There are many conflicting beliefs about what it means to be gifted. One popular table I have seen at several conference presentations includes the phrase ?Smart children answer questions. Gifted children question answers.? It is a cute expression, but it does a disservice to all involved. As with any children, there are learning styles issues. Some gifted children prefer to have explicit answers to specific questions. Others prefer more open-ended inquiry, and will continue to chase down deeper and deeper levels of the material, neither expecting nor desiring a conclusion. For some of them, it is a matter of the subject at hand. They pursue deeply their passions while leaving the less riveting topics at a very superficial level. To lump these children together in a single pot is unfair, unwise, and unproductive.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens in some IQ testing design and interpretation. The most widely used IQ tests for children place a heavy emphasis on speed. There is a fairly common assumption that gifted children are faster than non-gifted children. Therefore, if the child does not perform as swiftly on an IQ test, the child must not be particularly gifted. Even setting aside (for one more issue) the question of Learning Disabilities, this still does not make sense. While there are gifted children who are blinding quick in their responses or their assessments of situations, there are other equally but differently gifted children who deliberate before offering thoughts and ideas. They wish/need to think the matter through prior to delivering an opinion or answer.

Another major problem with IQ testing arises from the results themselves. I’m going to talk primarily about the WISC III or Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 3rd Edition, though most of my comments have applicability to several other tests. The WISC III was not designed to test for giftedness, nor to test gifted children. It works fairly well to find potential learning issues in about 90% of the population, but not nearly so well in the gifted group. There are a few contributing factors in this, but the largest, in my opinion, has to do with low ceilings.

What I mean by low ceilings is that the test fails to discriminate between children above a certain level. Imagine trying to use a yardstick to measure people’s height – but you can only apply it once. The tallest any individual could be would be 3 feet. Beyond that, you would note that he or she had exceeded the test and was '3 ft.+.' The WISC III stops at 6’ 8" or so. Shaquille O’Neal and Andre the Giant would both be listed at 6’ 10"+. So would the Empire State Building!

In addition, the scores below the peak are frequently depressed because the sub-tests also have ceilings, ceilings that are set lower than that of the over all test. If a child tests at or near the highest achievable level on two or more sub-tests, there is good reason to suspect that the ?Full Scale? result is lower than the child’s true potential in this area. This is without considering whatever other strengths of the child might not be evaluated by an IQ test.

Why, given all the problems I have addressed here, do I still believe that testing can be very useful? The WISC III, for all its flaws, can be a powerful tool, especially in the hands of a competent tester. It can help to identify both strengths and weakness, highlight areas that need further examination, and point you in directions previously unconsidered. I highly recommend the Web site: www.hoagiesgifted.org for more information about this and many other topics.