Kat,

    In  regard to random sampling, you made my point better than I did.

In regard to intelligence, you refer to the Stanford-Binet IQ. This is only
one of hundreds of measures of intelligence, i.e. the Wechsler Scales, The
Peabody, etc. Yes, there are other forms of surviival skills which are more
predictive of adjustment, but they are theoretical in nature and would not
be approved by most
dissertations committees due to valideity/reliability factors. Besides, a
great argument could be made that intelligence is a stronger factors in CP
for compensatory reasons. Another important point is that IQ"s now are
Deviation IQ's with restriction on the range of scores. Very high IQ's are
now in the 130 range, not 160 or 170. Such old IQ's were based on the
formula MA/CA X 100. These IQ's actually dropped as we grow older(CA  =
chronolocal age and MA = Mental Age).

Bobby

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathleen Salkin" <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.c-palsy
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: now greta's stats


> OK, let's look at Greta's research population - I believe she is
> looking at a very small segment of the CP population - 6 to 8-year-
> olds, and probably has a narrow sample to work with.  It *is* rather
> difficult to get a true sampling of such a research population if one
> is limited by geographic location and also dependent on responses
> from email lists, etc.  (i.e., only those parents with internet
> access would be able to respond, not every parent of a CP child).
> It's the same problem with obtaining a truly random population
> sampling from a phone book -- that is, only those with listed phone
> numbers would have been called (although nowadays that's gotten
> around by using automatic diallers).
>
> In any case, I consider the Stanford-Benet IQ only one indicator of
> how well a person will do in life; in fact, in the past few  years,
> social scientists have talked about several types of IQ's, not just
> the Stanford-Benet, which is a limited measure of how well we retain
> knowledge.  I can't remember offhand how many there are, but I do
> recall reading that two of the most important are an emotional
> ability and a resilience ability, and that all these quotients are
> best studied in conjunction with each other as how well an individual
> functions in society, not as isolated indicators.
>
> Kat
>
> On 8 Jan 2006, at 09:19, Trisha Cummings wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>