Ruf Estimates of Levels of Giftedness: Part I - From the Archives

An Introduction to the Concept of Levels of Giftedness

I originally published a version of this paper in 2004 before my first book was released. That book was called 5 Levels of Gifted: School Issues and Educational Options and formerly titled Losing Our Minds: Gifted Children Left Behind). Through my own experiences reading Substack posts, and whatever I read before that, I’ve learned I don’t really want to read each one every day and I really don’t want it to be too long. So, I’ve divided this piece into Parts I and II (November 2023). This Introduction pertains to the whole paper. Part II will focus on the actual milestones and early behaviors and interests of the gifted children at each level. Keep in mind, just like standardized testing, there are no real cut-offs or absolutes. Also, schools and their approaches to meeting the needs of their students have not appreciatively changed since I wrote my first book.

Introduction

Any parent who has more than one child knows that regardless of the way they parent or what they provide for their children, the children are different from one another in many, many ways. Although certain characteristics certainly run in families, the looks, temperaments, abilities, talents and interests of each child are usually at least somewhat dissimilar between them. Even our school systems acknowledge that children vary in their learning abilities; but at the same time that we recognize that children are different from one another, we set up school instructional and social situations that treat them as though any differences are either small or nonexistent. The problem may be that there is little or no understanding in schools of how vast the learning differences are.

The customary method of grouping children for instruction in schools is heterogeneous (mixed ability) grouping and “whole class” instruction. Despite considerable evidence that the achievement span among children of the same age can be — and usually is — quite significant[1], children are almost always strictly grouped with others who are the same age as they. The intellectual differences between children of the same age become socially and academically problematic when the children are continually grouped together in schools all day for all their instruction and activities. For example, when a little girl routinely uses advanced vocabulary and wants to guide the play of her more typical classmates, they may resent her and see her as “bossy” or strange because of the words she uses. If a boy who enjoys reading books on history and wants someone to discuss his passionate interest with, he may be viewed as socially immature if he keeps turning to his teacher for attention instead of playing with the boys his age.

I believe that unless we know and understand how different children can be from one another, we cannot effectively address the best methods for meeting the needs of any of them. Some years ago I set out to study learning differences — particularly those of highly intelligent children.

There is a mountain of research on individual learning differences that is available, and has been available, for many years. Although my Ruf Estimates of Levels of Giftedness are relevant to children in the upper one-third or so of a typical classroom, differences of a similar magnitude occur throughout the range of learners who are generally in the lowest third of many classrooms, as well.

While the learning differences of children who are slower learners seem to be well accepted by educators — and attended to in schools — the concept of different levels of high intelligence has been fuzzy and confusing for parents and educators alike. There is research that goes back as far as the studies of Lewis Terman (1925)[2] and Leta Hollingworth (1926)[3] and continues to the present to show that highly intelligent children learn faster than same-aged students with lower intellectual abilities. Research consistently shows that brighter students benefit from being allowed to progress at a faster rate. Research does not support that they suffer in any way, socially, emotionally, or otherwise, from being allowed to move ahead academically[4].

With all the research evidence, why haven’t schools, parents, and teachers accepted the idea of acceleration? A Nation Deceived, presents the following reasons why schools hold back America’s brightest kids:

• Limited familiarity with the research on acceleration

• Philosophy that children must be kept with their age group

• Belief that acceleration hurries children out of childhood

• Fear that acceleration hurts children socially

• Political concerns about equity

• Worry that other students will be offended if one child is accelerated. [5]

Generally, schools now take one of two primary approaches to addressing the academic needs of students who are very different from each other.

1. Individualized, enriched instruction at grade level. In this approach, children are grouped heterogeneously by age while advanced learners periodically receive enrichment. This approach is popular but tends to be burdensome for the teacher and is often inconsistently delivered, e.g., it requires considerable planning and may be frequently omitted from the day’s schedule. The method does not usually accelerate instruction or learning; it adds more at a similar level.

2. Gifted Classes. When special gifted programming exists, it usually places all gifted children in the same program as though all gifted children are alike or of the same ability. One popular type of gifted program pulls children out of regular class for one or two hours a week to offer enriched instruction with other gifted children. A problem with this type of program is that it is often not enough, and sometimes the children are required to make up work missed in the regular classroom.

A considerable problem with many popular approaches to gifted education is that not all gifted children are alike. Some are uneven in their abilities. Some read at a high level, but do not excel at the same high level in other subjects. Few, in fact, are “omnibus gifted” — i.e. gifted in all areas. And the range within the group of children called gifted is quite large, from a beginning level of gifted traits where the child is somewhat ahead of others, to a situation where the child is more than five or six years ahead of other children in what he or she can learn and do.

The remainder of this paper reveals that there are very different abilities among gifted children of the same age, and that this range of apparently inborn abilities — i.e. they reveal themselves so early that environment cannot be the only explanation for this variability — inevitably leads to these children being somewhat different from others. They have different classroom and social needs, as well as different interests, sensitivities, and interactions with others.

It is important to note that test scores are not the sole determinant of giftedness level. Gagné pointed out in his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent[6] that beyond natural abilities, there are also factors of chance, environment (opportunity for instruction and practice, for example), and one’s own intrapersonal qualities. It is these intrapersonal qualities that finally determine whether children within the same score range will be a Level One or Two, or a Level Five or Four.

In recognition of these additional qualities, when preparing and analyzing the data for a book about giftedness levels[7], a number of intrapersonal qualities were considered. These qualitative factors were determined through an analysis of parent-provided information for ninety gifted children initially selected for their range of Stanford-Binet L-M IQs between 120 and 250. That test is only used in a “supplemental capacity” these days, and both group administered tests given in schools and individual IQ tests like the SB5, WISC-IV, and WPPSI-V top out at about 150. So, those corresponding test scores equivalents are included in each Levels description section below, as well as these factors:

• Early childhood intellectual milestones and behaviors

• General personality

• Degree of intrinsic motivation

• Inner drive for continued independent learning

Following is a general summary of the Ruf Estimates of Levels of Giftedness. There is overlap in each of the levels, and inner qualities — qualities that can sometimes change over time due to environmental circumstances — are often the factors that make the difference among several Levels. For example, the degree of personal intensity and drive seem to be one big difference between Level Four and Level Five, the highest level. Some gifted children demonstrate a higher level of intensity and drive than others of similar assessed ability levels, while others only “catch fire” when they find or discover a new interest — an interest they are allowed to pursue — that becomes an all-consuming passion. In the other direction, a gifted child whose inner drive leads him to want to study everything he can get his hands on concerning the ocean, but who is forced to attend school all day with children who cannot yet read well, may at least temporarily lose his passion for learning and appear to be of lower personal drive for the time being.

Level One Gifted:

• Approximately 87th-97th percentiles on standardized tests

• Terms Superior* to Moderately Gifted on IQ tests

• IQ scores[1] of about 117 to 129

• Generally top one-third to one-fourth of students in a typical public mixed-ability class

• Many in this Level don’t qualify for gifted programs (scores don’t meet school criteria)

• Predominate gifted program population due to higher frequency compared to Levels Two through Five

• Start kindergarten with end-of-year skills already mastered

Level Two Gifted:

• Mostly 98–99th percentiles on standardized tests

• Terms Moderately to Highly Gifted or Very Advanced on IQ tests

• IQ scores of about 125–135

• As many as one to three in typical mixed-ability classroom

• Qualify for gifted programs

• Second most common in gifted programs

• Master most kindergarten skills one to two years before kindergarten (by age 4)

Level Three Gifted:

• Approximately 98–99th percentiles on standardized tests

• Terms Highly to Exceptionally Gifted or Very Advanced on IQ tests

• IQ scores of about 130 to 140

• One or two per grade level, more in high socioeconomic schools

• Qualify for gifted programs — above level of most other participants and material

• Unless gifted program includes more than one grade level, student may be only one of same ability in gifted class

• Master majority of kindergarten skills by age 3 or 4

• Question Santa or Tooth Fairy by age 3 to 5

• Most spontaneously read with or w/o previous instruction before kindergarten

• Most read simple chapter books by age 5–6

• Most intuitively use numbers for all operations before kindergarten

Level Four Gifted:

• Primarily 99th percentile on standardized tests, although this understates the person’s ability; it is qualitatively different from a Level Three 99th percentile.

• Also called exceptionally to profoundly gifted

• Full scale IQ scores of about 135 to 141+ or a 145+ on either verbal or nonverbal or a specific domain, e.g. fluid or quantitative reasoning

• One or two across two grade levels; two or three per grade level in high socioeconomic schools (e.g., 100 students in grade level)

• Majority of kindergarten skills by age 3

• Question such concepts as Santa or Tooth Fairy by age 3 to 4

• Majority at 2nd-3rd grade equivalency in academic subjects by early kindergarten

• Majority at upper high school grade equivalencies by 4th-5th grades

• Show concern for existential topics and life’s purpose by early elementary school age

Level Five Gifted:

• Primarily 99.9th percentiles on standardized tests, if such differentiation is reported

• Profoundly gifted range or Highly Advanced on IQ tests

• Full scale and domain scores at 145+ (slightly lower if tested after mid-teenage years)

• High intellectual profile across all ability domains, great inner drive to learn across domains (although not necessarily demonstrated in the regular classroom)

• Nationally at least 1:250,000, a higher proportion in metropolitan areas and high socioeconomic background schools

• Majority have kindergarten skills by about 2½ years or sooner

• Question concept of Santa or Tooth Fairy by age 2 to 3

• Majority spontaneously read, understand fairly complex math, have existential concerns by age 4–5 with or without any instruction

• Majority have high school level grade equivalencies by age 7 or 8 years old, mostly through their own reading and question asking

Standard IQ Score Ranges for the Levels

Not all Level Four or Five children are specifically identified as being qualitatively different from Levels Two and Three, and certainly not from each other, because their test scores look about the same. In fact, Levels Four and Five almost always test about the same until they take out-of-level tests. Out-of-level means a test normed on an older student sample so that the bright younger child’s results are compared to an older group of students. This has the effect of giving the younger child “more test” in order to show what he or she really knows. This is also sometimes referred to as more “ceiling.” Some tests have ceilings that are too low, and this means that too many children within an age group can get all the answers correct and we cannot tell if they are actually more or less capable than each other. When the same group of top scorers is given a test with more ceiling or that is out-of-level (e.g., the 8th grade Explore Test for 5th and 6th graders) their ability differences become more clear as their scores are spread out rather than clustered at the 99th percentile. Some modern standardized tests also have a top score limit even though their actual ceilings are quite high, as with the Stanford-Binet 5 and WISC-IV. The scaled scores within such tests still allow for more detailed discrimination beyond the 145–150 upper limit that even Levels Four and Five children obtain on those instruments. For all of these reasons, it is wise not to use specific score cutoffs to determine Level of Giftedness.

Levels of Giftedness

Level One — Ability Score (IQ) 117–129 — Moderately Gifted 120–124 to Gifted 125–129

Level Two — Ability Score (IQ) 125–135 — Highly Gifted

Level Three —Ability Score (IQ) 130–140 — Highly to Exceptionally Gifted

Level Four — Ability Score (IQ) — 135- 141+ — Exceptionally to Profoundly Gifted

Level Five —Ability Score (IQ) — 145+ — Exceptionally to Profoundly Gifted

Author note: Because of the limitations of current IQ tests, Levels Four and Five above appear to be identical, but are not. The differences between the two levels are in the degree of the behaviors, as illustrated in the list of milestone attainments. This table does not consider ratio IQ scores and is not except in the most general way related to the old ratio IQ results. *Superior is the term utilized by test publishers to designate the intellectual range prior to either gifted or advanced.

Because of the theoretical shape of the bell curve, there are more children at the 130 IQ level than at the 135 or 140 IQ level, and fewer yet at the levels that are higher. What do we know about measured ability level and corresponding accomplishments? Using standard score test data from the 1950s and 1960s, it was estimated[8] that the mean IQ of high school graduates was about 105, the mean of college graduates was 115, and the mean of people getting medical degrees and Ph.D.’s was about 125 in the United States. This is, of course, different than saying the average person with a 125 IQ goes to medical school.

Part II will show you the actual developmental milestones, interests and behaviors of the subjects during their birth through 6th years.

Notes, References, and Further Reading

[1] Aptitude or ability scores on “normal curve” tests including WISC-III and WISC-IV, Stanford-Binet 4, and Stanford-Binet 5, Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) and Otis-Lennon (OLSAT). Although all of these may be administered on their own, often schools embed the CogAT or Otis-Lennon within their achievement tests where they are reported as an SAI, or School Ability Index, which is rarely pointed out to parents even though the scores are sent home.

[1] Lohman, D. F. (1999). Minding our p’s and q’: On finding relationships between learning and intelligence. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 55–76. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

[2] Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius Vol. I: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

[3] Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan.

[4] Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. A John Templeton Foundation Report. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.

[5] Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students, Volume I. A John Templeton Foundation Report. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.

[6]Gagné, F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 69–87) Oxford: Pergamon Press.

[7] Ruf, D. L. (2005). 5 Levels of Gifted: School Issues and Educational Options (formerly titled Losing Our Minds: Gifted Children Left Behind). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

[8] Gottfredson, L. S. (1998, Winter). The general intelligence factor. Scientific American Presents, 9(4), 24–29.

[9] Cronbach, L. & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A Handbook for Research on Interactions. New York: Irvington.

Snow, R. (1989). Aptitude-Treatment Interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in learning. In P. Ackerman, R.J. Sternberg, & R. Glaser (Ed.), Learning and Individual Differences. New York: W.H. Freeman.