Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment "Use of SB5 in the assessment of high abilities"

I apologize if this information has been brought up here before but thought that this article might be of interest to anyone who is considering testing and which tool to request. This is a wonderful article by Deborah Ruf that details how the SB 5 compares to the LM form and explains the difference between ratio IQ and standard IQ. I found it very interesting and helpful in understanding my son's test scores. Hope someone else does too.

www.educationaloptions.com/sb5-asb3.pdf

This is very helpful doodlebug. Thanks.
Ren

Thanks Doodlebug; I saw this a while back while reading through Ruf's site, as well. Do you know anything about the 'correlation' of scoring between the SB 5 and the WISC IV? In theory, they should be about the same, right?

I still don't feel really comfortable with the V. I just don't feel that it differentiates enough between the HG and PG population.

It didn't help us at all. <shrug> Maybe because it was a bad test day. But I'm also not 100% sold on the test.

I'm no expert but most of what I understand seems to indicate if you are looking for clear log answers from a WPPSI or a WISC it is going to depend on the assessors abilities to read between the lines since neither tool was designed to do more than id gt (or problems). I think scores 3 deviations+ are guess work. And if you look at some of the case studies listed in books you'll see a lot of kids jump from scores in the 40+ to scores 160+ ... I think in the end it is finding comfort with knowing mg/hg/eg/pf and not stressing about the number (although I get for some programs or some adminstrators it makes communicating easier).

Hoagies has an article comparing tests and levels:
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_profoundly.htm

And here's one about the WISC-IV:
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=2455

I personally don't know much about the tests or correlations. I just know, as a professional who uses standardized assessments, that expertise is needed to be able to interpret the results, not just administer the tests and report the score. It appears to me that Dr. Ruf understands that, too. No matter what test you use it is the big picture that counts. Test scores don't mean much without context. IMHO.

I agree. I don't think it's wise to missile focus on the number. There's a confidence interval, I think.
Also as to what number is what label, different experts have different opinions.

As a quick question... Does anyone know if there exists a table comparing the LOG for the GAI on the WISC-IV? Does the table in the above link function for GAIs, or just the FSIQ?

Thanks also for the second link. That one was new to me and was particularly interesting. If the FSIQ is not always applicable, as that link points out, then it seems sensible to publish a table based on the GAI. Just curious!

I also wondered... If the FSIQ and the GAI scores were fairly different on the WISC-IV, then which score would the SB5 correlate to?

Does the SB5 have the same issue of different scoring methods? Or is it just the way the WISC-IV is designed, with the 40% emphasis on working memory and processing speeds?