Jump to content


What's with the ads?

Photo

MG, HG, EG, PG terms


65 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#51 calbear

calbear

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 477 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 08:50 PM

That youtube video was awesome.


  • chocolate-chip chooky likes this

#52 chocolate-chip chooky

chocolate-chip chooky

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 765 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 11:58 PM

That youtube video was awesome.

 

I have a nerd crush on that guy ...



#53 TerriM

TerriM

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 244 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 11:59 PM

I've always chuckled at the idea of six month olds having favorite TV shows... I mean the kid was in the room for several seasons of Veep, but she was asleep and nursing!

 

Yeah :)........ I thought that was pretty weird, and no offense to her descriptions, but with my first, he wasn't allowed to watch TV until he was at least a year old.  And then he had no interest in it.



#54 Crimson Wife

Crimson Wife

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18353 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 11:49 AM

 

Afaik, it's not that the test is invalidated, just that the overall IQ score is - but the subtest scores are still valid.

 

E.g. if the kid's verbal IQ is 70 and his nonverbal IQ is 130, then his overall IQ is not 100 - you just can't calculate an overall IQ in that case.

 

Yes, this is what happened for my 2E child. The report stated that no FSIQ could be calculated because there was too much variation among the subtests for it to be valid.
 



#55 dmmetler

dmmetler

    Chasing snakes!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13768 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 01:54 PM

I find the statement on Ruf's levels that musical aptitude is evident by 18 months in Level 5 kids humorous because one of my areas of study is early childhood musical development. And the number of parents who DON'T self-report that their child shows musical aptitude early is tiny, and the number reported as having talent, interest and aptitude for music includes a lot of kids who fit nowhere on Ruf's scale-and many who are considered to have substantial cognitive delays. The fact is, any kid who bounces to music, smiles, moves at all, vocalizes, or bangs two toys together tends to be considered by parents to have aptitude for music.

On TV, I remember DD being in the hospital so she could get oxygen at about 6 months (she was a preemie, and ended up on the hospital for respiratory reasons multiple times in her first year) and her watching a Nature documentary on cheetahs, absolutely transfixed at about 2:00 in the morning-and a pediatrician commenting that it was very unusual for such a young child to be so focused. Don't know if it was a "gifted" sign, a "ooh, I like animals" sign or a "I'm not willing to go to sleep because people tend to hurt me when I'm here" sign!
  • Incognito, sunnyday, luuknam and 2 others like this

#56 Runningmom80

Runningmom80

    Hugger of Books

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4508 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 03:10 PM

I've always chuckled at the idea of six month olds having favorite TV shows... I mean the kid was in the room for several seasons of Veep, but she was asleep and nursing!


This reminds me of an interview jimmy fallon gave with Kristen Bell. He asked if her daughter had seen Frozen and she said something along the lines of "no because babies aren't supposed to watch tv," and he said "oh, my baby is on the second season of House of Cards." :lol:

PS VEEP may be my favorite show.


Edited by Runningmom80, 26 April 2017 - 03:11 PM.

  • TerriM likes this

#57 Have kids -- will travel

Have kids -- will travel

    Hive Mind Level 2 Worker: Nurse Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 133 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 07:58 PM

Ruf's estimates always seemed so off. Bizarrely subjective criteria (what defines an alert baby at birth? what is "near-adult complexity" in speech?) paired with incredibly specific timelines (favorite TV shows by 6 to 8 months) smacks of pseudoscience.

 

The variation in IQ produced by scientifically validated tests, and the documented variation in an individual's IQ over their lifetime, make it hard enough to quantify intelligence. 

 

MG/HG/EG/PG labels don't help clarify the situation much. With a margin of error of +/- 3 IQ points, which could be higher at the tail end of the curve, the labels are unnecessarily narrow.


  • luuknam and TerriM like this

#58 azucena

azucena

    Que sais-je?

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 170 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 12:54 PM

I have long wondered what the "EG" category is supposed to mean.  I do understand the spectrum of giftedness, both from the numbers and from personal experience.  But I rarely see people identify their kids as EG, or read articles, etc., on what the special features and needs of that group are.  Any ideas?


  • Runningmom80 likes this

#59 4kookiekids

4kookiekids

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 701 posts

Posted 13 June 2017 - 08:51 AM


Hoagies Gifted gives this chart: http://www.hoagiesgi..._profoundly.htm

 

Huh. I just found this on the Hoagie's website (I'm not sure how I missed it the first time this conversation came around! lol), and I thought it was interesting and somewhat relevant to this conversation:

"Given the much lower scores resulting from the newest generation of tests (WISC-IV, SB-5 and WJ-III cognitive), professionals who work with the gifted are suggesting a new set of scores and descriptive levels of giftedness, beginning at 120 to 125 for "moderately" gifted, and progressing to 142 to 145+ for "profoundly" gifted.  But these levels are still under investigation."


  • Mike in SA and pinewarbler like this

#60 Jackie

Jackie

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2291 posts

Posted 13 June 2017 - 10:09 AM

Huh. I just found this on the Hoagie's website (I'm not sure how I missed it the first time this conversation came around! lol), and I thought it was interesting and somewhat relevant to this conversation:

"Given the much lower scores resulting from the newest generation of tests (WISC-IV, SB-5 and WJ-III cognitive), professionals who work with the gifted are suggesting a new set of scores and descriptive levels of giftedness, beginning at 120 to 125 for "moderately" gifted, and progressing to 142 to 145+ for "profoundly" gifted. But these levels are still under investigation."


I didn't notice it either. My daughter took the WISC-V, which seems to generally be believed to give lower scores than any of the previous tests, so I was in part looking for information related to newer tests. That even the IV was considered by some to need different metrics is interesting.
  • arliemaria, 4kookiekids and Lace like this

#61 Lace

Lace

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 420 posts

Posted 13 June 2017 - 01:26 PM

I didn't notice it either. My daughter took the WISC-V, which seems to generally be believed to give lower scores than any of the previous tests, so I was in part looking for information related to newer tests. That even the IV was considered by some to need different metrics is interesting.

 

I managed to get a copy of that book about the levels of giftedness though interlibrary loan.  It's way better than the summaries available online, BTW.  I haven't gotten a chance to really read it yet; I've only just skimmed through it and picked out a few high interest sections, but there are some cool charts in there listing kids that fit the behavioral and developmental characteristics of the various "levels" with their test scores on both older and newer tests (talking SB L-M vs WISC-III or IV... or something, I don't have the book in front of me atm).  The correlation between older and newer scores was not as strong as I was expecting.  Kids with older test scores in the 160-180ish range had noticeable differences in behavior and development from those who scored 180ish-200+ range, but both groups scored mostly down around 145-150+ on the newer tests.  It's really very interesting.

 

I still don't know what the most appropriate terms for my kids are.  Before I said G, G, and HG.  That's still probably safe, though after what I've seen in that book it also seems just as reasonable to call them HG, HG, and EG.  The other question I've been thinking about is when there are big gaps between scores and abilities in the same child,  how do you categorize them?  Go with the term for their strongest strength?  Pick something in the middle? Or like Ruff suggests, go by behavior?  My DS#1 seems to have multiple personalities.  Okay, that's an exaggeration, but his moods affect his performance and personality so drastically that I'd put him solidly in different "levels" on different days.  Which brings me back to the all-encompassing, non-differentiated, plain ol' G label. 

 

What have you decided about the best label for your DD?  

 

Is it weird to categorize people like this?  It feels like it removes a layer of humanity. (From us? From them?  I'm not sure!)


  • quark likes this

#62 Jackie

Jackie

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2291 posts

Posted 13 June 2017 - 01:41 PM

What have you decided about the best label for your DD?

Is it weird to categorize people like this? It feels like it removes a layer of humanity. (From us? From them? I'm not sure!)


"Gifted" and "Twice exceptional" are the only labels I'm comfortable using for her at this time. Her scores were so confounded by her ADHD that the tester advised we have her retested after 1-2 years of ADHD treatment if we wanted to actually have an idea where the numbers landed.

Labels are simply an easy shortcut for me. It's a lot easier to find strategies for "anxiety" and "ADHD" and even "gifted" than googling "WTF?" The referral to an OT and SLP might help us figure out if certain things even have interventions available or if we need to simply accept them and work on continued accommodation.

My original questions stemmed from this usefulness of correct language when learning about how to support DD - to the degree that MG/HG/EG/PG are distinguishable with unique characteristics, I wanted to be able to google the "correct" thing.
  • dmmetler and Lace like this

#63 4kookiekids

4kookiekids

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 701 posts

Posted 13 June 2017 - 01:56 PM

Labels are simply an easy shortcut for me. It's a lot easier to find strategies for "anxiety" and "ADHD" and even "gifted" than googling "WTF?" .


😂 this cracked me up! Been there!!
  • dmmetler, SeaConquest, Lawyer&Mom and 1 other like this

#64 arliemaria

arliemaria

    Hive Mind Level 3 Worker: Honeymaking Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 944 posts

Posted 19 June 2017 - 06:03 AM

I didn't notice it either. My daughter took the WISC-V, which seems to generally be believed to give lower scores than any of the previous tests, so I was in part looking for information related to newer tests. That even the IV was considered by some to need different metrics is interesting.

 

I've tried to find information for the WISC-V as well.  This is what my son took in the fall.



#65 serendipitous journey

serendipitous journey

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2634 posts

Posted 22 June 2017 - 02:40 PM

Older DS believed in Santa until he was 10.  :001_smile:  

 

just popping in ... my older DS knew the deal with Santa, but was shocked to find out about the tooth fairy. !!! 
 


Edited by serendipitous journey, 22 June 2017 - 02:41 PM.

  • slackermom likes this

#66 kbutton

kbutton

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5071 posts

Posted 22 June 2017 - 05:29 PM

I've tried to find information for the WISC-V as well.  This is what my son took in the fall.

 

Reading about the differences between WISC-IV and WISC-V in some of the guidance documents (usually from Pearson) is helpful for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the test. For instance, the fluid reasoning index is new, and when you google that term with WISC-V, it brings up a lot of the guidance documents and explains why changes were made. (A lot of these hits are powerpoint presentations.)

 

The expanded index scoring gives you the option for combining various subtests to get a picture of strengths and weaknesses. Some of those scores can be used to qualify for Davidson when a FSIQ might not make the cut. It also basically illustrates the upper limits of the test--it shows the upper limits of the tests. For instance, you can get higher verbal scores on the test than nonverbal scores, but still have gotten 19s on multiple subtests in each of those categories! (I think the verbal scores go up to 165, and the nonverbal go up to 155.)

Scores on WISC V are not always lower than on WISC IV, though I certainly heard that they often are lower.