Dear Bobby,
 
  Well, she threw out any above average intelligence CPers. So I don't see the validity in her stats. Amber - who has CP. Also has a genius level IQ. I gather the folks like Amber and you ( and several others I can't name everyone) are outliers and have been tossed. It seems her stats don't allow for the full range of intellectual possibilities. Her stats from where I stand are meaningless. It would also help to remember our intelligence tests are based on how many you can cram in your brain and spit back. not really on any ability to think or use you brain power. Average intelligence last time I looked about 100. And the rule of thirds?  Okay in intelligence with scale I think it works on the bell curve with the very mentally slow on end and the very mentally illuminated on the other and the vast majority falling inside the bell with 100 in the middle. I am with Brent the resident crank. And you know what I am writing grad paper number 3 - and nothing so far as impressed me in the process as to the quality of the paper people turn out. I am working on one now about assistive technology in the educational field. What amazes me is the one size fits all answer they are looking for.
 
                              Trisha
 
                                             

________________________________

From: St. John's University Cerebral Palsy List on behalf of Bobby Greer
Sent: Sun 1/8/2006 12:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: now greta's stats



----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathleen Salkin" <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.c-palsy
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: now greta's stats


> Now, I'm really wondering...do you mean a third of your sampling will
> have average IQs, a third will have below-average IQs and so forth?
> Or do you mean this is a rule of thumb for the CP population as a
> whole?   What exactly is your hypothesis?
>
    It's imposiblle to obtain a truly ranom sample in this type of study.
Random being defined as every possible subject having the same chance of
being included. In this case, every 6 to 8 yr old CP..

> When I was in grad school, the sampling had to be truly random, with
> a control group to test it against.  Perhaps things have changed a
> great deal in the social sciences since I was a MS candidate?
>
> Kat
>
>
> On 7 Jan 2006, at 23:00, greta von der luft wrote:
>
>> OOPS I misspoke/typed. I meant kiddos with CP and average
>> intelligence or kiddos with CP and mild cognitive impairment. I was
>> trying to say that there was a range of intelligence....
>>
>> I know there is a rule of 1/3s. A third of the children with CP
>> will have average intelligence, a 1/3 with mild cognitive
>> impairment, and a 1/3 with severe cognitive impairment.
>> Sorry,
>> Greta
>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>   From: Brent Edwards<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>   To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:C-
>> [log in to unmask]>
>>   Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:03 PM
>>   Subject: Re: now greta's stats
>>
>>
>>   Perhaps I missed something here. At least I hope I did. But did
>> no one
>>   else catch this?
>>
>>> I ended up with a good cross section of kiddos with CP (hemiplegic,
>>> diplegic, quadriplegic; average to mild cognitive impairment...
>>
>>   ummm... What about some kids with no cognitive impairment at
>> all?? Like
>>   the kids that the people who post to this list grew up to be? Please
>>   Greta forgive me if there is something about the way your
>> research was
>>   structured that precluded the use of data from cognitive normal
>>   subjects. But if that is not the case, methinks I catch a whiff
>> of the
>>   old "all cp kids have cognitive impairment" meme. Those of us who
>> are
>>   not so impaired (who I'm guessing is just about everyone on this
>> list
>>   who has cp) aren't actually very fond of that piece of "conventional
>>   wisdom".
>>
>>   Brent Edwards
>>   Resident List Crank