Wrong word order?

chipmunkis said:
As far as someone in a wheelchair goes, that is too broad. The consideration comes in play with regard to WHY they are in a wheelchair. If someone uses a wheelchair because of a spinal injury then, no, cognition would not be affected. However, someone who uses a wheelchair because of traumatic (either pre or post natal) brain injury, may be affected cognitively or may have difficulties with standardized testing because of both motor issues and because of areas of the brain which may be damaged, which cause difficulties in the ability to perform the requirements of the testing.

My son has CP (neurological/ motor disability) which requires him to use a wheelchair, and has testing done, including IQ testing, every three years because of his disabilities. He is very bright, and scores very high in the areas involving verbal intelligence, perceptual reasoning, and working memory; however he scores very low in areas involving processing speed, due in great part to difficulty for visual scanning and fine motor ability, which results in unreliable scoring.

At the beginning of the results and interpretation of results, his report states "Please note that for the most part, standardized tests are designed for use with typical children and must be interpreted with caution when used with children who have motor/ neurological difficulties."
So, he has the same testing, but it is interpreted slightly differently and can often not result in a reliable overall score.
Click to expand...

Excellent example.
 
I don't think IQ tests have always been specialized to groups. Back in the Stone Age when I took mine (around 1960), I think it was one-size-fits-all, wrongly or rightly. I vaguely remember some controversy, I think during the 70's, about how the test was prejudicial against various ethnic groups and women. Maybe that's when the refinements were begun?
 
chipmunkis said:
As far as someone in a wheelchair goes, that is too broad. The consideration comes in play with regard to WHY they are in a wheelchair. If someone uses a wheelchair because of a spinal injury then, no, cognition would not be affected. However, someone who uses a wheelchair because of traumatic (either pre or post natal) brain injury, may be affected cognitively or may have difficulties with standardized testing because of both motor issues and because of areas of the brain which may be damaged, which cause difficulties in the ability to perform the requirements of the testing.

My son has CP (neurological/ motor disability) which requires him to use a wheelchair, and has testing done, including IQ testing, every three years because of his disabilities. He is very bright, and scores very high in the areas involving verbal intelligence, perceptual reasoning, and working memory; however he scores very low in areas involving processing speed, due in great part to difficulty for visual scanning and fine motor ability, which results in unreliable scoring.

At the beginning of the results and interpretation of results, his report states "Please note that for the most part, standardized tests are designed for use with typical children and must be interpreted with caution when used with children who have motor/ neurological difficulties."
So, he has the same testing, but it is interpreted slightly differently and can often not result in a reliable overall score.
Click to expand...

:gpost:

I'm hearing and use a wheelchair as I was born with spina bifida. I've been tested and scored well on parts of the test and not so great on other parts based on which part of my brain is being affected by the disabling nature of the LD's I have. So, what Jillio is saying is correct. When testing a population, they must factor in that populations ability to interpret what is on the test and modify the test if necessary, so they can get an accurate assessment of that student's abilities.
 
posts from hell said:
for what its worth.. I think IQ tests are BS
Click to expand...

Completely agree.

I'm torn on the issue of accommodating cultural differences. On one hand, as others have pointed out, those stanford binet-type tests are pretty heavily biased towards those raised in/familiar with a very specific cultural environment, learning methodology.

In my child's listening comprehension test, she missed only two questions. Not because she couldn't hear the words, but because we've raised her vegetarian: so when the tester said turkey, she couldn't find a recognizable turkey among the pictures to circle (that plucked, headless mound on a plate didn't look like the turkeys with feathers flapping around out back to her). She circled an arm instead of ham, most likely because she's never seen a carved ham and there was a hand at the end of that arm. Cultural implications of standardizing those tests against a specific culture.

And several studies have shown that you can really game the system simply by practicing those tests, becoming familiar with the test-taking process regardless of the subject matter being tested. But on the other hand, I don't want my child to test 'genius level -- for a deaf kid' (or 'for a girl', or 'for someone who is Chinese', or for 'someone in her socioeconomic bkgrnd', and so on). I don't want there to be any question, even if not valid, that her accomplishments and skills are not being assessed against a common scale.

And then I think, so what, these tests mean NOTHING in real life. Except that they do mean something: children get placed in the most interesting classes if they test as gifted, they get the benefit of the doubt, they get that significant self-esteem kick in the pants and then produce accordingly, their parents support them even more, academically, if they are labelled as having high potential, and so on. So, I love/hate the idea of IQ testing. But it leaves me uncertain whether to support a test geared towards my child's very specific and unusual situation (unusual compared to the typical child, both deaf and hearing). Should she take an IQ test for immigrant children whose English is a second language? Should she take a test for deaf or for hearing children? Should she take a test specific to those with CIs?
 
Last edited:
GrendelQ said:
Completely agree.

I'm torn on the issue of accommodating cultural differences. On one hand, as others have pointed out, those stanford binet-type tests are pretty heavily biased towards those raised in/familiar with a very specific cultural environment, learning methodology.

In my child's listening comprehension test, she missed only two questions. Not because she couldn't hear the words, but because we've raised her vegetarian: so when the tester said turkey, she couldn't find a recognizable turkey among the pictures to circle (that plucked, headless mound on a plate didn't look like the turkeys with feathers flapping around out back to her). She circled an arm instead of ham, most likely because she's never seen a carved ham and there was a hand at the end of that arm. Cultural implications of standardizing those tests against a specific culture.

And several studies have shown that you can really game the system simply by practicing those tests, becoming familiar with the test-taking process regardless of the subject matter being tested. But on the other hand, I don't want my child to test 'genius level -- for a deaf kid' (or 'for a girl', or 'for someone who is Chinese', or for 'someone in her socioeconomic bkgrnd', and so on). I don't want there to be any question, even if not valid, that her accomplishments and skills are not being assessed against a common scale.

And then I think, so what, these tests mean NOTHING in real life. Except that they do mean something: children get placed in the most interesting classes if they test as gifted, they get the benefit of the doubt, they get that significant self-esteem kick in the pants and then produce accordingly, their parents support them even more, academically, if they are labelled as having high potential, and so on. So, I love/hate the idea of IQ testing. But it leaves me uncertain whether to support a test geared towards my child's very specific and unusual situation (unusual compared to the typical child, both deaf and hearing). Should she take an IQ test for immigrant children whose English is a second language? Should she take a test for deaf or for hearing children? Should she take a test specific to those with CIs?
Click to expand...

Are you listening to yourself?
 
Beowulf said:
Are you listening to yourself?
Click to expand...

Your point? She is an immigrant with English as a second language. She's deaf. She can hear when wearing her CIs. Some argue that these groups should have distinct tests.
 
GrendelQ said:
Your point? She is an immigrant with English as a second language.
Click to expand...

You agreed with PFH that all intelligence tests are bs. Then why give her one? Are you not happy with her intelligence?
 
Beowulf said:
You agreed with PFH that all intelligence tests are bs. Then why give her one? Are you not happy with her intelligence?
Click to expand...

I don't think they accurately reflect intelligence. I think they are biased. I've not given her one. I think she's positively brilliant.

But I care about what her test results will be. She's going to be tested in school. It's going to have an impact on her placement, on how others perceive her, and on how she perceives herself, as I mentioned.
 
GrendelQ said:
Your point? She is an immigrant with English as a second language. She's deaf. She can hear when wearing her CIs. Some argue that these groups should have distinct tests.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. I don't think that my child should have a "special test" because she lost her hearing due to a doctor's error. She is equal to a hearing person...I thought they did away with "separate but equal" because it was inherently unequal. Why is it assumed that because she is female or deaf or WHATEVER that she will score LESS?

My daughter has been tested and she was tested by a professional who is extremely experienced in testing deaf and hoh kids. She gave us results but she never once said "She scored X when compared to other deaf people".
 

posts from hell said:
It's definitely not because of her deafness. :)

Otherwise I would be writing like her.
Click to expand...

Yours is an anecdotal experience, same as the OP. It's not enough to warrant representation of all population. If Jiro is korean, does he represent all koreans? Hell no, he is one lazy korean. :cool:

There are a bunch of tangents that are being discussed in this thread, and frankly they need to be split up by what we're discussing them by.

Examples:
Grammar structure, spelling/alphabetical replication of the word, word awareness/concept/usage, phoneme awareness.

I've read peer-to-peer reviews of this subject.. because it's an interesting subject. basically implications in the discussion sections for many of them come out tantamount to something like this, GENERALLY speaking.. not on an individual case by case basis:



Deaf (profoundly): best concept of word usage, bad in phonemic understanding, good in spelling, grammar is a touchy subject and often there are discussions to why their grammar is not "the best".

Hearing: worst in spelling, worst in word recognition, but best in phoneme awareness (obviously).

Hard of hearing, with enough hearing to retain normal communication with Hearing folks: overall well rounded, performs better than deaf in some and better than hearing in other concepts.

If you still have access to search database articles, I would highly recommend something like that other than just throwing things around in loops arguing semantics.
 
GrendelQ said:
I don't think they accurately reflect intelligence. I think they are biased. I've not given her one. I think she's positively brilliant.

But I care about what her test results will be. She's going to be tested in school. It's going to have an impact on her placement, on how others perceive her, and on how she perceives herself, as I mentioned.
Click to expand...

That is very reasonable, and my apologies for jumping the gun.
 
naisho said:



Yours is an anecdotal experience, same as the OP. It's not enough to warrant representation of all population. If Jiro is korean, does he represent all koreans? Hell no, he is one lazy korean. :cool:

There are a bunch of tangents that are being discussed in this thread, and frankly they need to be split up by what we're discussing them by.

Examples:
Grammar structure, spelling/alphabetical replication of the word, word awareness/concept/usage, phoneme awareness.

I've read peer-to-peer reviews of this subject.. because it's an interesting subject. basically implications in the discussion sections for many of them come out tantamount to something like this, GENERALLY speaking.. not on an individual case by case basis:



Deaf (profoundly): best concept of word usage, bad in phonemic understanding, good in spelling, grammar is a touchy subject and often there are discussions to why their grammar is not "the best".

Hearing: worst in spelling, worst in word recognition, but best in phoneme awareness (obviously).

Hard of hearing, with enough hearing to retain normal communication with Hearing folks: overall well rounded, performs better than deaf in some and better than hearing in other concepts.

If you still have access to search database articles, I would highly recommend something like that other than just throwing things around in loops arguing semantics.
Click to expand...

:)

Yeah, I was just wanting to make it clear that deafness by itself doesn't cause bad english. Its how others approach educating the deaf on english.
 
Beowulf said:
That is very reasonable, and my apologies for jumping the gun.
Click to expand...

No need, I had rambled a bit about my thought process (which is always tangled :) ), so I see that I could have been much more clear.
 
faire_jour said:
I'm with you. I don't think that my child should have a "special test" because she lost her hearing due to a doctor's error. She is equal to a hearing person...I thought they did away with "separate but equal" because it was inherently unequal. Why is it assumed that because she is female or deaf or WHATEVER that she will score LESS?

My daughter has been tested and she was tested by a professional who is extremely experienced in testing deaf and hoh kids. She gave us results but she never once said "She scored X when compared to other deaf people".
Click to expand...

If deafness does not affect cognition and test results, why would you need to have her assessed by someone who is very experienced in dealing with deaf and hoh kids? That is completely contradictory to your assumption that deafness does not affect cognition.
 
GrendelQ said:
I don't think they accurately reflect intelligence. I think they are biased. I've not given her one. I think she's positively brilliant.

But I care about what her test results will be. She's going to be tested in school. It's going to have an impact on her placement, on how others perceive her, and on how she perceives herself, as I mentioned.
Click to expand...

And your untrained, unprofessional assessment of her being "positively brilliant" is not biased?

Yes, she will be tested for placement. And if she is not tested properly, she could very well end up sith a score that indicates that she is borderline MR. I have seen it happen. When the child is retested appropriately, score are more accurate according to actual functioning, and the borderline result is negated.
 
posts from hell said:
:)

Yeah, I was just wanting to make it clear that deafness by itself doesn't cause bad english. Its how others approach educating the deaf on english.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And it is also that approach that influences testing results.
 
I have a question out of curiosity.. if there was a standardized test specifically for the deaf, what would happen if a hearing person took this test? Would they also score "differently" just as the deaf scores differently on the current IQ test?
 
Back
Top