Taking several IQ tests.

From some of the comments I see all over the internet, it is clear that some parents of gifted children - or non-gifted children - get their children to take several IQ tests. I even hear of children being tested every six months or so. Is this a useful practice and what are the dangers?

Well, IQ is supposed to be quite stable throughout life, that is, it shouldn't change much. So, it does seem unnecessary to keep on taking tests. In some cases the parents appear to have children who are less than official cut-offs for gifted programmes - perhaps they are hoping that a "good" test, will take them over the threshold. In others, there seems to be a perception that the child's progress needs to be tracked in this way.

Whatever the motivation for this repeated testing, there is a common danger, which posts also reveal. There is a tendency among some school systems and a large number of professionals to judge the child on the LOWEST test result. I find this absurd, for it has no sound reasoning behind it. They seem to think that the child's "true" ability is measured by their least performance. This doesn't make sense. There are many reasons why a child could under-perform on a particular day: tired, bored, unmotivated, resistant to the test, ill - etc. There are any number of reasons why under-performance could occur - but what reasons could there be for OVER-performance? What is going to make a child perform above the level of their intelligence? Nothing at all - unless they have done a particular test before, quite recently, in which case there will be an increase from familiarity with the test. (Which is why frequent testing on a particular instrument is frowned upon - and often discounted.) Apart from this possible influence, there is nothing that can make a child do better than they should have done - but there are many things that could make a child under-perform.

Given this background, it is clear that those practitioners and school systems that insist on judging a child on the lowest test result are guilty of an injustice. Their reasoning does not make sense. A child's true ability will be closer to the HIGHEST test result obtained - unless that test result was obtained from multiple testing of the same instrument in quick succession (which could raise it a little, but not much).

So, if you have more than one IQ test result and a school system is judging your child - point out the logic above. A child can easily under-perform - but there is just no way they can over-perform.

Then again, if they don't listen to you and you continue to test multiply it is clear that you will decrease the lowest test result obtained - because you will have more chance of catching your child on an off day. Thus the more frequently you test, the more results you will get - and the more chance you will have that one of them will be unusually low, for whatever reason. Ironically, therefore, those who test their child multiply are exposing their child to the risk of being underestimated.

Ratio IQ and developmental markers

Ratio IQ is the ratio of the mental age to the chronological age multiplied by 100. It was the original measurement of IQ and provided very useful information since it acted as an indicator of something tangible: the mental age of the subject.

How do we calculate mental age? Well, the standard approach is to look for markers characteristic of particular ages and use these as a guide to the appropriate ratio. This was a technique frequently used to create estimates of a subjects mental age and thus ratio IQ. If the behaviour is typical of 10 years old and the subject is 5, then the ratio is 2 and the ratio IQ is 200. It is a simple and effective way to get an idea of how relatively bright a subject is.

In the prior post, I used the developmental markers of Ainan's academic interests, and abilities as well as his O level exam as markers of where he stands. Some people have made it clear that they don't understand the calculation. It is a straightforward one. All I have done is analyze what mental age a typical person would need to have to perform the tasks that Ainan performs. Then I have divided this by his actual age at the time he was doing the task, to get an estimate of his ratio IQ. This is a time-honoured technique and not one made up by me on the spot. It was used by psychometricians seeking an estimate of the IQs of dead geniuses, who could not be examined in other ways and has a long pedigree of producing interesting data about people.

Developmental markers of ALL kinds are typically advanced in gifted subjects. The gifted walk earlier, talk earlier, read earlier, do interesting things earlier than non-gifted subjects. In a very real sense this increased rate of development is fundamental to what it means to be gifted. A gifted child is, mentally speaking, an older child than their age might suggest. This is not readily understood by many people unfamiliar with the characteristics of the gifted child.

Ainan's developmental markers were all very advanced...suggesting a very high ratio IQ. There is no controversy about the ratio IQ estimate in the post below since it is in agreement with all of his other markers: time of first speech, time of crawling, time of walking, time of reading etc...are all suggestive of a high ratio IQ.

I hope that helps people understand ratio IQ a bit better.

Try the estimate for yourself. Look at the developmental markers of people you know either in person, or in history. Compare those markers to the average developmental time. Work out a ratio. Multiply it by 100 and you will have a ratio IQ.

I might post more on this topic another day.

Have a good day, all.

(If you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and four months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three and Tiarnan, fourteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children and gifted adults in general. Thanks.)

The Flynn Effect: are we all getting smarter?

For decades now, the average IQ of people has been on the rise, at mean rate of one third of a point per year. That is 3 points per decade. So, are we all getting smarter, then?

The short answer is no. You see the question is, for whom is the tally rising?

Research indicates that the mean IQ is rising because the IQ of those who are in the lower segment of the population is increasing. The higher up you go on the IQ scale, the less the IQ is improving. For very high IQ types, it is isn't budging, decade on decade.

Now, this presents us with a very real problem. You see, IQ tests are regularly "re-normed" to take account of this average rise...and these rising scores are reset to 100. Thus IQ points vanish, in this adjustment. This would not matter were the change in IQ the same across all IQs - but it isn't. High IQs are not really changing - but do the norms take account of this? From what I have read, and understand, the test takers are adjusting the test results, assuming that the Flynn Effect is a universal phenomenon. Since it isn't...what effect does "re-norming" have. Well, as you might have guessed, it artificially depresses the IQs of people in the upper ranges.

So, again, we have identified a source of IQ score depression for the most gifted, introduced into modern tests.

With all of these score depressing effects, (see my previous post The Great IQ Con) preferentially exerted on the most gifted, it seems that, ultimately, modern IQ tests are being designed by people who either have an agenda, or are themselves pretty stupid. Perhaps it is both, since you would have to be pretty stupid to have an agenda against the brightest among us.

What can we conclude from all of this? Well, it seems sure that whatever uses are intended for modern IQ tests, getting a true measure of the intelligence of the most intelligent is not one of them. The tests are quite useless for that - in fact, the typical modern test will give a very distorted picture of anyone who roves into the highly gifted territory and beyond. This obviously can have significant impacts on whether or not these children receive appropriate education, or not. In all, it is quite a serious issue.

The Great IQ Con

Perhaps you have taken an IQ test. Perhaps you scored well. Perhaps you think you know your IQ, then. It is probable that you don't, however.

You see IQ tests don't behave in the way that people expect. They don't actually measure the upper ranges of humanity very well, at all. In fact, they are a source of much mismeasure. The modern IQ test isn't equipped to ascertain the most gifted among us at all - in fact, it is almost as if they are designed to hide them. Perhaps that is exactly what is happening.

I should explain. Everyone has heard the phrase "ceiling effects" - but there is much more to it than this. Firstly, when do ceiling effects invalidate the test result? One researcher put it that if you have answered 90% of the test items then that test cannot measure your IQ. The result is invalid. Indeed, an IQ test can only give an accurate result if you are able only to answer HALF the questions. The higher your point of failure to answer is above that, the less accurate the result will be.

When else might we see ceiling effects? If you scored in the 99th percentile on ANY subtest, then that test is, more than likely, underestimating your score. It cannot determine how much beyond that score you would have scored in a test with a higher ceiling. This is important to note. Just because this has happened, does not mean your score - or your child's score would have been astronomically beyond the ceiling - it might be in the right place after all - but it is more than likely that it is an underestimate - and it could be a very great discrepancy indeed. There is no way of knowing.

That seems bad enough. But wait until you hear about what they do to the "norming". Did you know that the number of extremely gifted individuals is higher than expected for a normal distribution of intelligence? Did you also know that the number of extremely intellectually impaired individuals is much higher than expected too? In a rational profession, given to promoting truth, above convenience or dogma, you would have thought that psychologists would acknowledge this...but no. What do IQ tests do? They eliminate the phenomenon by cheating the test.

What I mean by this is that the norms of the test impose an artificial correction of the results to eliminate the unexpectedly high number of extremely gifted scorers. They "compress" the upper scoring range to fit a normal curve, artificially "re-norming" or depressing high scores. Basically, modern psychometric tests steal IQ points from you, by pretending those points don't exist: they are simply squashed out of existence.

How many points are lost in this fashion? I have seen one estimate, by a psychologist not happy about the situation, placing the discrepancy at 25 points, for high scorers. This means someone who would have scored 180 - and been labelled "profoundly gifted" - may be renormed to score 155 - a much more common seeming score.

In practice, how much discrepancy do all these effects add up to? Prepare to be shocked - but first place an estimate on it yourself and see just how honest and fair to the gifted population modern psychometric testing is.

Got a number?

Well, the measured difference on real life test cases between some extremely gifted children measured on old style tests, with higher ceilings - and modern tests with much lower ceilings is - an unbelievable 85 to 107 IQ points.

That means something very clear. The most gifted segment of the population will not now be identifiable - but will score similarly to those who are moderately or slightly more gifted.

One real life example scored 120 points on a WISC test. The same person scored 220 on an old Stanford Binet LM. Now, that is disturbing. For the child would not have been admitted to a gifted program on the basis of the first score - yet was clearly very profoundly gifted when measured on a test with a higher ceiling.

Remember this: you DON'T have to score at the top of a test, to be affected by the ceiling. Ceiling effects get stronger the closer you get to the end of the test - but make the test totally invalid by the time 90 per cent of the test items are answered. Yet, long before that point, they could be making a significant difference to the results.

IQ is not what it was - and it never was what we thought it was, anyway. What a con.