<p>Ahh, but all of our children are ultimately exposed to the very harmful effects of numbers, in the form of their SAT scores… so as much as we want to avoid testing, we do live in a culture that demands it.</p>
<p>Yes, Calmom, but the SATs come at the end of a long run of courses and activities that are more focused on hard work and achievement, rather than ability. Scores used inappropriately early on limit access. Point well taken.</p>
<p>Thanks, tokenadult. </p>
<p>Hmmm, since IQ is just an expression of how one did wrt the other people that took the test, the inconsistency between different tests seems to mean that they don’t even rate kids in the same order.</p>
<p>beprepn</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a very sophisticated observation. It took me until I was much older than I think you are to figure that out, so you have my congratulations. Yes, the differences among rank-orderings of test-takers when they are given different brands of IQ tests illustrates the impossibility of a total ordering of human beings by tested “intelligence,” which is why a lot of Web sites that talk about “the gifted” or “the profoundly gifted” are on weak scientific foundations. People flip in and out of those various categories depending on what test they take at what age. </p>
<p>Re: the replies posted subsequently to my last reply, yes, it is very dangerous to children to read too much into one IQ score, especially a score at an early age. An author who has a great article about this subject (best viewed on the Web with Microsoft Power Point Viewer enabled) is Kevin McGrew, at </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.iapsych.com/Forrest_files/frame.htm[/url]”>http://www.iapsych.com/Forrest_files/frame.htm</a></p>
<p>I know my kids’ IQ scores because I had to have them tested to see if they qualified for admission to a private school “for the academically gifted” that had a minimum 145 threshold. My son had already tested as gifted in our public school, but they didn’t have any gifted programs available. Since his fourth grade was spent reading books he brought into class while the teacher taught class, we thought he needed something more. We then had our daughter tested to see if she would qualify for the school as well. Neither of my kids know their exact scores because as a child I learned mine (which, coincidentally falls right between my two kids) and I forever thought I didn’t need to study because I was “so smart” and that I was superior to everyone else because of my IQ. It lead me to be unable to fail, because someone with such a high IQ can’t fail! In other words, it was a disaster. In some ways, going to a school for the gifted was a good way of getting them not to focus on their inherent smarts or IQ --everyone was smart there, so it was about doing YOUR best at YOUR pace and not comparing yourself to anyone else. BTW, I’m not one of those who believe IQ tells you everything you need to know about someone, but I do believe it can be helpful if tested correctly. Our tester noticed something about my daughter that is still a problem now, as well as a strength which is even more pronounced now. So, if you have a good tester who can go over the info with you, it might actually be beneficial.</p>
<p>Burnthis, I agree that testing is valuable in some contexts. Obviously it is an important component in the recognition and diagnosis of various learning disabilities - but in that context, looking at a composite IQ score is a misuse of the test. The WISC is generally valued by diagnosticians for the information gained from the profile of subscores, which give a good picture of relative strengths and weaknesses.</p>
<p>The reason we had my daughter tested early on was similarly for academic reasons – she was a very early, fluent reader, bored in kindergarten, but the teachers and principal balked at accelleration for social reasons. Our primary goal in testing at age 6 was to get a professional assessment of true reading level (she topped out on a comprehension test that measured up to 5th grade reading) - but that came with an IQ test as well. The test report gave us the information we needed in opting for a program of partial accelleration, in language arts only. </p>
<p>But I think that just as some children are ready to read earlier than others, children follow different developmental paths in other areas of intellectual aptitude and readiness, and the whole notion of IQ testing is based on a concept of uniformity in mental development that is not borne out by modern psychology or brain science. We know now, for example, that kids who play video games for hours on end or adults who are taught to juggle show changes in brain structure as their minds adapt to the skill they are practicing; similarly we have a far more sophisticated understanding about the affect of nutrition (such as EFA’s in the diet) on intellectual function, as well as the negative influence of environmental toxins – so “IQ” might be very malleable. </p>
<p>It would be more appropriate to relabel IQ as representing a measurement of current developmental aptitude for the types of academic skills represented on the test – as opposed to any kind of measurement of “potential” or prediction of future success or failure. I knew that the fact that my daughter was an advanced reader at age 6 meant only that she needed extra stimulation and temporary placement with older children for reading and language arts instruction – I figured that most of the other kids would catch up to her by middle school, and they did. </p>
<p>The kids who are labeled “gifted” do need extra challenge and stimulation in the classroom, and if a test is the way to get that for them… so be it. But it would be far better if schools simply provided more individualized placement into various academic subjects or groups, relying more on teacher observations of interest level and classroom performance than formalized testing. There are a lot of very bright, motivated kids who do not meet the magic thresshold of an IQ score qualifying them as “gifted” who also could use the extra stimulation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, as we can see from the excellent link provided by tokenadult, achievement does not correlate with IQ that well… :rolleyes: so maybe it is not a good idea to use classroom performance in order to estimate the kid’s current educational needs. There was a topic about underachievers just several weeks ago - and many of those underachievers were in dire need for challenge, and they performed much better when challenged (but schools often refuse to provide the challenge to those who does not perform well)</p>
<p>Errr, and don’t start me on the subject of “teacher observations” :eek:</p>
<p>Our kids were never tested (except for whatever our district used to identify them as “gifted”), but I wish I had the concrete numbers in hand when I had to advocate for them… some objective (albeit imperfect) measure instead of “I said, she said”</p>
<p>Calmom, You said: “I figured that most of the other kids would catch up to her by middle school, and they did.” The “catch up” concept is one that bugs those of us who have highly gifted kids, because if the other kids catch up it usually means our kids weren’t challenged enough or taught to their potential. I wish all kids had the opportunities my kids have had to have such a specialilzed education, focused on their particular abilities, and the chance to move at their own speed. Good IQ testing (like good teacher observations – not always an oxymoron) can tell you where a child excels and where a child needs some extra attention. The number itself only tells you so much (160 or 40 tell you something, numbers closer to 100 don’t really), but the subsection scores, showing strengths or weaknesses in specific areas, can be useful in devising an appropriate curriculum. Unfortunately, most schools can’t do this and have to treat all kids the same (then justifying their decision years later when the kids “even out” – due primarily to their inability to provide differentiated educaiton for those who needed it!) Bottom line, find out what your child needs and advocate for your child.</p>
<p>Well …I’ve been a School Psychologist for 20 years and have given over 1,000 WISC’s including testing my own daughters. I get alot of info from the test in addition to the IQ score. My own kids had much higher verbal as oppossed to visual-spatial skills when young (around 6-7). Piano and flute lessons improved the nonverbal side but we know that both(especially our older D) will have more success with language-based subjects than math and science. Specific subtests also help doctors in diagnosing ADD. learning disabilities, etc. I know that IQ isn’t the definitive end all…however it’s been my experience that a person with a 115 IQ has an overwhelmingly better chance of being successful (using society’s view of success) than a person with an 85 IQ.</p>
<p>Burn This
I’m rather curious what tests this school did to find children above 145 IQ. The Wechler tests aren’t so reliable above 140, as the subject needs to be really fast as well as accurate on peformance subtests. I know many gifted kids who achieve above 140 on the verbal section, but not full IQ as measured on Wechsler or Stanford-Binet tests. Generally, above 130 on Wechsler and 132 on SB earns ne a place in gifted programs.</p>
<p>Bookworm,</p>
<p>They used the Stanford-Binet (I forget which one, this was in '98), which doesn’t have the ceiling problem of the WISC.</p>
<p>The military had, and perhaps still has, something called the GT score.</p>
<p>The ultimate oxymoron…military intelligence…</p>
<p>csdad, In your experience do you find that IQ fluctuates? How often do you see a kid with a 95 IQ go to 110? How often do you see a student with 130 IQ go down in IQ to 115? Do you find verbal or nonverbal flutuating more?</p>
<p>Good points, csdad. The actual student academic performance/achievement within each standard deviation cohort is particularly noticeable around the mean. While the Weschler products (like the WISC) are often perceived as the “gold standard” in educational testing, I like to use multiple measures of IQ since each seems to focus on a different cognitive concept. Among these alternative measures, I like the KABC (as a brief screening tool), the KAIT (for adults), and the newer Kaufman products for adolescents. The differentiation between fluid and crystallized intelligence seems to most represent the way we cognitively learn and use information over the course of our lifetime. </p>
<p>As for IQ changing, I see this concept reflected more precisely in the types of information we process (and the speed of that processsing) that can be seen during periods of our life (particularly, changes due to aging). For this reason, I think of IQ as a reference point that tells me something about the person when assessed in combination with achievement tests. As such, I am a huge fan of assessment batteries that include both types of tests: cognitive skills (IQ) and achievement tests (such as the Woodcock-Johnson attempts to provide). Unfortunately, the time (and cost) of conducting such testing on an individual can be extensive, and so this is not often done for purposes other than research, specialized assessment, or professional training.</p>
<p>As for knowing the IQ of your child, yes, I know my daughter’s. But, more importantly, I know these numbers (from multiple IQ measures for comparison) in context of her social, emotional, and personal development as well as her academic achievement. </p>
<p>Bottomline: I agree with csdad. Any student who is one standard deviation above the norm (above 115), should be able to achieve academic success at just about any college. A higher IQ does not always mean that a person is more “intelligent.” It may mean that the person is highly spatially adept, has a great working memory, or has had extenisive academic exposure while learning as a child…all things we value and measure as intelligence, but that may or may not be “guarantees” of college performance. At some point, the importance of actually applying those cognitve gifts to real world situations (some would call this “common sense” or “social skills”) becomes the issue and perhaps, the limiting factor in determining success.</p>
<p>My mother in law is both wise and gifted intellectually. She was a HS math teacher and her observations about intellect and life outcomes are nearly always born out- that given a reasonable level of the former, the latter is more often determined by other aspects of an individual- empathy, humor, sociability, resilience, appearance…</p>
<p>When my son was 7 the teacher urged me to test him for the school’s gifted program because “otherwise it would be harder to get him in later.” I wasn’t eager to do this, he was already ‘ability grouped’ for math and reading, that seemed sufficient to me…and in any case we knew we would be moving. I didn’t want to debate the point, so he was tested using a quite limited instrument, the Slosson. I was told by the very excited G&T teacher that he scored highly enough to be placed in a ‘self contained’ class the following year. We moved, and in doing so I came into posession of much of his school folder. When I saw the reported IQ number I was stunned- I had lived with the boy for almost 8 years, and I knew the number was not right!! I looked at the protocol and then the score sheet and then the column of numbers. Sure enough, it had been added incorrectly! His ‘true IQ’ still put him in the ‘smart enough to do whatever he wants in life’ category, but was not the stratospheric number reported!! When this happened I had to wonder, what if he had gone into that self contained class for highly gifted kids with his ‘subpar for the program’ IQ. How much more ‘gifted’ would his education have made him, or does it make any other child for that matter???</p>
<p>Let’s say my D scores high in math related abilities and low in verbal abilities. Does this mean I should steer her to math or does this mean she needs to read more?</p>
<p>beprepn</p>