Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Results!

After our prior trouble with the school district giving DS the wppsi (only gave 5 subtests, refused to honor the calculated GAI, would not print me an official signed report based on the assessment, etc.) we decided to get DS retested privately. The following is our entire report, edited to remove personal info. I'm looking for insight as to what all of it means, since his verbal and nonverbal tend to go back and forth between subtests in a way that makes little sense to me. Also wondering what the test he did really poorly on could possibly indicate.

I'll put in brackets the parts that are non-specific to DS and just give information about the sections of the test for those who are interested in this particular test, as I know it's less commonly used. Oh, and DS was 5 years 10 months for the test. Here goes:


DS was referred for a cognitive assessment in order to obtain a current estimate of intellectual functioning as part of the application process for private school.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

(pregnancy and medical info removed)

When DS was 2 years old, his parents had him evaluated by Early Intervention which revealed social delays and sensory issues. DS received occupational therapy and special instruction to help with social skills. He also did occupational therapy at (local children's hospital). At 2 1/2 years old, DS was evaluated at (local children's hospital) and diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, although his parents are no longer satisfied with this diagnosis and wonder whether he may have ADHD and/or mood/anxiety disorder. DS was recently diagnosed with Tourette's syndrome at (local children's hospital). Currently DS is taking the medication Tenex to help with tics.

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS:

Behavioral characteristics observed during the evaluation revealed that DS was an enthusiastic, energetic young student who displayed extremely well developed cognitive skills. However, he also displayed great difficulty maintaining a consistent level of attention and focus throughout the evaluation. He was quite active and seemed to display problems regulating his behavior. There were times when he shut down and did not want to proceed with a task. He also was extremely motorically active, jumping on the table, crawling under the chair, grabbing test materials from my hand. On the other hand, he enjoyed telling me of things he liked to do such as playing chess and playing board games with his parents. When working on a task that he found intrinsically interesting, DS was entirely focused and able to reason through very difficult problems by talking aloud, guiding his thinking and reasoning until he arrived at the correct answer.

In these instances, DS demonstrated flexibility in thinking and the ability to consider alternative responses prior to giving his answer. In spite of the problematic behaviors, DS achieved extremely well on the Stanford-Binet, Fifth Edition, although one could argue that his current test results actually under-represent his true level of ability.

TESTS ADMINISTERED:

The current evaluation utilized the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5), as a measure of cognitive functioning.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

DS was administered the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5). On this assessment, DS achieved an overall score that was within the �very superior� range of cognitive ability (98th percentile) when compared to other students his same age. DS�s Verbal skills and his Nonverbal skills were uniformly developed and within the �very superior� range (98th percentiles). On the Nonverbal subtests, DS�s abilities represented a wide range of variability whereby his scores ranged from the �average� range to the �very superior� range (25th percentile to the 99.9th percentile). Clearly, Nonverbal Fluid Reasoning skills and Visual Spatial skills, and Verbal Working Memory skills and Quantitative Reasoning skills serve as very significant areas of strength.

[The Abbreviated Battery IQ (ABIQ) measures the areas of Nonverbal Fluid Reasoning and Verbal Knowledge and includes two of the most important abilities predictive of academic achievement. The Nonverbal Fluid Reasoning task required DS to identify patterns or series of object and pictures, and to solve problems presented in a matrix-analogy format. The Verbal Knowledge tasks required DS to define words by using verbal knowledge, acquired and stored in long-term memory.]

DS�s score on the Abbreviated IQ was at the 99.7th percentile (ABIQ=142). Given the significant variability in DS�s ability to remain consistently focused and attentive throughout all evaluation tasks, his overall ability score is most likely within the range that includes the Full Scale score and the Abbreviated Battery score.

[Fluid Reasoning is the ability to solve verbal and nonverbal problems using inductive or deductive reasoning. The ability to reason inductively requires the examinee to reason from the part to the whole, from the specific to the general, or from the individual instance to the universal principle. In deductive reasoning activities, the examinee is given general information and is required to infer a conclusion, implication, or specific example. In the SB5, the Early Reasoning activity items requires the examinee to inspect pictures depicting human activities and deduce the underlying problem or situation by telling a story.]

DS�s Nonverbal Fluid Reasoning skills were stronger than his Verbal Fluid Reasoning (99.9th percentile and 75th percentile, respectively). Thus, DS demonstrated an exceptional ability to attend to visual cues and to recognize abstract, visual patterns.

[Knowledge represents a person�s accumulated fund of general information acquired at home and/or school. This factor involves learned material, such as vocabulary, that has been acquired and stored in long-term memory.]

DS displayed a very significant difference between his skills on the Nonverbal Knowledge tasks and the Verbal Knowledge tasks, in favor of the later (25th vs. 95th percentiles, respectively). On the Nonverbal tasks, he seemed to have more difficulty describing the incongruences that were shown in a variety of pictures. The Verbal tasks were a measure of DS�s vocabulary. As such, DS exhibited excellent ability to rapidly retrieve words and explanations from his memory as well as an excellent fund of general information.

[Quantitative Reasoning is an individual�s facility with numbers and numerical problem solving, whether with word problems or with pictured relationships. Activities in the Stanford-Binet 5 emphasize applied problem solving more than specific mathematical knowledge acquired through school learning.]

There were some differences in the Nonverbal and Verbal aspects of the assessment in favor of the Verbal (99th percentile), but DS�s Nonverbal Quantitative Reasoning skills were still strong (91st percentile). The discrepancy in scores indicates that DS was somewhat better able to reason through mathematical problems using his strong language skills than when using nonverbal cues.

[Visual-Spatial Processing measures the ability to see patterns, relationships, spatial orientations, or the gestalt
whole among diverse pieces of a visual display. Activities in the Stanford-Binet 5 include Form Board and Form Patterns, where pieces are moved to complete the whole puzzle, and a collection of position and direction items.]

On the Visual Processing tasks, DS�s Nonverbal skills were his strength, with scores reaching the top of the scoring scale (99.9th percentile). Here, DS exhibited very excellent visualization skills and spatial relations. He demonstrated much attention to visual cues, showed patience with difficult tasks, and showed cognitive flexibility.

[Working Memory is a class of memory processes in which diverse information stored in short-term memory is inspected, sorted, or transformed. For example, in the Stanford-Binet 5 Last Word items, the examinee listens to a series of sentences and then sorts out the last word in each sentence for recall. In research, the concept of Working Memory has demonstrated the importance of working memory in school learning and general problem-solving tasks. Other abilities required for adequate Working Memory include impulse control, freedom from distractibility, attention to verbal cues, and concentration for long periods.]

On the Working Memory tasks, DS displayed an excellent strength on the Verbal tasks (99.6th percentile). Thus, DS demonstrated a wide auditory attention span and exceptional attention to verbal cues. The scores for the current evaluation are as follows:

IQ SCORES

Standard Score Percentile Age Equivalent

Full Scale IQ 132 98 8-8

Nonverbal IQ 130 98 8-7

Verbal IQ 132 98 8-5

Abbreviated IQ 142 99.7 10-0

FACTOR INDEX SCORES

Fluid Reasoning 132 98 9-7

Knowledge 108 70 7-5

Quantitative Reasoning 130 98 8-11

Visual Spatial 137 99 10-0

Working Memory 132 98 8-4


SB5, Subtest Scores:

NONVERBAL Scaled Score Percentile VERBAL Scaled Score Percentile

Fluid Reasoning...19.........99.9................12........75

Knowledge...........8.........25...................15........95

Quantitative Reasoning
.......................14.........91...................17........99

Visual Spatial......19........99.9.................14........91

Working Memory..13........84...................18........99.6

SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS

DS was administered the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, in order to obtain an estimate of his current level of cognitive performance. Results show that DS is performing within the Very Superior range (98th percentile) when compared to his cohort. There was some variability in his functioning across the various aspects of the assessment. Because DS�s level of engagement was variable during the testing, the overall results are thought to be an unreliable estimate of his true potential. The Abbreviated Battery IQ may be a more accurate approximation. Suffice it to say, DS exhibits extremely highly developed cognitive skills. His ability to work through the various tasks using complex, logical reasoning was impressive! Generally, DS exhibits excellent verbal comprehension, general reasoning skills and
ability to analyze and integrate a wide range of verbal and nonverbal information. Tasks measuring vocabulary development and working memory were also extremely well developed. Visual processing skills are also quite impressive showing that DS is exceptionally alert to the visual aspects of the environment
and is well able to use visual information to solve novel, complex problems.

DS meets the criteria for eligibility as a Gifted student.

The parents are encouraged to seek out further diagnostic evaluation to determine underlying causes for his problematic behaviors.

The disparity between his verbal and nonverbal subtests within areas is such that I would consider only QR to be a decent cluster-level measure.

Do you know if he was administered the full SBV, or the Early SBV, which doesn't include the most difficult items? One of the lines in your report suggests that it was the latter (reference to the "Early Reasoning items" that doesn't include the matrix portion of the subtest). I ask this because the Early SBV only goes up to age 5-11 for the full battery, and is specifically not recommended for GT assessment by the publisher (it's optimized for assessing very low functioning preschool/primary-age children). When used for that purpose, only the ABIQ is recommended, and that as a screener only. The remainder of the test is not. I hate to break it to you, but I think this assessment may not be any better than your last one.

Consequently, I'm reluctant to interpret most of his testing, since some of the lower above average scores may just be artifacts of the low ceiling. I will just comment that the nonverbal knowledge subtest is somewhat akin to those "What's Wrong" cartoons that you used to see in children's magazines, and is quite dependent on cultural experience. It's also one of the weakest subtests in the battery, from a psychometric standpoint.

On the plus side, he's almost six, so you could do the WISC-V to get a good cognitive measure, if that's important in the near future.

I have no idea which SBV it was. I found the tester on the recommended list on the Hoagies site and I told her the purpose was to test for giftedness, so hopefully she used the best test for that. Maybe it was a copy paste error or something? I did hear a lot of the test (I might have decided that the waiting room was less comfy than the floor right outside the door... what can I say, I'm a curious person!) and what I heard seemed really easy and I feel like he could have gone well past the level of the test stuff that I heard. It's hard to believe he got any of it wrong, but I'm not sure how much he really applied himself overall.

He actually told me the word he didn't know in the vocab section and one that he wasn't sure of and I'm not sure if his definition would have passed or not, but regardless of his less than stellar score in the area, I know that his vocab is amazing. The word he missed was due to the fact that we just plain don't use it. OTOH, he tosses out words like theoretically, randomized, bilateral, subjective, etc. that are well above anything tested and I consider vocab to be a huge strength for him. Knowledge overall is an area he excels in, just apparently not the knowledge they tested him on! Ask him about DNA/genetics, which is his current interest, and you will hear plenty of knowledge!

Certain parts of the report made little sense to me, like if his non verbal fluid reasoning is so much higher than his verbal fluid reasoning, how is it that the quantitative section mentions that he uses his superior verbal skill to reason through math rather than solve math with his weaker non-verbal skills (whatever that means)?

When it comes to the area of the test he did poorly on, if it really is like those pictures in the back of Highlights and such, I'm not surprised he didn't do well. He's the sort of kid who completely fails to see what he should see in a picture like that. If I ask him to find 5 things wrong with a picture he will likely say: The windshield wipers are not symmetrical, the sky is a different shade of blue on one side vs the other, the grass needs mowed, the cat is a shade of solid brown that cats don't normally come in, and the airplane is flying too close to the power lines. While completely ignoring the square wheels on the car, the rooster playing football, the talking carrot, etc. Trouble with focusing on the right areas, complete lack of understanding of the concept, or an amazing ability to find something wrong with pretty much anything? Maybe some of all three :P

At least for now we have a real, official report that a psych stands behind to use for whatever purposes we need it for. He still did not score as highly as I expected based on his real life performance. I don't think he is likely to be at the highest end of gifted or anything, but I think he is generally reasoning at a higher level than the test shows based on comparing him with other kids (yes, I know I should not compare him to other kids, it's sometimes hard not to). Like the time that he played Quirkle with a local 2nd grader during a gifted family board game night last year. I figured a gifted 2nd grader would be well above any gifted pre-k child. Not only was DS a much better player (he plays defensively, blocking quirkles and hoarding pieces to build up quirkles more safely, which no one ever taught him to do, he's by far the most competitive person in the family), but he got frustrated by the other kid's less than perfect gameplay and kept going around the table to give him advice! I found myself hoping the district was using less strict criteria for the gifted program because I did not want to consider the fact that DS might be more advanced than a gifted kid a few years older than him, even if only at Quirkle.

OTOH both tests came to similar conclusions about his cognitive ability... so maybe he is more just average gifted, but with a few areas of excellence? Some day it might be worth knowing more, but for now I am happy with what we have, good proof that he needs to be accommodated in public school. The gifted school is a long shot with his score and I'm not certain he's going to be where he needs to be behaviorally come September anyway. We are definitely hard at work on that.

The area he had more difficulty with on testing and IRL is also somewhat reflective of social reasoning/social perception skills, and might have some relationship to his history of ASD diagnosis. I should also note that children on the spectrum often don't test well until they're a bit older, and have had a chance to become more knowledgeable about the social conventions of testing. (I've had a few students whose testing continued to rise from preschool all the way through the last year of high school.)

Thank you very much for your thoughts. I'm probably going to start a new thread to discuss some of our behavior problems and other issues in the 2E forum.