Re: Role of IQ and language in prognosis of Autism

[Guest guest]

RSalehi,

Honestly, I put very little stock in IQ scores as predictors of what a child can

learn. They are only accurate at telling what a child has been motivated to

learn to this point AND is willing to demonstrate.

I would argue, IQ and current level of speech to be almost no indication of

possible outcome. I have found that earning excellent instructional control with

a child and then measuring how quickly he learns new skills along many different

areas to be much more telling.

For example, we have some kids who are non-verbal when we meet them but by

identifying and capturing their motivation and using it to teach, they can learn

new skills across many areas very quickly. Some in 100 trials, some in 10-20

trials and others in 5 or less. Others who might have higher IQ scores and more

languge to begin with might need 1000s of trials with a new skill no matter how

motivated to learn the skill they become.

True predictors of ultimate outcome exist only in the speed at which a child who

is motivated to learn a skill is capable of learning that skill (accross many

skill areas).

My 2 cents,

________________________

Schramm, MA, BCBA

www.lulu.com/knospe-aba

www.knospe-aba.com

________________________

[ ] Role of IQ and language in prognosis of Autism

Is that correct that the IQ and the level that a kid can develope his

language are the most important factors in prediction of how good he

will do in future?

Any comment?

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

RSalehi,

Honestly, I put very little stock in IQ scores as predictors of what a child can

learn. They are only accurate at telling what a child has been motivated to

learn to this point AND is willing to demonstrate.

I would argue, IQ and current level of speech to be almost no indication of

possible outcome. I have found that earning excellent instructional control with

a child and then measuring how quickly he learns new skills along many different

areas to be much more telling.

For example, we have some kids who are non-verbal when we meet them but by

identifying and capturing their motivation and using it to teach, they can learn

new skills across many areas very quickly. Some in 100 trials, some in 10-20

trials and others in 5 or less. Others who might have higher IQ scores and more

languge to begin with might need 1000s of trials with a new skill no matter how

motivated to learn the skill they become.

True predictors of ultimate outcome exist only in the speed at which a child who

is motivated to learn a skill is capable of learning that skill (accross many

skill areas).

My 2 cents,

________________________

Schramm, MA, BCBA

www.lulu.com/knospe-aba

www.knospe-aba.com

________________________

[ ] Role of IQ and language in prognosis of Autism

Is that correct that the IQ and the level that a kid can develope his

language are the most important factors in prediction of how good he

will do in future?

Any comment?

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

At Sat Jan 6, 2007 9:17 am, " Schramm " knospeaba_robert@... wrote:

>Honestly, I put very little stock in IQ scores as predictors of what

>a child can learn. They are only accurate at telling what a child

>has been motivated to learn to this point AND is willing to demonstrate.

I second that. My son, now almost 10 tested at a 66 IQ which is

mildly retarded when he was in kindergarten. Yet when I've told this

to other parents at our homeschool co-op they are always amazed and

say that he is a bright kid. However if a child doesn't want to

cooperate with the tester, or is having significant communication

difficulties which after all is a hallmark of any autism spectrum

disorder, than the IQ result has a different meaning then it does for

a child who wants to cooperate and is able to express themselves well.

And as you say, that number which results doesn't tell the whole

story of what a child is able to learn.

>I would argue, IQ and current level of speech to be almost no

>indication of possible outcome.

Maybe this is a bit off the point but somehow seems relevant to me.

It's always stuck in mind how when my son got diagnosed with autism

at 39 mos, and was non-verbal at the time, the developmental

pediatrician told us that he thought he'd start talking between 5 and

8 yrs old. Well it turned out that said his first word that same

month, shortly after the appointment. And was speaking in simple

sentences a few months later.

What this experience from years ago taught me was that even a very

experienced professional who has worked with lots of kids that have

autism cannot reliably predict when speech will begin, because the

issues involved are simple not well understood.

Just my $0.02.

Marty

--

Asperger's/High Functioning Autism Homeschooler's discussion list

as-hfa-homeschool/

Webmaster's Bulletin Board - http://bbs.face2interface.com/

[Guest guest]

At Sat Jan 6, 2007 9:17 am, " Schramm " knospeaba_robert@... wrote:

>Honestly, I put very little stock in IQ scores as predictors of what

>a child can learn. They are only accurate at telling what a child

>has been motivated to learn to this point AND is willing to demonstrate.

I second that. My son, now almost 10 tested at a 66 IQ which is

mildly retarded when he was in kindergarten. Yet when I've told this

to other parents at our homeschool co-op they are always amazed and

say that he is a bright kid. However if a child doesn't want to

cooperate with the tester, or is having significant communication

difficulties which after all is a hallmark of any autism spectrum

disorder, than the IQ result has a different meaning then it does for

a child who wants to cooperate and is able to express themselves well.

And as you say, that number which results doesn't tell the whole

story of what a child is able to learn.

>I would argue, IQ and current level of speech to be almost no

>indication of possible outcome.

Maybe this is a bit off the point but somehow seems relevant to me.

It's always stuck in mind how when my son got diagnosed with autism

at 39 mos, and was non-verbal at the time, the developmental

pediatrician told us that he thought he'd start talking between 5 and

8 yrs old. Well it turned out that said his first word that same

month, shortly after the appointment. And was speaking in simple

sentences a few months later.

What this experience from years ago taught me was that even a very

experienced professional who has worked with lots of kids that have

autism cannot reliably predict when speech will begin, because the

issues involved are simple not well understood.

Just my $0.02.

Marty

--

Asperger's/High Functioning Autism Homeschooler's discussion list

as-hfa-homeschool/

Webmaster's Bulletin Board - http://bbs.face2interface.com/

[Guest guest]

I agree with and others who responded that motivation to learn is more

powerful than IQ in leading to positive outcomes, particularly since IQ is so

tough to measure well in our kids.

But in the interest of balance, here's the one study I've read about it. It

does find some predictive power.

Age and IQ at Intake as Predictors of Placement for Young Children

with Autism: A Four- to Six-Year Follow-Up

Journal Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders Publisher

Springer Netherlands ISSN 0162-3257 (Print) 1573-3432 (Online) Subject

Behavioral Science Issue Volume 30, Number 2 / April, 2000 DOI

10.1023/A:1005459606120 Pages 137-142 SpringerLink Date Monday, November

01, 2004

Age and IQ at Intake as Predictors of Placement for Young Children with

Autism: A Four- to Six-Year Follow-Up

L. 1 and Jan S. Handleman2

(1) Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New

Jersey, 08854-8085 (2) Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,

Piscataway, New Jersey, 08854-8085

Abstract The predictive power of age and IQ at time of admission to an

intensive treatment program using applied behavior analysis were examined in a

4- to 6-year follow-up of educational placement. Twenty-seven children with

autistic disorder who were between the ages of 31 and 65 months and had IQs on

the Stanford Binet between 35 and 109 at time of admission to the s

Developmental Disabilities Center were followed up 4 to 6 years after they left

the preschool. The results showed that having a higher IQ at intake (M = 78) and

being of younger age (M = 42 months) were both predictive of being in a regular

education class after discharge, whereas having a lower IQ (M = 46) and being

older at intake (M = 54 months) were closely related to placement in a special

education classroom. The results are interpreted as pointing to the need for

very early intervention for children with Autistic Disorder. It is also

emphasized that older children and those with lower IQs in

the present study showed measurable gains in IQ from treatment. The data should

not be taken to suggest that children older than 4 years of age do not merit

high quality treatment.

There may be more and better science about this available that the

professionals on the list can point to. I'm just a Dad hacking his way around

the literature. I don't pay too much attention to this study since I doubt my 4

year old non-vocal girl with autism would test very high in IQ but I've seen how

she can learn in our ABA/VB home program (when we have the reinforcement right).

Wil

Schramm <knospeaba_robert@...> wrote:

RSalehi,

Honestly, I put very little stock in IQ scores as predictors of what a child can

learn. They are only accurate at telling what a child has been motivated to

learn to this point AND is willing to demonstrate.

I would argue, IQ and current level of speech to be almost no indication of

possible outcome. I have found that earning excellent instructional control with

a child and then measuring how quickly he learns new skills along many different

areas to be much more telling.

For example, we have some kids who are non-verbal when we meet them but by

identifying and capturing their motivation and using it to teach, they can learn

new skills across many areas very quickly. Some in 100 trials, some in 10-20

trials and others in 5 or less. Others who might have higher IQ scores and more

languge to begin with might need 1000s of trials with a new skill no matter how

motivated to learn the skill they become.

True predictors of ultimate outcome exist only in the speed at which a child who

is motivated to learn a skill is capable of learning that skill (accross many

skill areas).

My 2 cents,

________________________

Schramm, MA, BCBA

www.lulu.com/knospe-aba

www.knospe-aba.com

________________________

[ ] Role of IQ and language in prognosis of Autism

Is that correct that the IQ and the level that a kid can develope his

language are the most important factors in prediction of how good he

will do in future?

Any comment?

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

I agree with and others who responded that motivation to learn is more

powerful than IQ in leading to positive outcomes, particularly since IQ is so

tough to measure well in our kids.

But in the interest of balance, here's the one study I've read about it. It

does find some predictive power.

Age and IQ at Intake as Predictors of Placement for Young Children

with Autism: A Four- to Six-Year Follow-Up

Journal Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders Publisher

Springer Netherlands ISSN 0162-3257 (Print) 1573-3432 (Online) Subject

Behavioral Science Issue Volume 30, Number 2 / April, 2000 DOI

10.1023/A:1005459606120 Pages 137-142 SpringerLink Date Monday, November

01, 2004

Age and IQ at Intake as Predictors of Placement for Young Children with

Autism: A Four- to Six-Year Follow-Up

L. 1 and Jan S. Handleman2

(1) Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New

Jersey, 08854-8085 (2) Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,

Piscataway, New Jersey, 08854-8085

Abstract The predictive power of age and IQ at time of admission to an

intensive treatment program using applied behavior analysis were examined in a

4- to 6-year follow-up of educational placement. Twenty-seven children with

autistic disorder who were between the ages of 31 and 65 months and had IQs on

the Stanford Binet between 35 and 109 at time of admission to the s

Developmental Disabilities Center were followed up 4 to 6 years after they left

the preschool. The results showed that having a higher IQ at intake (M = 78) and

being of younger age (M = 42 months) were both predictive of being in a regular

education class after discharge, whereas having a lower IQ (M = 46) and being

older at intake (M = 54 months) were closely related to placement in a special

education classroom. The results are interpreted as pointing to the need for

very early intervention for children with Autistic Disorder. It is also

emphasized that older children and those with lower IQs in

the present study showed measurable gains in IQ from treatment. The data should

not be taken to suggest that children older than 4 years of age do not merit

high quality treatment.

There may be more and better science about this available that the

professionals on the list can point to. I'm just a Dad hacking his way around

the literature. I don't pay too much attention to this study since I doubt my 4

year old non-vocal girl with autism would test very high in IQ but I've seen how

she can learn in our ABA/VB home program (when we have the reinforcement right).

Wil

Schramm <knospeaba_robert@...> wrote:

RSalehi,

Honestly, I put very little stock in IQ scores as predictors of what a child can

learn. They are only accurate at telling what a child has been motivated to

learn to this point AND is willing to demonstrate.

I would argue, IQ and current level of speech to be almost no indication of

possible outcome. I have found that earning excellent instructional control with

a child and then measuring how quickly he learns new skills along many different

areas to be much more telling.

For example, we have some kids who are non-verbal when we meet them but by

identifying and capturing their motivation and using it to teach, they can learn

new skills across many areas very quickly. Some in 100 trials, some in 10-20

trials and others in 5 or less. Others who might have higher IQ scores and more

languge to begin with might need 1000s of trials with a new skill no matter how

motivated to learn the skill they become.

True predictors of ultimate outcome exist only in the speed at which a child who

is motivated to learn a skill is capable of learning that skill (accross many

skill areas).

My 2 cents,

________________________

Schramm, MA, BCBA

www.lulu.com/knospe-aba

www.knospe-aba.com

________________________

[ ] Role of IQ and language in prognosis of Autism

Is that correct that the IQ and the level that a kid can develope his

language are the most important factors in prediction of how good he

will do in future?

Any comment?

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Any thoughts on convincing a school district to use other types of testing for

triennial assessments besides standardized, norm-referenced tests? Our past IQ

tests have not added value to the development of IEP objectives nor methodology

choices.

Geraldine

[ ] Role of IQ and language in prognosis of Autism

Is that correct that the IQ and the level that a kid can develope his

language are the most important factors in prediction of how good he

will do in future?

Any comment?

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Any thoughts on convincing a school district to use other types of testing for

triennial assessments besides standardized, norm-referenced tests? Our past IQ

tests have not added value to the development of IEP objectives nor methodology

choices.

Geraldine

[ ] Role of IQ and language in prognosis of Autism

Is that correct that the IQ and the level that a kid can develope his

language are the most important factors in prediction of how good he

will do in future?

Any comment?

__________________________________________________