Is Everyone's Child 90th percentile and above on the WPPSI III or just the DC's on this board?

[Anonymous]

We were happy with Maria Zimitti in Georgetown. She had an easy rapport with my child, although her manner/dress were on the more formal side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We were happy with Maria Zimitti in Georgetown. She had an easy rapport with my child, although her manner/dress were on the more formal side.

Thanks - would appreciate any more names of testers with whom people have had good experiences, especially for dd's around 3.11.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poster who mentioned not wanting schools to lower standards for minorities. Hold up! Are you saying that minorities need 'standards' lowered? If so, you really are uneducated. You have not met my 99.9%, 139+ IQ, reading at age 4 AFRICAN AMERICAN daughter, and oh--my 7 year old son who was admitted to a 'top tier' as this board calls it school not by his beautiful brown skin, but probably by his 95% test scores, above average/superior school performance. You greatly offended me, and a lot of other "minority" (and remember minority does not just mean African American) parents on here.

I am Black and I read that post a little differently. I took from her post that she hopes that the schools keep the standards the same for everyone so it is always a level playing field. I think he/she referenced minorities, sibs and priority applicants because of the unsubstantiated belief by some that those applicants typically "slide" in thru connections or relaxed standards. For example, I'm sure pp was thinking about 43 graduating from Yale. If he had been held to the same standards as everyone else without the benefit of a legacy he would not have been admitted. I think that is the gist of pp's comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing to keep in mind is that the WPPSI is not a particularly good test for gauging giftedness.

I thought this snippet from www.hoagiesgifted.org was interesting on a study of "exceptionally gifted" children (IQs above 170--not measured with the WPPSI but by tests such as the Stanford-Binet).

"One unique problem for parents of highly gifted children is the impossibility of gaining accurate information about the level of their children's abilities, given the low ceilings on modem tests. Most children receive tests that generate only deviation IQs: group IQ tests, WISC-R, WPPSI, Kaufman ABC, McCarthy Scales, Stanford-Binet Revision IV. None of these tests can capture the full range of abilities of the extraordinarily gifted because the children's abilities extend beyond the upper limits of the tests. (For more detailed information on assessment issues, see Silverman, 1989.)

Seven of the children in the Maine group who had been tested on the WISC, WISC-R, WPPSI, or K-ABC intelligence tests scored between 139 and 155, with only two scoring above 145. They were then given the Stanford- Binet Intelligence Scale (Form L-M), which has a higher ceiling than these tests and yields a mental age from which a ratio IQ score can be derived. On this test, these same children scored between 169 + and 194. "

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

Hard to know if a child scoring 140 on the WPPSI would score the same on another test or possibly much higher.

Also, the authors talk about the fact that they find surprising numbers of these exceptionally gifted children:

"According to the normal curve of distribution, the incidence of children above 170 IQ should be approximately 1 in 294,000 (Dunlap, 1967). This means that the entire state of Colorado should have no more than 2 or 3 of these children.

In the past 9 years, however, we have discovered over 80 children in Colorado in this IQ range. Similarly, the state of Maine should have one such child at most, and yet 15 have been found in rural Maine during the same time period. Grossberg and Cornell (1988) indicate that only 0.14% of those in the gifted range should score 164 IQ or above, but in the past 9 years 4% of the children brought to the Gifted Child Development Center, in Denver, Colorado, scored above 170 IQ. These figures add to the growing body of research that has found an unexpectedly high frequency of scores at the upper end of the IQ distribution (Dunlap, 1967; Gallagher & Moss, 1963; Jensen, 1980; McGuffog, Feiring, & Lewis, 1987; Robinson, 1981; Stott & Ball, 1965; Terman, 1925)."

So, perhaps the high frequency of high scorers mentioned on this board helps support their findings.

In mathematics this just shows that WPPSI III score has a fatter tail distribution than assumed by a normal distribution, so it is very likely that WPPSI is not setup to test the difference between 99.0% and 99.9%.

[Anonymous]

PP is correct WPSSI was not set up to distinguish between 99.0% and 99.9%. It was designed to identify kids above a cutoff for Gifted and Talented programs - I think that cut off is 95%. But also to identify at the opposite end of the distribution those who need additional services to reach a basi minimum.
It was not designed to be used for private school admissions.. which is probably why we all find it so annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP is correct WPSSI was not set up to distinguish between 99.0% and 99.9%. It was designed to identify kids above a cutoff for Gifted and Talented programs - I think that cut off is 95%. But also to identify at the opposite end of the distribution those who need additional services to reach a basi minimum.
It was not designed to be used for private school admissions.. which is probably why we all find it so annoying.

What is the best test for identifying distinctions between those on the far right tail of the bell curve?

[Anonymous]

A test with some very difficult questions will be good enough to tell the difference between 99.0% and 99.9%. But again the difficulty depends on the specific subject. I don't think it is practical for the purpose of evaluate IQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is correct WPSSI was not set up to distinguish between 99.0% and 99.9%. It was designed to identify kids above a cutoff for Gifted and Talented programs - I think that cut off is 95%. But also to identify at the opposite end of the distribution those who need additional services to reach a basi minimum.
It was not designed to be used for private school admissions.. which is probably why we all find it so annoying.

What is the best test for identifying distinctions between those on the far right tail of the bell curve?

Supposedly the old Stanford-Binet (Form L-M) is best:

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

[Anonymous]

The Stanford-Binet L-M is very out-of-date. While a few psychologists may still give it, most would argue that it is so old that the norms are irrelevant, and that the scores it gives should be used very cautiously.

The WISC-IV actually has some new scoring procedures for children who earn the highest possible scaled scores (18 or 19 on a subtest). It allows a child to earn a full IQ score above 160.

Or, you can just say that IQ is a construct, measured differently by different tests, and there's little value added in trying to distinguish among kids who are already above the 99th percentile. At that point, personality, motivation, and a host of other factors are at least as relevent as a score on one IQ test or another.

[Anonymous]

So if my child is an an illigitamte child from a single mom who is unemplyed and on welfare and happens to be of mixed ethnicity and manged to score a 99.8 does that mean she actually smarter than the middle-class white kids form two parent homes? Stereotypes abound. Incidently that's 3rd generation welfare mom and living in public housing. Also 3rd generation TAG, for the record. One's station, or perceieved station in life has nothing tho do with intellectually ability or how hard they work. Just ask any domestic. And the choices that many families make in this country that we call 'scuccessful' are considered shameful in other countries. I just wish these stereotypes would finally go away, please stop engaging in their utilization.

[Anonymous]

I'm lost on this last post. I don't see anywhere on this post about sterotyping? This is the United States and you can work hard and achieve anything you set your mind to regardless of where you came from or what your IQ may be. Pres Clinton didn't come from money and on the other hand Pres G.W. Bush doesn't have a high IQ and they got to the highest office in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm lost on this last post. I don't see anywhere on this post about sterotyping? This is the United States and you can work hard and achieve anything you set your mind to regardless of where you came from or what your IQ may be. Pres Clinton didn't come from money and on the other hand Pres G.W. Bush doesn't have a high IQ and they got to the highest office in the world.

Do you know W's IQ?

[Anonymous]

I read somewhere is was 110 which I think is average

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Stanford-Binet L-M is very out-of-date. While a few psychologists may still give it, most would argue that it is so old that the norms are irrelevant, and that the scores it gives should be used very cautiously.

The WISC-IV actually has some new scoring procedures for children who earn the highest possible scaled scores (18 or 19 on a subtest). It allows a child to earn a full IQ score above 160.

Or, you can just say that IQ is a construct, measured differently by different tests, and there's little value added in trying to distinguish among kids who are already above the 99th percentile. At that point, personality, motivation, and a host of other factors are at least as relevent as a score on one IQ test or another.

Hi, can you elaborate on the WISC-IV scoring procedures for children who score on the high end? My child hit all three subtest ceilings in the verbal component, but I don't see anything in the accompanying report that mentions a new scoring procedure, just the standard scoring was used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Stanford-Binet L-M is very out-of-date. While a few psychologists may still give it, most would argue that it is so old that the norms are irrelevant, and that the scores it gives should be used very cautiously.

The WISC-IV actually has some new scoring procedures for children who earn the highest possible scaled scores (18 or 19 on a subtest). It allows a child to earn a full IQ score above 160.

Hi, can you elaborate on the WISC-IV scoring procedures for children who score on the high end? My child hit all three subtest ceilings in the verbal component, but I don't see anything in the accompanying report that mentions a new scoring procedure, just the standard scoring was used.

The publisher of the WISC-IV (Pearson) has recently released a report on extending the norms upward for kids who earn a scaled score of 18 or 19 on at least two subtests. The tables for calculation are available online in a technical report. To use it, you have to know the raw scores the child earned. The purpose is to improve the ability to identify kids who are highly gifted (and, of course, to compete with the Stanford-Binet, which has a similar calculation available). For many kids with two 18's or 19's it won't make a difference (because they only just made it to the score for an 18 or 19), but for some it will.