Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment WISC-IV question about FSIQ and GAI

I have been reading through the forums and also online about the FSIQ and GAI. From what I've read it seems like the GAI typically winds up being several points higher than the FSIQ. My ds has the opposite results and I can't seem to find anything about why that might be or how to interpret the score. Something that has been mentioned is a possible LD.

His FSIQ is 146, his GAI is 135.

Can anyone clarify or direct me to a reference that can explain what this might mean? The tester had no information, just explained why they calculated the GAI, and we're not sure where to go next.

Thanks!

Some individuals are highly efficient in using the skills they have, but not necessarily as high (not that this GAI is by any means low!) in abstract thinking and complex problem solving. A profile such as your son's, although unusual, does not necessarily suggest an LD. Sometimes, this can be advantageous, as these scores indicate a level of cognitive strength which is much easier for most teachers to appreciate and recognize (because speed and memory look more like what most teachers expect giftedness to look like).

What does the rest of his profile look like? Are there other indications of a learning disability, besides these test results?

That can't be true. They are both supposed to have mean 100 and SD 15.

22B, it can be true because they are two different calculations: FSIQ is a composite of the VCI, PRI, WM and PSI indexes; GAI is a composite of VCI & PRI only. I don't remember the name of it, but another # can be calculated that is the composite of the WM & PRI only.

I suspect the reason that GAI seems to be higher than FSIQ when mentioned in these forums is the nature of why it's mentioned, and the profile of what occurs more often in HG/+ children. Although I don't have a GAI calculated for her, I wouldn't be surprised if the GAI of one of my dds is lower than her FSIQ because PSI and WM are her strengths and her scores are higher there than for VCI and PRI.

To the OP - who mentioned the possibility of LD? Was it the tester or is it based on something you've read online? How much lower was the GAI than the FSIQ? If you can share the actual #s (or the amount of discrepancy observed) and also tell us a little bit more about why your ds was tested (was it for a gifted program, routine testing, or was he struggling in some area) - we might be able to give some extra input.

Best wishes,

polarbear

eta - I don't want to confuse the post here.. but fwiw, my dd who does have the higher WM and PSI scores also has a challenge with a different type of memory and it impacts her ability to read. So she is considered to be 2e - but that doesn't mean that a child has an LD simply because WM and PSI are their strengths. It might be a red flag, however, that some type of LD Is causing scores to be depressed in one or more of the PRI/VCI subtests and that would lower that component of FSIQ and also the GAI. Hope that makes sense!

Of course, you are correct, 22b. They both have mean 100 and SD 15, which is why it should not surprise anyone that there are kids out there who have a higher FSIQ than GAI. Actually, probably roughly as many kids have FSIQ>GAI as have GAI>FSIQ. (The actual percentage is known; I could look this up, if I were at work.) We just don't hear about them as much on this forum, because of the nature of the population. (I'm guessing there's a minuscule population of kids with GAI 145+ and FSIQ 160+, as that would suggest a CPI (combined WMI/PSI) up in the 170 range, but the CPI tables I have top out at 162...)

Which part of his profile? He was given the WISC and the WIAT and a few others. The psychologist explained most of them but not very clearly. He indicated that my son may struggle with retaining material and doing any type of mental manipulation based on the scores.

We had initially requested the testing for school purposes. We thought he may be gifted (taught himself to read and write by 3, taught himself to play the piano) but his most current teacher stated he had difficulty writing and couldn't read - both untrue. He doesn't like to write but will when it's something he likes.

The psychologist is telling us to request a special ed placement so he can have accommodations to avoid the frustration. We're not in agreement with him but need to understand more.

Thanks for your input.

There is an 11 point difference between the FSIQ and the GAI - although in my research I found the WISC scoring and if I'm doing it correctly his GAI should be a 142, not sure.

He was tested due to his 3rd grade teacher referring him for special ed, due mostly to his dislike of writing and some behavioral problems that only seemed to occur with this one teacher. The psychologist seems to agree that a special ed placement will allow him to get the accommodations that will help him should there be an frustration or struggling with mental manipulations which he suggests show from his test results. We have not noticed that and are in disagreement but need to understand more about the test results.

We know he doesn't like to write although he will if it's something he has an interest in, he does struggle with fine motor skills - holds things oddly, can't tie shoes easily, clumsy etc.

OK, I've been curious about this for a while. Why does the GAI exclude both WMI and PSI? Are they frequently similar scores?

I'm asking because DDs WMI was high (as were VCI and PRI) and her PSI the lower score. To the degree that our report include both a GAI as well as a GAI + WMI calculation.

This isn't a practical question for us (it certainly won't change anything we've been doing) but just a matter of curiosity.

If you're comfortable posting (or PM me, if you prefer) the subtest and cluster scores for the remaining cognitive and achievement testing, I can give you my take on the results, and try to answer any questions you have about them. (In particular, I see that you are questioning the accuracy of the GAI.) I might be able to explain why the examiner suggested an IEP or 504 plan.

Because neither of them loads as heavily on general intelligence (g) as the VCI and PRI do, and there is some support in the factor analysis for a two-factor solution consisting of VCI/PRI and WMI/PSI. (See Dumont-Willis scoring.) In addition, validation studies support the use of the GAI as it is currently defined to discriminate the gifted population from NTs. Sometimes they are similar (especially in gifted/non2e), where a lower CPI results from two comparable contributing indices, usually in the 110s, in which case you can appropriately discuss the cognitive proficiency cluster as a unit. In 2e, it is fairly common to find any combination of one or both lower, generally average or below.

Speculatively, a non 2e, relatively low PSI might reflect a deliberate working style, with high attention to detail, or perfectionistic tendencies, or prioritizing accuracy over speed, all of which are essentially varying degrees of the same thing, a pattern familiar to most persons working with gifted kids.

(Other explanations include inattention/poor sustained attention, impulsivity (if the number of items completed is within expectations, but poor accuracy lowers the standard/scaled score), fine motor deficits, vision or visual tracking issues, emotional interference, such as from anxiety or depression, or psychomotor retardation as a side effect of some medications, especially the psychotropics used to treat anx/dep.)