I like Ruf as well. As a parent, I feel really grateful for her willingness to dedicate her life to helping kids and families who don't fit in the box. I've heard a time too many, that we're so lucky! Everything will be fine! True. But there are issues with HG/PG kids that are extremely challenging.
I think that if a kid doesn't fit the *profile* that certainly doesn't mean they are not gifted or a certain level of gifted. I don't think anyone would argue that the WISC is not the gold standard.
I was comforted after reading Ruf's levels. As much as I think you should toss Ruf's levels if they conflict with the gold standard of tests such as the WISC, I also think it's irresponsible to propose that her subjective data and findings aren't relevent.
There is simply not enough research available to say that her data on babies is simply behavioral, not related to intelligence. I have two kids that measured very clearly between 4 and 5 and both have exceptionally high IQ scores, and not on the Stanford Binet.
Obviously, if a kid doesn't figure out the Santa thing at age three it doesn't mean the child isn't exceptionally intelligent. But c'mon.....the kid that looks at the fireplace at three or four and says: "There is no way Santa can fit in the fireplace. His belly is too big and the chimney is too narrow. I don't buy for a second that it's not related to intelligence. Seeing patterns, making connections, applying them.......
I do agree that personality drives some of the behaviors that Ruf observes, meaning some equally intelligent children may never exhibit the behaviors. Logically, though, there are many babies/toddlers with same tempermant unable to do any of the things on Ruf's list. It's a combination of both, IMO.
Lastly, I certainly don't represent Davidson. I will say that these days, any knucklehead can read Ruf's levels on line and put it on the application. Logically, couldn't that be a reason they're not used anymore?
