I think Silverman's argument is interesting - I don't know if she says it quite this way, but it seems like she's saying, either use the GAI or lower the bar for admission to a gifted program to 120 for full-scale IQ.
I kind of picked up from another page on the gdc site (I posted it on this thread already, I think) that the idea is to remove the speed question for most/all questions of gt *BUT* speed is important for good performance in school and other traditional settings so..?
(why not work kids this young into that speed, if their subtests which better correspond with 'g' are really nice looking? )
I am assuming that speed inevitably improves with age, and practice - but these tests are more of a statement of a 'static' percentile of speediness, right?
Not sure, 'tis be-fuddling!
The way that I understand the WISC scores is that VCI/PRI are upper brain tasks and WMI/PSI are midbrain tasks. So, when he's put to the task, his upper brain may be sort of compensating for his lower brain and that's why the full scale is a blend of both. It's as if he's being slowed down by his midbrain. Does that sound right? So, if we improve his lower brain development/skills, his upper brain will be free to work on more cognitive tasks and we might see those achievement scores improve. If that's true so far, would it follow that we might even see improvement in his VCI/PRI or is that just set?
Again, definitely no answers here... but I wonder if the differences between fsiq and gai come down to 'traditional' settings for iq to be apparent and 'non-traditional' settings...?
(Sorry if I ramble.)
