1st grade, then placed her in public school at age 5, with a grade skip (grade 1 again for the child), and now the child is happily placed in the gifted program, with testing waived.
My point is that the kids tested so highly at a young age because they had been taught what they would be tested in, and later received the enrichment of gifted children, which has resulted in very high achievement (so far, the oldest is in college).
IQ numbers can be greatly affected if a child is an early reader, and some may argue that early readers have a high IQ, but coincidentally, almost everyone I know (30+ kids) is reading by age 4. I don't think they're all gifted, but I think its the academic achievement culture that I am around with. I'm pretty sure that if all these kids were given IQ tests they would all test highly gifted and above, yet I don't believe they all are. What are the odds that so many gifted kids would be concentrated in an area/ethnic group?
Anyway, if some of these kids are not placed in the gifted program, and some are, in the long run they will have very different achievement, but all these kids IQ's probably hover around 115.
In my experience, I'm actually uncomfortable with having my children's IQ tested, since my first child did test 145 at age 4, when he attended a preschool for gifted children, but later tested 130 at age 7. I believe his high score was due to his early reading ability, love of puzzles and advanced math skills. With my other children I happen to homeschool, so there's no need for IQ testing.
You are making some excellent points. You are highlighting the difference between native intelligence versus academic achievement.
I remember a psychology study I read in college. The scientists went to the teacher and said, "these 3 children have had their IQ tested and they are on a verge of a big intellectual break-through." Then they said, "these 3 kids were tested and they are of average IQ."
Actually, all the kids had the exact same IQ.
They followed the kids and retested them a year later. The kids who were supposedly gifted (but really weren't) scored much higher on the subsequent IQ test; the "average" kids, who were actually the same, scored much lower.
They had placed TV cameras in the classrooms and they found that, unwittingly, the teachers spent more time, praised more, etc. the kids who they thought were gifted than those they thought weren't. When they interviewed the teachers, the teachers said they spent the exact same amount of time with each kid, although they actually were not.
So what we might take from all of this is the child who is tested young, by a gifted specialist, because they seem gifted (but have not been coached) is more likely to come up with a stable-ish number than a child tested randomly by a general tester or a child tested after much early coaching.
So when people with gifted seeming kids are asking whether to take their child for testing, what sort of test (SB5, WPPSI, wait for the WISC), with who... the reasonable answer is?
Hunter has a strict IQ cut off for K entrance but they make all kids test again for 7th grade because IQ can drop or increase dramatically between 4 and 11. And they have been doing this for more than 30 years.
Ren
That's really interesting Wren. So do children get shown the door based on IQ even if they are performing well against their peers academically?
Edited to add: I don't know US schools at all, would this be a school where children are coached aggressively, as described above, in order to qualify as 4yr olds? Would that be part of why they see shifts?
RE: Hunter. They use a modified SBV for entry and a list of psychologists qualified to give the test. So can you coach for SBV? That is what this post is discussing.
But over years, they have seen a shift from what a 4 year old demostrates against peers and about grade 7. And yes, they can get cut from Hunter if they don't score in the top for entry into the high school, which starts grade 7. It is just score based, just like Styvescant, which starts grade 9.
I have posted before that a psychologist that we are friendly with socially, and he spoke abou this trend but it hits a raw nerve on this forum. And the reverse happens. A kid that shows up as 130, can go to 150 by grade 7. Wasn't there a great post by a father who said their son was not an early reader or anything and by grade 1 showed signs of rapid acceleration. All of sudden he just took off? I cannot remember exactly and I am paraphrasing.
Ren
I find this whole thing quite fascinating.
Tomorrow we are going to sit down with the school principle and try to get DD moved from preschool to reception (K in the US I think). For me this particular discussion has certainly fed my denial and questioning - what if she's not gifted? What if we should let her spend another term in preschool and then 6 terms in reception due to her unfortunate birth date? Maybe she will benefit from all that extra time and being one of the oldest in her class? She misses her friends who went on without her, she is bored and not being challenged, but neither is she out there blazing a trail academically. What if her WPPSI result was a fluke? preschool think she's just like all the other "quite bright" kids in her cohort...
On the other hand, given we were testing for giftedness as per our occupational therapists recommendation, and she is not a reader (or rather she wasn't a month ago when she was tested), and she's basically experienced the complete opposite of coaching academically, chances are that her score is what it is and is more likely to go up than down.
Reading aside, looking at the Ruf estimates for example, her behavior lines up with her IQ... As Dottie says, time will tell and it will be an interesting ride.
I don't think that anyone here is saying that a child couldn't possibly be known to be gifted as a preschooler. In your situation, I'd look at what seems to be a fit for your dd right now. As mycupoftea said, even kids who aren't gifted but are above average can achieve very highly and be accelerated. Playing Devil's Advocate, if you turned out to be totally off in your judgement of your dd, she's got to be at least bright, no? Especially if she would be one of the older kids without acceleration, I'd lean toward moving her ahead myself.
I think that the overall point I get from this type of discussion is twofold:
* IQ isn't set in stone and a person's relative ranking in relation to age peers may change over time. Some people are early out of the gate and others are slower starters, so it may be unwise to assume that early milestones or IQ numbers tell us a permanent ranking of a person in relation to others; and
* IQ tests are imperfect especially when dealing with people who aren't average. My dd10, whom I mentioned earlier with the MG-HG+ IQ scores a mere year apart, is a perfect example. Twice exceptionalities can mess with the total #, wild asynchronous development can as well (mine still had some really high -- 17-19 -- scores even on her lower testing), periods of jumps in development and periods of slow downs can also make #s fluctuate... Overall, the further you get from the mean, the harder it is to know that what you are getting is a fairly accurate picture.
Anyway, if some of these kids are not placed in the gifted program, and some are, in the long run they will have very different achievement, but all these kids IQ's probably hover around 115.
I'd be pretty careful about making this assumption. I really can't imagine how one would know such a thing. I have known some friends' kids since birth and I still wouldn't hazard a guess as to their IQs.
Also, in my experience, reading "by 4" is pretty unusual. My daughter read as a late 4 and we knew absolutely no one else locally whose child was reading at that age. We run in highly educated circles (most of our friends have master's degrees or doctorates), though not wealthy, super-achiever ones. I think there are lots of things you can hothouse, but I don't believe fluent reading before 4 to be one of them.
That said, I think it's certainly possible for parents to mildly improve IQ through enrichment. I have also read that any reading at all will cause a child to score highly on some of the IQ tests given to preschoolers. I can see how this might give a false impression. My DD was given an oral test requiring no reading (the RIAS) when tested at 6.
Thanks for the supportive thoughts Dottie and cricket. I have, of course, not taken this thread at all as an assessment of my own DD in any way. I just can't help adding it to the swirling mix of my thoughts when we are so in throws of figuring out what to do for our own preschooler.
And off to school we go this morning to see what will happen!
To throw another anecdote into the fray, my other dd has not fluctuated in her relative position with peers unless it is to pull further away. There are HG - HG+ kids who test HG early on and continue to test that way throughout their school careers. Your dd could certainly be one of those too.
That's why I always say that the best advice we were given when skipping dd a grade was the look at what met her needs right now and not try to have a crystal ball about what her needs might be in the future. We haven't regretted moving her ahead. It was the right choice.
Mumof3 you may want to read Miraca Gross' article on the Davidson site on highly gifted children in the early years where parent identification is regarded as a far more reliable measure than teacher id of young gifted children.-
http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10124.aspx So stick with your gut - especially if you already have a score that backs it up. I also highly recommend her book Exceptionally Gifted Children, currently on my bedside table. I wish I'd read it sooner, probably when my DS was 2 (he's now 5) for the insights. It�s helped me to finally put my gifted denial to rest as he so clearly sits alongside the children she describes.
The article also has a section that goes directly to GiftOdds' original question about reliability of early testing:
"Ability and Achievement Testing
Many researchers, however, express a justified concern that the reliability of psychometric testing is lower in the early years of childhood than in the middle years (Robinson and Robinson, 1992) and question whether a high IQ score obtained by a young child is predictive of academic success in later childhood (Jackson and Klein, 1997).
Unfortunately, some early childhood educators take this concern too far, and adamantly refuse to have a young child psychometrically assessed, even when it is obvious that the child is very highly gifted and will require early intervention and an individualized educational program.
...
Both Robinson and Robinson (1992) and Gross (1993) found that the scores of young highly gifted children are likely to rise over successive testings, whereas normally a decrease would be expected in this high-scoring population through regression towards the mean. Ability or achievement testing of highly gifted children under the age of 5 or 6 is likely to result in an under-estimation of the child's true performance, rather than an over-estimation."
Giftodd I gather you haven�t been able to track down the studies quoted in the article about the issues of testing very young gifted children?
One of the thoughts I have is that Gross� research was done almost 20 years ago and there has probably been a substantial growth in the culture of coaching very young children or possible �hothousing� in the intervening years that may start to skew early IQ test results more so than in the past.
Thanks Freya, I did find that article interesting. Likewise the article on Terrance Tao linked earlier, who went through school in our city at the same time that I did. It as fascinating to see an article documenting the exact "anti-elitism" that I encountered in my own schooling (though I was obviously nowhere near Tao's situation, or prehaps because I was nowhere near his level of giftedness, I still encountered "No we couldn't possibly give your child extension work because that would be elitist and wrong").
Hi Freya,
I haven't had a chance to look for further studies, but will do so when I can. Miraca is actually the head of gifted education at the University of New South Wales here in Australia and is still well and truly involved in gifted education. Her department was responsible for putting together a training program for all Australian schools in the last few years and she made the comment when I heard her speak at a conference a year or so ago. So she's still in the thick of things and as I understand it has continued her research over the years.
The package is here if it's of any use to anyone:
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/scho...ion_professional_development_package.htmI would second your recommendation re her book. It helped me put a few things in perspective. It would be interesting to know where those kids are now!