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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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Anonymous wrote:The Stanford-Binet L-M is very out-of-date.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.

Hi, this is very helpful. Can you provide a link or the title of the report? I've looked on the Pearson site but can't seem to find what you're referencing. Our post-test report came with raw and scaled scores plus the final scores, so it would be helpful to see the report you reference.

If I understand you correctly, this additional calculation doesn't necessitate giving the child additional questions during the testing session, it's just a different calculation/table with the raw scores?

[Anonymous]

Here's the link: http://pearsonassess.com/NR/rdonlyres/C1C19227-BC79-46D9-B43C-8E4A114F7E1F/0/WISCIV_TechReport_7.pdf .

You find the table for your child's age when s/he took the test, and check whether the raw scores translate to a scaled score higher than 19. If so, you can then recalculate the Index and IQ scores.

Do note that this is a newly developed system, so it doesn't have a lot of research backing yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link: http://pearsonassess.com/NR/rdonlyres/C1C19227-BC79-46D9-B43C-8E4A114F7E1F/0/WISCIV_TechReport_7.pdf .

You find the table for your child's age when s/he took the test, and check whether the raw scores translate to a scaled score higher than 19. If so, you can then recalculate the Index and IQ scores.

Do note that this is a newly developed system, so it doesn't have a lot of research backing yet.

Thank you very much. When a child hits a subtest ceiling, it is hard to tell where they fall in the spectrum of those who hit that ceiling. This data and calculation puts it more in perspective.

[Anonymous]

If this is a re-interpretation of the exiting test, I would guess the predictive power of the new report is not improved much over the old one.

[Anonymous]

*Bump* on 3/6/09. I am bumping this thread for those interested in re-starting the discussion about whether or not an extremely high score on WPPSI or other tests might help or harm your child's chances of admission to certain schools. Out of consideration to those waiting to hear about admissions, and those who might have heard disappointing news so far, could we please keep our discussion on this thread and not the "report your results" thread? Thanks.

If you're just starting on this topic, I'd recommend reading the earlier pages. There is a lot of good discussion on both sides of the issue.

[Anonymous]

Both my kids had scores in the 99+ range and both were admitted to a Big 3 school. First, I remind myself that these scores are just a snapshot from one day in their lives. And just like some days, they wake up as terrors and are terrors all days, there are others, where they are genial and cooperative kids. Second, there are many factors that go into the decision process. One child may have high test scores, but rec letters that may raise concern or poor behaviour at a playdate. Another child may have high test scores and was seen as quite cooperative during the playdate. As much as I wanted to believe that the 99+ scores indicated that the my kids were exceptionally bright for life, I know that this is just a snapshot on one day.

[Anonymous]

Just to clarify the terms of the discussion for any who might be coming late to it, the discussion is about whether a super-high WPPSI score might affect a child's admission chances. We're talking here about a composite full scale score (FSIQ), not just a sub-test. For some arbitrary reason, prior posters on this thread leaned toward referring to a 145 FSIQ score as the working definition of "super high," and that translates to about 99.8% according to one website (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to clarify the terms of the discussion for any who might be coming late to it, the discussion is about whether a super-high WPPSI score might affect a child's admission chances. We're talking here about a composite full scale score (FSIQ), not just a sub-test. For some arbitrary reason, prior posters on this thread leaned toward referring to a 145 FSIQ score as the working definition of "super high," and that translates to about 99.8% according to one website (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx).

Right. I'm the PP and my point was that my children's "super high" full scale scores did not have an adverse effect in the admissions process, that there are probably many factors at play in admissions.

[Anonymous]

According to the website (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx), a 99.8% score occurs for 1-in-740 kids nationwide. Based on absolutely nothing more than gut instinct, I'm guessing that the Washington DC region generally has higher-scoring kids than the national average, so let's double the number of 99.8% kids in DC: 1-in-370. Let's also assume that people with high-scoring kids are more likely to apply to the independent schools, so double the number again: 1-in-185. (Please note that I am *not* suggesting that only people who apply to these schools have high scoring kids, but only that if you have a high scoring kid, you are more likely to apply to one of these schools.) I don't really know how many kids apply in any given year to the 10-15 independent schools that regularly are discussed here, but I'm guessing it's about 800 or so. So, if my math is right, we're talking about maybe 4-5 kids per grade level at 99.8+% for all these schools. Based on the number of people who post on DCUM about their kids' FSIQ scores, 4-5 per grade feels about right to me. Feel free to suggest adjustments to my assumptions based on better info, since they're just guesses on my part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to clarify the terms of the discussion for any who might be coming late to it, ....

Right. I'm the PP and my point was that my children's "super high" full scale scores did not have an adverse effect in the admissions process, that there are probably many factors at play in admissions.

Understood. I was not trying to respond to your post or suggest your kids are anything but perfect -- I was just setting the table for further discussion. Sorry if I created any confusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to clarify the terms of the discussion for any who might be coming late to it, ....

Right. I'm the PP and my point was that my children's "super high" full scale scores did not have an adverse effect in the admissions process, that there are probably many factors at play in admissions.

Understood. I was not trying to respond to your post or suggest your kids are anything but perfect -- I was just setting the table for further discussion. Sorry if I created any confusion.

By the way, I totally agree with you underlying point -- that WPPSI scores are highly variable and likely are just one small factor in admissions decisions, probably much less significant than other factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was not trying to respond to your post or suggest your kids are anything but perfect.

That was unncessary, PP. It's quite easy to see how 9:38 could have interpreted your post as implying that her kids' scores, while above the 99th percentile mark, were too low to be relevant to this discussion.

[Anonymous]

I just think the WPPSI is a really SMALL part of the admission decision. Yes, the schools do use it and I think to weed out any learning disabled children. I have been a stalker of this board only to read/learn more about what other kids were scoring on it and how my child compared. It really scared the sh-- of me and I worried for the past three months about whether his score's were high enough. That said, my son only scored Full Scale 80th percentile and we just got admitted to one school and waiting on the others for Kindergarten. I honeslty thought after reading this board that we were a real big minority here with lower scores and that we didn't have a chance. Ofcourse, he is a sweet loving child and I assume got good reference from his Pre-K. I think that if you're score is between 75% and 100% you have as good a shot as the next kid. I was told by Admission person at one of the Big 3 (still waiting on the results for this school) that they want above average children so I assume that means anything past 50th percentile. So, to all the parents out here that have kids scoring anything above 50th (and 80th for sure) you will be fine!

[Anonymous]

I think most of the very competive schools are looking for 80-99 as the band. It's just easier for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Understood. I was not trying to respond to your post or suggest your kids are anything but perfect -- I was just setting the table for further discussion. Sorry if I created any confusion.

That was unncessary, PP. It's quite easy to see how 9:38 could have interpreted your post as implying that her kids' scores, while above the 99th percentile mark, were too low to be relevant to this discussion.

What was "unnecessary"? I agree that 9:38 easily and understandably could have misinterpreted my earlier 9:48 post as a snarky come-back. That's why I clarified at 10:09 that I was not trying to respond to her at all, and apologized for any confusion I may have created (full post above). I don't understand why you're criticizing me now. Perhaps you think I was being extra snarky when I used the phrase "anything but perfect"? That's my best guess, but I really don't understand. Trust me, I am not that subtle or crafty -- if I want to poke at someone, I'll be pretty direct about it. I also hate the subtle snark that pervades these boards, so I certainly am not intending to be part of it. Once again, apologies for any confusion.