Identifiyng gifted children and dyslexia early diagnosis: risk of cheating on IQ tests

3,121 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,121
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Identifiyng gifted children and dyslexia early diagnosis: risk of cheating on IQ tests

  1. 1. Marco RipàIDENTIFYING GIFTED AND TALENTED CHILDREN THROUGH IQ TESTING 12th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness Dubai, July 15, 2012
  2. 2. How can we measure children’s IQ?• Through standardized IQ tests (e.g. WISC-IV);• Using personalized methods, with a good norm (e.g. high range IQ tests searching for gifted children);• Using a combination of both standardized and personalized tests/instruments.
  3. 3. A brief reminder about IQThere is not a general/singular definition of humanintelligence, but we can try to evaluate specific skills which areusually related to the most abstract part of cognitive attitude(Sperman’s Gf factor).The so called crystallized intelligence (Sperman’s Gc factor)affects everyday life and contributes significantly to increaseour chances of finding the solutions to complex problems.WISC test takes into account both these components, whileRaven’s Matrices is focused on non verbal intelligencequantification.
  4. 4. How is IQ theorically distribute among people?Normal distribution of random phenomena Gaussian distribution and IQ (σ=15)
  5. 5. How is IQ really distributed? A change of perspective...IQ distribution in populations only approximately fits a bell curve(in the same way as height), diverging from it rapidly as thescores surpass 2.5 standard deviations from the mean. There isnothing that says that IQ has to follow any particular kind ofdistribution curve at all.Conventional (ratio) IQ fits children well enough. However, aschildrens physical growth slows during adolescence, the growthof mental age also slows and then plateaus around the 20’s.
  6. 6. IMO…My personal point of view is that modernstandardized IQ tests, such as WAIS tests orStandford Binet versions, do not suffer fromsubstantial variance in the [+2, +3.5] s.d. range.So, for our purpose to discovery giftedness, we caneasily refer to a normal distribution of the scores.Based on the previous assumption, we couldsubdivide gifted children into four different groups:gifted or moderately gifted, highlygifted, exceptionally gifted*, profoundly gifted*.
  7. 7. WAIS tests classificationAccording to the table above, we obtain the following subsets:[+2,+3] s.d. from the expected mean  gifted children;[+3,+4] s.d. from the expected mean  highly gifted children;[+4,+5] s.d. from the expected mean  exceptionally gifted children; > +5 s.d. from the expected mean  profoundly gifted children.
  8. 8. A short digression: learning disabilitiesAround 10% of Italian childrenbetween 6 and 10 are affected bydyslexia and this number becomeshigher in middle school.They find it difficult to read, write, Reading disability is the most commonmake calculations. form of dyslexia and it is not correlated with IQ, it is not caused by environmental factors nor psychological ones, sensorial deficits or neurological deficiencies.It is necessary to discover thislearning disability in time, if wewant to reduce its impact on achild’s future: the worthy age for an For this purpose, we have constructed aappropriate diagnosis is 6 years old, fast and relatively inexpensive method tobut the screening is convenient until search for giftedness in children who fall inthe age of 9. the age range 7-16, looking for a possible learning disability (in particular dyslexia) with specific regard to children younger than 9.
  9. 9. Could we measure a +5 sd IQ from the mean?To recognize a profoundly gifted child we need to use asmart strategy, because common standardized IQ testssuffer from ceiling effects and do not have a ceilinghigh enough.One possible solution could be to use a combination oftwo different kinds of IQ tests, such as WISC plusRaven’s Matrices. Nevertheless this does not allow usto investigate above 2-4 standards deviations from themean (depending on the age group we areconsidering).
  10. 10. We are able to differentiate between 3 age groups (7-11, 12-13, 14-16), providing an increased ceiling for IQ estimation…• Our method is based on a specific combination of two different types of IQ tests (a collective spatial test plus an individual one), but it could easily be adapted to different targets. For example, we could try to investigate about creativity potential (even if it is not so simple to achieve a good indicator for this purpose) or underachieving problems (often related to hyperactivity).• For children/adolescents in the age group 10-16, we are able to discriminate deeper and deeper in the IQ screening as the age grows. This lets us combine a collective IQ test with an individual one (or a high range IQ test), increasing the ceiling of our research and avoiding false positive cases. The IQ growth during early age is not linear, and it is not simple to detect highly (or profoundly) giftedness adolescence.
  11. 11. The Raven’s Matrices types that we have to use will be differentaccording to the given age range we are considering:• Coloured Progressive Matrices for 7-11 years old children,• Standard Progressive Matrices for the 12-13 years old subset,• Advanced Progressive Matrices otherwise.For every pupil younger than 9, we will add, at least, eight verbal--memory-arithmetic subtests of the WISC-IV (similarities, digitspan, coding, vocabulary, letter-numbersequencing, comprehension, arithmetic, word reasoning), searchingfor substantial variances between the performances achieved onthe two different tests.This could represent a good hint for more detailed individual andpersonalized tests, trying to reveal specific comorbidities such asdyslexia, ADHD, dyscalculia, etc.
  12. 12. In detail (operating procedure)For children above 9, we are firstly interested in detecting giftedness, sowe will perform a preliminary screening using Raven’s Matrices, takinginto consideration only results at or above the 90th percentile (thebottom level compatible with giftedness).For these 1.33+ s.d. IQ children, we will administer the WISC-IV toconfirm the giftedness diagnosis, also giving a more detailedmeasurement of the theoretical/potential IQ of the subject. The ceilings (σ=15) grow-up as the age raises: 7-11→IQ 120-135, 12-13→IQ 125-140 and 14-16→IQ 140-160.This approach could be switched to specific underachieving research,adding to Raven’s Matrices another collective tool (e.g. SDAI or SCOD).Moreover, a 120+ IQ score represents a partial indication of a creativepotential above the mean, since 1.33+ s.d. IQs are positively correlatedwith creativity.
  13. 13. Further lectures on this topic Paul Cooijmans’ (founder of Glia and GIGA societies) study about high IQ development by age is very useful in the spirit of better understanding the ceiling of our approach:http://www.paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_development_with _age_modelled.htmlThe upper bounds that we have previously estimated are based on my personal experience in the high IQ community, dealing with some gifted and very gifted children and teenagers.
  14. 14. A particular example of IQ growth by age:one highly gifted boy who took a wide set of supervised and high range IQ testsThe next slides refer to a highly gifted friend, previously veryactive in the high IQ community, who took a lot of supervisedand high range IQ tests during his adolescence.His IQ development enables us to understand better thecognitive ability development of a very high IQ teenager.
  15. 15. Taken tests list (converted to σ=15) Month-Year:• RAPM-Set II: raw 35/36, 08-2009;• Isis Test: IQ 156, 08-2009;• Cerebrals International 88 composite Contest 2009: according to Dr. Jouve IQ between 153-161, 08- 2009;• Advanced Spatial Intelligence Test: IQ 147, 07-2009;• Hieroglyphica: IQ 146, 05-2009;• Compactica: IQ 150, 03-2009;• SLSE48: IQ 154, 12-2008;• SLSE I: IQ 148, 12-2008;• Logima Strictica 36: IQ 143, 10-2008;• Cooijmans Intelligence Test: IQ 143, 09-2008;• Exactica: raw 49/80 (±158), 08-2008;• Simplex: IQ 138, 07-2008;• Nemesis Test: IQ 141, 04-2008;• Plane&Space&Numbers: IQ 153, 03-2008;• CFNSE-D: 99.914% (age corrected) 99.89% (adult population), 11-2007;• GET-γ: IQ 144 – age corrected, 08-2007;• The Sùnesis Test: IQ 145.45, 04-2007;• Median nicologic.free.fr: IQ 155, 06-2006. [Average score: IQ 147 (σ =15)] The IQ scores are based on norms by the test author, if available.
  16. 16. age (years) year IQ mean (σ=15) Number of tests taken 11-12 2003 117,0 1 12-13 2004 130,0 1 15-16 2007 145,5 3 16-17 2008 147,3 8 17-18 2009 149,5 4 [My IQ growth has been quite similar to the one above]
  17. 17. An important issue related to very high IQ performances: risk of cheatingMost of the standardized and supervised IQtests are not without risk if we want to use themfor giftedness screening (even if they representthe best choice for average people’s reasoningskills evaluation, or IQ deficit diagnosis).It is regrettable that tests like the WAIS orStanford Binet (every version) are sold at themoment on eBay for €300- €1000.
  18. 18. The results of a search forprofessional IQ tests on eBay
  19. 19. It is a joke to cheat on them, for example, achieving a perfect scoreunder the supervision of a serious psychologist and in front of theMedia too.Last year a famous episode of cheating occurred on the CattellCulture Fair III (form A+B) with a boy who got a perfect score underthe television eye, but that was not able to reach a 130 (σ=15)performance on a similar test. One possible solution, to reduce thisrisk of cheating is to use qualitative high range IQ tests, even ifepisodes of cheating also occur on them (for example the Get-γ testcompromised in 2010).A new idea to create totally culture free numerical IQ tests, which Ihave recently had, is based on a method to construct new integersequences starting from a given and explicit set of sequences.The related solving of problems will be linked to inference andretro-analytical reasoning, similar to the retrograde analysis ofchess problems.
  20. 20. http://spiqrsociety.webs.com/
  21. 21. Work in progress…
  22. 22. Focal points• Gifted students’ screening is very important in order to invest in the future from a meritocratic perspective, gaining individual richness from youths’ talents valorization.• An efficient strategy, to perform a preliminary talent screening, is to look for children’s IQ. For those ones under 10, as a preliminary indicator, it is abstractly possible to adopt an adult IQ test, distinguishing every performance above the adult mean on that test.• The approach previously described assures a cheaper and faster method than administrating WISC-IV for every pupil: a good way to search for creative children and gifted ones. In fact, we can easily discriminate children at or above the canonical gifted level (IQ 2+ s.d. from the mean) setting the Raven’s test to be bound at 120 (σ=15) and the WISC-IV cut-off at 130.
  23. 23. Last specifications• A 120+ IQ could be a good indicator for creative potential by itself and students above 120 would be tested again using different solutions/tools.• If necessary, children who suffer from ceiling effects on the Raven and WISC-IV tests could be investigated again using specifically designed high range IQ tests. To this end, it is essential to keep in mind that “There are all sorts of confounding variables that give rise to differences in scores; therefore, it is always advisable to be skeptical of the results you obtain” [Paul Laurent].• For pupils below 9, we are able to point out related learning disabilities too (dyslexia in primis), without forgetting the possibility that a child with disability could be a very gifted/talented little boy as well.
  24. 24. http://spiqrsociety.webs.com/ marcokrt1984@yahoo.it

×