so the proper test would require calibrating on tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands of randomly selected children of the same age, repeating every few years.
I think this effectively happens with the tests that Davidson relies on because so many children take them.
Thanks for the links. Now I would tell they are doing it very seriously.
It still leaves some space for metodological doubts, for example being in “top 0.1% at least in one of three or four subcategories” is not the same as being in “top 0.1%” generally. But I respect them for using only the existing serious tests and not developing their own (as e.g. many self-proclaimed high-IQ societies do).
I think this effectively happens with the tests that Davidson relies on because so many children take them.
See also.
Thanks for the links. Now I would tell they are doing it very seriously.
It still leaves some space for metodological doubts, for example being in “top 0.1% at least in one of three or four subcategories” is not the same as being in “top 0.1%” generally. But I respect them for using only the existing serious tests and not developing their own (as e.g. many self-proclaimed high-IQ societies do).