What does average mean?

[Just1More]

The developmental lists for children say that "average" children will be doing x, y, and z.  Does average mean the same thing that 50th percentile means?  That out of a hundred children, the one in the middle of the curve will be doing these things?  What is the range of typical?

Then, further, when I look at Ruf's list for gifted children, I see that Level 3, for example, is reserved for 1 out of 100 children.  In your opinion/experience, is that accurate?

[pranava]

I like to look at this chart to see what most kids are up to and when http://drhart.net/clinic/forms/Denver%20II%20Developmental%20Milestones.pdf 

it gives a range of when these skills are accomplished by kids.

[hempmama]

That's a great one! Super detailed. The counting ones look super late, but maybe that has to do with the testing method.

Most of the developmental milestone lists out there are of the "you should worry if you child doesn't" variety. 90% or so("the average," within a couple standard deviations) of children can do X by Y age. That's what the babycenter/PBS ones are intended for, anyway. And no, Ruf's levels do not correlate with my experience at all, even when I try to compensate for living in an upper middle class/highly educated area. I only know MAP/COGAT scores (and only who scored 99th+, based on who is eligible for another program), but it's more like 25-30% of the class. The middle of the class is level 1 or 2. And this isn't the most amazing super duper gifted school in the world- just a good one in an UMC area. There are several more just like it within a mile or two.

[Just1More]

So, what would it indicate if a child were doing all the things on the Denver chart a year to two years before when 25% of children can do it?

That sounds more right to me, about Level 3 being about 25% of kids.  And I agree about the counting!  Dd (turned 2 two weeks ago) and I were alternating counting up to 30 yesterday!  And she's a later "counter" than my other kids!

[loraxc]

Hmm? Do you mean 25% of all kids are gifted at Ruf level 3? Definitely not, I'd say! However, I would guess that in some schools 25% of kids are Ruf level 1. Or thereabouts. I don't actually put a whole lot of stock on those levels. Let's say, in some schools (but, I'd add, not many) 25% of kids are mildly gifted (120+ IQ) or more....that I would agree with.

ETA: wait, you said MAP/COGAT...isn't that achievement, not IQ? I would expect a lot of achievement test scores in the high 80s/low 90s at a high SES school. Maybe most of the class. I mean truly high SES, though, not "middle" class, which is lower than many wealthier people think. 40-50K is middle-class in the US.
Edited by loraxc - 3/15/11 at 10:02am

[Freeman]

But Ruf attributes an IQ of 130-140 to the Level 3 gifted child. This would not be 25% of the general population, though it could be 25% of your child's class. See Ruf's article at: http://talentigniter.com/ruf-estimates

According to what I found here, http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

(not sure of its accuracy), only 2.2% of the population (U.S., I am assuming) has an IQ above 130. At any rate, it's a lot less than 25%. It would be interesting to see how SES affects this.

[Freeman]

Originally Posted by loraxc 

Hmm? Do you mean 25% of all kids are gifted at Ruf level 3? Definitely not, I'd say! However, I would guess that in some schools 25% of kids are Ruf level 1. Or thereabouts. I don't actually put a whole lot of stock on those levels. Let's say, in some schools (but, I'd add, not many) 25% of kids are mildly gifted (120+ IQ) or more....that I would agree with.

It looks like we posted similar posts at the same time. I wasn't sure if the pp was talking about a school for gifted children or a public school in an UMC area or a private school, etc. Certainly SES could affect how many students are id'd as gifted, but it is still hard to believe that a typical school could have 25% of the population with an IQ of 130 or above w/out specifically selecting for giftedness.

Edited by Freeman - 3/15/11 at 9:58am

[loraxc]

I live in a city with a major university (city's biggest employer), and I know about 12% of the kids are in the GT program. I think that's a lot--it's the highest in the state, in fact, IIRC-- but I also think it's not uncommon in some areas. However, there are two ways to qualify for our program--IQ scores only (cutoff is 130) and teacher nomination/achievement scores/etc, in a program aimed at recruiting low income and minority kids. So it's not the case that 12% of kids are over 130. I don't know the breakdown of which is which, however.

It does seem that there are more gifted kids than there "should" be in many areas. Some of this is surely socioeconomics/demographics, but I do wonder how it all computes, since 99th% is supposed to be, well, 99th%! Do the tests need to be renormed? Is the distribution of GT kids THAT uneven? Are some of the kids there because of parents' insistence? I don't know.

[Freeman]

Where I am, I think many school districts use achievement tests to determine who gets into a gifted program, not individual IQ tests. Do many districts actually require individualized IQ tests? Who pays for the testing? It seems like a public school system would have to offer the IQ testing if it's required for a program, but are they really conducting individualized IQ testing? Is it a group IQ test, and does that tend to be accurate? Sorry, probably a bit of a tangent.

[loraxc]

Where we are, it's sort of complicated. It goes like this--teacher nomination (based on a published checklist), followed by group administration of a short screener if the child is nominated, followed by individual IQ testing. The individual test DD took was quite short--30 minutes--but still "counts" as a valid IQ measure.

At least, I think it is usually individual, though I am not 100% sure. I think this is an imperfect method, but surely better than using achievement tests.

[pranava]

Originally Posted by Just1More 

So, what would it indicate if a child were doing all the things on the Denver chart a year to two years before when 25% of children can do it?

I don't know what it means, and that does make it a little hard for me to believe some things on this chart.  Like, "Can name 1 color" just starts to occur around 30 months on this chart? So, what should I make of DS who can name 10 colors at 14 months!?  Or, "names friend" comes in at 27 months, but DS has known first and last names of EVERY teacher and kid at daycare only 2 or 3 weeks after he started daycare at 16 months.  Is the chart wrong?  I don't know.  ? 
 

[Freeman]

Originally Posted by loraxc 

 Is the distribution of GT kids THAT uneven?

Big question here...And if it is that uneven, why? Can this be improved?

[Just1More]

Right.  Either the chart is wrong, or my kids are all super smart.  I know they are ahead of their peers, and I know that people look at them funny all the time for the things they say and do.  BUT, I just really don't feel like they are actually even gifted. Am I just in denial?  Or what?  I really just can't imagine that they are THAT ahead. 

Everytime I read one of those charts (from wherever) I think, "You've got to be kidding me." 

Originally Posted by pranava 

I don't know what it means, and that does make it a little hard for me to believe some things on this chart.  Like, "Can name 1 color" just starts to occur around 30 months on this chart? So, what should I make of DS who can name 10 colors at 14 months!?  Or, "names friend" comes in at 27 months, but DS has known first and last names of EVERY teacher and kid at daycare only 2 or 3 weeks after he started daycare at 16 months.  Is the chart wrong?  I don't know.  ? 
 

[pranava]

Yeah to the denial   . . .but I know how you feel.  Even if the chart is off (skewed by the sample size they used to create it or whatever) if your kids are a year or two ahead of most things on the chart - I'd say they're gifted.

[ellemenope]

Originally Posted by Just1More 

So, what would it indicate if a child were doing all the things on the Denver chart a year to two years before when 25% of children can do it?

I think It means the child falls within the first quartile of kids who performed those tasks the earliest.  The child would be considered developmentally right on target to even ahead.

But, there is no way a child could do everything on the Denver II developmental screening a year to two years early.  I mean think about it.  Did your newborn help around the house?  That probably should have gone without saying, though.  I jsut had to say.

There is a huge spread of ability in that first 25% that is not illustrated on that chart.  I promise you.

[KCMichigan]

Originally Posted by pranava 

I don't know what it means, and that does make it a little hard for me to believe some things on this chart.  Like, "Can name 1 color" just starts to occur around 30 months on this chart? So, what should I make of DS who can name 10 colors at 14 months!?  Or, "names friend" comes in at 27 months, but DS has known first and last names of EVERY teacher and kid at daycare only 2 or 3 weeks after he started daycare at 16 months. 

I assume you are looking at the Denver. 

My girls took the Denver every year from age 6 m to 4 through a local community program. At 4-- they were looking for delays and my girls topped the test out (they both had physical/fine motor delays when younger due to prematurity) except one DD in gross motor skills and she showed a 'caution' (not a full delay, but behind age expectation), which mean it was not a good indicator of 'how' far ahead they area, rather it showed their personal growth over time and/or areas of strength/weakness. That DD also had social delays at 3.75 yrs that were identified per IEP and not picked up on the Denver. Her academic advanced skills were also not apparent on the Denver  except a notation of  'mastered skill' since so few questions are geared toward that sort of skill- again, her IEP clarified her very asynchronous development more clearly (Child reading at 2nd grade level with comprehension, Child prefers adult companionship over other children, Child unable to ride a tricyle,  etc)

The 'open' areas  are when 25- 75% of the population master a skills (and the age range: say 'put on shirt' ranges from 25m-36m), then from 36m to 3.5 years a full 90% of kids have mastered that skill. So 25% of kids will actually get that skill BEFORE the age range ( shirt on before 25 months) and 10% will not master it until after 3.5 years.

That 25% is huge and encompasses a VERY wide range. I am willing to be most kids would get a few scores that would fall in that area during testing, especially as they got older.

Just think in a group of twenty 3 yr olds. A full 5 of them will have mastered every particular skill  and some may have mastered most of them (or all).And two of them would have not mastered that particular skill- they may be flagged for further investigation/evaluation. The Denver is looking to find those two.

Basically kids that chart is more geared toward identifying kids that are delayed and/or skill growth over time (the same test is often given a few times a year since theoretically the same child would be mastering different skills and taking different portions of the test so it would not be the same thing each time. Skill sets are different by age. Their are also several skill sets in each category and  depending one how many show a delay or how great the delay in one skill is - may determine further evaluation.

To see potentially inaccurate results (the actual test has specific testing tools-- asks specific colors, special size cup, particular phrasing when asking a child questions, certain pictures for vocabulary testing, etc) ,print off test then draw a line vertically down from the childs ACTUAL age. Then mark the skills they have mastered and you can see a clear pattern if a child is lagging in a particular area (fine motor, social,etc) or is ahead. Again, 10% of kids will not master that skill by the age cutoff given  and 25% will have mastered it before the guidelines even start.

It is really a screener tool suggested for ages 0-6 (and commonly used for ages 0-4) to detect delays and/or possibly need for further evaluation, it is NOT a full evaluation. Often kids that show a delay on the Denver will be referred to their local Early Intervention and/or School District for further testing to pin point areas of delay. Though there is some controversy to it, our area stopped using it last year and moved to the Lollipop Test as a developmental assessment tool for 0-5

See below for more info on the Denver:

According to a study commissioned by the Public Health Agency of Canada, the DDST is the most widely used test for screening developmental problems in children.^[2] While this study acknowledges the test's utility for detecting severe developmental problems, the test has been criticized to be unreliable in predicting less severe or specific problems. The same criticism has been upheld for the currently marketed revised version of the Denver Scale, the DENVER II.^[3] Frankenburg has replied to such criticism by pointing out that the Denver Scale is not a tool of final diagnosis, but a quick method to process large numbers of children in order to identify those that should be further evaluated.^[4]

This revised definition of the Denver's function remains commensurate with what screening tests are designed to do: sort those who probably have problems from those who probably don't. Thus standards for screening test construction still apply to the Denver. Although the instrument has proven reliability, it was not constructed on a large, current, nationally representative sample. It has not been studied for validity (given alongside diagnostic measures to view their relationship or researched for the kinds of problems it may or may not detect). As a consequence, the measure was not studied by its authors for the most critical attribute of any screen, its accuracy. Studies by other researchers showed it to detect only about 50% of children with disabilities, although its specificity in identifying normally developing children is high (when questionables are grouped with normal scores) and the converse when questionable scores are grouped with abnormal results. Since 1991, researchers have appealed to the author to recall and improve the measure but to no avail. Currently the measure is excluded from lists of recommended tools in several states (e.g., Minnesota Department of Education. For a list of accurate alternatives see The website of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics

Edited by KCMichigan - 3/15/11 at 11:41am

[pranava]

Originally Posted by ellemenope 

I think It means the child falls within the first quartile of kids who performed those tasks the earliest.  The child would be considered developmentally right on target to even ahead.

But, there is no way a child could do everything on the Denver II developmental screening a year to two years early.  I mean think about it.  Did your newborn help around the house?  That probably should have gone without saying, though.  I jsut had to say.

There is a huge spread of ability in that first 25% that is not illustrated on that chart.  I promise you.

Well no, my newborn just lay there on the bed and watched me fold all the laundry that he dirtied earlier (what nerve! )

Of course, there is a wide variation in that first 25%.  I like to look at the developmental milestone charts to reasure myself that I'm not crazy for thinking DS may be gifted, and niether are the people who give DS strange looks or comments.  They just aren't used to hearing or seeing a 2 year old do and say the things DS does.  It can be a dizzying roller coaster of "oh he's not that advanced" and then "why is everyone commenting about these things so often". 

[hempmama]

Originally Posted by loraxc 

I live in a city with a major university (city's biggest employer), and I know about 12% of the kids are in the GT program. I think that's a lot--it's the highest in the state, in fact, IIRC-- but I also think it's not uncommon in some areas. However, there are two ways to qualify for our program--IQ scores only (cutoff is 130) and teacher nomination/achievement scores/etc, in a program aimed at recruiting low income and minority kids. So it's not the case that 12% of kids are over 130. I don't know the breakdown of which is which, however.

It does seem that there are more gifted kids than there "should" be in many areas. Some of this is surely socioeconomics/demographics, but I do wonder how it all computes, since 99th% is supposed to be, well, 99th%! Do the tests need to be renormed? Is the distribution of GT kids THAT uneven? Are some of the kids there because of parents' insistence? I don't know.

Just to clarify- MAP is achievement, COGAT is more of an IQish test- 2 hours, not amazing, supposed to correct for SES advantages. You get in by getting over 90th on the MAP, then 99th on the COGAT and then going on to test 99th percentile on the WISC (they only test kids who test 99th on the COGAT). If you get below the 99th percentile (down to 97th), you can appeal, but these are all the kids who got in without appeal. There's a separate program for the top 8% on COGAT, which sounds more like what you are talking about.

I wrote UMC, which I meant as "upper midddle class," not "middle class," which I agree is a different SES. It's a good school in a relatively wealthy area, but not the wealthiest neighborhood in my metro area, at all. And yeah, my thinking is that the tests need to be renormed, and that this is just not that rare. I realize that my school is going to have a very high proportion, but I honestly mean it looks like 25% of them are level 3 on that list, and according to the teachers that's not terribly unusual. I do think this school has a higher than average proportion of these kinds of kids, but I don't think it has TEN TIMES as many kids as are in the general population. I guess I also don't love the list! But I was just trying to give some numbers to the OP.
 

[Just1More]

 I should have said, "After about a year old."  And yes, my older two maxed out the chart sometime between 2 and 3.  My third has a few items to go, but she did just turn two three weeks ago.  The baby...well, she's a baby, but seems to be about on track with where the other 3 were.

But I think it should have been clear that I was saying the chart didn't seem accurate to me, not that I think I have 4 geniuses on my hands.
 

Originally Posted by ellemenope 

I think It means the child falls within the first quartile of kids who performed those tasks the earliest.  The child would be considered developmentally right on target to even ahead.

But, there is no way a child could do everything on the Denver II developmental screening a year to two years early.  I mean think about it.  Did your newborn help around the house?  That probably should have gone without saying, though.  I jsut had to say.

There is a huge spread of ability in that first 25% that is not illustrated on that chart.  I promise you.

KCMichigan, thanks for that.  So, the Denver is another "should be doing by" chart. 

Edited by Just1More - 3/15/11 at 12:27pm

[ellemenope]

LOL.  It would be neat to see a developmental chart that was "You child actually could..."  Like your child actually could speak in short sentences at 12 months.  Or, you child actually could read before they turn two.  I guess the ruf's is a lot like this. 

The Denver seems pretty accurate to me.  When you consider that there is probably the same spread in the 0-25% as the 75-100%.  I think it said that 25% of the children tested could speak one word earlier than 9 months.  And, that 25% of the children walked before they were 11 months old.  That 25% of the children were combining words before 18 months.  That is a quarter of the kids, and a small percentage of those were doing these things months and months earlier.

My 2.5 year old cannot do some of the fine motor stuff but can do everything else.  She was especially ahead in the verbal area.  She could define 7 words around her 2nd birthday.  In fact I just asked her to walk heal to toe for the first time, and not only could she do it, she knew what the heck I was talking about just from saying, "Hey can you walk heel to toe?"  DD can also count nearly to 100 by herself, certainly when we alternate, but only now can she actually count items to 10.  And, to be honest it is hit or miss.  Yet, she is memorizing 7 digit phone numbers.
 

I think you must have really bright kids.  It is great to not have to struggle with any asynchrony!  : )

Originally Posted by Just1More 

 I should have said, "After about a year old."  And yes, my older two maxed out the chart sometime between 2 and 3.  My third has a few items to go, but she did just turn two three weeks ago.  The baby...well, she's a baby, but seems to be about on track with where the other 3 were.

But I think it should have been clear that I was saying the chart didn't seem accurate to me, not that I think I have 4 geniuses on my hands.
 

KCMichigan, thanks for that.  So, the Denver is another "should be doing by" chart.