Neato, you can calculate your own GAI from the published tables. I'd use the one in the link above, as it seems to be the "latest and greatest". You only need the scaled scores of the VCI and PRI subtests to get it. If you only have the index scores, shoot me a PM and I can go backwards to get the subtest total. How old was your daughter at testing? That will give you an idea of whether or not her scores might move.

From the charts linked above (in Tech Report #7), it looks like the PSI scores are only affected in certain age ranges, another thing that "short changes" some kids. For example, the younger kids are given different subtests for PSI. At age 8 (the harder subtests) there are extended scores, but at age 7 (ceiling of the easier subtests) there are not.

The question I have for the Powers That Be, especially after noting the fine scoring changes that aren't affected by 19+ scores, is whether or not my kids' 17/18 level scores are affected in any way. There could have been minor adjustments in those ranges when the higher scores were added. Without raw scores though, I'm at a loss, .

I don't know of any FSIQ's at 160, but I did hear of several GAI's in that range, and that was using the old table. Those GAI's would now be in the 161-167 range. It blows my mind that you can now get a 210 on the WISC-IV! This could all backfire, as we (erroneously?) lose our "ceiling" argument when trying to get services for our 140+ children.

Excellent points J, and I'm as confused as you are on what it all means. I'm kind of glad we are past the need for such numbers, and quote DS at least as "beyond current test capabilities" if I need to address the issue.

I do think it's wise to at least be aware of this report, as there is a very valid fear of school staff now saying "oh, a full scale of 149, big deal, we read the ceiling is now 210", kwim?

I kind of get what you are saying. So my question is, we all think of an extreme IQ score is anywhere above 155, or at least I do. Did anyone score there on the new WISC? If not, what is the new extreme score? is it 145?
Do I care?
Yes, because my DD8 FSIQ is 148 on WISC-IV and the school is going to say, "It's not like she has an IQ in the 150's or 160's or anything!"

Let's get a perspective on what the scores for this test mean, so the educational system doesn't underestimate these kids' needs based on the old SB's number scale.
And maybe someone has evidence that shows, yeah, those kids that were getting 170's on the SB are still getting 160 on WISC-IV, but I haven't seen it. On the contrary, the norming sample seems to indicate the number would come in lower.

Does that make sense?

Or am I borrowing trouble.

Incog

Dottie, our posts cross, I am going to PM you with that info.

Incog

I should clarify, there IS some words about a new validity study.... I haven't fully processed what that all means, but it looks like they did use a new group of GT test cases to help create these extension tables. The quote about the 2,200 kids refers to the original standardization sample. This new sampling included 157 children ranging in age from 5 to 14. The mean scores on those children are pretty generic, but solid GT scores.

So, did they score above 150, then?

The mean scores are all regular GT range, but the max full scale score from THIS group was 151 before the extensions were applied. I do know of kids with higher scores.

Yes, but comparatively, what does that 150 score from WISC-IV mean? I know there's no perfect translation.
But what does it do to that 1 in 1000, 1 in 10,000 way of putting things in perspective with the numbers?
It can't be the same can it? Sounds like there are a lot less children that would score 160 on the WISC-IV as compared to previous tests.
Yes? No?

I

Am I annoying everyone yet?

Previous tests being.... I'm not sure I'm following. I'm pretty sure it was easier to hit 150+ scores on the WISC-III, as the "ceilings" while still numerically the same, seemed to be more attainable on the III (I have data that strongly supports this). And of course the SB-LM was just different. I don't think the WISC-IV can discern 1:1000 from 1:10,000 if that is what you are asking. I don't think it could before, and I don't think it can now, with this change.

But short of sampling half the country, would any test stand a chance? I'm not so sure we need this capability in one test measure. I think if a kid scores as low as 120 or 125 on an IQ test (as high as rather!), you have to look at other data to draw your lines. A complete picture just can't be drawn with one 2-3 hour test, no matter how good that test might be.