Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Age or Ability Specific Forums Pre-school score of 100 in 3.5 yo on Brigance preschool II

Hi,
My 3.5 year old was given a Brigance preschool II test. It was out of 100. I was told an average score was 77 and 'gifted' score was 84. She scored 100.
Has anyone heard of this test? Any insights into what this means in terms of level of giftedness?
The nurse said I should have her 'assessed' but I don't have any reason to do this at this stage.
She can read a little bit and will start school in 2+ years. I am not in the US.
Thanks for any information!

Do you have the breakdown of scores? I'm sure there will be others with more insight, but I'll add this. My DD was given something similar to this (although it may have been a slightly different version) when she was 2 years old, almost 3.

The PhD evaluated with the Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development and Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration. The results were as follows based on age equivalents (not as a score).

1. Body parts: 4.5 years (receptive) and 5.0 years (expressive)
2. Colors: 6.0 years
3. Shapes: 6.0 years
4. Qualitative/Quantitative Concepts � 5.5 years
5. Visual Discrimination � 6.6 years
6. Recites Alphabet - 5.9 years
7. Uppercase Letter Recognition � 6.3 years
8. Lower Case Letter Recognition � 6.0 years
9. Number Concepts � 5.3 years
10. Numeral Comprehension � 5.5 years
11. Listening Comprehension � 6.0 years
12. Visual-Motor Integration � 3.0 years

DD was 2.5 to 3.5+ years ahead of of her age peers on everything except visual-motor integration (writing skills). I was told to test again when she turned 6. DD is now 8 and was identified as MG when she tested at 6.

Hope this helps. Good luck!

Thanks TX G Mom!

No I don't; have anything like that, I have the raw scored report which says for example

assessment number 5A visual motor skills : copies (names 4 things to be copied), number of correct responses 4, 3 points each, total 12/12
e
tc
It was not scored as your was.
For example again, for the body part section, she was asked to identify chest, back, knees, chin, fingernails, heels.

thanks for the reply!

I sent you a PM. Click on the flashing envelope.

Hi my kiddo was also given a test that I think is the same one. The question that you have copied is the same in the same order etc. I think a 100 score is great. However, the test itself is only 11 questions. There is one question that is completely related to gross motor skills. There are two other questions that are related to fine motor skills and eye hand coordination. This leaves only 8 or so questions that are related to "intelligence". The questions are mostly about acquired knowledge. I think that even being able to figure out who is gifted from the test would be difficult never mind level of gifted. I was shown the questions and there were culturally biased questions. My kiddo did really well. We had two important things come from the test. It is the first test where the administrator was known to her previously to being tested. It is also the first test that she scored in the no worry range in regards to fine motor skills and gross motor skills. They were not all correct but she we were told she was fine. That was really cool and demonstrates the power of the importance of the administrator of the test. Lastly her teacher was surprised by her results. She did not know that DD3 could really talk. It increased her expectations of my kiddo in the classroom. PHEW. Lastly when I did a quick internet search on the test it looks like it is out of date now. I recommend that if you are trying to figure out levels you get the book, "5 levels of gifted"... I think there is a lot more in the book than this test. Also as Dottie days, data over time will tell you a lot more than this one test. HTH

Hi flower, yes that really makes a lot of sense, thanks!!

I have given all of the tests in the BRIGANCE series and have had excellent results with them. Do you know the name of the specific test? I am thinking it is the IED (Inventory of Early Development)or maybe a screener? The test has both a standardized and criterion referenced segment. Even though it only has some questions at that age range, the questions are meant to get the most fully rounded picture of where the child is at. The reason there are so few questions is so the test does not fatigue the child.

Hi EL SPED teacher, yes it was a screening test I believe...... it sounds like the test that another parent on the list had was much more detailed. I have mislaid it now LOL but i think it was the Brigance preschool screening II and it was the version for 3.5 year olds that she took. Does that make any sense?

Hello everyone,

I came across this thread while researching Brigance results and was hoping to get some guidance from those with more experience.

I’m trying to better understand my daughter’s development rather than label her. She is currently 5 years old. On her most recent Brigance III screening (at 4 years 9 months), she scored 98, with a gifted cutoff of 92. Her breakdown was:

* Cognitive: 130
* Language: 121
* Physical: 111

At 3 years 9 months, she previously scored around 83%.

What I’m trying to understand is how to interpret this alongside her current behavior, which feels somewhat asynchronous.

**Strengths:**

* Advanced vocabulary and grammar for her age
* Can hold complex conversations and ask thoughtful, sometimes abstract “what if” questions
* Strong interest-driven learning (e.g., animals—she can go very deep and retain a lot of information)
* Shows good reasoning and curiosity when engaged

**Areas of inconsistency:**

* In structured settings, she may say “I don’t know,” even when she later demonstrates that she does know the answer
* Can be influenced by peers and sometimes follows behavior she knows is not appropriate
* Engagement depends heavily on interest—she may disengage if something feels repetitive or not challenging
* At times seems to struggle with retrieving information on demand (she once described it as her “brain being full and not knowing what to take out”)

Because of this, her performance can appear inconsistent depending on the situation.

I’m trying to understand:

* Does this pattern align more with high ability or emerging giftedness?
* How common is this type of inconsistency at this age?
* What should I be focusing on as a parent right now (evaluation, support, or observation)?

I’m happy to share more details if helpful, and any guidance or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Welcome Vagee!

The most important piece of perspective is that this test is a screening measure. It's not intended to diagnose giftedness or delay--just to sort out who might benefit from further evaluation with a more comprehensive assessment. Note that the cutoff for GT at this age is >92, but the max score is only 100. So the space in which to spread everyone from 120 to 220 is only 8 points. This is by design, since the primary purpose of the instrument is to identify young children at risk, so they can have access to early intervention and remediation. The at-risk cut-off is 71--so almost 3/4 of the range is reserved for possible delays.

So in answer to your three questions:

1. Neither. The screening score and the behaviors simply suggest watching and possibly future evaluation.
2. Extremely common. Young children experience a wide range of growth trajectories across different domains of development, and further, are notoriously difficult to assess with any consistency. The usual rule of thumb is to consider cognitive measures more stable only beginning around age 9 or so.
3. Depends. My bias is always to start from observation in a very young child. Until you have a more nuanced read on when her skills are most accessible to her, evaluation will have a less promising return on investment, since there is a high likelihood that an unfamiliar examiner will not get optimal performance from her. TBH, none of the areas of inconsistency you've described seem out of the range for a child of her age. The level of support I would think appropriate is just that of attentive parenting.

Is there a time to evaluate? Of course there can be. (I'm a professional evaluator, so naturally I would think so!) I typically say that evaluations are warranted when
a) there is a question to be answered/problem to be solved (e.g., is there an obstacle to learning or development that appears to be present? are we questioning a disability of some kind?); or,
b) when it will aid in access to a necessary resource (e.g., higher-level classes, GT programming, specialized summer camps).

A few more thoughts on the "inconsistencies":
-One of my sibs habitually said, "I don't know" as a young child despite knowing answers that most would consider quite sophisticated, apparently because knowledge that is not comprehensive of all possibilities (in the universe! throughout all time!) is inadequate knowing. That sib was reading at 2.
-It may be that your DC is more socially-aware than some age-peers, and consequently more vulnerable to peer pressure at an age when many others are still just emerging from parallel play.
-The nature of variable engagement you describe is not uncommon in high cognitive and inquisitive learners, who typically have high intellectual stimulation needs. But it's also pretty typical of all small children. Keep in mind that kindergarten standards in most states expect students to manage 5-10 minutes of sustained listening.
-She is describing relatively slow retrieval fluency. At this age, I hesitate to ascribe it to any actual concerns, but it's probably worth keeping an eye on it.