Quick clarification about IQ scores - Page 3

[LiamnEmma]

Boy, I must be about as clear as mud. These two statements from you are contradictory to me;


In response to a pp, you said,

In my experience, it is possible to score high in one area only, but that is very, very rare. (bolding mine)

When I differed and said I'd seen it many times--the high scoring in one area only, you then said,

This is not uncommon.

So it seems that you contradict yourself. You either think it's rare or you think it's not uncommon, but the two would seem to have different definitions. It's really silly, I suppose, for me to call you on it...

[boongirl]

Originally Posted by LiamnEmma

So it seems that you contradict yourself. You either think it's rare or you think it's not uncommon, but the two would seem to have different definitions. It's really silly, I suppose, for me to call you on it...

Okay, first of all the nature of chatting online is such that you sometimes write before you really think things through. So, forgive me for not being totally clear. I will try to explain my thinking on the topic more thoroughly.

In my experience, it has happened that a child will score high only in one area of the CogAt (the only test I have given). It can happen. It happens rarely. I should have written that it is not common. It is rare. I have only had it happen a few times and I have tested hundreds of kids.

Is that better? I am not sure what you meant by It's really silly, I suppose, for me to call you on it... but I hope this clarifies my thinking on the subject.

[LadyMarmalade]

Originally Posted by Roar

I would still like to hear more about what the further testing entails.

Seriously, I'm struggling to understand what you need to hear more about. Weschler himself said that anyone getting a score over 130 on an IQ tests needs further testing. Why is there such surprise at the fact that after an IQ test further investigation needs to be done if a score of over 130 is returned? Specialised assessment is done on every child returning a score over 130 - it makes sense since Weschler said his scales are not appropriate for anyone with an IQ over 130. Ignoring his caution seems really negligent. As I said before, IQ tests are meant to be used as a preliminary indicator to see whether someone may be gifted or not - they're not a diagnostic tool. It makes sense that for an official diagnosis to be made, some diagnosing needs to be done

I have been a teacher of gifted kids for 10 years and I have never seen giftedness categorized as brain dysfunction. I would like to see the references.

I'm not just pulling stuff out of my arse, I've done 4 years worth of university study to get my degree, plus the years of work and research I went on to do at that university, plus a decade of teaching of gifted kids as well (not even counting parenting my gifted child) ... it's not a forgien concept, it's something which is spoken about all the time. I'm happy for you not to believe me, I really don't have time to get into it, sorry.

As being gifted is not a learning disability,

It is classified as a learning disability in some places. I don't necessarily agree with the 'disability' part but the wording has been rewritten in some areas to secure more funding for these kids.

[boongirl]

Originally Posted by LadyMarmalade

Specialised assessment is done on every child returning a score over 130 - it makes sense since Weschler said his scales are not appropriate for anyone with an IQ over 130.


I'm not just pulling stuff out of my arse... it's not a forgien concept, it's something which is spoken about all the time. I'm happy for you not to believe me, I really don't have time to get into it, sorry.


It is classified as a learning disability in some places.

This must be specific to your country. In the USA, at least in my state, there is usually not money in the public schools to further test children beyond the grouped intelligence test. None of the children I have taught in 10 years have had any testing beyond the grouped intelligence test unless they were identified through private testing.

I am beginning to understand more and more that giftedness is defined and dealt with differently in your country of origin as opposed to the USA. In the USA, giftedness is not defined as a dysfunction or learning disability. I think we both need to accept the fact that things are different in your country. You obviously have expertise in the field that differs from mine, a fact that can be explained by our different nationalities.

[LiamnEmma]

I can see what you're saying Lady Marmalade, but I'd say that Wechsler said that because he knew that his test was not meant to test the upper and lower limits of the intelligence continuum, and after the two standard deviations, it's not sensitive as some of the other tests are. So I'd say that he's not saying a child is not intellectually gifted, he's saying that his tests cannot differentiate amongst the levels of giftedness. As such, I'd say that a 130 on the WISC-IV still means intellectual giftedness, but perhaps does not give you an adequate portrait of the shade of giftedness.

[kate~mom]

Originally Posted by LiamnEmma

I'm sorry, I was not clear. What I meant is that I'm confused about the qualifications needed to give and interpret an IQ test since I don't remember you ever saying anything about being a psychometrist or psychologist.

jumping in here - in a number of districts i've worked in, the gifted ed teachers and/or guidance counselors have adminsitered the pre-screening measures. on the other hand, i'm finding it very intereesting that a district qualifies children based soley on the cogat! :

[boongirl]

Originally Posted by kate~mom

jumping in here - in a number of districts i've worked in, the gifted ed teachers and/or guidance counselors have adminsitered the pre-screening measures. on the other hand, i'm finding it very intereesting that a district qualifies children based soley on the cogat! :

I would agree with what I presuming you are stating, that there are better ways to identify gifted kids than one grouped intelligence test. But, it is also a cheap test to give. You only have to photocopy the score sheet and give the kids an original copy of the test itself and the teacher can score it. Once the district buys a few copies, there is no money to put into testing other than the teacher's time. While this is not ideal, with money woes in public schools today in the USA, it is a reality.

[kate~mom]

Originally Posted by boongirl

I would agree with what I presuming you are stating, that there are better ways to identify gifted kids than one grouped intelligence test. But, it is also a cheap test to give. You only have to photocopy the score sheet and give the kids an original copy of the test itself and the teacher can score it. Once the district buys a few copies, there is no money to put into testing other than the teacher's time. While this is not ideal, with money woes in public schools today in the USA, it is a reality.

which is only perpetuating the under-identification of under-represented groups AND breaking copyright law.

[boongirl]

Originally Posted by kate~mom

which is only perpetuating the under-identification of under-represented groups AND breaking copyright law.

No, it is not breaking copyright law. You are allowed to photo copy the test answer sheet after you purchase the test. You are not allowed to photocopy the student booklet, the teacher booklet, or the answer booklet.

But, I do agree with the first part of your statement.