Gifted levels accurate?

[SunshineMom]

Are Deborah Ruh's levels of giftedness in young children what you remember? Here is the link: http://www.educationaloptions.com/resources/resources_levels_giftedness.php

[Nan in Mass]

I was curious enough to go look at the lists. And I happen to know the IQ of one of my children (and can therefore guess at the others) and I can tell you that these lists were wildly inaccurate for my particular children. I consider mine brightish, not really gifted or brilliant, but IQ-wise, they all land on this particular chart. None of them spoke before they turned two. All of them could make themselves understood quite well (and were inventing a sign language when they learned to talk) when they were less than 12 months. Only one was an early reader and he wasn't very early; the other two struggled to learn to read. Two could add and subtract and multiply and divide (except I didn't use those words) when they were three. All were either on time or a little late learning their colours. They all could sing in tune when they were two (if the range of the song was short). They all were totally uninterested in videos (no TV) when they were less than three. They all asked philosophical questions that surprised other adults when they were two. None of them was interested in books when they were one except to learn to turn the pages or to eat them. None of them are very academic-minded. All were considered surprisingly smart by their ps teachers, but didn't/don't do very well in school academics. I'm not particularly worried about whether they are gifted or not because I've figured out a fairly comfortable way to teach them what I think is important in life. The lists do correspond to what I think of as "gifted" except for a few points. It is just their correlation to IQ that I'm doubtful about, and I definately, as the author points out, think that environment has a lot to do with whether a child matches this list or not. I obviously GRIN didn't teach things on schedule, like those colours. And I think some children aren't on the list who could be if the list were different. It makes lots of assumptions. Maybe if your child is on the list, you can believe it, but if your child isn't, you shouldn't?

I don't know.

-Nan

[Laura Corin]

Calvin hits most of the markers for level 3 to 4, except the ones that rely on physical coordination/spatial skills. He had two IQ tests done: one used an old scaling, so doesn't compare; on the other he came out at around level 2, until you looked at the individual scores and realised that they were level 4 for verbal/knowledge and much lower for performance (spatial skills, puzzles, etc.)

 

He's dyspraxic, so he's gifted and learning disabled. Is he not gifted because he learned to write late? Lists like this are always going to be a very rough tool, because they measure achievements rather than potential.

 

Hobbes hasn't been tested.

 

Laura

[Reya]

Are Deborah Ruh's levels of giftedness in young children what you remember? Here is the link: http://www.educationaloptions.com/resources/resources_levels_giftedness.php

 

Her book has much more detailed lists.

 

I hit everything on levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 and well over half of the level 5 markers. That's consistent with what I know of my IQ.

 

DS is twice exceptional, so he's all over the board. He's been formally assessed, though for something else, and is HG+--how + I dunno, but he's not as thoughtful and no where near as advanced in math as I was a year younger than him. (I'd mastered K-6 mathematics before entering K.) I'm thinking with his 2e issues maybe Level 4?

 

DD seems "holy c***" smart and is matching level 5 stuff across the board

right now.

 

For me, at least, the full lists are almost spookily accurate....

Edited March 14, 2009 by Reya

[Sara R]

Based on the list, my son is probably level 3 gifted. He's about 2 grade levels ahead across the board, except for handwriting. But he didn't show any exceptional talent as a preschooler. He was very late in talking. He started just before age 3, and even then he couldn't produce a lot of the sounds. He finally mastered the /k/ sound around age 4. He entered public school kindergarten in December, able to sound out phonetic words (in other words, right about at grade level). He knew all of his addition facts at that time just from being competitive with his 2nd grade older sister, so he was showing math talent then. In Kindergarten he learned a few sight words and he was off to the races in reading. By April he was reading "Meet George Washington."

 

So the early childhood abilities weren't there with my son, but he has shown gifted abilities since then.

[Jenny in Florida]

(Edit: Oops, I hadn't read the more detailed lists lower on the page. Sorry.)

 

Yes and no, at least in our house.

 

Now, I've never had either of mine do a formal IQ test, but my daughter is a Davidson scholar, which would suggest she should be in that Level Five category. While she certainly did some of those things at ages close to those listed (kindergarten skills by age three, inner drive, existential concerns, high school equivalency, etc.), she did not read spontaneously or even astoundingly early. I can't speak to the tooth fairy/Santa thing, because we never did those here.

 

Like Sara R's son, there are some areas in which my kids didn't start particularly early but accelerated very quickly. For example, my daughter was "really" reading until age 5, and it wasn't spontaneous. However, she then went from sounding out individual words to reading Harry Potter and other chapter books within six months. My son didn't talk until age two. Literally, not even "Mama" and "Dada." Then, just after his second birthday, he started speaking in phrases and sentences. He didn't read independently until he was almost seven, but was reading at a post-high-school level by the time he was nine. Nowadays, his highest test scores are in language and vocabulary and reading comprehension, where he frequently tops out the test.

 

And there are some things that are traditional gifted markers that don't even get a mention here. I'm thinking specifically of language skills, which is where my daughter always really shone. She was speaking well by nine months, with complex sentences by age two. Yet, that sort of thing isn't even on the list.

 

And neither of mine has ever done astoundingly well on standardized tests. My daughter struggles with test anxiety, and my son just doesn't take testing very seriously. So, they do very, very well (99th percentile well) in certain areas, the ones that interest them, and then only well above average in others.

 

I've always found these lists a bit troubling. They just don't "speak to" me.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Jenny in Florida

[nmoira]

Now, I've never had either of mine do a formal IQ test, but my daughter is a Davidson scholar, which would suggest she should be in that Level Five category.

How was she able to do this without testing? The expense and potential stress of testing are why I haven't moved on Davidson with my eldest.

 

Edited to add for the OP:

Since I haven't had DD tested, I don't know how well Ruf's levels compares to her measured IQ. FWIW, she hits almost all the Level 4 markers and a few Level 5 markers.

Edited March 14, 2009 by nmoira

[Jenny in Florida]

How was she able to do this without testing? The expense and potential stress of testing are why I haven't moved on Davidson with my eldest.

 

We went the portfolio route. I had to submit a detailed questionaire, samples of things she had done at home, letters of recommendation from assorted teachers and copies of all of the standardized testing she had done. She had test scores from the CAT/5, Hewitt's PASS and the Explore.

[nmoira]

We went the portfolio route. I had to submit a detailed questionaire, samples of things she had done at home, letters of recommendation from assorted teachers and copies of all of the standardized testing she had done. She had test scores from the CAT/5, Hewitt's PASS and the Explore.

Thanks.

 

Am I correct in understanding that she'll have to be formally tested at some point to continue with Davidson?

[Reya]

Now, I've never had either of mine do a formal IQ test, but my daughter is a Davidson scholar, which would suggest she should be in that Level Five category.

 

 

No. Davidson is level 3 and up--top 99.9th %ile. It's not that exclusive.

[Reya]

Thanks.

 

Am I correct in understanding that she'll have to be formally tested at some point to continue with Davidson?

 

Now, yes. In the past, no.

[Storm Bay]

According to this, I've been wrongly saying hg, and should have been saying eg (exceptionally gifted--but that sounds like for example, doesn't it?) or eg-pg.

 

As to how accurate this is for our family, I'm not sure. Even my uncle, who is definitely a level 5, didn't spontaneously read early. My eldest had most of these up to and including level 4, but my others were so busy in other areas (my 10 yo has all but one trait of the artistically gifted, for example, and is very visual spatial so some of her stuff showed up in different areas first.

 

What I don't like about this list is that it does not measure giftedness in art (everyone gifted artistically is academically gifted, but not vice versa), philosophy, etc. Some very, very deep and brilliant thinkers don't emerge until they're older and IMO they may be up to level 5 in that way.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Karin

[nmoira]

 

What I don't like about this list is that it does not measure giftedness in art (everyone gifted artistically is academically gifted, but not vice versa), philosophy, etc. Some very, very deep and brilliant thinkers don't emerge until they're older and IMO they may be up to level 5 in that way.

This seems to be my mantra wrt Ruf, but her sample is primary self-selected and made up of clients of hers. However, I like what she's trying to do, and look forward to seeing it distilled through other researchers.

[Jenny in Florida]

Thanks.

 

Am I correct in understanding that she'll have to be formally tested at some point to continue with Davidson?

 

I thought that was the rule, too, but it's been a couple of years and nothing has been said.

[VanessaS]

The list fits to my own development but not to my children's. They're both late-talkers. But if I take out the expressive-language stuff my daughter is hg and my son is eg. But with my daughter I think it's wait-and-see. A lot of the stuff she does amazingly well isn't addressed by any lists I've seen. They seem to be very verbal-centric.

[SunshineMom]

Thanks for answering everyone....I ask the question for I am trying to determine if my 5dd is gifted. My mother-in-law a former teacher of 20yrs tells me she would be in a gifted program (didn't know they have these for K) and my husband is slightly gifted (IQ135). I also have many family members who are gifted however I was not so lucky in this lottery. I looked through the list and found that she has met many of the milestones at various levels however I am not sure if that is just because we homeschool. She does ask questions that led me to believe she may be gifted and her memory is amazing when she wants to remember something. I can't really compare her to most 5yrs because our homeschool friends are either older or from an unschooler group. Also her older sister has some learning issues (birth defect) so it is an unfair comparison and she has surpassed her anyway. So I am doing my research with you all. I do not know if I want to test her but my curiousity is getting the better of me. I have read on this board that testing after 8yrs is a waste of time so when is a good time? I don't know if getting a test result would change anything we are doing but there is this nag that will not go away. I am sure within a few more years it will become obvious without the test?

[chai]

Posted by KPzz on 12:38 Aug 31

In Reply to: Is testing necessary? posted by Caroline

We haven't tossed this one around lately, so here goes. First off, there are two main kinds of testing -- "achievement" and "ability." Achievement testing sheds some light on what the student has accomplished so far; ability testing gives you some insight as to how the student learns and what he may be capable of. Achievement testing usually gives you the student's results compared to other "norms," which are other students' results, and the comparisons are listed in terms of grade levels or age levels. For example, a student may be reading at the "3rd grade level," which indicates he has mastered many of the skills that other 3rd-graders have mastered.

 

Ability testing usually gives you results as an "IQ" number, with 100 as "average." Different tests have slightly different cutoffs (and schools set their own cutoffs for gifted programs, etc.) but they're all basically like this:

 

40 profoundly delayed

55 exceptionally delayed

70 developmently delayed

85 below average

100 average

115 above average

130 gifted

145 highly gifted

160 profoundly gifted

 

There is a symmetry to the table, see it? It's a standard normal curve, meaning that the vast majority of the population has an IQ between 85 and 115. Fewer and fewer people have IQs below or above, with less than 1-tenth of 1-percent of the population above 160 or below 40.

 

That's the way it's supposed to work in theory, anyway. In practice, we *hope* that a well-designed IQ test given under acceptable circumstances will result in something that resembles what we *think* is that hard-to-pin-down idea of intelligence. (I happen to think that IQ tests professionally administered do a pretty good job at identifying, well, something that resembles intelligence fairly closely. It's better than nothing in most cases.)

 

Anyway, so why "test?" Three good reasons: (1) to gain entrance to an already-existing program that requires such test results; (2) to give parents/teachers confidence or inspiration to create a more individualized program of education that better "fits" the student; (3) to uncover previously unsuspected learning disabilitites that are far better worked with when the child is younger. A nice #4, at least in terms of achievement testing, would be that such testing provides practice and preparation for those all-important college ACT or SAT tests. So maybe the title of my post should be "Four Good Reasons to Test."

 

I make a point to list in #1 that there has to be an "already-existing" program. That's because I was totally naive when my 6-yr-old was handed a "highly gifted" label. I brought her test results to her school and I guess I thought they'd "ooh" and "aah" and create a specialized level and pace of instruction just for her. No way. An institutional school simply cannot make changes to their curriculum very quickly. No matter what they say, a school needs to "teach the curriculum" rather than "teach the student."

 

When that level and pace being taught at school is a comfortable "fit" for the student, things can be OK. But when the student is able to learn more and faster, or needs to move significantly more slowly, it's not going to be a good educational situation for that child. An IQ is a good indication as to whether or not the standard level and pace of education will be a good "fit." Students with IQs between 85 and 115 ... possibly even between 70 and 130, with some flexibility at school, are generally a good "fit" for standard education. (Other things being equal, of course -- no significant learning disabilities, general good heath both physically and emotionally, etc.)

 

But for students with IQs below 70 or above 130, the regular classroom can be very difficult and is definitely a poor "fit." That's where an IQ number can be helpful -- it can give you some indication as to the liklihood your child will fit in well with a standard classroom.

 

For homeschoolers, it may not be that big a deal. Since the higher the IQ the more individualized a program of education should be, and since we as homeschoolers tend to individualize almost instinctively, ability testing may not be as vital. For others, that inspiration or confidence-boost is worth paying the big bucks for testing.

 

I found a couple summer programs open to my daughter because of her high achievement test scores. They were offered through a public school system and we used to joke that it was her "one week of school each year." But they were very worthwhile.

 

And boy oh boy did my file of test scores ever come in handy when we enrolled our daughter in public school as an 8th-grade this year. Having a path of achievement (tests every couple years) as well as a few ability tests (professionally administered, lovely reports issued) really made the high school principal and the guidance counsellor sit up and take notice. These were printouts they could understand and relate to, not just starry-eyed parents gushing about how wonderful their daughter was. The combination of test scores and a portfolio of work, as well as two tests the school gave my daughter, landed her as pretty much 25-percent 9th-grader and 75-percent 8th-grader, which is a level that feels OK to us. (To be brutally honest, I think she should be 25-percent 10th-grader and 75-percent 9th-grader, but Miss Princess flatly refused to attend any classes that didn't have at least one other 8th-grader in them. And we decided to hold off on pushing the issue and let her see for herself just what "school" was like. I'll keep you posted as the school year drags on ... now finishing up her 3rd week, she LOVES school and is getting all A's and admitting that things are pretty easy ...)

 

[JeanM]

I have to say that the Ruf Estimates don't work well for my children. Only my older ds has been formally iq tested, and his results were not accurate (hit ceilings), so I don't know for sure where he (or my younger ds) fall as far as iq tests go. I know that they are quite gifted, how gifted I don't really know.

 

The santa/tooth fairy thing cracks me up. This fails to take into account the huge imagination and capacity for denial that young kids can have. My younger ds questioned santa by age 3, but was firmly reprimanded by his older brother, and hasn't openly questioned it since. My older ds just turned 10 and still claims to believe in santa/tooth fairy. I can't decide if he really believes, or just likes believing.

 

A lot of the other qualifications also just didn't fit well. Neither of my boys had much interest in colors, and my oldest persisted in having color recognition trouble for so long that I made sure that they tested him for color blindness (he wasn't color blind). One talked late, one loved puzzles, the other had no interest in puzzles.

 

Jean

[Matryoshka]

Interesting. "Gifted" seems to be defined a bit differently than what I thought. I haven't had my kids tested, so I can't speak to IQ scores. But I've always said my kids were bright, not gifted - although reading that, my older two would probably be Level 1 and my younger Level 2. But I've never thought of those as gifted levels - when I think of gifted, I think of levels 4 and 5.

 

As a child, I would have fit level 3. My mother always told me "you're just smart, you're not gifted or anything." This could be coloring my thinking... :tongue_smilie:

 

But really, level 1 - aren't those just the smart kids in the class??

[Storm Bay]

Posted by KPzz on 12:38 Aug 31

 

 

Donelda--did you save this? Thanks! The old boards are gone (or is there some cache somewhere?)

Edited March 15, 2009 by Karin
can spell by hand, but I'm not very good at typing

[chai]

Donelda--did you save this? Thanks! The old boards are gone (or is there some cache somewhere?)

 

I saved it a long time ago and forgot that I had it until recently.

[VanessaS]

But really, level 1 - aren't those just the smart kids in the class??

 

Basically, yes.

The county next to mine classifies almost half of the student population as "gifted". Drives me absolutely nuts.

[Mommy22alyns]

The santa/tooth fairy thing cracks me up. This fails to take into account the huge imagination and capacity for denial that young kids can have.

 

 

My thoughts exactly! I think that's the case with Becca.

[SunshineMom]

I agree with the poster who said something about Level1's being the smart kids in class. I just don't think of those with an IQ of 127 as gifted. Is the "gifted" bar been lowered in this study?

Edited March 16, 2009 by Jewel

[LizzyBee]

Donelda--did you save this? Thanks! The old boards are gone (or is there some cache somewhere?)

 

The old boards are at http://www.welltrainedmind.com/activeboards.php

[Storm Bay]

The old boards are at www.welltrainedmind.com/activeboards.php

 

 

Thanks--they must have been moved as my old links no longer work. Or, they just didn't work yesterday--somehow they work again today.

[Nan in Mass]

I guess that was part of my problem with the list. My idea of gifted is not my children, who land in the middle of this list IQwise and aren't really on the list at all traits-wise. And my children are just brightish, academically, not even the smart child in the class. They've all been in ps, and I grew up with friends who were brilliant, and their cousins are gifted (as well as my mother and one of my sisters), so I can say this with confidence. When it comes to things non-academic, they are a bit brighter. I think this may partly be the area where we live.

[nitascool]

My8yo hit every mark in level 5 except for talking. He didn't speak until a couple weeks before his 1st birthday, but was using complex sentences within a few weeks following his birthday. Also he did not watch television or use a computer at that age. His IQ score would put him at level 4. He is the only one who has had complete IQ and achievement testing done.

 

My 7yo hit every marker in level 5 except for writing, adult games and Santa (he still believes in Santa).

 

My 4yo is fits better into level 4 and my 1yo is showing up her brothers more and more every day.

[squirtymomma]

Interesting that she doesn't include motor skills in her lists either, as I thought they were indicators of giftedness as well.

[Reya]

I agree with the poster who said something about Level1's being the smart kids in class. I just don't think of those with an IQ of 127 as gifted. Is the "gifted" bar been lowered in this study?

 

Sort of. The Level 1 are the "bright kids" who mostly make up the so-called "gifted" programs in most area's.

 

It's the renorming of the IQ tests that causes the IQ squeeze at the higher levels. They've flattened the top excessively.

[Storm Bay]

Sort of. The Level 1 are the "bright kids" who mostly make up the so-called "gifted" programs in most area's.

 

It's the renorming of the IQ tests that causes the IQ squeeze at the higher levels. They've flattened the top excessively.

 

 

So is this why most "gifted" programs are merely busy work?

[VanessaS]

Yes.

 

As a high schooler I was involved in a fantastic gifted program that was limited to the top 2% (12 out of a class of over 600) by IQ and it was very interesting and challenging. But those programs are rare and going out of style. Parents of bright but not gifted children tend to dislike them because they feel the concentration should be on the best students, as if the program were merely a reward for good behaviour.

[mchel210]

I had my girls tested because they went back to PS. Otherwise, I wouldnt have tested them. I would say...my dd at 5 didnt get along with the other kids her age. Ok...I mean...she did get along...she just didnt have much in common with them. My girls end up playing with kids way above their grade levels and not so much at the same age.

 

My first child wasnt reading, writing or even coloring in the lines in K. He was behind in my view. He tested an IQ of like 112 or something like that. He did everything at the regular times. My middle dd was crawling by 3 months old. She was running by 6 months old and speaking full sentences by 1. She was doing 25 piece puzzles by one and 100 at the end of that year. She was reading chapter books in K. My son never came close to her. He still struggles at 13 and she is spelling, reading and doing math above him and she is only 8! My 6 yo seems to be above my 8yo but is lazy and could care less! Too funny. Both girls tested at about 141 or so with thier IQ...but they still believe in the tooth fairy! :)

 

I guess it depends if you have a reason to test early or if you just are curious. I only tested mine as they went into PS but otherwise, I just keep teaching them as much as they will learn! I think that is the most important point!

[Reya]

So is this why most "gifted" programs are merely busy work?

 

 

Exactly!!!

 

I don't begrudge the bright a program. But there needs to be a place for the MG, too. And the HG should have their own program, as well. As should the EG/PG in the bigger districts--a multi-grade class of EG/PG kids would be better than having them in a single-grade HG class.

[Storm Bay]

Exactly!!!

 

I don't begrudge the bright a program. But there needs to be a place for the MG, too. And the HG should have their own program, as well. As should the EG/PG in the bigger districts--a multi-grade class of EG/PG kids would be better than having them in a single-grade HG class.

 

 

I agree. There's no reason why kids should all be made to matriculate from grade 12/senior year at 18, either. Such a waste of time. That said, I have one who isn't interested in working way ahead to get done school early, and in her case, it's going to work well for her to stay home until she's 18.

 

If I'd been allowed to move at my own pace and go to university when I was ready, I would have had far less grounds to rebel and would have seen a purpose to studying. Not that my rebellion was necessarily right, but the boredom combined with the verbal abuse of bullies, etc, combined with my independent nature was not a good combination. This is one of the reasons I loved the idea of homeschooling the very first time I heard the word.

 

Back when I grew up, parents almost never asked kids what they wanted. My parents were more concerned about where I'd fit socially, and my mother later realized it was a mistake, but in her case it was the best she knew based on what happened to her. However, we're very different people. My mother is a fabulous person, and I don't resent her, although I have to admit I thought she was a nerd when I was in high school (and she's anything but!)

 

Now my birth siblings, also somewhere in the gifted realm, were very different. My sister fit in fine. My kid brother got into way more trouble than I knew about (I just learned a few weeks ago that his getting into trouble was why my parents sent him to boarding school, little knowing that that enabled him to get into far more trouble than he would have at home.)

[Reya]

I agree. There's no reason why kids should all be made to matriculate from grade 12/senior year at 18, either.

 

In Texas, the state pays for you to go to college if you graduate early enough! Seriously!

[Storm Bay]

In Texas, the state pays for you to go to college if you graduate early enough! Seriously!

 

Just another reason why I'd move to Texas if we didn't own a house, if my dh wasn't determined not to have to start another business from scratch, and if I was sure there'd be no giant spiders in my house.

 

ETAHow about that, an Oxford comma! Must be the influence of all the Americans on this board...

[Nan in Mass]

What is an Oxford comma? I don't see any unusual commas in your post. Then again, I'm American GRIN so perhaps I wouldn't notice whatever it is? But then why does it have an English name like Oxford? (Just curious.)

[Reya]

What is an Oxford comma? I don't see any unusual commas in your post. Then again, I'm American GRIN so perhaps I wouldn't notice whatever it is? But then why does it have an English name like Oxford? (Just curious.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma

 

no clue WHY....

[Storm Bay]

What is an Oxford comma? I don't see any unusual commas in your post. Then again, I'm American GRIN so perhaps I wouldn't notice whatever it is? But then why does it have an English name like Oxford? (Just curious.)

 

 

Got that name from Eats, Shoots & Leaves, which I'm finally reading. In England, the comma before the last in a series is called an Oxford comma, but I don't remember why. Most British people don't use that one, nor do I normally. My alma mater frowned on it (in Canada, where rules vary). Normally I would delete the comma after the word scratch as I, ever a stickler IRL when I'm doing something serious (but not online) don't use that comma. Unless it's somewhere in the US where that lack of comma might be perceived as incorrect and I'm also using US spelling. I also find myself putting in other commas I was taught not to use that are used down here.

 

My dc use American punctuation and spelling since they're growing up here. I just wish they'd stop yelling "zee" every time I say "zed"! for the letter z).

[VanessaS]

Ummm... I was just re-reading the article and I saw the "Standard IQ Score Ranges for the Levels" section and my jaw dropped. I tested as 137 so she categorizes me as "Exceptionally to Profoundly Gifted". Really? I'm that smart? News to me!

[VanessaS]

I use Oxford commas, too. Although, I tend to over-punctualization.

 

My dc use American punctuation and spelling since they're growing up here. I just wish they'd stop yelling "zee" every time I say "zed"! for the letter z).

 

That's interesting. It's zed in German, as well.

[nmoira]

 

Ummm... I was just re-reading the article and I saw the "Standard IQ Score Ranges for the Levels" section and my jaw dropped. I tested as 137 so she categorizes me as "Exceptionally to Profoundly Gifted". Really? I'm that smart? News to me!

You were probably scored using the older tests. The newer ones have be re-normed and recalibrated, with higher scores compressed in a narrower range.

[Nan in Mass]

Ah. I guess it is a good thing I don't have to please anyone but myself, style-wise. I use commas so very liberally...

[Storm Bay]

That's interesting. It's zed in German, as well.

 

As far as I know, Americans are the only ones who say zee. Except for those Canadian kids indoctinated with Sesame Street.

[The Governess]

This is an interesting list. Dd4 satisfies level 2 and nearly all of level 3. So if these lists are accurate, that would place her somewhere around 130-135.

 

It's funny, because I don't really think of her as gifted, I think of her more as "highly motivated." :001_smile: She's very motivated and has always been a very focused child. Alert since birth definitely describes her. But she was mostly average on her gross motor milestones (crawled at 8 mos, walked at 12, etc.). These lists, unlike other lists of gifted characteristics I've looked at, are light on early gross motor development.

[LisaKinVA]

I only know my oldest son's approximate IQ -- and the levels fit him pretty well (or they did). My two younger seem to be following in similar paths, so I'm guessing they are in the same range/levels.

 

Lisa

[MSNative]

How do you judge if your child's IQ is exceptionally high or if they are just achieving more because they are in a rich learning environment?

 

My first child went to K at a good local private school. He hated it because he was reading chapter books and they made him go back to A says A.

 

However, compared to my other two, his achievements are later. My second child is doing the same work as the older one despite being two years younger. My third is reading, writing and doing basic math at age 2.

 

Are my younger children so much brighter or is it just that our environment is geared more toward learning? (Rhetorical question to try to communicate my point. Not working well since brilliant 2 year old still gets up in the middle of the night and we ran out of coffee) I think all my kids are fairly close to equally as bright.

 

Hope this is making some sense. Basically, how much is IQ, how much is higher expectations, becoming a more educated oriented parent and secondhand learning from the others?

[kmacnchs]

How do you judge if your child's IQ is exceptionally high or if they are just achieving more because they are in a rich learning environment?

 

Are my younger children so much brighter or is it just that our environment is geared more toward learning?

 

Hope this is making some sense. Basically, how much is IQ, how much is higher expectations, becoming a more educated oriented parent and secondhand learning from the others?

 

I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING! According to the lists, my dd1 would be a "4" and my dd2 would be a "3" (as far as I can tell). However, if I did not encourage them to learn and work with them once they showed interest, they would go down 1 # lower (at least) I think. For example, I'm sure dd1 would be reading, but probably only Bob books and she certainly would not know her math facts if I was not working with her on it. And I am sure dd2 will be reading in a couple of months but if I did not work with her, she would just know her ABCs for a year or two more (less motivated than older sister)...intriguing question...

[Corraleno]

I can think of at least two circumstances where the link between IQ and milestones in that chart would not be accurate: (1) an impoverished childhood environment (I don't mean financially poor, I mean with no books or stimulation, disinterested parents, etc), and (2) learning disabilities.

 

For example, my DH is PG (IQ over 160), but he grew up with crazy alcoholic parents who had no interest in him until he was old enough to pour them another drink so they didn't have to get off the couch (I'm not kidding.) He spent the first 2 years of his life in a playpen with a handful of toys and very little human interaction. He's also dyslexic, has some sensory processing issues and some social skill issues. I'm not sure he would have even qualified for Level 1 based on the listed milestones!

 

I would be Level 4 based on IQ, but since my parents were teenagers and there were ZERO books in the house, I would barely qualify for Level 2 based on milestones. However, as soon as I hit school I was like a sponge and was classified as gifted in 1st grade.

 

DS11 is also Level 4 in terms of IQ, and he's had a rich childhood environment, but he also has an alphabet soup of LDs and did not meet the reading/writing milestones even of Level 1. He was asking very advanced and abstract questions about math and science very young ~ but those things are not on the lists, which seem very skewed towards reading/writing/verbal skills.

 

So I'd say that Ruf's chart might be reasonably accurate for a very verbal child with no LDs who was raised in a stimulating environment, but less accurate for other kids.

 

Jackie