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

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.

Absolutely not Neato!!!!! In fact, this whole discussion has really forced me to look more closely at this new report, and I think I understand it better for your questions! Keep 'em coming, and please don't forget to take everything *I* say with a huge grain of salt as well! I'm "well read", but still learning as I go.

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.


Yes, this is the question, thanks for answering.

I

You're not annoying me! I'm reading every word with interest! I have no comments of my own to add, but I have great interest in the conversation.

K-

I wonder if this Technical Report is related to this article http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/About_GDC/newiqtests.htm

See recommendation 13.

I wonder if they will be doing the same for the SB5, as well.

Good points, all.

I feel that if the new norming study drastically changes how any previous WISC-IV scores are viewed, then the entire test should be revised. Maybe the new norming study should apply to a WISC-V so that there is no confusion.

Can you see any of us explaining to some GT administrator, "my kid's 148 score really IS in the 99.9th percentile, because he took the test before a certain norming study was released"? Huh??

Tara

I know. I was also wondering if any testers sort of slack off once they know that a kid has reached the top score for their age. Since it's never made a difference once you hit 19, why should they try for a higher raw score before the report was issued? Maybe that's cynical, but I did wonder.

I wouldn't be surprised if they slacked off before that. Oh, little Johnny is twitching in his seat. He must be at the frustration point..."It's okay if you can't answer any more Johnny, you did quite well!"

Tara, no fears about the straight 99.9th. No matter how high they extend the norms, the 145 still marks the beginning of the 99.9th percentile. And if you present the scores like that, it really should say it all.

I'm finding at our school that actual achievement speaks louder than IQ numbers anyway.

I think it's that way with most schools. IQ scores only really seem to matter in the early elementary years. And by middle school, no one talks IQ anymore.

That's not really fair....I think most psychs give these kids a fair shot. But I don't think many are really expecting 19's. And why should they? They are statistically very rare. I just remember the team that tested DS at the local university. They were amazingly impressed with his abilities, and the looks on their faces when I expressed disappointment in the numbers was truly priceless. But as I've said before, not a 19 in the full 15 subtests given. Now maybe DS is only a 17/18 kid! He's pretty global, and that could explain his above the 99.9th performance (a 17 is only at the 99th percentile and an 18 is only at the 99.6th). But he seems capable of a few peaks in that range, and he was clearly tired/bored with the whole affair by the end of the 2.5 hours.

My not really fair comment was for my own post, LOL! You snuck in there on me CFK. But yes, that's been my experience as well.

I know you moderated this in your later post, Dottie, but I just wanted to sneak in to say that I think this is the reason to be very clear about your goals for a test AND to see a tester experienced with GT testing.

We informed our tester that we thought DS6 might be a Davidson candidate, so she knew to take him as far as he could go.

Of course, if he hadn't had the achievement test scores first, we wouldn't have known to ask for this...and if you're testing to find out where the child is, you CAN'T really ask for this...

There is a certain irony to it, I'll admit!

We do have some pretty impressive scores for freebie/cheapo testing, .

The university psych couldn't even get his mind around the DYS requirements. He strongly felt the test couldn't discern that high.

Our first round of testing for all three was at the mercy of the school. Talk about less than ideal conditions! You can roughly guesstimate what month your child might be tested, but it's extremely random from there. Your child could then be pulled from gym, favorite special, day after illness...

Yes, we were very fortunate all said and done. I know so many with less than fulfilling experiences. I'm just glad I'm done with all that ID stuff! I so would not want to pay the big $$$$$! It's up to the kids to prove what they can do from here on out.

I strongly agree with him!

...and we've come back around to the start of this thread!

<grin>

I wonder if the same thing will happen for the SB-5. My son had 4 of the 19s and one 18. Our tester did write in the report that my son had received higher raw scores than required for the 19 in two of the subtests and with a different test his scores might be higher.

OOOOOHHHHHHH WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I created a hot topic!!



Incog

Girl-FRIEND! You are a hot topic!

S'moking!

Regarding the possibility that testers don't expect to see 19, so quit before they get there - it's a time honored idea in science that the preconcieved notions of the observer will effect what is observed, even with the best of intentions. ((This Confirmation Bias applys to us also - sadly))

My son has had a few tests, and the problem I see is that it takes so long to get to the questions with the 17+ scores on them. I hear comments over and over about the process taking 3 times longer than they expected. And also the comment about he made more mistakes during the easy boring questions early on. I also got comments about him "not allowing" the tester to stop in what appeared to be an anxious way. Never thought that perhaps he was reading their social cues for him to stop, and reacting to keep them at it. Maybe 19s are for the stupporn and obnoxious? ((Sorry if you have compliant kids with 19, reader!))

Makes me wonder if they had read the previous reports before they dove in...and if kids like him are being discriminated against in that they have to sit for three times longer than their agemates...KWIM?

DD11's very inexperienced tester was most surprised that she got the easy ones wrong and the hard ones right, . Yeah, I'd love to know which raw score she made it to in each subtests, earlier mistakes aside.

I also read of something called "The Halo Effect", where a tester will be more likely to give say 2 point credit if they think/know the child is way ahead.

In the entire WISC-IV, DS9 only felt that a few vocabularly words, one Block Design and the entire Symbol Search subtest were "challenging". He had been so excited about the testing, and he was truly disappointed that so little was "hard".

Surely these shortcomings affected the norming sample as well though if you think about it. I can point to some clear underestimates in individual subtests, that surely brought down each total, but my girls are pretty much 14-17 kids, and my son is a 17/18 kid. Under ideal test conditions, we are all probably covered by the test ceiling, and our scores aren't a bad representation all said and done, given their limitations.

It sure if fun though to imagine what an ideal testing session might suggest! I think we (society) tend to put too much stock into one day's worth of numbers.

Ah, having just "lurked" a psych discussion about whether to give 1 point or 2 on a certain WISC-IV vocabulary question.....I rest my (personal, in my own mind) case.

This is all very interesting. My reports are probably squished into a corner of my desk somewhere, as I have taken them apart to copy for DITD and don't think I ever got around to stapling them back together. I was a thinking the other day that I should take more care with them. I have no idea if I ever was given a GAI for oldest ds, and I know they did not give me all the subtest info. My two middle kids do have GAIs well above that 150, so maybe their numbers will change.

I have mixed feelings about this. I agree that it is a nice effort to discern the higher ability kids, but it also further muddies the waters as far as program cut offs and public perception goes. There are so many variables!

What IS the real difference between a subtest score of 18 and a subtest score of 19? Why don't they throw out all the old tests and come up with something new?

As an example of how hard it can be to know what a number means, a couple days ago, someone told me that their daughter had an IQ of 160. I asked her what instrument was used to test her, and the parent didn't actually know! The girl is a young adult now, and was tested before she could read, so it is quite possible that it was the LM. The implication for an SBLM score of 160 is vastly different from the implication of the same score on a Wechsler.

I totally agree Lorel! That reminds me of a discussion I had with the mom of DD11's best friend, back when we were both having our DD's tested for GT. "BF" came to our house one day quite pleased with herself and her 157 score. She was very forthright with that info (one of many reasons why I refuse to give my children actual numbers!)

Knowing we use the WISC-IV for ID purposes, of course I was quite intriqued. This was back when we were first investigating DYS and I was reading up on all these tests. This was a girl too that we've known since age 6, and while I'm sure I "imposter syndromed" her out of GT with my girls, I couldn't begin to place her in the PG crowd. She is very much like my girls, and in hindsight very solidy GT.

Of course I was curious, and did question her mom...

Me: "BF was quoting quite the high IQ the other day"
BFmom: "Yes, it's 157, can you believe it?"
Me: "Wow, you might have some school issues on your hands, was that on the WISC-IV?"
BFmom: "Yes"

I watched this kid VERY closely for weeks afterward, and couldn't make any sense of it. Later I overheard her talking with another mom about a big "discrepancy" between scores. I'm quite certain in hindsight that her 157 was on the Slosson screener, that in the hands of an inexperienced school counselor has been known to overinflate (most of 70 or so 130+ scores did not test 130 on the WISC, including at least one score in the 150's!) I can only guess her WISC was more "down to earth" gifted.

Anyway...I digress. This mom was not boasting, inflating, or anything, she was sincerely confused. But yes, the waters are quite muddied at this point!!!! If the experts can't grasp the significance of the differences, surely the general population (including school staff!) doesn't stand a chance!

LOL, and if we armchair psychs are confused, the average layperson doesn't have a chance! Never mind apples to apples, we can't even talk apples to kumquats or bananas to passionfruit!

I am looking at page one of the technical report. It looks like this boy had a full scale IQ of 158 with GAI of 160, and they changed these to 192 full scale and 208 GAI. I'm curious as to whether they are trying to make the scores line up with the old SBLM. I haven't looked through the whole report yet- do they include any data from the LM? I know that Linda Silverman likes the LM and I believe this boy came from her data. If I use my son's GAI (I still haven't looked for the subtest pages) and assume that it will change according to the table on page 16, then his new extended score is just a handful of points lower than his LM score.

I told ds 11 his score a few years ago when he asked. Previously, I'd drawn a bell curve and explained where he is on that. We talked about different tests measuring slightly different skills and the idea of a test score being just a snapshot of performance on a given day. He would never talk about this stuff with his friends. DD hasn't really been curious yet, though of course she was aware that she scored high enough for DITD.

Blah... have to go wash the dishes! Hey, BTW, I am deep cleaning the house for my Bright Minds Party on Monday night. If anyone wants to order (they do all those cool critical thinking workbooks, Greek and Latin roots, and more, for preschool through high school) please send me a pm with your email. I can send you to my Bright Minds rep's web site, and you can mention that it's for my party. I'll pick up your shipping costs.

Shameless, I know, but I am starting to get desperate! I have only two confirmed guests and a handful of maybes. I never should have planned this for the winter- nobody wants to go out at night! I really love the products though, and my kids do too.

Look at the page before that Lorel, I got the impression that "K.O." was a hypothetical kid, to show you how the scores could be reported. On the previous page, it says the highest extended FSIQ (of the 153 new kids) is only 159 (not 192!) The highest GAI extended score was 176, which may or may not be the same child.

I know this is controversial, but I still think the SB-LM extension scoring (beyond the regular norms that only go up to about 164) is best explained by ratio logic. This WISC extension supposedly still uses a deviation logic, and they don't expect many kids to hit those 180+ scores at all.

The report is actually a very quick read...most of it is the new tables. It's about a page and a half of text at most.

I wish I could actually COME to your party!!!! Sounds fun!

I keep peeking back, hoping for more.....this was one of my favorite types of discussions, LOL! Where's CFK and her intervention!!!!

Dottie,
Time to go brew a nice cup of herbal tea, find a quiet spot (I know 3 kids...) and read anything not related to gifted, education or legislation for at least 30 minutes.

Yum, sounds good.....but can I please read my assessment book instead?

Hi, Dottie,

I know you love this stuff, and I've been busy and away from the action over here. So I looked at the report and I have all the raw and scaled scores for DS. The thing is, I don't know which ones to include in any recalculation. For instance, there are subtests in parentheses. I know those are optional. Do they go into the calculation? (information and word reasoning in vci and picture completion in PRI)

I know they don't go into the calculation of the GAI - that's just the sum of similarities, vocabulary, comprehension, block design (just one of the two, right?), picutre concepts and matrix reasoning. I don't think DS's score will move, but it's fun playing the game.

Thanks!

With 19's, things might very well move! Lucky you with those raw scores. The GAI would only move if the subtest scores move, unless the original subtest total was 100 or higher (the tables for 100+ are slightly different regardless of any subtest movement).

So figure out if any of his 19 subtests changed first, based on the age appropriate chart. Then IF they have changed, you get to figure out new index scores, new GAI scores AND a new full scale! I'm drooling at the thought.

I'd have fun checking out the optional subtests too, but no....they don't count for anything.

The main subtests are similarities, vocabulary and comprehension for VCI, and block design, picture concepts and matrix reasoning for PRI.

Have fun! If you get stuck, shoot me a PM with the raw score data.

I think they have just opened a can of worms. My dd's scores went up for the PRI score by 6 IQ points and her FSIQ went up by 3 points. However, All it still tells me is that she is in the >99.9%. I already knew that.

Also, when my dd was tested the psychologist stopped when my dd "had gone far enough and had already hit the subtest ceiling". If these new score norms had been available she would have gone further.

I guess I just don't feel I have gained any more information.

I hear you Bianca! I also found a report in my "stash" where a kid's 18 in vocabularly is now a 19, so the tables DID change in the 18 range as well. Of course now I'm curious about my guy's 18's, but I don't have any raw score data, .

It will make it hard to "compare" kids with old data to kids with new data, since they no longer say the same thing.

Actually my dd's 18 did change but one of her 19's didn't.

Oh I need to just stop thinking about this....it's opening all my "should I bother with a retest" can of worms. Really...I have everything I need at this point for DS, and knowing how far beyond the 99.9th won't change a thing. As you said, we already knew that anyway, LOL!

It does say on page 2 that "Dr. Linda Silverman of NAGC also provided two cases categorized as extremely gifted to beta test the exte