Marking verbal responses on wisc/wais

[Sanman]

I worked as a school psych on a military base where we'd get kids who were "gifted" in other states but wouldn't remain qualified for "gifted" in the state I worked in due to state-level criteria. It's not just school districts not knowing "science" but also what states require for eligibility for funding for services. I had many a "de-gifting" eligibility meeting while I was there. It was probably the worst part of the job.

So, you're telling me I'm a genius in Montana, but not in New Jersey?

The issue here is more about the politics than it is about the science. We know that scores in the high and low ends of the test are less reliable than the middle. We know what a confidence interval is and that there is no statistical difference between the intelligence of someone who scores a 129 or a 131. Yet, the world continues on with this obsession over who is the smartest without ever asking the question if it is possible to reliably measure the intelligence of a person that might be smarter than the designer of the test. Then policymakers come to make everything worse.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mojito_15]

So, you're telling me I'm a genius in Montana, but not in New Jersey?

The issue here is more about the politics than it is about the science. We know that scores in the high and low ends of the test are less reliable than the middle. We know what a confidence interval is and that there is no statistical difference between the intelligence of someone who scores a 129 or a 131. Yet, the world continues on with this obsession over who is the smartest without ever asking the question if it is possible to reliably measure the intelligence of a person that might be smarter than the designer of the test. Then policymakers come to make everything worse.

I don't disagree that much of the decisions around giftedness are political. The IQ hasn't changed but our state and district level cutoffs in New Jersey are higher than in Montana for what it is to be a genius. Either way- I think the original point was that gifted testing can sometimes result in problematic outcomes because the results aren't used properly. Which I think can be true (though doesn't always have to be) whether or not that's due to politics.

 

[MAClinician]

It's been awhile- but I remember we had a high identification rate which is typical for military kids. But excluding gifted IEP's I'd guess about an 18% identification rate across the district. Including gifted I believe it was above 20%.

We had a high gifted ratio also because ASVAB is highly correlated with IQ and we were a base that lots of people with higher ranks ended up at. To become higher ranking you need to score high on the ASVAB. So their kids were also often higher IQ kids. Also having a kid with Autism means you get a lot of services paid for by military- but it also means you cannot be deployed certain places where services cannot be provided. So we'd get parents who both really wanted their kid to have Autism, but also really didn't want their kid to have Autism. And then high ranking military people who get an outside diagnosis of Autism or LD for example were pretty well able to advocate for services with the district even when the school psych maybe doesn't think the kid qualifies...

I’ve never heard of a child qualifying for an IEP for being gifted/highly intelligent 🤔

 

[Mojito_15]

I’ve never heard of a child qualifying for an IEP for being gifted/highly intelligent 🤔

There are 5 states or so that do- it's not particularly common but our students in this state get a full eval and IEP with services from a gifted instructor just like students with disabilities.