My son has just undertaken the WISC IV. We had this conducted as he is struggling to stay at grade level (grade 3) in reading (he is slow, sounds all out and not fluent) but his comprehension is great when read to. We then found out he was slightly far-sighted but still went ahead with testing primarily to rule out anything else. He also has difficulty with writing stories etc - his ideas are great but he has trouble writing the story in a logical fashion which makes sense.
His results are -
Verbal Index - 132
Perceptual Index - 137
Working Memory - 97
Processing - 110
AS you can see there is a difference of 40 points between his highest score and lowest score! Has anyone seen this profile before or can comment on it? I assume this is why he is seen academically as average or even slightly below average this year. This profile also means he ends up with a FSIQ less than the 130 gifted cut-off but both verbal and perceptual fall inside gifted range.
My best advice to you is to go back to the psychologist who did the assessment and ask him/her to 'unpack' the scores for you. It is not unusual for there to be wide disparities between scores on different sub-tests, but you really do need an expert to tell you what it means. If there are very high scores and very low scores, then the full scale score ("IQ") may not be the number you need to take note of. For example, with visual spatial gifted children, the highest score is the one that is noted as indicative of giftedness, because it is recognised that the low scores in other subtests will bring the FSIQ score down. These children may not reach the magical 130IQ on a test because of their learning differences but they are still gifted. IQ is just a number; behavioural characteristics of giftedness form a huge part of the picture too.
Hope this is of use, but again, I do recommend you go back to your psychologist for expert interpretation.
If its any consolation there are lots of us Gifties around with scores like that - mine is all over the place - ditto my daughters (and both different from each other)
I agree with Sue - the psychologist who conducted the assessment is in the best position to explain the results in more detail for you ... there are all sorts of observational factors that may be relevant in terms of better understanding your son.
He could be Visual Spatial (meaning his INTERNAL processing is 3 dimensional imagery rather than words) - its an "all at once" thought system and it makes sense just that way - often there is no apparent "order" and often these ideas are absolutely huge - one also needs to be able to "retain" these ideas while writing them down - often difficult for those who are VS
He may have a very specific learning style (Meaning how he takes in EXTERNAL information may be quite specific and not well accommodated in the classroom). A child who is a hands on learner for example, is likely to start developing "gaps" in their knowledge and understanding in areas where hands on opportunities to learn are lacking.
He could have merely found the WM subtest to be disinteresting and thus was more distractable.
Even as an adult, knowing that we are "meant" to direct all our attention to these things, I couldnt help but find myself fascinated by the very fact that my mind and brain worked quite differently during different subtests .... such is the nature of ideas!
My daughter was tested with the WISC iv also, and had a discrepancy of 20 points between verbal and working memory and more than 23 between verbal and processing speed. Because of the latter difference, the ed psych didn't calculate a Full Scale score, but instead a General Ability Index (GAI) made up of the verbal and perceptual scores, which certainly put her in the gifted category.
From looking at Hoagies and other websites, it looks like this may be an apparopriate approach when there is this kind of difference but maybe that's processing speed only. I believe that internationally at any rate, gifted programmes often use the GAI score particulary where there is some sort of learning challenge.
Did your ed psych comment on the subtask performance for working memory? That may give you more insight too. At any rate, DD's report was written up around the GAI score.
You might want to contact the tester again and talk this over.
Hi, don't have time for a full post, but this should link to the gifted development centre in the US who recommend that working memory and processing speed are not considered when assessing giftedness. Their experience is vast, they have a huge database and I think that they quote 70% gifted kids test at or below average for these subtests.
However my own working memory is not great, so check it out !
Hi there
I have just had my son tested, he's 6y8m. I was concerned as he seemed very bright but only just getting by at school and finding it hard. Wasn't exactly racing ahead in his reading although he has always been really advanced verbally and in comprehension.
He also came out with some quite big discrepancies in his results. None were far below average but he was tested by SPELD and they think he has a specific learning disability in the cognitive processing area.
His results in a nutshell were
verbal 98%ile
reasoning 98%ile
cognitive efficiency 48%ile
So the efficiency lowered his overall IQ score to 127. but I think I can still consider him gifted in verbal and reasoning ability.
Processing speed and visual matching were the ones he scored lowest in. I take it with a little bit of a grain of salt as he has very poor eye tracking (8%ile for age when tested a while back)as well as eye teaming issues, line of vision etc and some of the tests were things like picking out same numbers from rows of numbers etc. We are working with him on eye exercises at the moment.
He scored 99%ile on auditory sequential and 92%ile on spatial relations.
At school his achievement is about age level for reading and below for maths and writing. The school, frustratingly, seem to think this is all fine and that he just needs more time....
We are going to send him to SPELD to try and focus on addressing some of his weak areas so that he can hopefully read more fluently and also work on writing to ease the frustration of getting his ideas down on paper.
As for the maths, I'm not sure why he isn't getting the maths when his spatial ability is pretty high. Anyone else had that situation?Our optometrist is great and he says the visual issues may be affecting everything, so we will see if the exercises we are doing make a substantial improvement for him.
My oldest boy appeared to us to be a real little genius when he was a pre-schooler. We sent him to school expecting he would sail through the whole ten years showing the others just how this education business should work, carrying off bigger and better prizes each year! What a joke. He sailed through the first few months OK impressing all around him but when it actually came to doing anything at all that did not simply rely on him lecturing to the world like the precocious little Einstein he was ....... then he simply went to pieces. He found learning to read quite hard and as he was the first of our children we were not aware how far behind the others he had got until somebody suggested a remedial reading class. He never found out was spelling was all about and as for writing (!***!) He had an IQ test somewhere along the way and we found he was apparently very bright verbally at least (from memory he got 170 on a Stanford Binet which is apparently more geared towards verbal children. His inability to actually produce anything except bright ideas meant he did not even get into a high academic stream at secondary school. He's still seen as something of a genius (now in his 30s) but has never had a job in his life and seems to live by his wits. On the positive side he is a very likeable man - a kind person - and seems unphased by his inability to fulfill his potential.
Sorry if this depresses anyone.
Hi there
In response to your sons results, they look not dissimliar to my sons, who is 6y8m, and sounds like we are having similiar issues at school, finding it all a bit of a struggle, when it should be a piece of cake for these bright little people! my son is also only reading at about age level, not particularly fluent, having some trouble with sounding out etc.
my sons results were
verbal 132
thinking 130
visual auditory learning 134
spatial 121
overall cognitive efficiency 99
processing speed 98
so his full scale IQ was also lowered by the slower processing speed etc.
As I've said elsewhere speld say he has a learning disorder based on only average processing speed/cog efficiency but high ability level.
however i have since read that this profile is not that unusual and that many very bright kids have only average processing speed etc. some studies suggest up to 70% of gifted children have processing speeds in average range or below-they can't all be disabled right!??
So, apparently they need a GAI calculated rather than a FSIQ to give a clearer picture of where they sit in their ability level.
.
my son did however come out rather poorly on some of his behavioral optometry stuff
8th percentile for eye tracking-thats gotta wreck havoc with reading!
eye teaming problems
exophoria
His lowest score on the WJIII was visual matching (29%ile) interestingly.
So, after much reading and talking to people I am now leaning towards thinking that the visual limitations are his main issue, which is probably causing difficulty in all areas at school. I am far from convinced he has a neurological based Specific learning disorder in cognitive efficiency.
The approach we are taking is eye exercises as prescribed by the behavioural optometrist, also may try a little SPELD tuition. They reckon they can give him a bit of a crash course in phonics to try and get the reading happening more automatically.
I must say I am no expert, but I would definitely get a full behavioural optometry done on your son if you haven't already. From what I've read, kids with high verbal ability and great comprehension who are inexplicably struggling with reading may have visual based problems.
One of you experts out there may like to join in here and confirm my ramblings (or shoot me down in flames!)
Thanks and good luck to all with your wonderful kids!
I am wondering if "Overall cognitive efficiency" is comparable to "Processing Speed" ?
LOL mine was at the 27th percentile.
I do not consider myself to have any form of "Learning Disability/Difficulty" although I am most certainly neurologically atypical.
My brain is wired to function a certain way and when I go about things in a way that is in accord with my wiring, I function well in life - better than "well" actually.
When I try to go against it, its a whole different story.
Im not wanting to shoot you down in flames but as a visual spatial individual myself, I understand how internal and external visual information is likely to conflict - especially when there is a lack of conceptual information in the external visuals.
I would be doing the exact opposite to what you are suggesting - that is I would be working in accord with his strengths (his listening skills and spatial understanding) in order to develop them to their full potential, which will give him a means of compensation that is in accord with his way of being rather than in opposition to it.
The problem with "training" that involves establishing new or developing "weak" neurological pathways is that the only way to maintain them is to spend ones lifetime doing so - stop and one will quickly find oneself back where one started.
One becomes conditioned to spending ones lifetime trying to maintain those pathways and it really does reduce quality of life in the longer term.
Thanks everyone for your input. We have been throught the visual testing and yes he required glasses for a little bit of long-sightedness. However his processing test came out at greater than a 12 year old. I have to say that to concentrate on the strengths and build them up is how I have been approaching things with homework etc (a very visual spatial slant, also audio books in addition to reading). Things have improved - I think the issue is that school teaches to his weaknesses.
Sorry I forgot to mention that the psych did mention his GAI in the report - she identified this at 142. However, there is a significant discrepancy when you look at performance (eg. spelling was tested at the 14th percentile!!!) and reading was a few months below average. The psych had to stop the writing test as it was so painful to watch and he just said it was 'too hard'. He made mistakes even when the correct spellling was in front of him!
Thats great news that things have improved - shame about the school though.
I find writing by hand to be painful and mentally exhausting so I really sympathise with children who have issues with it that are being required to write by hand day after day, week after week, term after term.
It SHOULD be illegal to make kids with those sorts of issues to do any more writing by hand than is absolutely necessary in order to learn to write by hand if they are in a situation that requires it. Keyboards are compatible with VS so there is a better option.
I found the reading test REALLY interesting to do. I read though - very carefully I thought and it turned out I still made substitutions (when/then etc) fairly randomly. When asked questions on the passage of text I was absolutely clueless, and already tired just from the reading although there wasnt actually that much to read.
Coding was equally taxing - although I didnt make mistakes I got hardly any done - and obvious problem in the conventional school system.
Symbol Search was also interesting .... and that along with the "working memory" verbal subtests gave me a very new insight into perceived "poor memory".
It is ASSUMED that these are done using STAM (Short Term Auditory Memory) ..... as the "working memory" score indicates .... however, I discovered that is actually highly unlikely in the case of Spatial individuals.
The difficulty I had was actually the result of "accumulation" - retention of information that would not be expected to be retained if using the STAM - and there was no discernible chronological order - suggesting that I was actually working entirely out of what we consider to be "long term spatial memory".
Rather than "switching" between the two I was trying to use the long term spatial memory as if it was the "STAM".
It seems to me that such an observation has profound implications in terms of how we could/should teach spatial children and how we perceive their memories. Yet, it seems to get no attention at all.
Tiz Me: Sorry it has been a while to reply to your latest response! That is interesting re the STAM - are you saying that these children may be trying to use the long term memory whilst doing hte short term memory and due to lack of relevance (or something else) it just does not stick at all? Pls correct me if I interpreted that wrong. If that is the case, I am really interested to hear your thoughts (being VS yourself) on the implications and how we could potentially utilise this process to help them. You are right - it has received no attention - this is the firt time I have heard mention so I am very interested to hear more. Thank you again for your ongoing interest and great input.
Re: Late addition to discussion on Large discrepancy re Working memory
Author: LE
Date: 08-06-09 17:00
I've just, after a year of resisting, had a day of testing with SPELD for my 8yr old, who reads Tolkien (and absolutely anything else) avidly and is highly verbal and creative but hates writing and can't spell or do math for peanuts. I'll spare you the details but there are the wide discrepancies from normal to superior and they're off to "decide" whether he has an SLD or is just gifted in one or two areas alone.
Frankly, - and I'm very tired, so forgive me - I'm sorry I gave in to the pressure from school and GKP to get him tested. Perhaps the only solution is to put my back to the wall of disapproval and push it back to give my wee man some space to be his own special, albeit asynchronous, self. God knows he's never done anything until it made sense to him. Anyone else feeling the testing thing was a waste of time and too focused on finding problems where in fact there may just be idiosyncrasies?
Thank heavens for TisMe: a breath of fresh air always.
Re: Late addition to discussion on Large discrepancy re Working memory
Author: Joanne
Date: 08-06-09 19:55
Maybe take some time with the results before you decide one way or another what you think of them. But none of that will change that your son is "his own special, albeit asynchronous, self" anyway.
I see the test results for our kids as just a tool. Not a description of who they are but more information to throw in to the mixing pot about what we already know of them. A couple of times they have been very good at shining a light on something that's been a bit puzzling.
The test results don't change who our kids are; they may change how other people regard them (eg that you child is "classified" in some way). If that gains you more support then maybe that's a good. If it's not the kind you want, then don't heed the category and keep going as you were.
The information may become useful at a later date.
Re: Late addition to discussion on Large discrepancy re Working memory
Author: mumofthree
Date: 08-06-09 22:09
Hi
I was interested in this GAI thing. Excuse my ignorance about it, but from what I can tell it means giving a score based on their areas of giftedness rather than averaging it all out into a FSIQ score which doesn't make a lot of sense. My sons scores ranged from 99%ile to about 29%ile in the various sub tests in the WJIII test via SPELD but when I asked the assessor what his GAI would be he basically said "Oh no, you can't take out any of the processing speed scores as it all makes up the IQ". So I was left a bit confused by that. From what I had read the areas of verbal and reasoning ability are the strongest indicators of "giftedness" and the cognitive efficiency scores much less so as many bright people have only average processing speeds. My sons FSIQ came out 127 but his verbal and reasoning were 98%ile overall but cog efficiency (including processing speed etc) only 48%ile.
Can you work out the GAI from the scores or is it a computerized equation?
Not that it makes any real difference I guess, its only a number, but just interested to know.
Re: Late addition to discussion on Large discrepancy re Working memory
Author: Joanne
Date: 09-06-09 11:33
Hi - it may depend on the test? With the WISC-IV they certainly can and do calculate a GAI, which eliminates the processing speed and working memory scores.
I believe it is accepted protocol to take those two out in the WISC-IV when there is large variance and the scores of the verbal and/or non-verbal indicate giftedness. (DD's had a non valid score for memory and a large enough discrepancy for processing speed that no FSIQ was calculated).
Your understanding about GAI ties in with mine. I don't know about how it's calculated but suspect you might need the underlying sub-scores. At any rate the tester should do this *if* it's a test where this is agreed practice. Ring them up.
Re: Late addition to discussion on Large discrepancy re Working memory
Author: mumofthree
Date: 10-06-09 10:57
Hi,
in reply to Joannes comments, does anyone know if you can indeed calculate a GAI for the WJIII? The tester we used was via SPELD and I don't think he had a lot of experience with higher IQ kids-well that was my impression anyway. We don't have access to an ed psych in our area where we live so we just have to try and work things out for ourselves much of the time!
There were certainly large variances in the scores, as processing speed was only 38%ile I think, which would lower the FSIQ and some suggest this makes it a bit meaningless as it disguises both the high and low scores on the subtests.
Hi,
I do think the GAI is what the test creators made specifcially for the WISC IV. However, I could be wrong and there could be other ways to formulate similarly comprised scores with the WJIII. I googled GAI and WJIII and came up with some material in google books about the test (but couldn't see a reference to a GAI as such). However, here is the link to the WISC GAI calculations -
http://harcourtassessment.com/hai/Images/pdf/wisciv/WISCIVTechReport4.pdf
Re: Late addition to discussion on Large discrepancy re Working memory
Author: Sue
Date: 27-07-09 12:09
The WJIII reports a GIA score (not a GAI as has been suggested in some of the posts), for General Intellectual Ability, and it is averaged out over all the sub-tests.
My 5 yr old has recently had an assessment (WPPSI-III). Scored high in verb comp, performance, general lang, with a full scale IQ 97 percentile. Scored low average for process speed, 37 percentile.
She has only been at school for a term. Her writing isn't fantastic and she has commented a couple of times that she is finding it hard - that could just be a normal reaction to the new workload of school work?
Can anyone give any advise on whether we should get going with some sort of programme etc.... to help with processing speed, or is it reasonable given her age to wait and watch at this stage - could her processing speed improve as she matures over the next year?
Hi Sue
So, if only a GIA can be calculated from the WJIII do you suggest that this is not a suitable test for those with wide discrepancies in their scores?eg gifted with lower processing speeds etc?
I know my son is supposed to have a "re test" via SPELD in a few months and I wonder should I be asking for him to have something like the WISC IV to get a better picture?
Someone in regards to ODS said to me that the GIA in such cases ends up being somewhat meaningless as both the high and low scores are averaged out, disguising both the strengths and the difficulties.
ODS uses the cognitive abilities subtests only of the WJIII as they are looking for a GIA to assess whether a child is above a certain cognitive ability for entry (ie if they are bright enough). When they assess for entry, though, they do look at the discrepancies and, for example, a slow processing speed score against otherwise good subtest scores would not rule out entry for a child. So, it depends on the purpose of the testing - if it is for entry to ODS, you should be fine with their WJIII test battery. The WJIII is a good diagnostic tool for learning difficulties - this is what it was initially created for - and while a tester needs a certain professional 'level' to administer the test, he/she does not have to be an educational psychologist - hence you can get teachers and RTLBs who are able to administer the test. Sometimes these people are not best placed to interpret the results for parents though.
If you are testing for a more in-depth understanding of your child's needs and abilities, then in my opinion you are better to have an educational psychologist carry out a full-scale assessment using WISC IV or similar. However, while I have knowledge of the WJIII from my days working at ODS, I am not an ed psych and cannot recommend which test would be best. Perhaps it would be wise to contact an ed psych near you and discuss it with them.
Hi Sue
Thanks for that. Yes my son had the WJ III through SPELD as at the time we were assessing for learning disabilities rather than giftedness. We of course knew he was bright but our main concern was why he was finding school difficult. The person who administered the test was an assessor for SPELD who was an older man who was a retired teacher. I think he was very experienced in children with LD but I'm not sure if he was experienced in assessing or interpreting results for children with higher IQs. I am not aware of any ed psychs in our area (we live in Hawkes Bay) and I must admit I have found it a bit difficult to really interpret the results.
Eg the SPELD assessor considered that an average processing speed/cognitive efficiency coupled with high scores on verbal and reasoning definitely indicated that my son has SLD. On the other hand I have read elsewhere that many people who score high in verbal and/or reasoning have only average processing speed etc. When I showed school his results they certainly don't seem to believe that he has SLD. Although he does fit a lot of what I have read about SLD kids. But then some of it fits with visual spatial/gifted as well as LD- eg hates writing, disorganised, global thinker etc.
I guess I still feel that I'm flying a bit blind even after all of this assessment. We seem to have cracked the reading, he's a great reader now, but writing is still an issue (although I understand this is the case for many gifted boys, with or without learning disabilities)He's 7 and maths basic facts still seem to pass him by, I am not sure how to help him there. I think he needs more concept, its like all the numbers don't mean a whole lot to him.
8f14e.
I can see why this is perplexing you, mumofthree. Alison Kirby is an ed psych who is experienced with gifted children and although she is Auckland-based, she does travel to Hawkes Bay from time to time to do assessments. I think families requiring assessment band together to pay travel costs. Alison's contact details are: Alison Kirby (09) 522 1628 or email dartr@kiwilink.co.nz
