Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment LOG - what would you call DD and DS?

Wow - good for you Michelle!

All I got (also in Canada) was a single score as a percentile, rounded? to an even number. Later a different Ed. Psych. let slip the decimal.

I called her later to ask if they had sub-scores, but she couldn't/wouldn't tell me.

DS supposedly did the WISC IV, but she told me they didn't look at processing speed or working memory - so was it an abbreviated version of the test?

Michelle is very resourceful!

Mahagogo, I mean that FSIQ, in a balanced profile (which appears to be more common near the mean), more closely approximates g. When the index scores are as diverse as they often are for GT pops, GAI more closely approximates g.

You can calculate GAI from subtest percentiles using Michelle MacGyver's method, but, as she notes, you won't be able to obtain ExIQs. Of course, that is no different than if you had conventional scaled scores, instead of percentiles.

Can2K, if a WISC-IV without PSI or WMI was administered, then the score you received was likely the GAI, in percentile form. Alternatively, she may have been assessed with the brief version, the WASI-II, which is a two- or four-subtest abbreviated version. If only two subtests were given (vocabulary & matrix reasoning), the most interpretable score would be the FSIQ-2. I wouldn't withhold anything from a parent, but I admit I would be a bit reluctant to put too much weight on the subtest scaled scores in that case, unless they were quite significantly different. The FSIQ-2 takes about 15 minutes, usually, and isn't an unreasonable individual screening option. Probably better than group CogATs and NNAT-2s. Plus, if you add testing within a few months, you can actually combine them with the remaining subtests of the WISC-IV for a complete battery.

Do our neighbors to the north not have some equivalent of FERPA? Down here, parents have a right to any individual student data on their children. (Much to the distress of publishers and most psychologists, parents can even demand to view the original test protocol, since it represents child products.) Although districts can make it very difficult to obtain them.

Thanks aeh - whatever version of the WISC he did, it took about an hour, from what I understand.

I had suspected low processing speed, which is why I was digging for more info. Interestingly, the Optometrist I spoke to today about DS's vision testing results said one of her test suggested low processing speed.

It was a timed test where he had to just read two columns of numbers. Apparently he was accurate but slow. Don't know if that's the same as what the WISC tests for though...

I have no idea if we have a FERPA equivalent up here - it may differ by province. I expect that you can see whatever is in the official school record, if you ask. I do know that I never received the results from DD's OLSAT - but I've not asked for them either...

Thanks all - sorry to hijack the thread. Being as I only have wppsi 3 results I'm just going to have to make do with the FSIQ -although DD's processing speed is only 63% so I imagine her GAI would be a little higher. I'll use the table to figure it out for novelty value.....

In New Zealand I don't think there is a set policy about disclosure, I'm sure if I jumped up and down I could get it. I think it's more likely to be a case of "why would you need a higher number other than to brag - we don't do bragging in NZ" smirk.

Pinecroft, I haven't read all of the replies, so please forgive me if I repeat what someone else has said. This is just my experiece/opinion, based on having older kids and having advocated for a number of years at this point in time. I'd first not worry about what to call the LOG - the definition of terms such as "highly gifted" etc varies depending on who you are talking to or who you are referencing. To quantify intellectual giftedness, I've found it's easier to frame test results in terms of how unusual the results are. Percentiles and the bell curve are things that most school staff are familiar with and are easy ways to quickly put a frame around how atypical your child is. Understanding a little bit about the statistics involved with typical testing can go along way too.

Fwiw, your children have an additional level of not-being-typical in the split between VCI and PRI. Do you see a reflection of this in their academic work?

Which leads to my next piece of advice about advocating - it's been my experience that schools are much more interested in using achievement as proof of need to accelerate rather than accelerating based on IQ alone. It will help you when advocating to have work samples, a list of work that your child has accomplished, or out-of-the-ballpark achievement scores etc with you when you meet with the school.

Last piece of advice, learn what you can about the school district curriculum specs for the grade your child is in and the next 2+ years (whatever span is relevant for your child). Go in armed with the information you might expect the school to supply you with - I was surprised how many times our school staff would just say "I don't know" or "We do that in grade x" etc expecting me to just shut up, accept what they had to say, and go home so they could move on.

Best wishes,

polarbear