LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Catherine Watson Genna, IBCLC" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 21 May 1996 15:29:28 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
Kathleen A.,
I am concerned that using the imprecise term genius when telling health
professionals about IQ studies would undermine our credibility.  Here are the
intelligence classifications from the Weschler Intelligence Scale for
Children-Revised (the Wisc III is more current, and has slightly different
scores in each category, but I don't have a copy of that one.)
 69 and below  Mentally Deficient
 70-79 Borderline
 80-89 Low Average (Dull)
 90-109 Average
 110-119 High Average (Bright)
 120-129 Superior
 130 and above  Very Superior

The standard deviation from the mean in this test is 15 points.  100 is the
mean.  Other tests such as Stanford-Binet have the same mean (100) but may
have different standard deviations.  The scores of 95% of all children fall
within 2 standard deviations below or above the mean.  99.9% fall within three
standard deviations either way.  This gives the typical bell shaped curve.  My
understanding is that the term genius is rarely used by psychologists and then
only applies to the very tip of the curve, and carries the connotation of
being a very creative thinker as well.  If there are any psychologists/testing
experts on Lactnet, please give us your input.
Catherine Watson Genna, IBCLC  NYC  [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2