I hear there has been a new technical report issued by Harcourt Brace with a new norming sample for gifted(?). I believe it has something to do with a request from NAGC?
Something to do with children scoring at 18 or 19 on two or more subtest earning more points.

Does anyone(and by anyone I mean anyone but most especially Dottie?) know anything about this.

Will this affect children taking the test going forward or is my child's test re-scored?

Thanks,
I

http://harcourtassessment.com/NR/rdonlyr...echReport_7.pdf

Here's the link.

Interesting. Our DS8 earned two 19s and two 18s on the subtests. I wonder how this would impact the interpretation of his test report, given that it was written 3-4 months ago.

Tara

Tara,

If you have the raw scores, you can recalculate his final score. But if you don't have the raw scores, you can't do it with just the 18 or 19 numbers. Perhaps you could ask your tester to send you the numbers or you could ask him/her to recalculate the final score based on this update.

I don't think it applies to all 18's, just the one or two rare 18's that are actually "ceilings" for that age range. I have some mild sour grapes myself, because although we have multiple 17/18 scores, we have no 19's whatsoever, so my kids' scores would stay the same while everyone else's increase, ROFL! I think my kids got hit hard on the higher ceilinged tests like vocabulary, for being more reserved than some GT kids.

Then again, maybe my son really is only in that 140-150 range? I'm not sure why I wouldn't be "happy" with that, .

But yes, I believe acs is correct in that you need the raw scores to recalculate a total.

Dottie,
Well my DS does have some 19's and we did have the raw scores,so I recalculated but his score didn't change at all.

Agree with Dottie about the reserved issue on Vocab. I had encouraged him to stay focused and not share everything he was thinking--only later did I find out that he could have gotten more "bonus points" if he had given more detailed answers. I just didn't want him to talk the tester's ear off!

My kids save all their "bonus points" for their comfort zone (home!), LOL!

Interesting....I did read through the report, and am surprised that some of the "old" numbers have changed, particularly in the full scale range for 153+ (there is a chance that my data is incorrect) and the GAI scores for 152+ (if your GAI score was in that range, take a peek!) The upper end WMI scores also changed slightly....nothing that applies to us though.

I was surprised to learn that among the 2,200 cases in the standardization sample, only one child obtained a GAI score of 151 and none obtained an FSIQ score of 150 or higher.

I was able to get some satisfaction about DS's 17/18 level scores though, at least as far as hinting at where he landed compared to hard test ceilings. This was virtually impossible previously without his raw score data.

Hey everybody!

DD8 had two 19's and one 18. I did shoot the tester an e-mail asking if this changed her score, but I figured I might get a quicker answer from you all on the board.
Based on what you are saying it doesn't seem it would change her score, but I was never given a GAI score for her, just FSIQ.
One of her topped out scores was in processing speed, the other two in the Perceptual Reasoning Index.
I will post if I find out if it changes her score.
This seems to be a good thing, though. I hope it clarifies things for those that are seemingly unmeasurable using that test.

Dottie, that seemed surprising to me as well. None of them obtained a FSIQ of 150 or higher? That's odd. Has anyone obtained a 160 on the WISC-IV? I've read recent postings of about 150-152, I believe. Interesting............

Incog

[quote=Dottie]
I was surprised to learn that among the 2,200 cases in the standardization sample, only one child obtained a GAI score of 151 and none obtained an FSIQ score of 150 or higher.
[quote]

I found this report too confusing on a quick glance. I wasn't certain if I would need raw scores for it to apply? I don't have raw scores, but in any case, I'm not sure the numbers mean much.

The only things that hit me forcefully was what you quote above. Wow! That's not many kids in the upper ranges. And finally, it clarifies again for me how ridiculous it is to try and make any sense of scores in the upper ranges. There just aren't any/many such scores in the norming sample, so there definitely isn't any further information for us to learn. There is no data comparing scores >150 or GAI's >150 in terms of rarity or *what it means* or anything else.

I see the wisdom in what someone told me on another list about scores in the upper ranges: really high scores the tell you that you have a kid whose IQ cannot be reliable measured by any current test. I think that's all we can know from these things and no "extended" scoring is going to help. What are the extensions based on? It's not like you could know how many kids in the country have since scored 3 19's on one area or FSIQ>150. So you can't make anything worthwhile out of a new number that is "175" instead because the SD=15 is worthless. There is no SD to a sample size of 2!

Am I missing something?

J