Good to hear some of those diagnostic questions have been clarified.

On DYS, I mean, it can't hurt to try, especially if the examiner writes a clear and well-argued clinical explanation for why some of these scores may not fully represent DC's ability--keeping in mind that the additional process scores are not all official. BDpartial is a clinical score with real norms behind it. But the way it's written, it does not look like FWextra time, BDextra time or VPextra time are real scores (although there is an official process score called BD no time bonus, which addresses related factors).

FWIW, although I'm not quibbling with the way the extra time versions of the subtest scores are being interpreted, there actually is a clinical instrument with real norms that could have picked up/accounted for some of the impact of processing speed on timed tasks. The WISC-V Integrated has analogous subtests for several of the WISC-V subtests, such as a 50% extended time version of Figure Weights (Figure Weights Process Approach), and a motor-free analog of Block Design (Block Design Multiple Choice). (No hint of timing questions for your DC's Arithmetic score, but that subtest also has a 50% extended time version, as well as a couple of other clinical versions. I'm guessing, if anything, it was working memory that impacted this subtest--addressed by some of the alternate administration conditions.)

I'm also a bit curious about what the VECI subtests were, since that's an 11 point drop between just Si-Vo and Si-Vo-In-Co. Especially since there are noises about further evaluation by speech and language, and there are differences between the receptive and expressive language demands of those subtests, as well as in their relationship to knowledge vs reasoning skills.

Your neuropsych could also have administered some retrieval fluency tasks themselves, actually, on the WISC-V. The Naming Speed Index is a pair of rapid naming tasks. But if a s/l eval is going to be completed, someone else can assess for those skills too.

BTW, one of the reasons the VSI may have been lower than you were expecting (in addition to impacts of visual-motor speed) is that no natural ceiling was reached. You need two zero items to reach a ceiling, and only one seems to have been obtained. Remember that on the WASI, there were a few more adult-level items to go through. And on the FSIQ prediction, recall that I pointed out that the WASI cannot predict the CPI (WMI + PSI), since it has none of those tasks, which means the closest thing to a prediction would be the GAI. Even then, the WASI does not include FW (which was the lower of the two FRI subtests). So you have a number of changes going from the WASI to the WISC that might impact the reliability of the prediction.

It occurs to me that, although DYS can make their own decisions on whether to take them into consideration, some of the clinical nonmotor indices/composites on the WISC-V might have been appropriate for someone with a DCD Dx. (These all require the WISC-V Integrated supplementary tasks.) VCI and FRI would, of course, be unaffected, but there would be the option of nonmotor VSI, GAI and FSIQ.

...I think I'm probably drifting off into excessively niche professional musings at this point, so I'll stop now!


...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...