Differences between IQ tests?

[ErinE]

Can anyone point me to literature comparing IQ tests? One of my children was just tested using the computer-based OLSAT and NNAT, and the results were not what I expected.

[wapiti]

Check Hoagies http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/tests.htm.  IIRC, isn't OLSAT not an actual IQ test but a group ability screening?  It is important to distinguish between more general ability and an actual IQ score.

 

(I'm not familiar with either one you mention; we have had negative experiences with the group test CogAT, which is also not an IQ test, despite the fact that it is used as a proxy; i.e., it was nowhere near an accurate representation compared to individual private IQ testing)

[ErinE]

Another item. I found this document tracking the relationship between TAKS reading, Stanford, and the OLSAT.

 

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=doctoral

 

In finance, the predictive value of these results tests would be worth very little. If you look at the graphs (beginning page 65), there's a number of outliers, particularly for the reading scores.

 

Now I want to get a PhD in Education and build an econometric model just to determine key factors.

[ErinE]

Check Hoagies http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/tests.htm.  IIRC, isn't OLSAT not an actual IQ test but a group ability screening?  It is important to distinguish between more general ability and an actual IQ score.

 

(I'm not familiar with either one you mention; we have had negative experiences with the group test CogAT, which is also not an IQ test, despite the fact that it is used as a proxy; i.e., it was nowhere near an accurate representation compared to individual private IQ testing)

 

What test would you recommend? I was just given two numbers, and I don't think they are accurate.

[wapiti]

It depends on your purpose, e.g. looking for a good picture of strengths and weaknesses vs needing a high score to get into a program.  It also depends on your student, e.g. is there any possibility of 2e.  I would discuss test selection with the psych doing the testing.

 

We've had experience with the WISC, which I'd guess is the most widely-used private test.  It gives a good picture of strengths and weaknesses.  No test is perfect, but we've definitely found the information from the WISC to be useful.  For a more accurate picture of how high my child's IQ really is, I've often wondered about the SB5 (Stanford-Binet) but we haven't gotten around to it (IIRC, the SB5 may not involve the issues with time and speed that are involved with the WISC and may be better for the strong VSL).

 

You might also look for old threads and/or ask on the Accelerated board where this subject comes up sometimes.

 

 

Now I want to get a PhD in Education and build an econometric model just to determine key factors.

 

I have no clue, but I'll guess wildly that you'd be one of the few Ed students capable of econometrics even at the PhD level.

[ErinE]

I was leaning towards the WISC, just to get more information.

 

 

 

 I have no clue, but I'll guess wildly that you'd be one of the few Ed students capable of econometrics even at the PhD level.

 

Why is that? Would it be the analysis part? I've helped build a few models for work, supervised by a finance PhD. He was great at overseeing the process, cleaning the data, running the models, and explaining the predictions. I'd think this would be standard in a PhD program looking to analyze outcomes.

[wapiti]

Only because I get the sense that not a lot of Ed students take calc.  It could be that Phd Ed students do.

[ErinE]

Only because I get the sense that not a lot of Ed students take calc.  It could be that Phd Ed students do.

 

There is that. Most of the quantitative analysis I've read thus far seems to come from the psychology programs. The education papers seem to be a bit softer.

[Rivka]

Your best bet for an accurate and reliable measure of IQ is an individually administered, face to face test like the Stanford-Binet or the WISC. Tests like the OLSAT and NNAT are used for entry into school gifted programs because (1) they are much less expensive to administer, and (2) the school isn't overly concerned about missing kids who don't test well, have other issues going on, or are creative-divergent thinkers.

 

I'm a clinical psychologist who does a lot of testing. I use the WISC-IV and WISC-V.

[shage]

Your best bet for an accurate and reliable measure of IQ is an individually administered, face to face test like the Stanford-Binet or the WISC. Tests like the OLSAT and NNAT are used for entry into school gifted programs because (1) they are much less expensive to administer, and (2) the school isn't overly concerned about missing kids who don't test well, have other issues going on, or are creative-divergent thinkers.

 

I'm a clinical psychologist who does a lot of testing. I use the WISC-IV and WISC-V.

Totally agree that face to face, individually administered is the way to go.

 

Here in CA the WISC is not used with African American students and reluctantly if the student is an English learner.

 

I heart the WISC but end up administering the Reynolds because of less concern over cultural and language issues when working with a diverse population. (The Reynolds is not perfect but less bias against it.)

 

In NYC it seems like the district rotates the tests for gifted programs because prep centers are continually adjusting. It's a bit of a cat and mouse game. There are websites that pretty much disclose test questions almost as soon as they are published.

[ErinE]

Your best bet for an accurate and reliable measure of IQ is an individually administered, face to face test like the Stanford-Binet or the WISC. Tests like the OLSAT and NNAT are used for entry into school gifted programs because (1) they are much less expensive to administer, and (2) the school isn't overly concerned about missing kids who don't test well, have other issues going on, or are creative-divergent thinkers.

 

I'm a clinical psychologist who does a lot of testing. I use the WISC-IV and WISC-V.

Thank you; your post really helps. This is the child's first year in public school after several years homeschooling. The child hasn't responded well to multiple choice tests in the past. Though not surprised at missing the gifted cutoff, I think the resulting numbers don't match with my (admittedly biased) view. I would like a better idea of strengths and weaknesses so I'm planning on additional testing.

[Arcadia]

Another item. I found this document tracking the relationship between TAKS reading, Stanford, and the OLSAT.

My kids ceiling out of OLSAT and Stanford 10 about two years ago when they just turned 8 and 9 years old. Both took the one for 4th graders.

 

No idea about TAKS or NNAT.

 

ETA:

My district allowed parents to advocate for placement into GATE even if the child did not meet the cutoff for the group screening test when there was a GATE program. The parent would need results of outside testing though. The GATE program was scrapped a few years back during the recession.

[ErinE]

 

ETA:

My district allowed parents to advocate for placement into GATE even if the child did not meet the cutoff for the group screening test when there was a GATE program. The parent would need results of outside testing though. The GATE program was scrapped a few years back during the recession.

 

I think I have an option for this. Essentially there are three routes: district testing, private testing, and teacher recommendation. Thus far, things are going well, but we're only a little bit into the school year. I plan on giving it a year to see how the child adjusts to public school. The GT programs are pull-out, but I've discovered (with another child and different school) that even children in advanced classes miss out on opportunities afforded to GT students.

[Tsuga]

Another item. I found this document tracking the relationship between TAKS reading, Stanford, and the OLSAT.

 

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=doctoral

 

In finance, the predictive value of these results tests would be worth very little. If you look at the graphs (beginning page 65), there's a number of outliers, particularly for the reading scores.

 

Now I want to get a PhD in Education and build an econometric model just to determine key factors.

 

You mean statistical model? Econometrics would only deal with these factors within the framework of economics, which in the opinion of some people (ahem) is severely lacking and crippled by its roots in classical economics. ;)

 

More to the point, there are a number of social scientists, neuroscientists, psychologists, and economists working on this question. While some take the innate ability route, there is a growing proportion of academics and practitioners who come down more on the side of effort. At the forefront of some of this research are Carol Dweck (from the child development / personal development perspective). One of the more popular authors on achievement is Geoff Colvin but I think his book is a little derivative. I was disappointed not to see many citations or any original research. Digging deeper:

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521600812/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

 

 

If you are interested in getting your child into a G&T program, just keep re-testing. That's statistics for you. You would not be the only one. If you look at recommendations on many websites, you will see that many people had their children tested far more than would be appropriate to get an accurate measure of their IQ (first and foremost because scores increase with familiarity, but that's an artificial increase).

 

Keep testing and if you test two times per year for three years, you're likely to get the score you need, particularly if your child is close. Or go to five different places. Normed and standardized scores were never meant to be applied to individuals. Even the strongest test, which most IQ tests are not due to the factors involved in administering them, would give you what you need 1/20 times and that's with 95% confidence. If you get 90% confidence scores you only need 10 tests to get what may be an erroneous score. So even with an average IQ, you're bound to get a gifted (or delayed, or ADD, or any other) score eventually.

 

However, if you are interested in helping your child achieve the most they can achieve by providing a supportive environment, I think Dweck et al. are great reading. Plus even if your child maxes out at an IQ of 95, what is incredible is that they provide example after example of stunning performance by individuals with all kinds of standardized test scores, mostly related to their effort, determination, and enriched environment. Pretty cool stuff. One can find that depressing (so much work! so little special!) or inspiring (I can do anything!).

 

 

*This is why many schools don't take outside tests, and won't let you test more than once a year: statistically, it's just plain stupid to take everyone's best result from 10 - 15 tests, because it just means "mommy really wanted this label so she kept testing me!" That goes for anything from ADD to IQ... Sorry, just being honest. Anyone who wishes to believe that gifted testing is truly meaningful and that the one doctor out of ten who gave them the highest score is the one who recognized their child's true genius is free to hate on me.

[ErinE]

You mean statistical model? Econometrics would only deal with these factors within the framework of economics, which in the opinion of some people (ahem) is severely lacking and crippled by its roots in classical economics. ;)

 

 

Perhaps I'm using the wrong term. I'm talking about multi-variable models used to explain and predict numerical outcomes. At work, it was called econometric modeling (to distinguish it from cash-flow modeling), but this was the private sector. I've assisted several quants in building these models, and it's always been a field of interest for me. I don't have the theoretical background to explain all the ins and outs other than "Wow, lots of data!" and "Cool, it makes predictions!". Based on my experience, most banks run these models daily, to estimate Value-At-Risk, to update their positions, and forecast futures prices.  

 

 

More to the point, there are a number of social scientists, neuroscientists, psychologists, and economists working on this question. While some take the innate ability route, there is a growing proportion of academics and practitioners who come down more on the side of effort. At the forefront of some of this research are Carol Dweck (from the child development / personal development perspective). One of the more popular authors on achievement is Geoff Colvin but I think his book is a little derivative. I was disappointed not to see many citations or any original research. Digging deeper:

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521600812/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

.

 

This is a definite field of interest for me as well what variables can overcome disadvantaged backgrounds, like socioeconomic status. I'll see if I can get a copy through our inter-library loan.

 

 

If you are interested in getting your child into a G&T program, just keep re-testing. That's statistics for you. You would not be the only one. If you look at recommendations on many websites, you will see that many people had their children tested far more than would be appropriate to get an accurate measure of their IQ (first and foremost because scores increase with familiarity, but that's an artificial increase).

 

Keep testing and if you test two times per year for three years, you're likely to get the score you need, particularly if your child is close. Or go to five different places. Normed and standardized scores were never meant to be applied to individuals. Even the strongest test, which most IQ tests are not due to the factors involved in administering them, would give you what you need 1/20 times and that's with 95% confidence. If you get 90% confidence scores you only need 10 tests to get what may be an erroneous score. So even with an average IQ, you're bound to get a gifted (or delayed, or ADD, or any other) score eventually.

 

However, if you are interested in helping your child achieve the most they can achieve by providing a supportive environment, I think Dweck et al. are great reading. Plus even if your child maxes out at an IQ of 95, what is incredible is that they provide example after example of stunning performance by individuals with all kinds of standardized test scores, mostly related to their effort, determination, and enriched environment. Pretty cool stuff. One can find that depressing (so much work! so little special!) or inspiring (I can do anything!).

 

 

*This is why many schools don't take outside tests, and won't let you test more than once a year: statistically, it's just plain stupid to take everyone's best result from 10 - 15 tests, because it just means "mommy really wanted this label so she kept testing me!" That goes for anything from ADD to IQ... Sorry, just being honest. Anyone who wishes to believe that gifted testing is truly meaningful and that the one doctor out of ten who gave them the highest score is the one who recognized their child's true genius is free to hate on me.

 

I didn't mean to give the impression that I'm shopping for a label. The child would probably not meet academic standards for giftedness. The scores were surprisingly low, and I wanted to see what else could help us identify strengths and weaknesses. Since we began formal schooling, there's always been a suspicion that *something* is not connecting. It may be the scores are accurate, but given the child's creativity and problem-solving skills in non-academic settings, I'd like more information.

[wapiti]

Perhaps I'm using the wrong term. I'm talking about multi-variable models used to explain and predict numerical outcomes.

 

Econometrics is an application of calc-based statistics.  So FWIW, I understood it as a reference to (real, calc-based) stats, just applied to the ed field instead.  Made sense to me :) (having taken courses in econometrics)

[Arcadia]

The child would probably not meet academic standards for giftedness. The scores were surprisingly low, and I wanted to see what else could help us identify strengths and weaknesses. Since we began formal schooling, there's always been a suspicion that *something* is not connecting. It may be the scores are accurate, but given the child's creativity and problem-solving skills in non-academic settings, I'd like more information.

OLSAT is a timed test. A child who is not used to a timed test or a "slower worker" would be at a slight disadvantage. DS9 is "slower" than DS10 and could not finish the OLSAT while DS10 finished with time to spare (that was 2 years ago). Whatever questions DS9 managed to finish in OLSAT, he got them correct.

 

As for "measuring" a child's creativity and problem-solving skills in non-academic setting, events like Destination Imagination or Odyssey of the Mind might give you a much better gauge than the sections' scores from IQ tests.

 

What my kids wisc-iv scores tell me was info that I already knew or guessed qualitatively. Their strength and weakness profile fit what I see in their daily life. It did give my hubby a peace of mind.

 

Stanford 10 is untimed. Did your child did it in school? Did the school give your child time to finish each section?

[shage]

Perhaps I'm using the wrong term. I'm talking about multi-variable models used to explain and predict numerical outcomes. At work, it was called econometric modeling (to distinguish it from cash-flow modeling), but this was the private sector. I've assisted several quants in building these models, and it's always been a field of interest for me. I don't have the theoretical background to explain all the ins and outs other than "Wow, lots of data!" and "Cool, it makes predictions!". Based on my experience, most banks run these models daily, to estimate Value-At-Risk, to update their positions, and forecast futures prices.

 

 

 

 

This is a definite field of interest for me as well what variables can overcome disadvantaged backgrounds, like socioeconomic status. I'll see if I can get a copy through our inter-library loan.

 

 

 

 

I didn't mean to give the impression that I'm shopping for a label. The child would probably not meet academic standards for giftedness. The scores were surprisingly low, and I wanted to see what else could help us identify strengths and weaknesses. Since we began formal schooling, there's always been a suspicion that *something* is not connecting. It may be the scores are accurate, but given the child's creativity and problem-solving skills in non-academic settings, I'd like more information.

Social scientists call it linear regression or multivariate regression. It's used routinely.

[MerryAtHope]

 

I didn't mean to give the impression that I'm shopping for a label. The child would probably not meet academic standards for giftedness. The scores were surprisingly low, and I wanted to see what else could help us identify strengths and weaknesses. Since we began formal schooling, there's always been a suspicion that *something* is not connecting. It may be the scores are accurate, but given the child's creativity and problem-solving skills in non-academic settings, I'd like more information.

 

It sounds like you'd need more of an outside evaluation then. Kids who are bright but have struggles often go undetected with testing. Their intelligence masks their struggles, so it can look like they're "average," and the learning difficulty goes undetected. Processing speed is something that can throw off IQ tests--a good psych evaluator will know how to adjust the scores with things like the General Ability Index when something skews the test results. A psych eval could let you know if there are any learning disabilities at play that are behind what you've seen--"something is not connecting." Schools really only get involved if a student is 2 or more grade levels behind, so they won't pick up on masked issues or struggles that are more subtle.

[Tsuga]

Perhaps I'm using the wrong term. I'm talking about multi-variable models used to explain and predict numerical outcomes. At work, it was called econometric modeling (to distinguish it from cash-flow modeling), but this was the private sector. I've assisted several quants in building these models, and it's always been a field of interest for me. I don't have the theoretical background to explain all the ins and outs other than "Wow, lots of data!" and "Cool, it makes predictions!". Based on my experience, most banks run these models daily, to estimate Value-At-Risk, to update their positions, and forecast futures prices.

It's a longstanding argument between the subset of social scientists, the economists, and the rest of the social scientists (whom economists ignore, to the point of creating an entire discipline, econometrics, which already exists and is called statistics). Bitter, us? Hahahahaha sob.

 

This is a definite field of interest for me as well what variables can overcome disadvantaged backgrounds, like socioeconomic status. I'll see if I can get a copy through our inter-library loan.

 

 

 

 

I didn't mean to give the impression that I'm shopping for a label. The child would probably not meet academic standards for giftedness. The scores were surprisingly low, and I wanted to see what else could help us identify strengths and weaknesses. Since we began formal schooling, there's always been a suspicion that *something* is not connecting. It may be the scores are accurate, but given the child's creativity and problem-solving skills in non-academic settings, I'd like more information.

You have the information, though. The kid who doesn't get high paper test scores is tenacious and creative and therefore shows promise of brilliance. Do you need more numbers to foster that? In PS, if the child is being hindered/stifled, maybe so. In a homeschool or in a good PS, maybe not.

[ErinE]

 

 

It's a longstanding argument between the subset of social scientists, the economists, and the rest of the social scientists (whom economists ignore, to the point of creating an entire discipline, econometrics, which already exists and is called statistics). Bitter, us? Hahahahaha sob.

 

Econometrics sounds cooler than statistics. That's why.  :tongue_smilie:

 

You have the information, though. The kid who doesn't get high paper test scores is tenacious and creative and therefore shows promise of brilliance. Do you need more numbers to foster that? In PS, if the child is being hindered/stifled, maybe so. In a homeschool or in a good PS, maybe not.

 

Yes, that's what I'm weighing right now. I know it's silly to focus on the number, but I wonder, is there an undiagnosed LD that testing might find? Or is it that the child is not a good test taker (the child has stated indifference towards testing)? These are just thoughts rolling around in my head, and I don't know if there's any resolution other than maintaining our encouragement and expectations.