Can I name a name and ask for feedback?

[salondon]

Its for a paediatrician. Private paid

Salondon
My msg was a bit brief because of time pressure - to be more specific - the standard IQ tests only start at 3 years and are more inaccurate at the extremes of age in any case. Below 3y 11m the WPPSi is very basic-only a very few assessments - and in my experience results can change dramatically over time even when the child was verbal and able to respond well and grasp instructions from the WPPSI earliest stage (which goes up to 3y 11m, compared with results on the more extensive WPPSI which goes up to age 7y 2m). The BAS early years is a bit more comprehensive but really requires verbal comprehension for any kind of a fair test, and the comprehension of key concepts. For example the child is given toys and asked to 'give me the one that tells the time' or 'give me all the animals' (from a selection), or on one of the non-verbal tests they are asked to 'make one just the same as this' (so if they don't have a concept linguistically of 'copy this' or 'make one the same' they are unlikely to score, but not necessarily because they are unable to build with blocks, but because of a missing linguistic comprehension). Most EPs will do observation and / or play based assessments with younger or non-verbal children, most often observing a familiar adult playing in a more natural way because that gives the best likelihood that the child will do what they normally do (lots of preschoolers can be very 'shy' and refuse to perform for strangers). We normally do joint visits with our portage workers in my LA. We have lots of 'age equivalencies' for play based tasks so an approximate age equivalemce can be given for play at different levels (eg the way a child plays with nesting and stcking beakers or looks at a book chnages in typically developing children from, say, 1 year to 18 months to 2y to 2.5 to 3years, similarly pre-communication skills etc). In this way we can give parents some idea of where their children are up to developmentally, but IMO it would be at best potentially inaccurate and at worst quite difficult to justify using a formal IQ test in a very small child who has clear delayed language skills.

I am guessing that the ABA people will have baseline tested in quite some detail, it might be possible to ask for age equivalent scores for their assessments? (though I don't think they usually worry too much about age equivalents, just in moving children on from their starting point wherever that might be).

Hope this is clearer and explains my PP in a bit more detail.

Following on from ilikemysleep's post, Our ABA provider does WPPSI and Vineland behavioural questionnaire to get a baseline at the start of the program. There is also VB-MAPP as well which could be done by your ABA consultant.

Dev9, that is interesting as WPPSI is a restricted test (for psychologists) so I think it would depend on the background of the ABA provider. I would be very cautious in using those scores as any kind of measure of 'IQ' though, although I suppose you could assess dynamically. You certainly shouldn't be claiming any improvement in IQ because the problem in the first test would not be that the child was 'less intelligent' but that they were previously unable to access the standard test format. So the child is better able to access (which is a good thing in itself, but different from having got more intelligent).

From what I remember of my son's non-verbal IQ test at age 3, it was about how much he understood of the world, albeit without speaking. So there would be matching exercises, or putting things that go together (eg knife and fork). . It did seem to require he had some receptive language, eg to understand instructions like "put with the same". Plus there were some Visio-spatial type tests, eg jigsaw puzzles.

ilikemysleep That's what I thought, but it is what they are offering. WPPSI and the Vineland questionnaire. I think it is used in similar vain to VB-MAPP allowing the provider to point out to parents any improvements that have been made. They do recommend that parents get an independent EP in to do any sort of formal testing.

I also agree with you re cognitive testing for non verbal children. Unless you need it for any formal stuff, funding/tribunals etc, you are just setting yourself up for heartbreak as the results can be very disappointing as the child is unable to access the test. Our EP specifically told us not to pay too much attention to the vineland scores in the report as it will not give a true picture of his abilities. He suggested testing for cognitive ability once ds1 had more language.

Yes, 'receptive' language is the key here.

Yes Dev - the (very very low) results of my son's IQ tests at 3 made me cry more than any ASD diagnosis ever did.

sick of - do you think those results have been borne out over time, or is it not as bleak a picture as it then seemed? I think it is really problematic giving information that might 'appear' to be rock solid when in reality it is about test access rather than any true measure of 'potential'. There are very few 3 year olds ( a few HFA ones) that I see that I would do cognitive testing with (obviously I don't tend to see typically developing 3 year olds!) just because it is less accurate than looking at their developing motor, problem solving and play skills. It is hard enough as a parent to read that your child's development at age 3 is like a typically developing 18 month old without compounding that by saying 'and an IQ of 40' or some such when the child didn't have enough receptive language to know what you were asking them to do. Where an iQ test has been done in a child who had no language it often changes radically once the child does have language sufficient to access.

Likemysleep - they kinda have been borne out as correct actually. I, just like you are saying, thought they were predicated on too much language understanding, so we did the same test two years later (when he had way more receptive language). Result: more heartbreak, exact same score.

I think that today he would score far higher on that same test, but of course he would do very badly on an age-appropriate 10 year old's test.

I used to tell people - these non-verbal IQ tests at 3 are meaningless; actually now I am not so sure.