Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Could this be "domain-specific" giftedness?

I really appreciate all the help and time you've given me.

OK. I didn't have any multiple choice testing, but I did get the analogy one.

Which one do you think better applies here? I mean, I want to believe the psych since he's the one that did the testing and sat down with me, plus, he hit the memory thing right on the nose which no one ever caught before...

Should I believe him?

Sigh. This is really complicated.

I would suggest taking a 'the jury is still out' approach. Everyone has both aeas of raw potential and areas of challenge. One of my parents favorite expressions is; You play the hand you're dealt!

So if I'm trying to figure if a 2e issue is involved I look at the person's daily function....are they developing their potential and learning stratigies to overcome the challenges? IQ and achievement test sometimes offer hint to illuminate a person's potential but ittt isn't a sure thing because the challenge areas can block a persons demonstration of that potential. The same thing can happen in reverse but when it doesn't the challenges like your working memory can at least be seen.

I always see test as representing the bottom edge of possible for a persons potential although there are a few instances where a score from under the age of 5 does turn out to be an overestimate. I never see them as saying to give up on someones potential. Mostly tests are a good way to organize our observations on a very complicated topic.

Hope this helps
Grinity

I may have complicated things more & sorry if I did! I just meant to address your prior question about "ability" testing only being IQ tests. There are non-IQ tests that still use the term "ability" in their wording (and then go on to specify that they aren't intelligence tests to make it more confusing!). What you were given was an IQ test, so the multiple choice, group ability test thing does not apply in your instance.

It is just a less familiar IQ test for most of us and it is shorter than many IQ tests. It does seems reasonable to assume from the combo of what you see in real life and those test scores, that short term memory is a personal weakness.

As to whether to believe what the psych wrote, I see no reason not to. I also believe that it is possible that s/he is defining gifted differently than I usually do (high IQ). IQ tests are imperfect, though. I hate to make them the be all end all. I just see them as the best measure we have at this point and less subject to false positives than other measures such as achievement and behavioral scales.

I also absolutely believe that IQ scores can be depressed by learning disabilities and that they can be off for a variety of other reasons. It is possible that either applies in your situation. However, with just the little info you were given, I don't see anything specific that is saying that appears to be extremely likely. I'd expect to see more than a low memory score in a 2e person, but it sounds like you are saying that the subtest scores were figured without having been given all of the tests within those subtests. That really should not have been done if that was the case.

Now you've got me motivated so I went a grabbed my dd's very old RIAS results. So, my understanding here is that, if you have wild variation w/in subtests of the RIAS, the publisher's instructions say that you cannot figure a composite score for the subtest. You, consequently, won't be able to figure a composite intelligence score. That would be the type of thing I'd expect to see when dealing with an invalid IQ score that was thrown by a LD or ADD, for instance. If your tester figured composite scores despite significant scatter, that could make the scores much more suspect.

The VIX (verbal index) should have had two subtests: Guess What and Verbal Reasoning.

The NIX (nonverbal index) should include Odd-item out and What's missing.

Memory subtests are Verbal and Nonverbal memory.

My dd's NIX scores were about two standard deviations from one another, so the NIX could not be figured. The CIX also could not be figured as a result.

I don't know what any of these subtests look like. I don't know if the names of the subtests are enough for you to know if you were given them all.

It’s okay, really! I just appreciate your time. (I know I keep saying that, but I really do!)

I mean, during the memory test I knew something was wrong, especially when he kept asking me if I remembered anything else and I couldn’t recall anything. That was when I knew I wasn’t imagining things.

Honestly, I think the test wasn’t as comprehensive because it was free and the focus was only on LD. If I could’ve afforded it, I would’ve had a whole battery done with a million different subtests. I was just happy to get any testing, period.

OK; I'll believe him. So it's safe to say I'm a gifted reader then? (I actually called the woman who was handling my case to make sure I understood everything, and she said the report was pretty self-explanatory: I was clearly gifted in reading/writing.)

I understand the high IQ thing for things like memory and verbal ability, but, say, if someone was gifted in math (I wish!), their giftedness wouldn’t necessarily show up on an IQ test, right? It would show up on the achievement testing, correct? I’m kind of thinking maybe that’s what’s going on with me: reading ability isn’t measured by an IQ test.

I was also reading that achievement scores don’t correlate exactly to IQ, and my 138 reading score would be more likely to be found in someone with around a 148 IQ. Does that sound about right to you?

I actually did take those subtests, along with the Bender-Gestalt test (it was an LD/psych eval); they’re in my report, but they’re all either average or below average (I have some below average TMT scores, too). None of them are as high as my reading and writing scores. I didn’t think they were worth posting. Sorry! Would you like them?

Oh, and just in case you’re interested, this is one of the first articles I ever read about gifted readers a few years back: http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/levande.htm

Reading fluency is a speed drill test. We can say you are a fast reader, but to describe the reading, we need more depth and indication of deep thinking. The reading fluency test doesn't have any depth to speak of, it's all about answering very simple questions as quickly as possible.

I guess you can have high ability in anything. To me, personally, the word "gifted" entails some sort of thought with a potential output, not just information intake. I guess that reading over the Hoagies link you posted, though, I can see where you're coming from. If your reading-- and thoughts about it-- have driven advanced achievement, are coupled with high ability in expressive language use, etc. I might call you gifted but not a gifted reader. I might prefer "gifted in language arts" or something similar.

I know; I've done boatloads of research.

Honestly, all I know is that my parents don't read and I've never been in an environment that encouraged it, yet I was reading before K and reading on nearly a 7th grade level in 4th with full comprehension.

If the psych says I'm gifted in reading and writing, shouldn't I trust his professional opinion?

Thanks for your time!

I've never, before this thread, ever heard anyone referred to as a gifted reader. If your tester was a gifted expert, and/or you simply want to feel good about someone referring to you as gifted, then I'd go right ahead. It doesn't really matter, does it?

I still think you are focusing too much on the gifted label. You are the same person whether or not someone has referred to you as gifted, unless that matters for acceptance to a program. Merely feeling more confident that your tester had some basis for the "gifted" label doesn't really help you to understand yourself better, or change your life in any way.

Personally, if someone were advanced a bit in reading but showed no other signs of giftedness, I would not tend to call them gifted, but rather a "strong reader".

I've been unable to find anything about it here either, but if you Google it, they are quite a few articles. From what I've read, they're actually a "subset of gifted learners." There's also a pretty good book about them: http://www.amazon.com/Some-Best-Friends-Are-Books/dp/0910707960

I don't believe my tester was a "gifted expert," but he had over 30 years experience, and especially seeing as everything else he said in the report is right on the money, I see no reason not to take his word for it.

You're right; it doesn't help me understand myself better, but I do feel like it explains my situation and the things I've gone through.

Honestly, I just came on this forum to get thoughts on my diagnosis. That's it. I'm not trying to be argumentative or stubborn or anything; I appreciate everyone's time a lot and I'm grateful for the advice.

Thanks!

Oh, and in the report, he also called reading a talent of mine, in addition to the "gifted reader" thing. Maybe that helps? As in, maybe I scored in the gifted range because of my talent?

I have b/c it is one of the domains for a gifted id in my local schools. There are truck loads of kids with a "gifted in reading" id. Their ids usually come from a combo of 95th percentile SRI lexile or NCLB or MAPs reading scores coupled with behavioral rating scales or As in reading or a CogAT reading subtest in the 95th percentile.

Point being, it isn't an unheard of area in which to be called gifted. I, personally, tend more to agree with you that gifted isn't about production or strong reading skills but rather differences in the way the brain processes information.