Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment WPPSI-IV Renorming Question

There's a decent reference to a variety of studies on this in the Small Poppies article:

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10124.aspx

I think I agreed with Lucounco. I just don't believe it's a reliable indicator alone. I have seen early self taught readers score very average scores and the reverse of that. My kids were a self taught 2 yr old reader and 5 yr old could take it or leave it with reading. Both are PG kids. It could a good Indictator with one kid and not another. Which in my mind makes it unreliable.

Our school has a decent gifted program doesn't give a lot of weight to early testing or early reading. I tend to agree with them. My DYS kiddo had a lot of peers reading and doing above grade level math in kindergarten. Eight years later my DYS is many years ahead of them in every subject. These kids are doing fine, they just seem to be more early bloomers than gifted. I would not discount it as a possible sign just not a given. I probably watch the speed of acquisition and depth of understanding as more significant to me than age based milestones. It's just an opinion and I am always open to my opinions not being shared or necessarily correct.

going back to the original post. I think the issue with the results of this test is that it was a study...one in which the kids took ALL possible subtests. It took my oldest 2.5 hours and my youngest 3.5+ hours to complete it so I'm sure they were very tired.

Pearson is still in the process of norming it so who knows what they are using to come up with their results.

Another issue is, from what I understand, the WPPSI isn't a good test for older kids...yet, Pearson wants to norm it for kids up to 7.3 which is why my oldest participated in the study. His results were laughable.

The WPPSI-IV is very different from the WPPSI-III so who knows how comfortable the testers were in giving it.

Above all the letter we got from the GDC questioned the validity....not just on my kids' results but of all the results they got. Remember, the kids had to qualify to participate in this study....

I would not look to these results as the final word on your child's giftedness. I took my a bit to realize that myself. It was a tough weekend...but in the end the results are just too weird.

I guess I would also say that there's reading and there's READING. Some folks are like "OMG! My entering kindergartener can read!", and the child can, but it's Starfall level, Biscuit, perhaps Frog and Toad. This is really different from a child who is reading Harry Potter at 4, obviously. (Note--my kids aren't/weren't reading HP at 4.) It does also seem important and relevant to take exposure into consideration. Don't most Montessori kids have some level of reading mastery by 5?

FWIW, my DD12 would be considered a "late reader" (5 years old) in this crowd. DD is a strong math kid. When she was in sixth grade, her gt teacher asked what age all the kids had learned how to read. DD was the latest reader in the class but she is easily one the top performing kids in her GT classroom with the highest Explore composite score in her class (it was DYS level). I have no idea how everyone's IQs compare. Maybe there is a stronger correlation between high VCI and early reading than there is if your kid is stronger on the PRI?

ds is also a late reader by this boards standards. He was 5yrs 3 months when reading "Bob" books. He started kinder at a level 'd' and now in first grade is at a level 'o'. His PRI is 11 points higher then his VCI. He is a mathy kid as well.

Spontaneous reading, while not some sort of prerequisite for giftedness, *is* a strong indicator of giftedness if occurring before age 2. Spontaneous meaning, no parental assistance, and no sort of "Your Baby Can Read" type of program .

I'm still waiting for our results. My son participated in the WPPSI-IV norming data the day after his 6th birthday. The year before, he was tested on the SB-V and the WJ-III achievement test. He qualified for the Davidson Young Scholar's program on his achievement, but only scored highly gifted, overall, on the SB-V. He hit a couple ceilings, but not in one of the top 3 categories to qualify for DYS. I was hoping that this norming data would help us build his portfolio for DYS, as his two siblings are in the program already. Needless to say, I am not happy with what is being reported here . Of my three, I believe, with absolute certainty, that this child is the smartest of the bunch, but immature, with focus and confidence issues. These aren't good traits for test taking. Looks like I'm going to have to pay for the WISC-IV, which I didn't want to have to do. Between the 3 of them, I've already spent more than $3,000 on testing!

My oldest son, just turned 12 and a high school student, taught himself to read at 18 mos. old. By the time he was 3, he was independently reading "The Chronicles of Narnia" with perfect comprehension, writing sentences, and making up multiplication and division problems with his matchbox cars. He squeaked by on his IQ test, qualifying for DYS with his verbal score. He blew his achievement test out of the water in every way.

My 6 year old son is working anywhere from a 4th-8th grade level, but by age, should be in 1st grade. He began reading at 9 months old. He began speaking at 5 WEEKS old. Yes, I have this on video. THIS is the child I'm having testing issues with! As I stated, he qualifies for DYS with his achievement testing, but falls short on his IQ test.

My 5 year old daughter didn't do anything impressive and early like her big brothers did. When I had her tested less than a week before her 4th birthday, the results shocked me. She squeaked by on her achievement test, qualifying for DYS with her math score. But she blew her IQ test out of the water. The WPPSI-III only goes as high as 155; she scored a 152, meaning she hit A LOT of ceilings! She was hardly reading at the time.

So yeah, reading can be an indicator, but just because your child doesn't read early doesn't mean they aren't gifted . . . or even profoundly gifted!

The reading onset/IQ correlation question really is an interesting one. I've always wondered about it. FWIW, I was the last kid in my class to learn to read (1st grade) and had won a District-wide reading contest by 2nd grade. I'm not "mathy" and my giftedness is definitely verbal-linguistic. I have a PG IQ.

Like someone said, there is reading, and then READING. DS5, PG, was a self taught reader at age 2.8 yrs. And shortly after, by 3 he was reading full on chapter book type stuff.

DS2.11 "reads" level one type stuff and has been for a couple of months now. Still, no comparison to what DS5 was doing at this point.

So I guess for DS5 early READING was a sign of him being PG but DS2.11 is not showing the same strong signs. This is where this comment that was posted hits home.

"I probably watch the speed of acquisition and depth of understanding as more significant to me than age based milestones."

This is what makes me think DS2.11 is way up there in giftedness as well. DS5 didn't have the same acquisition and depth of understanding that DS2.11 when he was this age. Completely different types of intelligence.

I have come to believe testing young children is ridiculous. There is a reason many professionals do not recommend IQ testing for children under the age of seven.

I used to live in a city where everyone who is anyone tested their three and four year olds for admission to private school. It was a scam. Testing was expensive. There were testers who were known to give better scores than others. Parents passed around test prep. The expensive preschools touted curriculums designed to prepare your kid for the WPPSI. There was just a lot of money involved. And, there were supposedly a lot of 99 percentile kids.

I now live in a city where the public school will test three and four year olds for free. I talked to the psychologist about testing a very shy child last year. He said not to bother. He was very candid. He said the three and four year olds who do well on their testing are the outgoing, confidant children who come from enriched homes. I basically learned that the gifted magnet school was a way to keep UMC families in the poor performing district from flocking to privates. The school operates one grade level ahead and does not serve the highly gifted child. There is another program for that. Surprise, surprise--they do not accept testing done before the age of seven.

It is about money. It is about politics. But, I think in the end it is hurting the kids.