MG, HG, EG, PG terms

[TerriM]

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.

[Crimson Wife]

 

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.

 

[Dmmetler]

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!

[Runningmom80]

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 April 26, 2017 by Runningmom80

[Have kids -- will travel]

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.

[azucena]

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?

[4KookieKids]

 

Hoagies Gifted gives this chart: http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_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."

[Jackie]

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.

[Cake and Pi]

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!)

[Jackie]

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.

[4KookieKids]

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!!

[arliemaria]

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.

[serendipitous journey]

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 June 22, 2017 by serendipitous journey

[kbutton]

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. 

[arliemaria]

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. 

 

My son got a 155 on verbal which they said was the ceiling score adjusted for his age.  He was 7 when he took the WISC-V. So maybe there are different score ceilings for different ages?

[Dmmetler]

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

 

My DD claims to believe in the tooth fairy, but I think that's because she was grade skipped and heard older kids taking about getting stuff from the tooth fairy before she started losing teeth, and wanted in on it, so has been pretending all the time :).

[kbutton]

My son got a 155 on verbal which they said was the ceiling score adjusted for his age.  He was 7 when he took the WISC-V. So maybe there are different score ceilings for different ages?

 

I couldn't find the document last time that has the different index scores. It's my first search result this time around, lol! It's a document that combines various subtests in a different way than the standard set of scores, and then it gives an IQ equivalent for verbal and non-verbal. I saw it referenced somewhere else, and I went looking for it.

 

I thought that the index score in that document went up to 165 for verbal. It doesn't. Here is the link though in case someone wants to know more about these index scores for Davidson or some other program (VECI and EFI). I don't think they are automatically calculated. http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/assets/WISC-V/WISC-VTechReport1_FNL_v3.pdf

 

I wonder what I am "remembering." I can remember the page layout in my head. Maybe it was something totally different. Sorry!

[LTBernard]

Dr. Deborah Ruf has developed her "Levels of Giftedness" scale that is not perfect but fairly useful.

 

I tend to think of Ruf's levels 1 & 2 as not being gifted but merely bright. Level 3 is MG, level 4 is HG, and level 5 includes everyone above that.

 

I tend to use the term HG+ because I don't think current tests are designed to distinguish among those who are so far above the norm and it comes down to chance how exactly a child will score. When there are so few difficult questions on a standard test, a child could luck out in getting one he/she happens to know or have bad luck in getting one that he/she happens to not know and it gives a false sense of how well he/she could potentially do on a test that had only difficult questions.

 

A lot of parents in one particular GATE organization seem to want to get into a (pardon the vulgarity) p*ssing contest about who is "really PG" and who is not. Of course there are truly exceptional children who are competing at the international level in academics like llewlma's DS. But aside from the real outliers, I don't think we can reliably distinguish among "high HG", EG, and PG.

 

I think my children both fall into level 4 or 5 according to this list. A lot of it I don't remember when they started things. I am one who really just like to know how things fall and would love to have my kids tested on a nationally recognized IQ test to see how they rank just for the sake of knowing. They were each tested at age 4 for the local school district, but through my research I have learned that basically no one uses the test they use here and the scores are not comparable. :( Maybe one day we will splurge on testing.

[quark]

Ruf's test was extremely frustrating and misleading in our case because mine was not crazy about jigsaw puzzles. When I did the test, so many questions revolved around that and things I just could not remember at the time. I am glad I did not put much stock in her product. We did eventually test using the Wisc4 but I had to calculate extended norms and find interpretations myself so I will never ever really know 100% for sure if that ballpark is kiddo's true ballpark but I don't think anyone knows that for sure anyway. And after a while, once you see certain risks pay off, it does not matter that much.

 

I really do recommend using a test like the Wisc or one of the more recognized tests if you have a situation like anxiety, extreme asynchronous development, conflicting strengths, debilitating perfectionism, and/ or many little things that don't add up. I could have so easily convinced myself the other way, that A did not need acceleration but needed to be slowed down even more. The test gave me confidence to experiment otherwise.

[Arcadia]

I think my children both fall into level 4 or 5 according to this list. A lot of it I don't remember when they started things. I am one who really just like to know how things fall and would love to have my kids tested on a nationally recognized IQ test to see how they rank just for the sake of knowing. They were each tested at age 4 for the local school district, but through my research I have learned that basically no one uses the test they use here and the scores are not comparable. :( Maybe one day we will splurge on testing.

From Ruf's, my kids would have been Level 1 because they won't do these quoted Level 2 tasks. Both do not like being read to, that was the fastest way to get my younger boy to fall asleep. Neither do I like to listen to people read so maybe it is genetics.

 

"Level Two

These bright children love looking at books and being read to, even turning pages without ripping them, by 15 months. Some shout out the name of familiar stores as you drive past.

They’ll sit for what seems like hours as you read advanced level books, especially fiction and fantasy, to them, but they require a bit less of your time by age six, because most of them read for pleasure and information on their own by then."

 

The WISC was useful in the better than nothing and having a stranger assess my kids (so no preconceived opinions). It wasn't useful in the sense my kids ceiling some of the sections (mostly expected) so it still felt like "Oh no what are we as parents suppose to do".

 

ETA:

We use HSA to pay for WISC.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Arcadia

[eternalsummer]

Some of that Ruf stuff seems a bit questionable.  Level 3 says "

• By the time they are barely 12 months old, they can get family members to do what they want before they are actually talking."

 

What kind of baby have you ever met who doesn't have family members wrapped around his little finger by 12 months?  How else would you be able to care for a small toddler, except by knowing what he wants before he can say it?

 

Level 4 says:

• Level Four babies love books, someone to read them, and pay attention very, very early.

 

How many babies don't like books read to them?  I dunno, this sounds like woo to me.

[arliemaria]

I have given up on these developmental standards.  They don't fit my son at all.  I always knew he was bright (I believe all parents know this truth when it exists), but then there are experiences where this is evidenced early on. My son was two and found a ratchet and took apart his toddler rocking chair.  He did not talk and could not eat anything orally, but could use tools properly without instruction.  He has not always met all of the developmental milestones on time, but will have HUGE leaps in other areas. I think this is more an indicator than other things babies do or don't do.  I am just a newbie in this area, but this is my experience thus far.

[Runningmom80]

Some of that Ruf stuff seems a bit questionable. Level 3 says "

• By the time they are barely 12 months old, they can get family members to do what they want before they are actually talking."

What kind of baby have you ever met who doesn't have family members wrapped around his little finger by 12 months? How else would you be able to care for a small toddler, except by knowing what he wants before he can say it?

 

Level 4 says:

• Level Four babies love books, someone to read them, and pay attention very, very early.

How many babies don't like books read to them? I dunno, this sounds like woo to me.

I agree with this and the comment about puzzles. None of my kids really liked puzzles, but at least 2 of them are HG+ and the other one probably is as well but is presenting more like MG because of some issues that I haven't quite figured out yet.

[eternalsummer]

mine liked to eat puzzles

[Runningmom80]

mine liked to eat puzzles

 

:laugh:   I still have to tell DD 7 "We don't try to eat things that aren't food."  She read at 3, but this idea is still hard for her. :glare: