My seven year old son was administered an IQ test last week. We got the results back yesterday an have an appointment to talk about them tomorrow. I'm kind of ticked off because I'm pretty sure they didn't administer the test properly.
The test was broken into four sections and his scores in the four areas were as follows; 92 percentile, 79, 7 & 2 percentile. He's never had any head trauma nor does he have any chromosomal disorders. I look at these results and I see a kid who clearly quit the test. Yet, from what I understand, they already have plans to have him work with biofeedback tools to get him to better utilize certain parts of his brain.
I think they should be more interested in retesting the low sections to at least confirm that he didn't get burned out. After all, the test took around two hours with only short breaks between each section. I realize I may just be too stubborn to believe my son has some severe intellectual deficiencies, but I also think it's legitimate to be suspicious of such discrepancies. What the heck do you guys think?
At your son's age, anything over 30 mins is going to cause his mind to wander. Those intelligence tests are overrated. I generally did well on them, and was often in the top percentiles, but I didn't apply myself in school, and am behind a lot of "less smart" classmates. There are many people of average intelligence whose work ethic will carry them far beyond those lazy persons with high IQs. My advice: Teach your son a work ethic, don't worry overly much about the scores (which sound like you said; he got bored), and tell those busybody test-people to back the F off!
How do you IQ test someone who's brain is still developing. Since brains do not develope the same way in any two individuals. I am very interested in child psychology, this is a waste of time.
If you go to the interview. I would suggest you question the validity of the test. Who designed it and who sponsored it. As well as the reason for administrating it in the first place.
The retards that give these tests have zero idea what they are doing. Very few parents will understand the insignificance of these tests. Many however will start to treat their childern differently and this is not a good thing.
you expect him to walk in and question the validity of the test...by what means? he doesnt know a thing about these tests. im sure these "retards" who desgined it know a bit more about it than he or you do.
The problem here is that you're assuming that the people who administer these tests interpret the results the same way that people talk about them casually. If the person knows that they are doing, this is not the case.
There is no such thing as "IQ." It's a made up construct. What an "IQ" will tell you is how one person's scores compare to a comparison group (a normed sample from the population that was used after test development).
So if someone scores a 115 on a test, all that says is that person did better than most (better than a certain percentage). It would be incorrect to make any concrete judgments about a person's intelligence.
Absolutely I'm going to question the validity of it, or at least the way it was administered. When they see a huge drop off from one section to another, especially with a young child whose attention span may be short, they should stop the test and resume later. Stopping the test was an option. I know it was because the woman administering it said "we'll see if we can get through it in one session".
Also, I'm not certain, but my impression is the first section was the 92 and each section got lower. That may be just a coincidence but it looks like diminishing interest to me.
From the spread you posted it sounds like your theory is pretty reasonable. Some of the biofeedback stuff is geared towards improving the ability to sustain attention and if your theory is right then this might be appropriate. I say might because I don't know how strong the evidence is for efficacy here.
I've gotta ask though, what were the areas corresponding to those scores? I've known enough people who were brilliant, say, mathematically, but borderline retarded when it came to writing ability. There are also people who have the reverse issue. It is worth investigating this to figure out if it's a false alarm or not. The brain at that age is quite malleable and if there is an underlying issue then it would pay over the long run to work on it early.
and what are you going to make of what they tell you? do you have a background in childhood development, psychology, or medicine? if you dont think your kid is the level of intelligence the test says he is you dont have to believe it. so long as he makes good grades i dont see what difference it makes either way. im just saying you may bite off a little more than you can chew trying to argue with these people.
i understand everyone thinks that since they know more than the average personal trainer they should question every single method out there but the people who develop these tests didnt do a 2 week course, they probaly went to school for 10 years.
Okay, well I can tell you that it's generally a valid test. What may be invalid is administration of the test or interpretation of test results.
Someone who is well-trained and knows what they're doing would be well-aware of the possible alternate explanations that you've mentioned (losing interest in the test, fatigue, lack of attention, etc.). The problem is that a score is a score, and any interpretation of why someone obtained a score gets very subjective. Like I said, all one can say is what score someone obtained, which represents how they did to the general population of others the same age.
I'd also be interested in hearing, as someone else suggested, if there's a pattern of strengths/weaknesses on the test that make sense, like a strength with verbal information and memory but weakness in perceptual reasoning and processing speed. Scores that discrepant are very rare, but who knows.
Did you go to a reputable place to get this done? Was it done at school? There are so many unqualified people out there doing this stuff. I'd also second the concern about how much evidence there is out there about biofeedback. Learning and school stuff is not my specialty, but in my field, biofeedback is generally regarded as a joke. I don't know if it differs in other areas, though.