View Full Version : Where does the IQ 68 fall at?


php111
09-16-11, 05:09 PM
Hey everyone,

I'm new here!

I live in Bethlehem, PA. I'm not sure if I'm at the right place for this?

On a WAIS scale going back to about two years ago, I'm not sure what version of the WAIS. Where does the IQ 68 fall at on a scale of MR, or normal? Does it fall at as of mild, moderate, borderline, and so on? I'm not really sure exactly how the IQ runs. Thank you for any replies.

TygerSan
09-16-11, 05:22 PM
I *believe* that 68 is considered borderline, not technically MR. . .
Subtest scatter (doing really well in one part and doing really poorly in another) can make full-scale IQ appear lower than it actually is.

Also, if I recall correctly (I'm not a clinician, but I've taken some psych classes), MR also requires issues with adaptive functioning as well as lower than average IQ.

php111
09-16-11, 05:30 PM
I *believe* that 68 is considered borderline, not technically MR. . .
Subtest scatter (doing really well in one part and doing really poorly in another) can make full-scale IQ appear lower than it actually is.

Also, if I recall correctly (I'm not a clinician, but I've taken some psych classes), MR also requires issues with adaptive functioning as well as lower than average IQ.

So, what you're saying is that if I have adaptive functioning it could make my IQ lower?

pechemignonne
09-16-11, 06:01 PM
I think TygerSan is saying that lower-then-average IQ in combination with adaptive functioning problems can point to MR.

TygerSan
09-17-11, 08:30 AM
I think TygerSan is saying that lower-then-average IQ in combination with adaptive functioning problems can point to MR.


^^^^^^^^^^
This. Borderline/low IQ *without* adaptive function problems would not be considered MR.

Adaptive functions are day-to-day living functions (bathing, clothing, cooking, etc).

php111
09-17-11, 08:41 AM
^^^^^^^^^^
This. Borderline/low IQ *without* adaptive function problems would not be considered MR.

Adaptive functions are day-to-day living functions (bathing, clothing, cooking, etc).

I do know how to bathe, but am lazy. I try to get in every other day. People say it's more MH related over MR. They said the way my room condition is in it's in risk on a health hazard. Is that true? I don't know how to cook.

sarahsweets
09-17-11, 10:38 AM
Why is your room a health hazzard?

pechemignonne
09-17-11, 12:00 PM
Have you been evaluated for mental health issues? I would say, not being your doctor or any kind of doctor but just my opinion, that an IQ of 68 with mental health problems points more to mental health problems than MR. Especially if you know how to do things, you just can't seem to for whatever reason.

Who is doing these tests with you? Have you talked to them about it? I think that's your best bet.

Psychomaze
09-17-11, 03:20 PM
Is anyone familiar with the "Flynn Effect?"

In an effort to keep 100 as the standard IQ score, the scale has been adjusted over the years. For example, if someone scored 150 fifty years ago, and that score could be the equivalent of 105 today (just example reference). Believe it or not, people are getting smarter (and more familiar with the tests and what to expect with the tests, which allows cheating) so instead of just letting the score get higher, they just reset the scale to keep 100 as the norm.

However, I vaguely remember something about an IQ test geared for ADHD in which it is a little more forgiving in time limits and stuff, but I don't have much information to offer other than hearing that something like that exists - so this could mean that 68 may be the result of taking a test that did not have ADHD in mind when it was created.

*makes mental note to self to ask the doctor on next month's visit about it*

anonymouslyadd
09-17-11, 03:47 PM
I *believe* that 68 is considered borderline, not technically MR. . .
Subtest scatter (doing really well in one part and doing really poorly in another) can make full-scale IQ appear lower than it actually is.

Also, if I recall correctly (I'm not a clinician, but I've taken some psych classes), MR also requires issues with adaptive functioning as well as lower than average IQ.

Anything below a 70 is considered mental retardation. Although, I'm wondering if that still holds up from a few years back.

Simenora
09-17-11, 04:49 PM
Furthermore, standard IQ tests are skewed against ADHDs as they often penalize processing and sequencing. If one were to take into account the theory of multiple intelligences and not design tests that are limited in scope to those skills deemed important by the dominant social paradigm, many people would score higher. To be more accurate, we would score skills separately (which they do to a degree).

A persons IQ might look more like; creative writing 133
concrete math 125
abstract math 102

etc, etc

The other thing to remember is that exposure to and learning of a discipline can also effect how an individual performs on that section of a test for example, math bored me to tears so I resisted learning it. I might just skip over math based questions on a global iq test.

Also to consider, my sons testing occurred before he was medicated so he had a terrible time sitting through the exersize. I have been told that it is likely he'd score much higher now.

mctavish23
09-17-11, 05:43 PM
The score itself falls within the upper limits of the Mild MR Range

of Intelligence.

The caveat here is the "Confidence Interval " surrounding the score.

I prefer to use the 90% CI on my evals,although a number of colleagues

like the 95% CI.

Using my preference of 90% CI :

What that means is,depending on the person's age and the resulting score,

assuming that it's a valid measure,then the obtained score of ....,would be expected

to fall within a certain range of scores (usually around (approx) 5-7 pts), 90x's out of

100 (under indentical testing conditions).

Again, that assumes the results were valid.

In other words, don't get fixated on a single number.

That's as much as I can say, as I don't practice on the net, but I hope that helps.

tc

mctavish23

(Rpbert)

php111
09-17-11, 05:52 PM
Thank you everyone for all the replies!

I'm not understanding the 90% CI, and the 95% CI. Are there any easier ways to explain based on the IQ 68?

mctavish23
09-18-11, 12:47 AM
Using the 90 % Confidence Interval,which I'm going to hypothetically set at + or -5pts.,

just for demonstration purposes, the person would then be expected to score between

63 and 73, 90 times out of 100;under identical testing conditions.

Hope that helps.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

php111
09-18-11, 03:00 AM
I'm even more confused.




Using the 90 % Confidence Interval,which I'm going to hypothetically set at + or -5pts.,

just for demonstration purposes, the person would then be expected to score between

63 and 73, 90 times out of 100;under identical testing conditions.

Hope that helps.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

KronarTheBlack
09-18-11, 08:20 AM
In statistics, a confidence interval (CI) is a particular kind of interval estimate of a population parameter and is used to indicate the reliability of an estimate. It is an observed interval (i.e. it is calculated from the observations), in principle different from sample to sample, that frequently includes the parameter of interest, if the experiment is repeated. How frequently the observed interval contains the parameter is determined by the confidence level or confidence coefficient.

A confidence interval with a particular confidence level is intended to give the assurance that, if the statistical model is correct, then taken over all the data that might have been obtained, the procedure for constructing the interval would deliver a confidence interval that included the true value of the parameter the proportion of the time set by the confidence level.[clarification needed] More specifically, the meaning of the term "confidence level" is that, if confidence intervals are constructed across many separate data analyses of repeated (and possibly different) experiments, the proportion of such intervals that contain the true value of the parameter will approximately match the confidence level; this is guaranteed by the reasoning underlying the construction of confidence intervals.

A confidence interval does not predict that the true value of the parameter has a particular probability of being in the confidence interval given the data actually obtained.


So a 90% confidence level of plus 5 or minus 5 of your IQ at 68 would give the IQ test you just took a 90% chance of being your actual IQ within the range of 63 to 73. 90% is usually not used because it has no intrinsic mathematical value you either use 1 to 4 standard deviations giving you
68.27% confidence level for one standard deviation while two standard deviations from the mean account for 95.45 percent confidence level; three standard deviations account for 99.73 percent confidence level; and four standard deviations account for 99.994 percent confidence level.

Standard deviation is a widely used measurement of variability or diversity used in statistics and probability theory. It shows how much variation or "dispersion" there is from the average (mean, or expected value). A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean, whereas high standard deviation indicates that the data are spread out over a large range of values.

Technically, the standard deviation of a statistical population, data set, or probability distribution is the square root of its variance. It is algebraically simpler though practically less robust than the average absolute deviation.[1][2] A useful property of standard deviation is that, unlike variance, it is expressed in the same units as the data.

Standard deviation is commonly used to measure confidence in statistical conclusions. For example, the margin of error in political polling data is determined by calculating the expected standard deviation in the results if the same poll were to be conducted multiple times. The reported margin of error is typically about twice the standard deviation *– the radius of a 95 percent confidence interval. In science, researchers commonly report the standard deviation of experimental data, and only effects that fall far outside the range of standard deviation are considered statistically significant – normal random error or variation in the measurements is in this way distinguished from causal variation. Standard deviation is also important in finance, where the standard deviation on the rate of return on an investment is a measure of the volatility of the investment

If you function in the real world and have had a job and any responsibility I would say the 68 IQ result is not your true value.

Simenora
09-18-11, 12:12 PM
"If you function in the real world and have had a job and any responsibility I would say the 68 IQ result is not your true value."


I was thinking this very thing. I was also wishing that you were in Edmonton so that you could be my stats tutor...

This is why I was wondering if the theory of multiple intelligences wasn't applicable in this case.

mctavish23
09-18-11, 04:12 PM
Okay, try this.

Let's say, for the sake of a hypothetical example, that I use one of the brief

cognitive (IQ) screening tests to try and determine a client's current level of

intellectual functioning.

Now there are several excellent IQ tests, with the Wechsler Scales being among

the very best.

There's also the latest version of the Stanford-Binet IQ test as well, which does

have it's own advantages for selecting it for use.

Since I mainly work with kids, I would likely choose the Wechsler Intelligence Scale

for Children-Fourth Edition or WISC-IV.

Having said that, most of the time I'm looking to get a quick cognitive screening of

their current levels of functioning.

Therefore, my personal choice of tests is the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test-2

or KBIT-2.

It covers ages 4-90 and has excellent validity and reliability as a (strictly)

cognitive (intelligence) screen.

If I need something more indepth, or the K-BIT-2 reveals something that needs

closer scrutiny, then I'll give the WISC-IV at a later date.

Now for hypothetical purposes directed towards the generic question posed, as I

Do Not practice on the net, I'm going to make up a strictly hypothetical example,

which I hope gives you a better understanding.

I don't know you or the age of the person in question.

If you listed I didn't see it.

Either way, please don't list it afterwards and expect me to give you a direct

answer, because I can't.

If you received a written report from a Licensed or School Psychologist,it

should say something about the specific Confidence Interval employed.

If not, please ask whoever did the evaluation.

Now, let's say that I'm working with a 16 yo who obtains a

K-BIT-2 IQ Composite of 68.

That's the screening equivalent of a Full Scale score.

The way that I would write the report would look something like this...

(Please Note: there are two other scores that go with the K-BIT-2,

a Verbal Standard Score and a Non-verbal or Matrices Standard

Score.

They measure school related knowledge and non-verbal problem

solving respectively.

When combined, they yield a KBIT-2 IQ Composite IQ or full scale

score).

(For this purpose, we're only talking about the Composite IQ).


On the KBIT-2, the 16 yo client obtained a KBIT-IQ Composite

of 68.

That places the client within the upper limits of the Mild Mental

Retardation Range of Intelligence, with a corresponding percentile

ranking of (2) for their chrononolgical age group.

At the 90%Confidence Interval, the client would then be expected

to score between 62-74 upon retest;under identical conditions.

That means that the hypothetical client scored higher than 2% of

their chronological age group(with the remaining 98% having scored

higher).

It also means the we can say with "confidence" that,should this

person take this same test again in a years time (to prevent

what's called "practice effect"), they'd be expected to score

between +/- 6 points of 68 (under identical testing conditions).

I really hope that helps you, as I can't think of any other way

to try and explain it "generically."

If not, then if there are other clinicians or statisticians here,

I'd appreciate your help.

I tried to make it as understandable as possible, given the

limitations.

Good Luck.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

Dizfriz
09-19-11, 07:41 AM
OK let me take a a stab at this.


We cannot know someone's "true IQ" especially from one test. All we can really do is give an estimate.

So what we do is figure a range in which a person's IQ is likely to fall.

If a person's score is 100 then we know that the "true" score would likely fall in a range. We can give percentage estimates of that range so an accurate statement is (I am making these figures up as each test is different) an individual's (name of test) IQ score of 100 has a 95 percent chance of falling some in the 90-110 range as an example.

Even then we are not sure so we have to leave open the idea that the test may not have accurately measured what it was supposed to. The person could have had a bad day, the tester could have had a bad day, there were errors in scoring, the individual may have misunderstood some questions, the subject or even the tester may have been thoroughly stoned, or number of issues that could be happening.

There is also the issue that some tests are better than others but that is another subject except to say that clinicians will normally name the specific test when reporting a score. For example, one might report that an individual has a Wechsler IQ Score of 100.

This is why just stating a single IQ score alone with no other data does not tell me much about the individual and really hasn't a lot of value.

Unfortunately many government programs have cut offs based on a specific score. This is not justified but it is what we have.




In recap, when anyone is told an IQ score, it may or may not be accurate in describing the person. At best it is a "snapshot in time" showing where the person is operating that day.

So take any IQ score with an appropriate grain of salt. Trained clinicians know how to correctly look at the scores. The problem is when laypeople or even worse, people who have an uninformed knowledge of the subject making flat statements on what the specific IQ scores means.

That is not to take away from the value of IQ testing. It is very useful in getting a picture of where the person is operating in regards to specific cognitive skills and in making useable predictions of how they will operate in the future with those skills. It has the most value when used in a battery of tests when IQ, achievement and other measures show the same general results. From this we can make reasonably accurate predictions where the individual will operate in the future.

Is it perfect....no. Is it useful as part of an overall description of the individual as they are operating....yes.

Also keep in mind that testing is a fairly technical subject. As can be seen, it is very hard to explain simply because it is not simple. Normally one needs fairly extensive graduate work to be able to understand what these scores mean and to accurately interpret them.

As an aside, I get rather irritated when someone is told their IQ score with no help in interpreting the score.

I may have helped or I have have made the picture more muddled. It is very hard not to drift into technical issues when writing on this subject because it is technical. I just hope I help a little.

Dizfriz