for the record, I said 'not dumb' i.e. - the non-verbal tests show that our kids are NOT dumb :). My point was, that some of these articles, to me, sort of ignore the fact that language ability is actually kind of important, and depending on how you define it, an integral part of intelligence (i.e. if your definition of intelligence is academic aptitude, then language is pretty important - even if it's written language not spoken). The problem is trying to measure an undefined and possibly undefinable attribute - doesn't make sense to me. IQ tests, I believe, were defined to measure potential academic success (a long time ago), so that's the definition that I generally have in mind in dicussions like this - potential for academic success, assuming mainstream accomodations - not 'intelligence' - because I don't see how that can be measured.
Apologies for the use of the word dumb - but that's how the lay public often perceive kids with significant language issues, unfortuneately, mine included. It's good that there are intelligence tests that show otherwise, even with the reservations I have on their practicility.
I didn't mean to offend - I'll bow out of this discussion now.
Hey, as someone who was pegged as "gifted," and expected to perform like it in ALL AREAS, from like age 4 on ... I too HATE IQ! It is dehumanizing to reduce a person to one -- or five -- or seven, numbers.
And as I am learning through this journey ... SCATTER nullifies composite IQ. Most people have strengths and weaknesses!
I personally don't like the word "dumb" or "stupid" (no offense, fred). Unless you use it to refer to someone who can't talk (i.e. mute), which I don't. We just don't use it in our house - there are consequences if it is used. This goes for any child who comes into our house as well (well, not the consequences part - but I do talk to their parent about it if it's used - just to let them know about our rule). Most parents I know feel the same way (this goes for parents of NT kids as well as kids on the spectrum).
fred, I didn't take offense at your post - but I just think that none of our kids are "dumb" or "stupid". They may have challenges in learning, but all of them have something that makes them special. I do know what you mean though - it proves to the SCHOOL and to others what you have thought all along - that they are not in the MR range as they had previously tested. Which I'm sure is a relief.
Personally, I don't like IQ measures. My understanding was that IQ tests often only measure what a child has learned. But it is used also to predict their potential as well. And parents often mis-use it as well. If your child has a 150 IQ but isn't potty-trained at age 5 or can't tie his shoes at age 9 - IQ isn't necessarily a measure of future success. I don't think there really IS a good measure of future success. We have a friend who is severely dyslexic and teachers thought he would never succeed. He went on to get his Ph.D. and works at a high-up position in a pharmaceutical company making well over six figures. Not that that will happen with our kids, necessarily - just an example of how you can't always predict what will happen when our kids are so young.
Now ending this novel-length rambling response...
fred - I agree that the IQ measure doesn't work very well. And, I know you said "not dumb" but it still implies that then others are dumb - which is what I think autumn took offense to. See - a language thing!
Linda, I too was pegged as "gifted" and am seriously uncoordinated physically. I'm also particularly bad at word problems like "if a train takes off from one station going 20 mph and another takes off from another station goint 40 mph and they both take off at 6 pm ...." anyway, you get the drift. I HATE those things and I got a perfect score on the ACT in math (they didn't have any word problems that year I guess!).
Just don't like IQ scores, I guess...
no offense taken Fred, I think you are NEAT and always enjoy reading your posts and hearing about your three children -
Autumn Andrew scored 50 too, I think it was 54. He was a little over 4 at the time. And the school psych said it was a nonverbal test, cause I questioned rather or not it was testing into his speech disability. She threw the score out. I was happy about that. We do not believe he is MR. he scored high on the other test I can't remember the name of but is common and compares them to their peers I think. They came back slightly delayed everywhere except speech, which came back significantly delayed. In the scholastic part they came out ahead of their peers. I couldn't figure out how he can be ahead of his peers on things like the alphabet and numbers and colors yet be MR.
Fred writes". At least it does reveal that they are not 'dumb' -"
Ouch! My little guy scores 50, so I guess he would be put as 'dumb'.
However, he can quote the alphabet forward and backward, and sign it as well. He can name every musical instrument known to man, including a saku hatchi and a dumebach - and tell you what category it lies in - stringed, brass, etc. He can name every president on a coin or bill, as well as name, by sight cards, many birds, leaves and world leaders. On the other hand he is not potty trained, is just starting to use utensils, and cannot tell you when he does not feel good.
I think my guy is not only gorgeous, but one of the 'smartest 'little kiddos around!
Very interesting:) Never heard of Raven and I bet the school hasnt either..wonder if this is something the dev. ped is knowlegable on? Something worth checking out! In Feb my son scored an 89 on the Weschler, but the school psychologist said that she had to "exceed the boundaries of the test" to get anything out of him and that it wasn't really a valid test. In C's case that meant restating the instructions multiple times and in multiple ways to get him to understand what to do. The psychologist felt that if she hadn't adapted anything then he would have scored MR, but they knew that he was not. Last month I took C for a private neuropsych evaluation and she gave him the UNIT (Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test). He scored a 108. He was very cooperative with the testing and seemed to enjoy it. No adaptations were made. We think this is a much more accurate reflection of his IQ. At 4.0, Abigails full scale IQ on a regular IQ tests was 84 and Evie's was 96. They both scored ~20 points higher on the non-verbal portion. At 3.0, they were both in the MR range, so the have been making progress over time (as their language develops, not surprisingly). I would like to think that their scores were under-represented due to their language difficulties at the time (at 4.0, there language was more delayed than it is now). Abigail, especially, seems brighter now than she was at 4.0 - she can do puzzles better than her sister, can read and draw just as well (though she was lagging in both of these skills until recently). Their academic skills have always been rated as advanced for their age, so I hope that means that there pedestrian IQs (especially Abbies) don't represent a true measure of their intelligence. On the other hand, I think it's kind of self-serving to ignore the language processing component of intelligence tests - pretend that it doesn't exist so that are kids can score as well as their peers. I mean, language processing is kind of important for academic success, and that's what these tests are designed to measure - potential academic success, but I could be wrong. At least it does reveal that they are not 'dumb' - and that if teaching methods can be used that don't rely so much on language processing, then they're as capable as any other student in many areas. [QUOTE=WIMomOf2]Norway Mom - I think I'm going to copy this article and give it to the principal of our school. Perhaps it will help convince the district to administer the Raven Matrices, rather than the WISC.[/QUOTE] The trick being, getting them to pay for the test -- AND for the training of the test adminsitrator, for a limited number of students in need ... you might be better off getting the SD to let someone else do the testing, who already have bought a license? http://www.autism-pdd.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12754&am p;KW=myth I thought I'd revive the subject by posting this new article from www.autism.about.com. If you don't want to read the whole article, this excerpt sums it up: "The difference between their scores on the WISC and the Raven's test was striking: For example, not a single autistic child scored in the "high intelligence" range of the WISC, yet fully a third did on the Raven's. Similarly, a third of the autistics had WISC scores in the mentally retarded range, whereas only one in 20 scored that low on the Raven's test. The normal kids had basically the same results on both tests." I bet very few of the kids connected with the forum have actually been given the Ravens. My son got Wechsler's preschool version (WPPSI) and the Leiter (nonverbal, but didn't really help when my son was distracted and uncooperative). Anyhow, here's the whole article: The idea was that the autistic kids' true intelligence might shine through if they could bypass the language deficit. And that's exactly what happened.
The difference between their scores on the WISC and the Raven's test was striking: For example, not a single autistic child scored in the "high intelligence" range of the WISC, yet fully a third did on the Raven's. Similarly, a third of the autistics had WISC scores in the mentally retarded range, whereas only one in 20 scored that low on the Raven's test. The normal kids had basically the same results on both tests. A Reuters article, entitled Bright Autistic Kids Misunderstood, lays out all the details. Among other points, it states that a particular IQ test, called the Raven Progressive Matrices, is a far better tool than the usual Wechsler or Vineland IQ tests.
Interested in learning more? You can read the actual poster presentation online. It's called The Nature of Autistic Intelligence, and its well worth a quick read. It may offer parents a very useful tool for improving their children's educational options. So...what happened in the intervening year? Did the good folks at the University of Montreal simply miss the AAAS research, the Reuters article, and the poster presentation? Since they're clearly in the same field with the same interests, it seems hard to believe. Yet today's findings are presented as if they were a brand-new breakthrough in psychology.
More importantly for our children and for adults on the autism spectrum - why is a standardized test like the Raven Matrices, which was not developed for autistic people but for people in general, NOT being used to test our children's intelligence? Why, instead, are they STILL being subjected to tests which are obviously inappropriate - and then judged, placed, and educated on the basis of the results?
My own son went through the WISC and was found to be signficantly mentally retarded. I asked the psychologist who tested him how it was possible that a then-9-year-old with significant retardation could be reading, writing, doing math, playing piano, and generally showing clear signs of ability. Her response was that, evidently, the test had not been appropriate to the child. I asked about Raven, and was told that the test was not available to her. This psychologist works for a county agency in Pennsylvania - one of the better autism programs in one of the better autism states in the US. How much worse much the situation be in other places in the US and abroad?
Have you or has your child been given the Raven matrices as opposed to WISC or Vineland? Are things in fact any different or better in the UK, Australia, Canada, or elsewhere? <end article> Source: www.autism.about.com article from Sunday August 5, 2007 I agree with Fred in that language is very important, and that IQ is not the be-all-end-all. And IQ is definitely not a predictor of success in life. There have been a number of posts where Tzoya discussed how she knows many MR kids that have jobs and fit into the world better than her higher IQ ASD son. However, here is my logic for getting the non-verbal test. You may or may not agree with me, but this is my thought process. IQ numbers are clearly important to the school system, otherwise they wouldn't be testing our kids all the time. We may not think it means alot, but they certainly do - whether they admit it or not. If they didn't think it was relevant they wouldn't do the tests at all. For right or wrong, IQ numbers can set expectations in the mind of educators and therapists as to what a child should or should not be able to do given their level of intelligence as measured the only way they know how to measure, which is standardized tests. I want to make sure that my child is being appropriately challenged and that the school doesn't sell short his potential because of a number. I've heard of cases where an educator might not try to teach a child a certain skill because of a wrong assumption that a child of that IQ level wouldn't be expected to be able to learn that skill. When educators are determining classroom placements, they typically put children with like needs together and IQ is one of the factors they consider, along with other test scores plus more qualitative assessments. If the school is going to use the IQ number as a factor in their decision making process for how to best provide an appropriate education for C, I'd like to make sure we have the most accurate number possible. So I went for the nonverbal IQ test and I now have a number that I think is an accurate reflection of his abilities and I'm comfortable with. C's language is improving leaps and bounds and I'm confident that in a few years we'll see his scores on a standard, verbal IQ test start to look more similar to the non-verbal IQ test results we've received. Very good point, Kristys. When we went over my son's scores with the school, I made sure to emphasize that they should not be treated as a limit on his potential, but as an indicator of his current performance. Luckily, it seems that the school agrees. Karolysgirl, great line about too much testing and not enough teaching. You sound like a great advocate for the kids. Back in February, I started a topic about the myth of virtually all children with autism being retarded. Here's the link:
Once Again, the World Discovers That People with Autism Are Bright But Different
Led by psychologist Laurent Mottron of the University of Montreal, the team gave both autistic kids and normal kids two of the most popular IQ tests used in schools. The two tests are both highly regarded, but they are very different. The so-called WISC relies heavily on language, which is why the psychologists were suspicious of it. The other, known as the Raven's Progressive Matrices, is considered the preeminent test of what's called "fluid intelligence," that is, the ability to infer rules, to set and manage goals, to do high-level abstractions. Basically the test presents arrays of complicated patterns with one missing, and test takers are required to choose the one that would logically complete the series. The test demands a good memory, focused attention and other "executive skills," but--unlike the WISC--it doesn't require much language.
When I read this article, I had a sudden sense of deja vu, and went back to my prior blogs. It turns out that I announced exactly this same information, and a very similar research project, in February of 2006:
In not very surprising news, it turns out that standard IQ tests are lousy tools for measuring the intelligence of autistic individuals. In fact, say researchers presenting at conference sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, standard IQ tests may lower our kids' scores by 30 IQ points or more.
The same questions were asked and the same research tools were used - more than a year apart - to come to precisely the same findings: that people with autism are just as bright as any other group of people, but that they think differently.
the neuropsyche. My son however does not do that badly on the WISC. It
could however be his age right now.Fantastic article
Hmmm, The Vineland is NOT an IQ test, it is the test of Adaptive Behaviors. Mistakes like this make me question reporting, but I am glad there are better and better IQ tests being developed. I was taught in graduate school that all IQ tests use vocabulary as the baseline- a useless measure for someone without vocabulary.
I don't believe that statement was meant to apply to nonverbal IQ tests, but even the nonverbals have to rely on some receptive language.
Once again, I have to say loudly to all of my colleagues, "Let's quit testing so much and start teaching."
Donna Williams an adult with autism who has written many books, and has a university degree admits to scoring under 70 on IQ tests. She is married, drives a car and runs a consultancy business. Liz Check out her website sometime or read one of her books.
Copyright Autism-PDD.net