Anonymous wrote:8:26 again. BTW, I'm not sure if I totally understand or agree with your second point about "score=intelligence+preparation". I think the people giving the test want it to be all about raw intelligence, and want any preparation (however that might be defined) to be roughly equal among all children taking the test. However, some parents try to skew the test results by giving their children additional preparation beyond the baseline.

You understand the point. The county is trying to measure intelligence, but they are measuring intelligence + Prep + other factors. THe extensive drill and practice prep on sample tests is gaming the system -- the only point of which is to make your child look smarted than they are, presumably to increase the chances for AAP. The preppers will argue that studying is key to success...and yes it is. Studying in school is called learning. But, studying for an IQ test is gaming the score -- it may change the score, but not the baseline.

8:26 again. BTW, I'm not sure if I totally understand or agree with your second point about "score=intelligence+preparation". I think the people giving the test want it to be all about raw intelligence, and want any preparation (however that might be defined) to be roughly equal among all children taking the test. However, some parents try to skew the test results by giving their children additional preparation beyond the baseline.

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Get a life, or some therapy, please.

Y'all is certifiable.

Anonymous wrote:16:15 here: First, I apologize for getting to geeky. But it is the way I am.

21:47: THe 145 NNAT (or CogAT) is a measurement of something (with a distribution). The problem is, what is it measuring? It is not just IQ. From experience, I know performance can vary from day to day, factoring in hunger, health, sleep, time of day. The score is a combination of these plus intellegece (IQ/Raw ability) and (gasp) preparation. What they are trying to get out is intelligence.

New poster here. No need to apologize; I'm enjoying your efforts to analyze the numbers and predict the statistics. Please keep going. If I can find any numbers to add (whether they support you or refute you), I'll post them. Thanks for the thoughtful contributions.

Anonymous wrote:What is the advantage of knowing your child's IQ score?
Are there some secret brainy kid guidelines I haven't heard of ?

The advantage is to have a better understanding of what makes kids tick. If the kid is underperforming to there ability, there may be an issue. (Going back to my school days, I was bored, and bullied. I was depressed. I underperformed. My family paid for an evaluation and discovered that I am smart and underperforming. In an ideal world, things would have changed, but in my world, I was forced to do rote memorization and drill and practice.) But, there are kids out there that are underperforming.

16:15 here: First, I apologize for getting to geeky. But it is the way I am.

21:47: THe 145 NNAT (or CogAT) is a measurement of something (with a distribution). The problem is, what is it measuring? It is not just IQ. From experience, I know performance can vary from day to day, factoring in hunger, health, sleep, time of day. The score is a combination of these plus intellegece (IQ/Raw ability) and (gasp) preparation. What they are trying to get out is intelligence.

What is the advantage of knowing your child's IQ score?
Are there some secret brainy kid guidelines I haven't heard of ?

please give us some peace. the more important point is that they are not the same thing. a 145 nnat does not imply a 145 iq.

Wow. Get a life, or some therapy, please.

Statistically, PP is correct if the test is not gamed, and if FCPS baseline is average. Based on the demographics and highly educated baseline, there could be many more in that range. In a normal population, we would expect about 2 % of the kids to be at 145, which would be 260 kids. If the baseline is 1/2 standard deviation higher, then the population of 145 would be about 5%, or about 600 kids.

To those who contest what I wrote, why dont you back up your contension with a link or actual statistics that everyone and their dog scored over 145 on any of the tests. Anyway if my forecast is close you could have about 260 kids out of 13000 who scored over145 on any one of the four tests. Please show me a link to prove me wrong.

When you consider the fact that there is an endless supply of prep materials for the cogAT and virtually none for the WISC, this thread loses all meaning.

Are you the same poster who continually posted the "formula" for getting into AAP?

Your assumptions are flawed, and your data is just plain silly.
Last year was the first year for cogat form 7, and everyone and their dog seemed to have scores above 145. The new form has not been in use long enough to accurately base anything on it's results. FCPS was apparently unhappy with the results last year, and they are finally tossing in the cogat towel this year.

There is a big difference between a group-administered achievement test and an IQ test.

Cogat or NNAT scores above 145 are "rare" in the sense that they are a demonstration of >99%, but it is not as hard to score 145 on one of these (especially when we're talking Cogat subscores and not the composite) as on an IQ test. Besides, if you read this board regularly, you see lots and lots of posters in FCPS that score above 145 on one of these tests.

Many post on here its not rare to see nnat or cogat of 145 but say it is rare to see 145 iq scores. The reason this is wrong is simple. In general they are scored the same way. Granted nnat/cogat are supposed to be scored at a standard deviation of 15 instead of 16 they both show significant rarity. Google iq rarity to view to rarity chart. For example an iq of 145 with standard deviation of 15 means the rarity is 1 out of 741 nationally. With an iq of 145 and standard deviation of 16 which is what I believe nnat cogat is using the rarity goes to 1 out of 407 nationally. So with fairfax county I think you can expext the students to be well ahead of the national average. As a guess I would say that rarity goes to 1 out of 200 for students scoring over 145 on one of the tests. With 13000 2nd grade students that means I would forecast 65 to have scored 145or better on any one of the tests. Lets say we go back to a 16 standard deviation for iq tests for fairfax county I would forecast 35 students have above a145 iq. 13000/741 for national rarity then a fairfax county adjusted forecast times two the national average to come up with 35. In general whether its a 145nnat /cogat or iq test the rarities should be close since they are scored basically the same way. To say a 145 nnat or cogat is common in relation to iq is wrong again because the methodology for scoring has to be very close. Only question is standard deviation used but even with that the rarities still cant be that far off unless you think 35 of 13000 is rare but 65 of 13000 is not.