Anonymous wrote:The whole point of standardized tests is that they're supposed to be exactly that - standardized. If students get accommodations then their results should AT LEAST be flagged as such.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high IQ low processing speed child. I have one. She qualifies for extra time but she’s never used it.

Her high intelligence more than compensates for her speed. She’s not slow because the SAT is easy. She will still score in the 99th percentile. That has always been the case in school. Only when the content is difficult does she become slow. But I would think that’s like everyone.

I'm one of the posters who has been stating that the SAT (in part) tests processing speed, and I absolutely believe that other kinds of intelligence compensate for low processing speed. That said, I have a hard time grasping how your child could actually have low processing speed, and yet get 99% on the SAT. My guess is that the low processing must be a function of attention with her, not actual cognitive ability. EVERYONE's processing speed slows down when the content gets more difficult or their focus wanes. At any rate, I also agree that processing speed is not the ultimate measure of intelligence or achievement. But I think that it's really on the colleges to design admissions policies that take this into account -- not to rely on the SAT score alone.

Low processing speed is not shorthand for cognitive ability.

You use different instruments to test both. And for anyone cognitive ability is not determined on a timed test.

Further to get a diagnosis of ADHD you must take other tests that look at working memory, long term memory, and retrieval, executive functioning, and consider the student's interactions with peers and family.

An ethical psychologist will only give a diagnosis if there are deficits in 3 domains -- school, home and social interactions.

There probably are unethical practitioners that take shortcuts and give a diagnosis for only lower than average processing speed who should be sanctioned and lose their licenses, and be prosecuted for insurance fraud if they provide a receipt to parents that falsifies results to be given to an insurer for reimbursement.

processing speed is absolutely a key component of cognitive ability. I'm sorry that people are in denial about that. certainly there are other aspects of intelligence and personality that can compensate.

Anonymous wrote:i would have a hard time thinking of a kid without accommodations for testing. My child has really slow processing speed and it was recommended to us by middle school teachers that we get accomodations in MS so that they are in place for a few years before SAT/ACT. So teachers know what is up. Never did it. Aced ACT and SATII's.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high IQ low processing speed child. I have one. She qualifies for extra time but she’s never used it.

Her high intelligence more than compensates for her speed. She’s not slow because the SAT is easy. She will still score in the 99th percentile. That has always been the case in school. Only when the content is difficult does she become slow. But I would think that’s like everyone.

I'm one of the posters who has been stating that the SAT (in part) tests processing speed, and I absolutely believe that other kinds of intelligence compensate for low processing speed. That said, I have a hard time grasping how your child could actually have low processing speed, and yet get 99% on the SAT. My guess is that the low processing must be a function of attention with her, not actual cognitive ability. EVERYONE's processing speed slows down when the content gets more difficult or their focus wanes. At any rate, I also agree that processing speed is not the ultimate measure of intelligence or achievement. But I think that it's really on the colleges to design admissions policies that take this into account -- not to rely on the SAT score alone.

Low processing speed is not shorthand for cognitive ability.

You use different instruments to test both. And for anyone cognitive ability is not determined on a timed test.

Further to get a diagnosis of ADHD you must take other tests that look at working memory, long term memory, and retrieval, executive functioning, and consider the student's interactions with peers and family.

An ethical psychologist will only give a diagnosis if there are deficits in 3 domains -- school, home and social interactions.

There probably are unethical practitioners that take shortcuts and give a diagnosis for only lower than average processing speed who should be sanctioned and lose their licenses, and be prosecuted for insurance fraud if they provide a receipt to parents that falsifies results to be given to an insurer for reimbursement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high IQ low processing speed child. I have one. She qualifies for extra time but she’s never used it.

Her high intelligence more than compensates for her speed. She’s not slow because the SAT is easy. She will still score in the 99th percentile. That has always been the case in school. Only when the content is difficult does she become slow. But I would think that’s like everyone.

I'm one of the posters who has been stating that the SAT (in part) tests processing speed, and I absolutely believe that other kinds of intelligence compensate for low processing speed. That said, I have a hard time grasping how your child could actually have low processing speed, and yet get 99% on the SAT. My guess is that the low processing must be a function of attention with her, not actual cognitive ability. EVERYONE's processing speed slows down when the content gets more difficult or their focus wanes. At any rate, I also agree that processing speed is not the ultimate measure of intelligence or achievement. But I think that it's really on the colleges to design admissions policies that take this into account -- not to rely on the SAT score alone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is most of us posting on this thread are typically middle to modestly wealthy families with salaries from $80-500K per year.

Certainly enough to keep roofs over our head, but not enough to transfer significant wealth to the next generatin.

The people who are really gaming the system are those who can boost chances of admission to selective schools

1) through athletic talent and cultivation of that talent via travel sports, private coaches and the like

2) by applying ED and not applying for financial aid

Having one or both of those advantages helps far more than a slightly higher SAT or ACT score -- secured through extra time on standardized tests for legitimate or questionable reasons.

We are arguing with each other over details and not getting at the systemic problem.

College admissions (like many other parts of our society) is not based on merit. The notion of being able to succeed if you are willing to apply yourself and put in the effort is a myth.

$500k a year is far from modest.

Sure a few pull it off, but most do not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high IQ low processing speed child. I have one. She qualifies for extra time but she’s never used it.

Her high intelligence more than compensates for her speed. She’s not slow because the SAT is easy. She will still score in the 99th percentile. That has always been the case in school. Only when the content is difficult does she become slow. But I would think that’s like everyone.

I'm one of the posters who has been stating that the SAT (in part) tests processing speed, and I absolutely believe that other kinds of intelligence compensate for low processing speed. That said, I have a hard time grasping how your child could actually have low processing speed, and yet get 99% on the SAT. My guess is that the low processing must be a function of attention with her, not actual cognitive ability. EVERYONE's processing speed slows down when the content gets more difficult or their focus wanes. At any rate, I also agree that processing speed is not the ultimate measure of intelligence or achievement. But I think that it's really on the colleges to design admissions policies that take this into account -- not to rely on the SAT score alone.

Anonymous wrote:The reality is most of us posting on this thread are typically middle to modestly wealthy families with salaries from $80-500K per year.

Certainly enough to keep roofs over our head, but not enough to transfer significant wealth to the next generatin.

The people who are really gaming the system are those who can boost chances of admission to selective schools

1) through athletic talent and cultivation of that talent via travel sports, private coaches and the like

2) by applying ED and not applying for financial aid

Having one or both of those advantages helps far more than a slightly higher SAT or ACT score -- secured through extra time on standardized tests for legitimate or questionable reasons.

We are arguing with each other over details and not getting at the systemic problem.

College admissions (like many other parts of our society) is not based on merit. The notion of being able to succeed if you are willing to apply yourself and put in the effort is a myth.

$500k a year is far from modest.

Sure a few pull it off, but most do not.

Anonymous wrote:The high IQ low processing speed child. I have one. She qualifies for extra time but she’s never used it.

Her high intelligence more than compensates for her speed. She’s not slow because the SAT is easy. She will still score in the 99th percentile. That has always been the case in school. Only when the content is difficult does she become slow. But I would think that’s like everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of standardized tests is that they're supposed to be exactly that - standardized. If students get accommodations then their results should AT LEAST be flagged as such.

Then also flag if they use a hearing aid, or glasses or needed a wheel chair to get into the room...….

No. Because it’s not a vision test or a mobility test. it’s a test of processing speed.

No it isn't. One can be in the 99th percentile for processing speed and tank either the ELA or the Math part of the SAT or ACT.

You must also know the content and demonstrate reasoning ability.

A student with perfect fine, above average processing speed, who has only taken Alg 2 when tested will score lower than someone who has taken Pre-Calc or Calc.

I thought that the test didn't go beyond Algebra 2?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of standardized tests is that they're supposed to be exactly that - standardized. If students get accommodations then their results should AT LEAST be flagged as such.

Then also flag if they use a hearing aid, or glasses or needed a wheel chair to get into the room...….

No. Because it’s not a vision test or a mobility test. it’s a test of processing speed.

No it isn't. One can be in the 99th percentile for processing speed and tank either the ELA or the Math part of the SAT or ACT.

You must also know the content and demonstrate reasoning ability.

A student with perfect fine, above average processing speed, who has only taken Alg 2 when tested will score lower than someone who has taken Pre-Calc or Calc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we have accommodations at all, except in severe cases? I understand if you're blind and need the test read to you, or you have a phsyical disability and can't easily fill in the circles on the sheet -- then extra time seems warranted.

But isn't the goal of the test to measure against other students? Why not have the same testing environment for all then? I realize some will score poorer than others, but isn't that exactly what it's trying to measure?

As an employer, if an aptitude test reflects your job duties, then it's useful to know how much you can accomplish within a fixed amount of time, because that's part of the job.

+2

Processing speed is a significant part of the intelligence profile. If you have low processing speed and a FSIQ of 115 that’s still your IQ. Your IQ is average. You cannot just take that index away.

So with the ACT I see kids who are indeed average getting higher scores because of extra time. It doesn’t really make sense. What about Johnny who has slow processing speed but not low enough to get accommodations? I’m sorry. That’s just not fair.

As the parent of a daughter with low processing speed (4th percentile), I agree with this. It amazes me that in the special needs forum, people act like processing speed, is something that "doesn't really count", when it comes to intelligence. That it's only the GAI index that matters. Believe me, I would love to believe that my daughter is really more intelligent than her 110iq would indicate. But how could she be? I don't understand why some people feel like processing speed should be thrown out when it comes to determining intelligence. I see how her processing speed impacts her, and yes it makes her for all intents and purposes "less intelligent" than many other people.

Wait, but processing speed CAN improve. I am the poster with the 35 ACT kid whose processing speed went from 13% in 2nd grade to 25% in 8th grade to 50% in 12th grade. It does not determine intelligence as it is a condition that can improve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of standardized tests is that they're supposed to be exactly that - standardized. If students get accommodations then their results should AT LEAST be flagged as such.

Then also flag if they use a hearing aid, or glasses or needed a wheel chair to get into the room...….

No. Because it’s not a vision test or a mobility test. it’s a test of processing speed.