@Grinity, I will definitely be looking up Lisa Bravo's book. Thank you for mentioning it. Dr. Amend mentioned a book called Children: The Challenge by R. Dreikurs for tips on dealing with perfectionism. Overall, ds does pretty well as long as he's getting adequate intellectual stimulation. The biggest issue we have is rigidity in his thinking and an unusually high need for structure. Dr. Amend recommended teaching ds to think of the best, worst, and more likely outcomes of a given issue/problem and told us about some specific games to help with learning the skill of flexible thinking.
That's great. I wasn't as 'aggressive' in insisting on flexible thinking as I might have been. I think it's great that you are addressing this. I eventually had to read a book about brain injury patients to DS to 'prove' that even though he is inflexible NOW, that we can practice together so he can become more flexible. Of course that is before I read the Bravo book and figured out positive ways to be just as proactive. Now I praise every nano-moment that showed anything like flexibility and slowly but surely there is improvement. But it's slow.
I have another IQ question. I have read (I think it's Deborah Ruf's book that I'm remembering) about so many children with IQ's in the 180's-200 range. In comparison, 165 doesn't seem *that* extreme, but I'm realizing that it is a pretty unusual #. When I see these huge IQ #'s, are those coming from a different IQ test or are those children just scoring incredibly high?
History time: Back around the time WISC 3 was published, the IQ industry decided that 'modern IQ tests' would go to about 145 - or 160 if one was very very amazingly well rounded (i.e. WMI and PSI) and that was all. I can understand this because how is one going to find enough PGlets to properly norm a test that truly differentiates IQ over 145 - where is the profit incentive in that?
Then there was the backlash and some testers refused to give up the outdated SB-LM. The scores you see in Ruf's book are old SB-LM scores. I have noticed that these scores really helped some families 'understand' that their child wasn't fitting in at the gifted program or the gifted school not because of some character defect of the child, but because of LOG.
read:
http://www.dirhody.com/discanner/dontthrow.htmlThen a few years ago the Extended scoring was worked out, and now we again have numbers over 145 that can be trusted. So whenever you look at a book with IQ scores, check the publishing dates! We used to have 'new coke' and 'old coke' - but as more and more psychologist start using Extended norm scoring, we'll have 'new-new coke' as well.
What a mess!
(Can anyone help fill in the years or details? - I might have gotten the overall picture right but missed a few important details - it happens!)
You might also want to read every article on this page, not that you know how to interpret IQ scores historically:
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_gifted.htmLove and More Love,
Grinity
