Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Help with interoperating DAS-II Results

My daughter is 12 year, 1 month and was recently tested using DAS-II with the following results:

Verbal Composite � 135 (99%)
-Word Definitions � 66 (95%)
-Verbal Similarities - 76 (99%)

Nonverbal Reasoning Composite � 123 (94%)
-Sequential & Quantitative � 72 (99%)
-Matrices � 58 (81%)

Spatial Composite � 139 (99%)
-Pattern Construction � 77 (99%)
-Recall of Designs � 68 (97%)

General Conceptual Ability � 140 (99%)

Working Memory � 107 (68%)
-Recall of Seq Order - 52 (55%)
-Recall of Digits Backward � 56 (73%)

Processing Speed � 159 (>99%)
-Speed of Information Processing � 74 (99%)
-Rapid Naming � 90 (>99%)

I was told general conceptual ability of 140 represents her IQ, but that it might now represent her �true� IQ because she tested so high on the DAS-II. What does her processing speed of 159 really mean? Is this high even for a gifted kid? Thanks in advance for your help.

1. The GCA is essentially the same idea as IQ.

2. Her Composite scores are all very good (except for "only" average on working memory), but also quite internally diverse. Most of them have about a standard deviation (or more) difference between the two subtests, which tends to make the interpretation of the Composite score a bit shakier.

a. Verbal: she did much better on verbal reasoning than on acquired verbal knowledge.
b. Nonverbal: she did much better on mathematical reasoning than on abstract-visual reasoning.
c. Spatial: she did much better on spatial reasoning than on design memory. (Notice that working memory was her weakest cluster overall, which suggests that it brought her spatial score down. See below on motor vs motor-free--that may also have affected this area.)
d. Processing Speed: she did much better on motor-free speed than on motor-involved speed.

So yes, this might be a low estimate of her ability, as she generally did better on the tasks with the greater reasoning demands (except for matrices), and may have had some scores lowered by relative weaknesses in working memory, and possibly fine-motor skills.

3. Processing Speed in this range is high even for a GT child. It means that tasks that require little complex thought can be completed very quickly by her. This, and Working Memory, are areas that are not as significant for overall intelligence, but certainly are useful for academic success. High PS often helps with calculations, extended writing, and managing heavy homework loads. These areas are also not computed into the GCA.

Thank you so much for the information and your time. I�ve researched online and found material to suggest that kids in her IQ range should be tested using the old Sanford Binot to get a �true�. Is there value to having this done?

Regarding the noted standard deviation within the subset, her fine motor skills are very good in real life. She was feeding herself with utensils around 9m. Her gross motor skills were more delayed (walking, running). Even today, she is a fairly high level tennis player but her gross motor are more mechanical vs. the fluidly of the fine motor skills. Could this be explained by anxiety or nervousness during testing instead of fine motor skills?

Is there a way to improve working memory? Does this related to an ability to maintain focus (this might help her on the tennis court too � I can see her processing the next point before the end of the current point). Does her high PS hurt her working memory? Also she has a near photographic memory � would that lower the working memory?

Thanks again � you are awesome.

I am hesitant to recommend using a test that was last re-normed in the early 70s. I know there are proponents of it for extremely high-IQ persons, but I lean against it. Nancy Robinson (of the Robinson Center at the University of Washington) wrote an opinion for (I think) Roeper Review some years ago advocating for the use of current norms, rather than going back to the SBLM, and she has/had extensive experience with PG children. In addition, the touted higher range on the SBLM is not really applicable to a child of your daughter's age, as it relies on comparisons of younger children to the average 16 year old. I am pretty sure she well exceeds the average 16 year old in at least a few areas!

My thought on the lower scores was that it was not clear whether memory or fine motor affected them. It sounds like fine motor is not an issue. Memory could be, as working memory is not the same as long-term memory or photographic memory. The kind of working memory tapped on this instrument is largely sequential, which can be contrary to the memory process of someone with (near) photographic memory, which tends to be simultaneous. Often, it is spatial in nature. When you describe her gross motor delays (of whatever magnitude), I wonder if those are related to relative weaknesses in sequential memory, as that is what gross motor actions require--learning a sequence of motions.

And yes, working memory is related to sustained attention, as it describes how much data one can hold and process at once (or, alternatively, how long one can hold this data for processing).

I don't think the high PS hurts her WM, but it does mean it's not as important, as she probably is able to finish processing incoming stimuli so quickly that the strength or weakness of her working memory has a negligible effect on the outcomes.