I have a very good friend who is a child psychologist. He doesn't routinely do IQ testing, but he is trained in this area and does it from time to time to keep in practice with it. He called me the other day and asked if my girls would be willing to be guinea pigs for him by letting him give them the SB. My kids jumped at the chance because they love him. He's great with kids, and my girls know him from church and feel comfortable with him. He won't write up a formal report because he's doing it for practice and because he's such a good friend. However, he says it will give us an idea of their abilities.

This is great for us because DD9 has never been formally tested at school. She was only given a screener (NNAT) and was denied further testing because of her score. However, she's very verbal and not good at visual-spatial stuff. DD6 is going to be screened by the school soon.

I wonder how these well-known tests (WISC IV and SB5) compare to the RIAS (Reynolds) that our school district uses.

acs said in 1) that intelligence increases over time...based on my DS 13 and his teenage sluggishness and failure to listen or understand these days, I'm not so sure.

Wow pink, you are living my dream come true, (that's green with envy, not sick!)

Cym, from what I've read/heard, the RIAS is a very quick test as far as IQ tests go. I think it's shorter than the WISC-IV by as much as half.

I wonder if a more useful number wouldn't be the 'mental age' of the child, so you know your child is 4 but his/her mind operates like one of 4+X years old.

This way you know if s/he can work with abstract concepts and to which level and then adapt the teaching style accordingly.

Or maybe the levels could be defined by how many grade levels the child can function above the average same aged child. Like:

MG - 1 to 2 grade levels above
HG - 3 to 4
EG - 5 to 6
PG - 6+

Then it wouldn't be so reliant on an IQ score. But of course, it would leave out those children who aren't given the chance to be exposed to higher level material. Anyway you look at it, it's an inexact science.

I love this approach. I think it would really help with the inability of the tests to distinguish and focus on what a kid can do rather than how a kid tested on one day. And I think it addresses the issue we're all struggling with better than a test. I wanted test scores to answer the question, "how unusual is this kid?" so I would know what I should be arguing for at school, how much emphasis I should place on finding appropriate placement, etc. I figured if I had a 1/100,000 kid, maybe it wouldn't be crazy to move to find better schooling, to pay for mentors and coaches, etc., just as you might with a music prodigy or sports prodigy. But if I had a 1/1000 kid, maybe some major changes and family sacrifices to meet educational needs would be excessive and unwarranted. I didn't think testing helped with that at all because the tests are so limited due to ceilings and the fact that they aren't designed to distinguish between HG and EG and PG. The best info I got from the tests were that my kids were smart, but . . . umm . . . I knew that going in.

Although there is the obvious problem that you mentioned about having access to other material, I think in any household with a range of books and magazines, there would be some availability of resources. I would think of the distinction less about ability to do 3+ grade levels on an actual test at school (which would depend on exposure) and more about interests and/or pursuit of information that is way higher than grade level. We've certainly never taught our kids anything academic (not a hot-houser here, I just answer the questions I get), but I can see their interest level and approach to the things in my house. One early reader loved Magic Treehouse and Little House on the Prairie at age 4/5, but another early reader started quoting me things from our Time magazine at about the same age. I don't know what that would translate to on an AT where probably both would score pretty well, but I suspect those differences in interest represent some "real" significance that I doubt either AT or IQ tests would reveal.

J

One thing that troubles me is, do any of these test scores communicate anything about originality? I don't have the sense that they do but I really don't know that much about the tests.

Aha Kcab, I think you are on to something. I do not think an IQ test can determine the ability to be creative and/or unconventional. Yet, these two traits are what are responsible for turning a man's name into a definition for unmatched, unmeasureable brilliance.
Einstein

Hmmm...Very thought-provoking post, J.

I, too, like the more global approach that CFK and Isa suggest, but am having a wee bit of trouble with the straight "What can they show us?" of this age/grade level scale idea.

The info GT kids choose to pursue does seem relevant to the discussion and gets left out of the "What grade level are they operating at?" approach. The intensity of the interest also matters, and I think that intense but untraditional interests get left out altogether when looking at age/grade level alone.

For example, liking cars is one thing, and may even be age-appropriate for a 2yo. But at at age 2, knowing EVERYTHING about cars--how they work, the makes and models of every car on the road, etc.--is not age-appropriate (!) and it does indicate a depth of interest and ability that wouldn't show itself in testing or in this above-age-level strategy. I'm solidly into middle-age, and I haven't learned these things about cars yet, but my DS did well before his 3rd birthday! I used to joke that if we needed to ID a getaway car, I'd have to turn to my toddler and say, "What kind of car was it, honey?" How'd that be for a witness!?

I don't mean to be just a wet blanket here... I'm afraid I have no helpful suggestions about how to catch these kids whose interests are so far off the beaten path. *sigh* I suspect that if there were an easy, straightforward way to ID these kids, someone smarter than me would have found a way to do it long ago!

I guess I can't see any reason to identify a kid at the age of 2, so I am not bothered by not having good ways to identify at that age. By school age, intensity of interest would probably show up in some objective ways (multiple car books from the school library, online car investigations, detailed model building, etc.)

It never occurred to me to worry about whether my kids were gifted or not until just before they entered K. If they had car obsessions (one did), or science obsessions, or whatever, we could deal with that with a trip to the library every month or so. I had a 4 yo who checked out science experiment books, picked the ones he wanted to do, gathered together the things needed for the experiment, and then waited until I had a day off to do it with him. He also ran through most of the 3rd grade Leap Pad stuff on music, geography and history at 4, but I just thought we'd found a good toy and never thought about it. I suppose that shows GT traits, but that distinction was irrelevant to me at the time.

I suppose I'm not that curious about my kids' abilities unless there is some reason I need to act and advocate for them. By the time they are school age, I like the idea of comparing grade levels.

I agree that there's no good way to do this but thinking about it is interesting. All these things would miss great creativity and lots of specific talents, but they aren't trying to measure those.

Do we really know that Einstein wouldn't have tested well? All I know about him indicates PG from the get-go with serious rebellion towards busywork and inane repetition.

J