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
The ceiling thing is one of the main reasons why I was so surprised by my child's scores. The tester said that my son hit the ceilings in every subtest (I know he missed some along the way, but never enough for her to stop move on before running out of questions). Plus, the tester mentioned afterward that, in her experience, my son is easily highly gifted, if not exceptionally. So, his low scores really don't make sense to me. Also, my son's scores were actually extremely low in the processing speed and working memory sections (high 80's), so even the explanation that he's just a high achiever doesn't really add up. I don't want to hijack the OP's thread, but there's a lot that doesn't add up for me with the scores. It's just really hard for me not to completely dismiss the scores as flat out wrong. We'll likely test again with the WISC once the twelve month window has passed and see how those scores come out.
