IQ testing in AS "sufferers"

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think that every one of us are geniuses, but it does seem to be a trend.

The first time I took an IQ test, I scored 145. I was kinda suprised, and just figured it was a fluke.

So I tested again a few months later, using a different IQ test.

I got 147.

Still suprised, but certainly not dissapointed.

-IAmTheDonut

BTW, first post with WP.net

What I don't understand, is why they are grouped into performance and verbal like that. Last time I took it, I had extreme ranges in my subtest scores. My lowest subtest score was 4 (equivalent to somewhere, 67-69) and my highest was 12 (equivalent to somewhere, 110-114). Which is you took those equivalencies, would mean a discrepancy of 43-47 points between the lowest and highest subtests. But given which subtests everything was, my verbal was only one point lower than my performance, so it's somehow a "valid test" still despite the overall difference between the subtests being just about the same as yours.

(The 3 I did the best on are Block Design (P), Matrix Reasoning (P), and Information (V). And the 3 I did the worst on are Digit Symbol (P), Picture Completion (P), and Digit Span (V). No surprise on Digit Span being among my worst because I sucked at all the Weschler Memory Tests anyway, my short-term memory or whatever it is they tested just isn't there. Which is also why I sucked at Digit Symbol, which required copying some kind of figure from one part of the test to another, and memorization really speeds up the process. They didn't really have anything that tested my long-term triggered memory, which is excellent, they just tested either deliberate working memory or deliberate short-term memory, and deliberate memory in general isn't my strong point and has, like all deliberate things, gotten worse over time.)

The strange thing is, before I even got my scores from that one, I was saying I didn't understand why they split the test the way they do. The things tested on it don't, in my mind, split up along the line they split it on. Which one goes on which side seems totally arbitrary to me. And I suspect I would have totally different subtest scores depending on which direction my brain was pointed each day. I have real trouble respecting the test, not just for its pretensions of measuring overall intellectual skills, but also for what it purports to measure in the subtests and in the subtest groupings of verbal and performance, and even more than that the fact that it expects the scores to stay stable.

i have taken lots of different iq tests in fact they are one of my favourite pass times , if there is more verbal questions then i score quite low, anywhere between 121 and 126 but if there is a higher degree of maths and spatial awareness required then i get a much higher score between 139 and 141 so what does this show, i really do not know, maybe that i am better at math then english, anyway i just now find it a fun way to pass time and work my brain, i do not really care what the result comes out as anymore

When I play the pretend internet ones, I get about 140. They seem to be made up of exactly the sort of logic problems that really appeal to me. I can't believe that if you do one for real there is a verbal element! If I'm given any math/logic problem verbally by my boss i have to write it down before I can make any sense of it. I have to be able to see it. I could easily see myself dipping down to an average score if there was a verbal element. I hope I never have to take a real one!

I had to take a bunch of real ones way back when I was in grade school and tossed any semblance of normal out the window with scores ranging on the low end of 170ish to the high end of 190's.

Then of course they turn around and say... no, you can't get special treatment... sit there be bored and get hit if you disrupt class.

Yea.. the 70's were great for strange kids.... grrrrr

I don't know if it was the Weschler or the Stanford-Binet, but I was most recently tested a few years ago, in my mid-twenties. At the time, they thought I had BPD. And then after the test, they thought I might be schizotypal because I didn't make any eye contact with the man giving the test.

Actually, I was having a pseudo-homocidal-panic-attack through the whole thing. The stupid man giving me the test was deaf or something, I think he had a hearing aid, and he spoke funny, with a lisp, and I couldn't understand half of what he was saying, which made me very upset, and the entire test I was thinking about how much I wanted to kill him for making me so angry and I wanted to walk out, but I kept thinking that if I did that, then I would have to come back and sit though the whole thing AGAIN, and that sounded worse. And I was shaking and I couldn't breathe very well and I could not look at him.

(He was the only one that did the testing I guess, and I had to have a bunch of tests before I could get financial help, and I did not want to continue being homeless, so I didn't leave.)

It's funny, because I was answering some wrong, well, just saying, "I don't know" so that it would be over quicker so I could leave... but it still hurt my pride when they later told me my score. I EXPECTED to score lower because I was so stressed and unable to think and refusing to answer some-- but I was still stupidly dissapointed. I still thought I would be above 95% and not just boringly "above average."

(I believe 100 is the mean score for most intelligence tests, and 1 standard deviation is 15 points, so any score between 85-115 is considered "average". 68% of people will fall in this range and 95% of people will fall between 70-130. )

A psychology teacher I had once told the class that the Stanford-Binet is better for testing extremely smart people. If you want to know the difference between a person with 160 and one with a 170 I.Q., that test is better than the Weschler for pinning it down. Also, when testers "chat" with a subject for 5 minutes before administering an I.Q. test, the results will average 1 standard deviation higher. Race is also a statistically significant factor.

Wow! I can see how that would work, but I wouldn't have guessed the difference would be so large!

I see your point, and actually the stuff I've read on NLD suggests that it's just as important (if not more so) to look at the differences among subtests as it is to look at verbal vs. performance scores. Because, like in your case, not everyone's profile will split along the lines suggested by the test, even when they have significant discrepancies among different abilities. I think a psychologist who knew what they were doing would not consider your combined scores to be valid estimates of your overall ability- they would break it down into individual skills.

I'm pretty sure i took the Weschler. They also told me that my combined score was useless because there was so much irregularity between my scores. I scored in the 120's and 130's some subtests and in the 90's on others (with no in between). One thing they told me, that I don't thing i've seen mentioned here, is that the Vocabulary subtest is the "best indicator of overall intelligence" keep in mind that i have no other information to back up that statement.

hello

if anyone wants a really good ego trip of a iq test, i have been looking at the free ones on the internet, the best one by far is the super iq test by tickle, you can take as long as you like as it is totally untimed, and the score it gave me was so high i laughed, so anyone who just thinks that it would be fun have a go, try it, you should be nicely surprised at just how amazingly genius you are lol if anyone wants a really good one i recomend the mensa test, it costs but is not too awful like the ones that the doctors give out.