You know that no one will recommend a tester who gives their dc an average score, no way.

Dcummie posters are all around you. They never left. They are coming to get you.

I don't see how a tester could influence the results a whole lot. With the WPPSI, there is generally a "right" answer and a "wrong" answer, and not a lot of room for the tester to fudge. You recall 6 items in the number sequence, or you recall 8, and that's really it. You rotate the box so you get the correct answer, or you don't, and that's really it.

Sure, that 6-page write-up can be written in a way that spins the results, with lots of code words and stuff between the lines.

But at the end of the day, unless the tester changes the actual numbers, I don't see how a 53rd percentile can be made into a 98th percentile.

Anonymous wrote:Like some teachers, some testers grade easily and freely, some harshly. Many students search out the gut courses and easy A. Most dcummies also seek out the easy 99.9 percentile givers for their children. It's programmed in their DNA.

Oh nooooo, the DCUMMIES poster is baaaaccckkkk!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is OP implying that certain testers give higher scores? I can't think of any other reason to tie tester and score together in one thread??

I somewhat agree with OP. I do think certain testers consistently give high scores. That being said, I'm not going to publicly name the testers.

And wouldn't the schools all know this?

Yes, they know, but they are looking for the absolutely tuned out parent who is not in the know. Dumb enough to take their kid to some unknown honest tester.

Like some teachers, some testers grade easily and freely, some harshly. Many students search out the gut courses and easy A. Most dcummies also seek out the easy 99.9 percentile givers for their children. It's programmed in their DNA.

Thanks for that PP - nice to hear from someone who's read the studies

Anonymous wrote:... But the WPPSI is notoriously unreliable as a predictor of IQ. NurtureShock, anyone?

After reading that section of NurtureShock, I actually got interested enough in the subject to read all the scientific journal articles the book cited. Those articles do say that IQ test scores of young children vary pretty significantly over time. However, they actually don't say the tests themselves are unreliable. What they really say is that children's development is moving in fits and starts at those young ages, and the performance of young children can be affected dramatically by a wide variety of factors. A lot of research in the area suggests that if a child is properly tested multiple times over a span of several weeks -- and those results prove consistent -- then they can be treated as pretty highly reliable.

I know that deeper nuanced view is not what Bronson and his co-author pushed in NurtureShock. They focused instead on the unreliability angle. I suspect that was because it fit with their theme of trying to upend conventional thinking. The message that "Tests are sort of reliable, if done carefully!" isn't a recipe for selling books to parents at Barnes & Noble.

So I'm not really disagreeing with your primary point, PP, but rather just discouraging people from taking it too far.

OP, are you the dad who was looking for WPPSI test prep books a few weeks ago? If so, I'll give you this: you're not going to let scruples stop your kid from getting into a Big 3!

Come on. How about initials? Want to see if my kids scores are fake (inflated?).

Anonymous wrote:Our DC improved from 88 %ile to the fabled 99%ile in a year, and we do not believe that DC's testing ability or IQ or comprehension changed that much, so I do think that there are testers who are much easier than others. However: both testers/testing groups were suggested to us by the school.

But you realize that the WPPSI can easily vary that much for any number of reasons: inadequate sleep, a bad mood, or yes, rapport (or lack thereof) with the tester. But the WPPSI is notoriously unreliable as a predictor of IQ. NurtureShock, anyone?

Our DC improved from 88 %ile to the fabled 99%ile in a year, and we do not believe that DC's testing ability or IQ or comprehension changed that much, so I do think that there are testers who are much easier than others. However: both testers/testing groups were suggested to us by the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is OP implying that certain testers give higher scores? I can't think of any other reason to tie tester and score together in one thread??

I somewhat agree with OP. I do think certain testers consistently give high scores. That being said, I'm not going to publicly name the testers.

And wouldn't the schools all know this?

Yes, reason why many 99+ kids are rejected. Admission directors are aware this is going on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is OP implying that certain testers give higher scores? I can't think of any other reason to tie tester and score together in one thread??

I somewhat agree with OP. I do think certain testers consistently give high scores. That being said, I'm not going to publicly name the testers.

And wouldn't the schools all know this?

Yes, the schools know this and if you do name the testers they will have a strong incentive to skew their scores in the opposite direction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is OP implying that certain testers give higher scores? I can't think of any other reason to tie tester and score together in one thread??

I somewhat agree with OP. I do think certain testers consistently give high scores. That being said, I'm not going to publicly name the testers.

And wouldn't the schools all know this?