I have been pondering this thread all afternoon. I am not a psychologist or a statistician, so I might be thinking about this ALL wrong. But if the norming sample of the WPPSI-4 was 1700 children and they are using a normal curve it's just not possible for more than 1.7 of those children to score 145+, for more than 17 (total) to score 138+, for more than 34 (total) of those children to score more than 130. Does anyone know how many gifted children were directly recruited for this test? There are a good number of parents that have cropped up on this board feeling cranky, and I see posts elsewhere on the internet, and from what I can make out these kids were recruited on the premise that they had either already tested as gifted (highly even?) or showed clear signs of being HG+ OR had a PG sibling. So they took 20, 30, 40,...100 (I have no idea exactly how many) potentially HG kids, plus any wild card kids in the "normal" kids they recruited and we're surprised that the "Flynn effect is more dramatic in the gifted population"? Am I missing something here? As I said, so not a psychologist or statistician....
I don't doubt that scores of kids tested early in the life cycle can be seen as "underestimates" versus kids tested midway and the last kids as being prone to "over estimates" but is deliberately recruiting groups of gifted to PG kids messing the initial data up somewhat?
Last edited by MumOfThree; 04/13/13 02:54 AM.
