Hi there
Our son (5 yr 8 mths) recently did the SB5 test and got the following results...
Fluid reasoning 138 (99th%)
Knowledge 134 (99th%)
Quant. Reasoning 122 (93rd%)
Vis/Spatial Processing 137 (99th%)
Working Memory 138 (99th%)
Non verbal IQ 137 (99th%)
Verbal IQ 138 (99th%)
FSIQ 139 (99.5th%)

Looked pretty great and strong across all areas to my laymans eye...
So we met with the school psychologist who wanted to do the Weschler (I assume that's another IQ test) herself (as we got private testing done). I said no and that I didn't understand what benefit that would have. She then tried to play down the results by explaining all sorts of bell curves and gifted 'categories' to me, none of which I believe she had much knowledge of. So please, in a nutshell what do the results tell you?
Feeling a bit despondent...

Fastcar - I think everyone here would certainly agree that there are levels of giftedness. And your school psych's problem might be that your son's FSIQ puts him right on the cusp of moderately and highly gifted (depending on where you set your yardstick), so maybe she's hoping to get a slightly higher number for a more definitive level? Alternately she just doesn't know what to make of the SB5 and wants a test she personally is comfortable with.

How did you choose the tester you took your son too? Were they a gifted specialist? If so, then chances are they will have coaxed your son's best performance from him, where as it is a common experience for parents to be less than pleased with school testing (though it can of course be fine).

Also, at 5yrs 8mths and definitely gifted you will run into problems with ceilings on the WPPSI. My DD did the WPPSI at 4yrs9mths and had problems with this.

In terms of figuring out your DS's LOG (level of giftedness) and comparing the SB5 and Wechsler tests, there seem to be a few different ideas around. According to Davidson DYS entry requirements SB5 and the WISC are of equal value number wise (a score of 145 will qualify) while the WPPSI, which is what your DS could sit at his current age, requires a score of 150 to qualify. Hoagies on the other hand lists lower SB5 scores as being equivalent to the WISC or WPPSI. You can see their chart here:

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_profoundly.htm

Going by Hoagies your son would fall into the exceptionally gifted range. If you take the Davidson approach that SB and Wechsler scores are more equivalent then he would be more in the HG range. Only time will really tell though. A test is one day in time, he's clearly gifted, just how that will play out will take time.

Hi fastcar, welcome to the board.

To my untrained eye, your child looks great. No major weakness, no LD flags, working memory and processing look great (do not take that for granted!), gifted.

How gifted? I think I'd wait a year or two and retest with the WISC. I read somewhere that about 7-8 years old is a good time to do IQ testing. You want to do it early enough that the likelihood of hitting ceilings is lower.

I wonder about achievement testing. Did your psych offer it? I'm talking off the top of my head but maybe the school could administer that type of test? Is the child too young? Maybe someone else could chime in here.

Would you elaborate on why you were feeling despondent about the results? Were you trying to get certain accomodations from the school? Grade skip? Enrichment? Would you mind telling us a little more about what drove you to get testing?

Thx for the replies! A bit more background...

The reason we ended up testing was a result of a suggestion from the teacher, and I guess 'knowing' as parents that our son was very special from a very young age. We did testing through a very well reputed gifted specialist psychologist who was the most recommended in our country (Australia). I couldn't be happier with him, the process and the standard of the report (oh, and the results!). I have actually heard that gifted specialists can get 'higher' results from the testing, so that is an interesting point.

I am also really happy with the school so far, they take on our ideas and offer some good in-class enrichment and extension activities. His teacher is wonderful with him, but in a class of 27 kids it is hard for her to give different levels of homework, so we're working on that now.

I asked for a meeting with the teacher and Principal this week, and ended up meeting just with the school psych (teacher couldn't get class relief and Princ was away) who said we'd need to arrange another meeting next week with the teacher and Principal! Frustrating.

I've asked them in an email what sort of things I would like to investigate for next year including subject acceleration (we decided against grade accel as our son is socially really happy with his peers at the moment), I also wanted to see if we can select his Year 1 teacher now and get them involved in these meetings now, as there are only 8 weeks of this school year left.

So in all honesty, my problem is with the school psych. She is not experienced with gifted kids, and I just do not have any level of faith that she knows what she is talking about. Which is why I got a bit annoyed when she wanted to do another test on our son, after we'd just gone and got what is known as one of the best gifted specialists in Australia to do a very detailed SB5. I deliberately didn't get testing done through the school because the school psych would have conducted it. I'm at the point where I want to ask the Principal if we can just focus on meeting with her and the teacher, as I feel that its an educational things we're talking about, not a psychological problem that the school counsellor needs to be involved in.

I don't know anything about achievement testing, but our son did on-entry testing at the start of this school year, which I am getting the results for and I assume it is similar to an achievement test?

I appreciate the feedback!

I am in Australia too, and I think I know where you had teh tests done. If my guess is right, we used the same testers and we are very happy with them, the report and the service provided. We have not had any school look at the report and say he requires further testing (yet).

27 is very large for a kindy or yr 1 class. It would be very hard for the teacher to provide any level of differentiation to such a large class. Isn't the maximum for kindy 24 students, or is that a NSW rule?

In your place, I too would be frustrated.

My suggestions is to speak to the principal, with or without the school psych present, and explain that the testing has been done through an external well regarded psych practice. Arm yourself with a table of how the results translate, and an FSIQ in the 99.5th percentile means that that people of his capability or above occurs only 1 in 200 at most. You can use the hoagies table (though I would not say that is totally accurate as I have seen others where the scores and rarity for SB5 and WISC4 are about 1 to 1). It's just a comparison to show what an FSIQ on SB5 would translate to on WISC4, eliminating the need to retest.

If you have samples of work that your child has done outside of school showing he is able to do much more than what is provided, perhaps you can bring that.

Lastly, is the testing done at the start of the year Best Start? If so, it will say nothing about your child's ability or achievement. teh testing, from what I understand, is basic - can he recognise some letetrs, shapes and colours? Can he count to 20? That sort of thing. It does not test the limit of his reading or comprehension, nor his math skills.

mamaknits - we definitely used the same as you!

The class size is huge in my opinion, but we're in WA so I'm not sure on the cut off, or even if there is one. There are four Year 1 classes next year, so hopefully the numbers per class will come down. An example at the moment of the teacher struggling to differentiate is with homework - our son is getting the same buzz words home as all the other kids - 'we', 'this', 'went', 'I' etc...and the new task this term is for them to learn numbers 1-20. We were doing that at least 2 years ago at home, so understandably he is not into homework in the slightest. I'm just going to do our own buzz words and get him to learn 5 new words a week and what they mean.

I gave the school the Hoagies translation table and I think that's what got the school psych in a tizz. His results come out at either EG or PG according to the SB section on that table and she said something like: "Oh, he's not profoundly gifted, that's an IQ of 180"...grrr. I'll spend some time trying to find the best way to communicate the level of giftedness, and have seen some good stuff in other topics here.

I've re-read my previous posts here and I can see how I am letting this one person tarnish what should be a positive and exciting time for us. I'm going to do my best to drop the issues I have with the school psych and focus on getting the Principal and teacher onboard (which I'm fairly certain they will be anyway).

I don't think the testing at the start of pre-primary (NSW's Kindergarten) was Best Start. It was literacy and numeracy and they call it 'on-entry'. It would be similar by the sound of it and I know they asked me if they could spend an hour with our son so I assume they went into some other levels of testing but we (nor any other parents) ever received the results. I've asked for them to be available at the meeting with the Principal in 2 weeks.

Great idea about showing examples of his work done outside school. I will do that!

Fastcar, I think you have two problems with the school psychologist. Firstly she is still thinking in "old" numbers, which may be what are shown on the department policies she has access to. The SA one still refers to WISC3 and has incorrect iq/log correlations for WISC4 or sb5. Your second problem is that you gave her the hoagies table, and that has probably really thrown her.

I personally think that the davidson approach is more accurate (ie that the sb5 and wisc4 should be fairly directly comparable). Hoagies Is a fantastic reasource, but if she doesnt know the site then it will carry no weight with her. She's probably concluded you are desperately seeking proof on random websites to show that your ds is PG when he's not (ie she thinks you are one of "those" parents, pushy and deluded).

At the back of your report there should be a section dedicated to the level of giftedness that applies to your son. I am guessing it will say highly gifted. That section of the report is what you should use with school to outline his LOG.

Hi fastcar, this link is for the 'official' SBV reference for how the current scores differ to the old ones: http://www.assess.nelson.com/pdf/sb5-asb3.pdf

It's produced by Riverside Publishing who distribute the SBV. Maybe something official will help the psych get her head around it...

We're in Australia too (not WA), and have found the quality of education dept psychs to be pretty variable, which is incredibly frustrating.

Best of luck!

Giftodd.

Is it true that a gifted child can have better results with a tester that is used to testing gifted children or specializes in testing gifted children? I'm debating on whether to test my dd through the school district or privately.

Mimmy - speaking only if my own personal sample of 2 children, both have tested first with a generalist psychologist usings wechsler tests, then by a gifted specialist using the SB5 (still waiting for full reports but have verbal info).

When I heard tester#1 say "I've never seen that before" after one of my DD#2s subtests I asked how many gifted kid she sees and she told me about 12 a year. It was obvious to me that she could not tell when DD#2 was bored and annoyed v. lost and confused. DD still tested well but there were a few subtests that I felt were clear underestimations and a few where she hit ceilings. I was told by the gifted specialist that she definitely tested higher and more even than the first time around.

DD#1 is 2e and also less gifted, but again has tested higher with someone who "got" her.

Neither of them have shifted by a whole standard deviation (I don't think), they still have the same basic pattern and approximate LOG, but the picture is clearer and I feel more accurate. In particular both girls tested weaker in what I believe to be their area of strength with the first tester (visual spatial), but stronger in this area with the second. Possibly my kids are just better suited to the SB5 but I think it was also about rapport and pacing.

I have searched the whole 26 page report and can't find anything on LOG in the terms I'm used to reading online. I can see 'Very Superior' for most of the elements, and that he hit at or near the ceiling for 4 out of the 5 cognitive functioning scores. I'll go back to the gifted specialist and just ask that question.
mamaknits - I know we used the same organisation to test - did your report have a LOG section?

Fastcar, in the summary section, in the last sentence of the first paragraph, he said that my son is "exceptionally gifted" so maybe look in the summary section?

If you look at page 9 of that pdf doc that was linked above, you will see SB5 uses different terms. When I look at that I can see that his score lines up with "very gifted/highly advanced" which is on the same line as "exceptionally gifted". From that chart (eventhough there are no exact direct equivalences), I gather that 139 on SB5 is gifted or very advanced, which in the SB-LM terms would be considered highly gifted. Why don't you check with the tester? I found him to be very approachable and helpful. I have heard the same about the other tester in the practice.

I'm not sure the Hoagies table is completely accurate. The translation of my son's score seemed over the top, so I sourced the Sattler book referred to (am occationally a little OC) but couldn't find the information in there. Until I see otherwise, I'll assume the percentiles given by the test publishers are the most accurate.

FWIW, our experience with the school psych was not good - an experiment in a new area for her, with poor results that were avidly siezed on by those in the school who were anti GT. And then our private psych results were pretty much dismissed.

I'd definitely recommend staying private, with a psychologist who has both experience and a good degree of empathy with GT children.

Hi again fastcar. I believe the SBV doesn't use those kinds of definitions (exceptionally gifted etc) and therefore your report might not show them (we, like you, only have reference to highly advanced etc). If you look at page 7 of the link I referenced in my previous post in this thread it compares the current test to the old and would put 139 in the highly gifted range on that basis (in so far as they can be compared). The report was done in 2003, when the SBV was released and Ruf mentions in the report there are kids who scored 180 on the old SB L-M who scored around 130 on the SBV, but then so did kids who scored 130 on the old test... Kid's scored on the old tests and new aren't really comparable it would appear.

From memory (it's a long time since I read it all) stated in the document that there needed to be more research done in to the percentiles as time went by and the SBV was more widely used, but I don't know if that research has been done - certainly last time I looked Rivereside Publishing was not referencing it online. At the moment, if you're wanting an 'official' comparison between old and new scores (and something to base a LOG on), this document probably your best bet (other than speaking to the tester of course!)

Thanks all. I asked the tester the LOG question and he gave an excellent response, essentially:
While the SB5 and WISC-IV differ slightly, they are both standardised tests with the same mean (100) and standard deviation (15). There is considerable overlap in what the tests measure (e.g., verbal skills, visual processing skills, abstract reasoning, general knowledge, working memory, etc), with the main differences being that the SB5 also measures
mathematical ability and the WISC-IV also measures processing speed. In xx's case, I believe you can be confident that his overall level of ability (99.5th percentile) as measured by the SB5 would be similar to that obtained using other tests the school is familiar with (one might even argue that he would have scored higher on the WISC-IV considering QR was his weakest factor).

In terms of "levels of giftedness", many of the terms used (e.g., moderately, highly, exceptionally) are defined quite arbitrarily and are out-dated. It is much better to focus on percentile ranks and confidence intervals (and this is recommended by the Australian Psychological Society) because it doesn't matter what "label" you give xx's level of intellectual ability, the fact remains that he was performing overall better than 99% of age peers in four out of the five cognitive factors -he is intellectually gifted by any definition and needs intervention by way of enrichment, extension and possibly acceleration.

I am so glad you went back and got such a useful answer from your tester!