I am wondering if one is different than another? If the scores are generally the same? Is there a waiting period between the two? Our school district gives the WISC, and DD6 is going to be tested at some point this school year, but I am guessing it is going to be sometime in the spring (and if the school has their preference I am sure it'll be LATE spring). So, another school we are considering has to have the S-B, and we were thinking about in the meantime -- like sort of soonish -- doing that test, so that we know if she'd qualify for their HG immersion program, prior to waiting on our slow-as-molasses home school district. WDYT?

Yes, they are different but both are IQ tests. WISC is much more commonly used (and therefore better known by schools). They are completely different tests, so there shouldn't be a problem in having her take both.

Any differences in scores I've seen/heard about are anecdotal, but of the few kids I know who've taken both, the SB-V tends to run a bit lower for FSIQ. I've generally heard that the WISC is better for verbal kids and the SB for mathy kids if you are looking for a higher score or to hit on the kid's strengths, but again I'm not sure if that is just anecdote.

My eldest was tested on the WiSC at 7 and the SB5 last month, her FSIQ was 8 points higher on the SB than her GAI on the WISC. I put this down to:

1) actual better functioning (she's 2e and has changed a lot)
2) far better tested rapport
3) test picked up her visual spatial strength

My 5yr old did the WPPSI 6 months ago and the SB5 last month, her FSIQ tested 8 points higher and DYS level on the SB5. I put this down almost exclusively to better tester rapport so she did the whole test, less test fatigue was probably also an issue.

There's much to read on the differences between the two tests. My son did very well on the WISC-IV and WJ-III, along with another verbal IQ test. EG/PG across the board according to these.

With the SB-5 much lower, he would not have made the 130 cut-off for our gifted program. Wild differences. Thankfully the collection of other tests along with his real-life performance showed the higher scores to more accurately reflect his abilities.

I'm heading out the door so won't do much editing with what I've collected.. but it seems that for some, the SB-5 is a totally different "Yardstick."

Hope this helps!

---------------------------------
In no particular order. The quotes are all from the linked articles.

http://www.giftedchildren.org.nz/forum/read.php?f=3&i=3125&t=2378
"Comparing the same versions of individual IQ tests, such as the WISC-IV to the SB-5, should be straightforward. But each test has its own strengths. Psychologists suggest that matching the test to the subject's strengths results in the most accurate IQ score. The current version of the Wechsler, the WISC-IV, is a strong test for verbally gifted children, with emphasis on knowledge gained from reading. This version of the WISC, however, is also heavily timed. Short term memory and processing speed scales often lower the full scale IQ score for gifted children. Psychologists should be familiar with the alternate scoring, called the Global Intelligence Index (GAI), in cases where the difference between the verbal scale and short term memory or processing speed scales exceed limits. The current version of the Stanford Binet, the SB-5, is stronger for non-verbal intelligence, and less heavily timed. Note that for the previous versions of these tests, the WISC-III and SB-4, the common wisdom was exactly the opposite: use the WISC-III for non-verbal kids, and the SB-4 for verbal / intelligence gifted kids."

Full text of one study:
Gifted and highly gifted students: how do they score on the SB5?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=150850213

"In contrast to the means on the SBS, which seem to be lower than expected, many of the age-equivalent scores appear to be higher than one might expect. The proportion of children that received age-equivalent scores beyond the highest average score for mature adults (19% of gifted students and 40% of highly gifted students) seems implausible even after taking into account documented cautions in interpreting such scores (Sattler, 2001). If these age-equivalent scores are indicative of actual functioning, it seems curious that they are not accompanied by correspondingly high IQ scores. In sum, these scores appeared to be of minimal use in accurately describing levels of giftedness in our sample."

and

"Another interesting finding is that some individual's scores varied dramatically between the two intelligence tests (as much as 35 points). Two students in the highly gifted program scored so low on the SB5 that they would not meet intelligence test criteria for giftedness even if the cut-off were lowered to 115. Alternatively, several students who scored at the low end of the IQ cut-off for our gifted program did very well on the SB5 and scored within the range of the study completed by Riverside on child prodigies."


This one shows discrepancies specifically for highly verbal kids:
http://www.malonefamilyfoundation.org/whatisgifted_assessing2.html
"Conclusion:
Any test can only measure a small portion of a person's competence. Therefore, all tests underestimate children's abilities rather than overestimate them. It is nearly impossible to fake abstract reasoning at an advanced level. When a disabled child achieves two different IQ scores, the higher score is believed to be the best estimate of the child's potential. Gifted children deserve the same attitude."

Discussions of SB-V at Davidson GT group:
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/55959/1.html

Also WISC-IV v. SB-LM
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/B...res_vs_sta.html

And another:
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/33188/2.html

Our experience with the SB-V was mixed. First, my DD's scores were lower on the SB-V than the WISC-IV and did not seem to reflect her verbal strengths as well. However, it was helpful to see her scores on Quantitative Reasoning (one of her strength areas) that are not tested on the WISC. Also, the SB-V scores showed a clear distinction on verbal vs. non-verbal working memory for our DD, and helped to push us on the 2e evaluation process. (Although she scored average or above in total working memory on both the WISC and the SB, her non-verbal working memory was only a 6th percentile.)

For what it's worth, my DS took the SB-V at 5.9 and received a FSIQ of 132, which did not qualify him for the self-contained HG/PG program we felt would be the right fit. The second he turned 6 he scored a FSIQ of 155 on the WISC-IV (all subtests 99.9, except for WM, which was 99.7). I personally know of one other child who had to re-test due to a non-qualifying score in the low 130's on the SB-5, and subsequently scored >99% on all areas of the COGAT (and is now a first-grader considering a grade skip within his HG/PG program). I am not sure what it all means ... but I am planning to wait until my second child is 6 and go straight to the WISC if she needs a score for admission to a program. Confusing world of IQ testing out there!!

This is an interesting older thread.

My DS6 was 2 points away from qualifying for DYS on the WISC (143 on GAI). He is very mathy and did well on the working memory portion of the WISC, but not the processing speed. Oh, and he took the WISC on very little sleep.

We intend to test again, either with the WISC V next year or with the SB5 soon-ish. SB5 seems to play to DS's strengths, but scores seem to be lower on the SB5 for gifted kids (is that really possible for percentiles?). Plus I assume that the Flynn effect will make qualifying for DYS more difficult when the new tests come out.

With a kid with my DS's profile, what would you do? SB5, WISC V, or fuggetaboutit?

Ultralight, this is the only page i've marked about the test scores
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_profoundly.htm
Which at least gives you the common ages for the tests.
I only remember the DAS because I think it was much cheaper than the others.
Speaking of cheap, I've read that if the IQ score is really close and you have a qualifying achievement (free at school, right?) that they will take a portfolio sample of work that's a few years ahead of grade and count it as close enough.
This thread says how Aimee Yermish once said to test a mathy kid(poster here who's also a professional gifted psychologist).
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/89101/Best_test_for_math_talent.html

Interesting! Can anyone confirm this?

The main qualification criteria are two out of the three: qualifying IQ score, qualifying achievement score, and portfolio. The IQ score doesn't have to be really close, or even submitted, if one has a qualifying achievement score and portfolio, but I'd submit it anyway.

Yes, you only need either IQ or achievement if you have a good portfolio.

And I think a portfolio just means a few samples of a kid doing something as good as a kid a few years older. But they want something the kid does, not something you told them to do so they know they weren't just following directions. Some common items I've seen mentioned are things like original writings or a video of a kid describing their favorite subject.


Eta: I googled. A portfolio needs 4 pieces of something 2-3 years advanced and it can include assigned work as long as they did it theirself.
http://www.davidsongifted.org/young...holars___Qualification_Criteria_384.aspx

It's interesting that for the Epilson Math camp the minimum score on the SB5 is 140 while the minimum score for the WISC is 145.

http://www.epsiloncamp.org/who_is_eligible.php

This would suggest that they do not agree that mathy kids score higher on the SB5

I'm too lazy to look this up, but I think DYS requires you to send any and all IQ tests taken, whether or not you are using it to get into the program. Anyone know for sure?

That's my current understanding. But it's fine if all of the information isn't over the cutoff, as long as 2 of 3 are.

Smiles,
Grinity

I know for sure that it's not true at least in all cases, because we weren't required to do that. DS6 had a disastrous first testing experience with the school psychologist on a subset of the DAS II prior to our finding a great outside tester.

The full report from the outside tester referred to the school psych's testing, but we weren't required to submit scores from it at all (we didn't have a full report anyway, just some subtest scores with scatter from well below average, including some zeros, to 99.99999th+ percentile, and a note that not much could be drawn from the results). We also mentioned the prior testing in our application.

The difference in our case might have been that it wasn't a full test, but I don't know. I don't recall the extent to which his scores might have qualified him from that test based on the selection of parts administered either. In any event I think it's not a bad idea to submit whatever one has.

My DYS took the SB-5 at 4 years 9 months old and the WISC-IV at 8 years 9 months old and the FSIQ was the same for both tests. He is a pretty mathy kid.

It was interesting to be able to see the different areas that each test tested. On the SB-5 the Quantative Reasoning was the highest subtest along with Working Memory. The WISC-IV show strengths in Perceptual Reasoning and Working Memory.

We also used the same tester for both tests so I am fairly certain that we have a good idea of his IQ.

In my opinion having both tests done might give you a more accurate assessment. However I do feel that the tester could play a role as well.

I found very little info on the DAS-ii on this forum or elsewhere. Are there other reasons why to take it over the SB5 or WISC? Does it conceptualize 'intelligence' any differently?

Sometimes it is easier to find a tester who is credentialed to do the DAS than the SB5 - so it's an option for 5 year olds if you can't find a tester to do SB5.

I would love to find somebody as knowledgeable about the DAS-II as the people here are about the WISC-IV, if only because the person who administered it to my son so clearly thought that digging into the details (beyond the "intelligence normal or above normal" required to peg his diagnosis) was 1) useless and 2) vaguely uncouth to worry about when he had so many more serious issues going on.

Anyway...

My understanding is that people who use it (including Aimee Yermish, who is sometimes active on this board) like it because it allows fine grained testing of several problem areas in kids with suspected issues and also faster progression through testing for gifted kids, avoiding the tiredness and boredom that can skew results.

It also ranges wide -- 2.9-adult with two sets of overlapping tests for preschool vs. elementary and out of range norming that avoids the WSPPI vs. WISC issue.

Drawback: less well known than the WISC. But good enough for DYS...