Did you see the note at the bottom of the page that many of the scores were lower than expected and they're still working on the extended norms? So, I wonder if it was the test and not our kids, kwim? I would love to hear how the scores from the study compared to the scores of children who had been previously tested.
This is interesting - will be interesting to see what else comes out re the renorming.
FWIW, it doesn't make sense to me that if the tester ran out of questions on each subtest that the scores were only in the 120s... wouldn't running out of questions indicate hitting ceilings?
polarbear
eta - I don't think it's entirely out of the range of probability that the scores are correct - we have friends who have a very high-achieving dd (grade accelerated, gifted programs, very early reader, etc) who wasn't IQ tested until she'd already been in school several years (and was older). Her IQ is around 120.. which most here wouldn't even think of as gifted - but she's amazingly successful at achieving in school. The IQ number is only one part of the equation. In my family, my EG kiddo isn't the highest achiever, but my HG+ dd has one of those out-of-the-field high working memory scores, and she soars when it comes to schoolwork and moving through new concepts quickly which is, I think, due in large part to her working memory (all of her subtest scores are very strong, but her WM is still much higher). My EG kiddo, otoh, has lower WM than his PRI/VIQ and you can see that in him - he's an amazing thinker, but not a producer of huge amounts of work in a short period of time and on the surface, when you're just looking at academic tasks he doesn't appear to be all that out there. Talk to him and you see the high IQ.
