Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Correlation between early milestones and giftness?

I agree with others that while some children show very precocious behavior, many others are not advanced and are even delayed. I know that my children seemed to take one step forward and two steps back at times. I think what's most important is to remain attuned to your child's unique pace try to keep up with it! Good luck.

Gail Post/ www.giftedchallenges.com

There is something slightly different about my son but that's it. I did get he is so clever type comments but I expected clever. He was very persistent though and advanced if you did stuff like block stacking, shape marching. Late to roll, average for crawling, sitting and walking. IQ 158. Ds4 was early to sit, roll and crawl but pretty average for walking. Has no persistence, more socially adept (aka manipulative). Unofficial assessment >99 percentile. Formal testing next year.

I don't think RUF or milestones are very accurate.

I have two children. Although the younger has not been tested yet, it appears his IQ is probably higher. He was much less impressive with early milestones, though still noticeably ahead. His sister, on the other hand, was freakishly early with language and also knew and memorized all kinds of things very early (alphabet at 16 months, etc) with little to no effort on our parts. She is still an incredible memorizer; she would probably do very well in medical school.

My oldest rolled over the day after he was born and looked up at us with a big goofy smile on his face. The doctor was standing in the room when he did it and was SHOCKED and said it must have been an accident. He started laughing at me when he was 2 weeks old. He could stand at 3 months. He hit every physical milestone, including toilet training, way WAY before any child I've ever head of. He is now an NCAA Div 1 athlete. We knew pretty much from birth he was different as did all the mommies in my baby group. My younger child, is a completely different kid. He had delayed milestones. He spoke early (sentences at 9 months) but didn't walk until he was almost 2. They both have PG IQ's but little DS is the higher of the two. He is 9 and can't tie shoe laces or ride a bike both things that older DS could do at 2.5. They both have a rather odd take on the world. Older DS's girlfriend is always trying to figure him out but I don't think she ever will

It is my understanding that most studies for correlation with early milestones have involved subjects who were known to be gifted (high IQ) and a methodology of looking back at their early milestones and traits.

Taking the correlations as predictive... applying these correlations in looking at early milestones and traits of other young children, to diagnose giftedness (high IQ) or prognosticate the level of giftedness (high IQ) which may be substantiated on tests when children will be old enough for testing... may not be as accurate.

One possible reason may be that due to limited number of research study subject volunteers, there may not have been control groups in some studies. For example, there may not have been subjects known to have average IQs or low IQs and a methodology of looking back at their developmental milestones and traits... to compare with the results of the gifted.

The closest study I have become aware of which begins with young children and has been shown to have some predictive ability (and has been referenced as guiding intervention and policy) is a Hart-Risley study in the 1960's which came to focus on what is now called a meaningful difference, word gap, word deficit, vocabulary gap, or achievement gap. It is my understanding that neuroscience has more recently explained this gap by revealing that early synapse stimulation provided by hearing conversation from birth (and pre-born?) aids further synaptic and neural development which leads to growth in achievement.

The Hart-Risley conclusions were: talking with and reading to a child from birth stimulates synaptic growth as well as vocabulary growth and understanding. This drives interventions and public policy through educating parents to talk with and read to their children from birth, in order to fuel brain development and maximize later academic and intellectual growth and achievement. (Study overview and book description here. Book: Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Companion Book: The Social World of Children Learning to Talk)

A word about possible paucity of study subjects and reluctance for families to participate in studies - it may be that studies will in the future be conducted without parental knowledge or permission, by means of various entities tracking many data points on our children. While some welcome this, others have stated a concern for a growing inclination to refer to labels and various population groups rather than regarding individuals as unique persons having many traits and strengths, and capable of developing more than anyone may predict... by means of adopting a growth mindset.

Here is a brief roundup of free, downloadable pre-literacy and literacy resources available from the US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)... which appear to back the findings of Hart-Risley... including:
1) A Child Becomes a Reader: Birth to Preschool (2006) 36-page PDF, subtitled Proven Ideas from Research for Parents
2) Put Reading First: Helping Your Child Learn to Read (2001) 8-page PDF, subtitled Helping Your Child Learn to Read, A Parent Guide, Preschool - Grade 3
3) Shining Stars: Preschoolers Get Ready to Read (2007) 9-page PDF, subtitled How Parents Can Help Get Their Preschoolers Ready to Read
There are also a number of free, downloadable reports available on literacy research, including:
4) Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel (2010), 260-page PDF, subtitled A Scientific Synthesis of Early Literacy Development and Implications for Intervention
5) Child Development and Behavior Branch (CDBB), NICHD, Report to the NACHHD Council (2009) 74-page PDF, no longer current. NOTE: See page 45 for information foreshadowing a push for Social Emotional Learning (SEL).
6) Developing Early Literacy: Executive Summary of the National Early Literacy Panel (2010), 11-page PDF, subtitled A Scientific Synthesis of Early Literacy Development and Implications for Intervention
7) Early Beginnings: Early Literacy Knowledge and Instruction (2010), 20-page PDF, subtitled A Guide for Early Childhood Administrators & Professional Development Providers

You have written about the "growth mindset" a lot, but the fact is that intelligence *is* largely fixed. Studying algebra or French or the piano should be done because of the intrinsic value of those activities or because academic achievement helps you get ahead, not because studying makes you smarter. I have seen little evidence that it raises "g". I doubt that lying to people (or to put it more diplomatically, muddling the meaning of concepts such as "intelligence") is the path to educational progress.

Interesting point. Intelligence includes both fluid and crystalized intelligence.

Ultimately, upon graduation and in real-life situations few are asked about their IQ, g, or Gf while many are asked for their demonstrated skills, achievements, and accomplishments... this accumulated knowledge is commonly considered when individuals regard the degree to which another is smart/intelligent.

The reason we advocate for innately gifted kids is largely because they need the appropriate size challenges to be able to convert their IQ into skills, achievements, and accomplishments. Their inner cheetah needs the challenge of chasing that proverbial fast antelope, lest they become underachievers.

This is not to take away from every kid getting their appropriate challenge-level curriculum. IQ is not the sole determinant of the degree of skill development, achievement, accomplishment... these may be based upon drive, persistence, grit, determination, motivation, and external/environmental factors including opportunity. In the final analysis, individuals may be much less known for their IQ or g than for their skills, achievements, accomplishments, and other characteristics and personal attributes.

I find this interesting with a 2e pg son and thinking about the childhoods of people such as Stephen Hawking and someone who I knew briefly that worked at a very high astrophysics level (ie. helped discover the Higgs Boson and worked at the CERN, etc.).

I haven't read Hawking's bio, but I believe that Hawking didn't show much aptitude or display his remarkable abilities until much later in life. Ditto for the astrophysicists I briefly knew. I asked his recent widow if she knew whether her husband was like my son (ie. flying through algebra at 8 yrs old) but she said that he wasn't like that at all as a child.

I'm not sure if these two individuals (Hawking and the other astrophysicist) just didn't display pg signs, if they were late bloomers, didn't put up a stink in school or something else was going on. But it's somewhat hard for a mere mortal to wrap their head around. I know the astrophysicist, who I knew, was a very unassuming, shy, quiet, gentle man who did not wear his achievements on his sleeve. So it's entirely possible that perhaps he just slipped under the radar with his earlier education and then excelled once at university and as an adult. I don't know.

This would fit for ds12. He entered kindergarten not yet knowing how to read and then by the end was reading one to two grade levels ahead. He seemed to sweep through the levels quickly.

This reminds me of my brother who is a high energy physicist and is always going to CERN. I just saw a photo of him on facebook having a casual dinner with two physics nobel prize winners.
Nothing remarkable at all about his early development, as far as I can recall (though I am 3 years younger). He was always a good student and I remember he liked to break into places and pick locks just for fun. But he talked, walked, read, etc. at normal ages. In fact, I think he was delayed with a lot of motor skills and never got into sports at all. Fits the stereotypical clumsy geek image in that respect. My DS seems to be following in his footsteps and looks like he will be very good at math (he doesn't get it from me!). He is also poor with motor skills. I wonder what it is about kids who are very mathy or geeky being on the clumsy side of things. I think there is something to the stereotype.