Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Levels of giftedness

How are the different level of giftedness defined? I suppose I could try and look this up but I'm here and figured that this is where the experts hang out anyway!

I'm not referring to Ruf's levels of giftedness but rather the commonly used acronyms I see on this site. For ie: When we say MG, EG, PG...is it based on IQ? And if so, what are the defining numbers?

Ok, so I looked online. Is this correct?

MG - Moderately Gifted (IQ 130 - 145) (2 standard deviations from the mean)

HG - Highly Gifted = (IQ 145 - 160) (3 standard deviations from the mean)

EG - Extremely Gifted = (IQ 160 - 180) (4 standard deviations from the mean)

PG - Profoundly Gifted = (IQ 180+) (5 or more standard deviations from the mean)

*I was going by the DITD's statement of "profoundly gifted kids with IQ's 145+" but according to this PG is 180+. So if these are the actual levels then dd is MG to HG.

Yep, that's what I've gathered from reading these boards and others - they say 145+, but they're looking for those 160's. Worth a try anyway, but I wonder how many children are actually accepted with scores closer to that 145...

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_profoundly.htm

The Psychologist who tested my son on the SB-5, included this information in his report.

I think the answer, to many, is determined by which version of which test the scores result from.

Interesting!

No offense taken. Of course, you�re right, it is controversial. It sure seems to fit in my son�s case, though.

This other link, that was posted under SB-5 info, seems to support the assertion that, at least WISC-III scores, are markedly higher than SB-5 scores for several (is that conservative enough) previously identified HG students.
I case anyone hasn�t seen the link;
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gifted+and+highly+gifted+students%3a+how+do+they+score+on+the+SB5%3f-a0150850213

The psychologist (who tested my son) did make an interesting comment. He said that the SB-5 scores were increasing since the initial normative study, in which he participated (BTW, he said that most participants that he tested had previous scores into the 140s). He mentioned the fact that the test publisher also develops curriculum products as one possible reason for the increase in scores. Curious, don�t you think?

Hey Tammy,

There does seem to be a little controversy especially with the newer tests.
Here is my understanding and please feel free to jump in and correct me if I am misunderstanding any of this. Truly, I wouldn't be offended because I am summarizing the info as I understand it.
There was a study done recently because of the changes to the tests, whereby, they administered the WISC-IV to children who had previously scored 130+ on the previous test. The average score was 123 or something along those lines. They determined that the kids were getting scores about 3-10 points lower on the newer WISC. The accepted understanding about why this is happening is investigated on another thread, I believe, about processing speed.
That's why the Hoagies's chart shows lower scores for the newer tests, pushing kids into the category of HG, EG, or PG that wouldn't have been there for the older tests.
The tester may have given you a percentile. This tells you how your child compared to all other US children taking the test. For example, a FSIQ of 140 puts your child in the 99.6th percentile, I believe. Meaning, your child scored higher than 99.6% of the children in the US that have taken that particular test.
I am guessing the 145+ number is chosen because I believe that number puts one in the 99.9th percentile for WISC-I mV.
I said Guessing, so please correct me nicely if I got this wrong
I believe this is important because a 140 on the newer tests is more significant than a 140 on the older tests, for example, even for the newer WPPSI. If your school administrators are not hip to this information they could possibly be misperceiving your child's abilities. Although, it sounds like at Tammy's DD school they are doing a good job of accomodating her, so that's awesome.
I brought this up to the gifted coordinator for our entire school district and she was not understanding how these newer tests scores are different from the older ones and what it means. That was pretty disappointing, although, she promised to look into it and attended the NAGC conference recently, so I am hopeful.
I think percentile is key and I think any kid scoring in the 95th percentile and above should definately get "special services". And those in the top one tenth of one percent........

I said "I beleive" and "to my understanding" alot.
Do I sound more like Bill Clinton or George Bush?

Incog

Okay, several typos, there is no such test WISC-I mV
I meant WISC IV.
Sorry

That makes sense, incog. Yes, on her WISC IV test result it does say full score 99.6% (verbal is 99.9%). Crazy...fractions of a percent make a big difference!

I thought that was interesting too. It may be similiar to having a "preview" of the EXPLORE test. I know a group (school) that he said was included as part of the "validation report" (thanks for the clarification)are DYS level. They have to have tests at or above 145 and strong recommendation, ect. to attend the program.

A third measure, besides score and percentile, is the age equivalent. The author of the above study brought up the perceived discrepancy between standard score/ percentile and the age equivalent. Again, this rings true in my son�s case. Even though he just cleared the traditional gifted cut-off, his age was equivalent was 55. He tested the same week that he turned 10. I'm not too sure about this number either.