Feedback/info on FxAT (Cogat alternative used this year for AAP assessment)?

[Anonymous]

I'm curious about how the "new and improved" exam that premiered this year. Am I right that it's essentially a slightly different version of the Cogat, testing the same skills but with different problem sets? Does this have anything to do with the lower number of students admitted to the program?

Thanks for any information.

[Anonymous]

The AAP office posted a document about the new test on their website:

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/FAQre2012CustomizedCogAT.pdf

[Anonymous]

Thank you for that link. One thing that I learned was that this year the test was not normed by age, so a 2nd grader with a late birthday who did not turn 8 until the summer was graded that same as one who was already 8 plus . . . I see they have plans to try to remedy that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that link. One thing that I learned was that this year the test was not normed by age, so a 2nd grader with a late birthday who did not turn 8 until the summer was graded that same as one who was already 8 plus . . . I see they have plans to try to remedy that.

Yes, but what about the kids who took the test this year? Isn't it really unfair for them, especially since they intend to resume age-norming again in the near future?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that link. One thing that I learned was that this year the test was not normed by age, so a 2nd grader with a late birthday who did not turn 8 until the summer was graded that same as one who was already 8 plus . . . I see they have plans to try to remedy that.

Yes, but what about the kids who took the test this year? Isn't it really unfair for them, especially since they intend to resume age-norming again in the near future?

No. Because the smart ones should still do well. Even though there are age differences, it shouldn't be that significant unless your kid is borderline. In that case FCPS will look for other things in the file that support giftedness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Because the smart ones should still do well. Even though there are age differences, it shouldn't be that significant unless your kid is borderline. In that case FCPS will look for other things in the file that support giftedness.

Maybe, maybe not. I think age did play a part in scores. I have a kid (September birthday) that had an in pool NNAT, mid 60s on FxAT, and an WISC that was very superior. I want to see the correlation study....shouldn't be hard for the FCPS to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that link. One thing that I learned was that this year the test was not normed by age, so a 2nd grader with a late birthday who did not turn 8 until the summer was graded that same as one who was already 8 plus . . . I see they have plans to try to remedy that.

Yes, but what about the kids who took the test this year? Isn't it really unfair for them, especially since they intend to resume age-norming again in the near future?

No. Because the smart ones should still do well. Even though there are age differences, it shouldn't be that significant unless your kid is borderline. In that case FCPS will look for other things in the file that support giftedness.

Agreed. But I think what the previous PP is pointing out is that if that is the case, then FCPS should stop age norming completely. Yet they intend to age norm next year.

Full disclosure -- DC is bang in the middle April born, so it doesn't impact me in the least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that link. One thing that I learned was that this year the test was not normed by age, so a 2nd grader with a late birthday who did not turn 8 until the summer was graded that same as one who was already 8 plus . . . I see they have plans to try to remedy that.

Yes, but what about the kids who took the test this year? Isn't it really unfair for them, especially since they intend to resume age-norming again in the near future?

No. Because the smart ones should still do well. Even though there are age differences, it shouldn't be that significant unless your kid is borderline. In that case FCPS will look for other things in the file that support giftedness.

Agreed. But I think what the previous PP is pointing out is that if that is the case, then FCPS should stop age norming completely. Yet they intend to age norm next year.

Full disclosure -- DC is bang in the middle April born, so it doesn't impact me in the least.

Exactly! My point was that if age doesn't really affect FxAT performance, why bring back age-norming again in the future? Either age matters, in which case, younger kids this year got the short end of the stick and are unfavorably affected, or it doesn't, in which case, don't norm for age ever again. It cannot be true both ways... And yes, I have a September kid, who did great in the FxAT this year (AAP eligible) even without age-norming, but I still think that there is a reason such tests have always required age-normalization, and I still think young kids this year got a raw deal without it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that link. One thing that I learned was that this year the test was not normed by age, so a 2nd grader with a late birthday who did not turn 8 until the summer was graded that same as one who was already 8 plus . . . I see they have plans to try to remedy that.

Yes, but what about the kids who took the test this year? Isn't it really unfair for them, especially since they intend to resume age-norming again in the near future?

No. Because the smart ones should still do well. Even though there are age differences, it shouldn't be that significant unless your kid is borderline. In that case FCPS will look for other things in the file that support giftedness.

How shortsighted of you! All such tests (NNAT, CogAT, WISC, SB, ...) are age-normed and have always been. Percentiles change significantly based on age and this affects younger kids in a negative way and older kids in a favorable way. This year, percentiles (and not even the correct ones) are all we got. What's the point of using such tests if they are not going to be used correctly? But then again, FCPS will resume age-norming again in a couple of years. In the meantime, and according to the above logic, for the kids in-between, oh well, tough luck... The smart ones should have done well anyway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that link. One thing that I learned was that this year the test was not normed by age, so a 2nd grader with a late birthday who did not turn 8 until the summer was graded that same as one who was already 8 plus . . . I see they have plans to try to remedy that.

Yes, but what about the kids who took the test this year? Isn't it really unfair for them, especially since they intend to resume age-norming again in the near future?

No. Because the smart ones should still do well. Even though there are age differences, it shouldn't be that significant unless your kid is borderline. In that case FCPS will look for other things in the file that support giftedness.

Agreed. But I think what the previous PP is pointing out is that if that is the case, then FCPS should stop age norming completely. Yet they intend to age norm next year.

Full disclosure -- DC is bang in the middle April born, so it doesn't impact me in the least.

Exactly! My point was that if age doesn't really affect FxAT performance, why bring back age-norming again in the future? Either age matters, in which case, younger kids this year got the short end of the stick and are unfavorably affected, or it doesn't, in which case, don't norm for age ever again. It cannot be true both ways... And yes, I have a September kid, who did great in the FxAT this year (AAP eligible) even without age-norming, but I still think that there is a reason such tests have always required age-normalization, and I still think young kids this year got a raw deal without it.

Yes, they should have age normed ... it does give lower scores to younger kids in the same grade and falsely higher grades to kids. ....age norming affects the scores...the AART said so

[Anonymous]

My late September son WISCd at 99.8%, but only had 84% on the FxAT. He was over 95% in Non verbal.....the lack of norming hurt the young ones especially on the verbal portion, IMO. He was being compared to some second graders who are over a year older than he was because parents held the students back because they had late summer birthdays....

[Anonymous]

Of course age norming affects the scores. The AAP office knows this as they have all the data they want from the test maker. FCPS asked they to make this test just for them, so they got what they wanted. Very unfair to the younger kids... but what can you do.

[Anonymous]

The age norming could be a factor in ehy some kids got in with a FAT of 84% and others were denied at 91%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My late September son WISCd at 99.8%, but only had 84% on the FxAT. He was over 95% in Non verbal.....the lack of norming hurt the young ones especially on the verbal portion, IMO. He was being compared to some second graders who are over a year older than he was because parents held the students back because they had late summer birthdays....

PP, was your son found eligible? Care to share the other scores (NNAT, GBRS)? Did you use the WISC in the first round?

We are very similar (146/99% NNAT and 85% FxAT, with quantitative and non-verbal in the 90s and verbal low 60s) but DC (late September as well) was not found eligible. Took the WISC (99.8%) and now we are appealing. GBRS not great either (because of DC's immaturity). Definitely AAP-material, so we are keeping our fingers crossed...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My late September son WISCd at 99.8%, but only had 84% on the FxAT. He was over 95% in Non verbal.....the lack of norming hurt the young ones especially on the verbal portion, IMO. He was being compared to some second graders who are over a year older than he was because parents held the students back because they had late summer birthdays....

PP, was your son found eligible? Care to share the other scores (NNAT, GBRS)? Did you use the WISC in the first round?

We are very similar (146/99% NNAT and 85% FxAT, with quantitative and non-verbal in the 90s and verbal low 60s) but DC (late September as well) was not found eligible. Took the WISC (99.8%) and now we are appealing. GBRS not great either (because of DC's immaturity). Definitely AAP-material, so we are keeping our fingers crossed...

Yes, he was found eligible. NNAT was 131, GBRS was 15, we used WISC in first round thinking the young age would hurt him.