Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Anyone's child done WPPSI and then WISC-V later?

The psychologist that just tested DD8 said that giftedness tend to run in families, and she said we should get DS4 tested on the WPPSI too. But I read that scores don't stabilize till after 6. Is it worthwhile to do the WPPSI? Would be interesting to know if anyone's kids have done both and if the scores changed drastically over time. Thanks!

I have not (also realizing that I'm replying to your postings possibly out of order, so some of my replies are probably moot now!). But I will note that I typically recommend testing only if there is a function to it, not "just to know". On score changes: yes, there is some stability, and also yes, the scores may change over time. As I noted in my post to another of your threads, I have not had my children tested, but I have seen many, many records from children who were retested at multiple ages. Generally speaking, scores that are more extreme (very high or very low) see bigger changes on retest, back toward the middle (aka, regression to the mean). But very young children are also unpredictably testable, and may generate low estimates because of perfectly innocuous developmental differences (fatigue, inattention, lack of urgency on timed tasks, differential access to academic activities or stimulation, dual language learner, etc.).

FWIW, a high score on an early test probably can be reasonably interpreted as somewhere above average, but not necessarily with a specific magnitude.

In short, if you need a score for access to a resource that you believe would be in your child's best interest, or a fuller assessment to answer a question about a problem she is experiencing, then it may be appropriate to seek an evaluation. If not, you should make your own call, but if it were my child, I would save my money and her energy for a more stable assessment in a few years (if it seems to have utility then).

Thank you aeh!

Both of my children took the WPPSI and then a few years later the WISC-V, and both did significantly better on the latter test (not administered by the same professional), to the tune of almost a standard deviation each. However, their strengths and “less strong” areas were pretty similar between the two instruments, respectively. Neither of my children are particularly “easy” to test, however, and I think maturity helped their compliance.

My eldest was tested with the WPPSI at age 3, as a prerequisite for early school entry. Unfortunately, the psychologist also administered a school readiness test before the WPPSI, so including the pretest interview, DD had been sitting in the room for three hours (there was a snack, drink & toilet break between tests) and invoked the psychologist’s promise that testing could be split into two sessions if necessary. However, because there was only one section to go, the psychologist insisted on pushing on, even though DD stood her ground and calmly refused to answer any more questions (which in retrospect I admire, but at the time was nerve wracking). Whilst the FSIQ estimate did get her into the early entry program, her score for the last section was very clearly a gross underestimate (with no comment on what transpired during the test process), so we did get her retested at age 9 by a different psychologist. Using the SBV & SBLM, her FSIQ estimate was revised significantly upwards which was hardly surprising. My other kids were also tested at ages 4 and 3 respectively (the youngest also for the purpose of early school entry) - both psychologists included in their comments that they suspected the FSIQ were underestimates (in my son’s case his lowest subsection score was in quantitative reasoning but he has completed Yr 12 maths three years early with a score of 98% and has been invited to both the AMT SoE & Selection School), so we haven’t bothered with IQ re-evaluations.

ETA: Take home message - testing is expensive. If it’s undertaken at ages 3-4 for early school entry consideration, insist that only the IQ test is performed in the session. Any other assessments should be scheduled for another day. When I’ve observed other 3 yr olds since then, I can’t believe how calm mine remained as she called the psychologist out on breaking her promise.

We had our eldest tested very young because it was formally required for early school entry consideration and encountered this problem. Although we toyed with the idea of retesting for many years, we did not act until a peculiar event drove us to do so. Another child who was tested at an older age reportedly had the highest IQ in the class and was conscientious & competitive. She could not believe that my daughter who was younger, very laid back and supposedly had a lower IQ, could outperform her in class tests and started publicly calling DD a cheat, which began to have a social impact. After we submitted the results of the second IQ assessment to the school, the accusations ceased. We never said anything to anyone about either IQ assessment, but this other student’s mother was a parent ‘volunteer’ and regularly tidied up the office area. So much for the supposed confidentiality of student records...

For many reasons, we became disillusioned by gifted programs and private schools, so whilst we also had our youngest tested as required for early school entry (& our son, even though he was not socially ready for early entry, just so that in later life he wouldn’t feel he wasn’t treated equitably), in the public school system there’s never been any catalyst for us to seek retesting, even though we suspect they were all underestimates.

I have three children, one has had five IQ tests, one has had three and the youngest two. Always triggered by school requests or pre-empting school requests (ie knowing we would change schools and the new school would want fresher "proof"). Schools here don't seem to consider results to be "stable" at any age and we have regularly been asked for testing less than 2yrs old, especially with regard to 2E provisions.

My kids look very gifted prior to school, generally have a shocking time during primary school (and schools clearly disbelieve giftedness), then do steadily better from 9/10yrs old onwards particularly in later secondary. From the testing data I have available this also tends to be borne out on their educational assessments: very high (mostly DYS) results around 5yrs old, often notably lower (but still gifted) results at 8/9years old, looking better at 12+...

Twice we used the same gifted specialist (the eldest children saw her twice, the youngest once). When we came back to re-test she was quite adamant it was pointless to retest, as scores remain stable or go down because of poor academic fit. I had friends who had gone through this same situation with the same psychologist, and gone ahead based on school insistence, resulting in a literally identical FSIQ, but tiny shifts within subtests. So I knew she was backing up her advice not to test with experience, she did not want to test, but school insisted.

One child had scores drop quite significantly and was described in the report as a completely different child, still polite, but difficult to test, disengaged, reluctant to cooperate or rise to any challenge. This was a child tested at approx 5 & then 8/9, and represented exactly what the psychologist had feared to see.

The second child had scores go up quite substantially between approximately 9 & 12yrs (10 points on FSIQ, despite their weak WM remaining completely stable, FSIQ moving from MG to solidly HG). The psychologist did attribute some of this increase to successful remediation of other Es but was also completely fascinated and talked to me at some length about how unusual it was to see a rise of that magnitude between ages of 9 & 12. That mostly you would only see scores decline or remain stable, given that it gets harder to score very highly as you get older. The psychologist suddenly became quite keen to test the middle child in another few years.

In addition to seeing shifts both up and down with the same tester on the same instrument we have also seen marked difference between SBV and Wechsler tests. So much so that I researched the research on this and did find an Australian article comparing the WPPSI and SBV and finding them to be very equivalent for the majority of children, with significant discrepancies for a small minority, with no clear pattern as to which test would be "better suited". They administered the tests in a mix of orders, with a variety of testers and in the children with big disparities between the two tests there was no apparent pattern as to which test had the higher result. From memory this included which test was administered first, a particular tester, same tester for both, different testers, etc. It just seemed to be the case that for some children one test or the other much better captured their strengths.

For my own children, in all of the subtests based on looking at cartoon like pictures all of my children did better on the SBV versions of those tests than the Wechsler versions, often substantially. All of my children had decent WM scores on the SBV and very average to appalling WM on the Wechsler test.... The child who has done 5 tests sits stably around the 12th percentile for WM on Wechsler tests and 87th on the SBV both times.

The youngest child has been tested with the SBV and WISCV. First the SBV at 4.5yrs old: high and even profile on the SBV (DYS level FSIQ). Then the WISCV at 9yrs old: exceptionally uneven profile, VIQ requiring extended norms, and up to 72points of internal spread between indexes. Verbal WIAT scores also in the DYS range and all other achievement scores in or near the gifted range.

In the end I have concluded that the WISC is very useful in proving their disabilities and the SBV far more useful in proving their gifts, but is no longer accepted here... And I would approach any future testing with no idea what to expect.

“The second child had scores go up quite substantially between approximately 9 & 12yrs (10 points on FSIQ, despite their weak WM remaining completely stable, FSIQ moving from MG to solidly HG). The psychologist did attribute some of this increase to successful remediation of other Es but was also completely fascinated and talked to me at some length about how unusual it was to see a rise of that magnitude between ages of 9 & 12. That mostly you would only see scores decline or remain stable, given that it gets harder to score very highly as you get older. The psychologist suddenly became quite keen to test the middle child in another few years.

In the end I have concluded that the WISC is very useful in proving their disabilities and the SBV far more useful in proving their gifts, but is no longer accepted here... And I would approach any future testing with no idea what to expect.”

If your second/middle child is 12+, would it really be worthwhile to retest in another few years if it’s true that it’s harder to score very highly as one gets older? Testing is quite expensive as I’m sure you’ve realised.

Glad the WISC and SBV were useful in different ways for your kids.

They did need to be retested (moving states, new school). But for various reasons the previous gifted specialist (and the SBV) were not an option. Testing is hideously expensive and I am quite resentful that there is every chance I will have to repeat the exercise for end of high school exam provisions... There was certainly no way we could afford to have an SBV test done just to see what happened. I don't think the psychologist, although intrigued, was interested enough in the outcome to offer to do it for free for her own interest!

To my lay understanding, IQ is largely about potential and so assessment is more relevant early in the education journey. I am surprised that another IQ assessment may be applicable for end of high school exam provisions, especially if the student has already had more than one IQ assessment.

From your posts in other threads, I see that you are exploring a wide range of avenues to support your kids to develop their potential. I hope these achieve success and obviate the need for further IQ assessments.

I imagine that not all types of special provisions require a full educational assessment (ie extra rest breaks for a physical health condition). But the issues my children have do require this. And if you get the timing wrong you can be required to produce ANOTHER one for university provisions! It varies from state to state exactly what the rules are. But in general the IQ test is required as part of a full psychologist educational assessment, either to prove the disability, or depending on the nature of the issue, to highlight at least normal IQ and the underachievement that would be caused by lack of provisions. Some provisions specifically require proof that there is a normal (or above) IQ and that the problem is not potential related, because IQ itself is not grounds for certain kinds of provision (ie you might be allowed extra reading time for dyslexia, but NOT for low IQ).

I can't speak to your part of the world, but in mine, updated cognitive (IQ) testing is routinely required to access certain accommodations for university entrance exams and post-secondary education in general. In fact, some post-secondary institutions (though not the SATs or ACTs) require testing with an adult instrument (aka, the WAIS or SB, or in some cases the WJ), which means that even if one has recent testing, one may need to find a way to obtain new testing with a different instrument in order to access accommodations at the university level.

BTW, that's yet another level of observing score stability through the developmental years: WPPSI to WISC to WAIS. The principal observations I've noted (anecdotally, of course) are that children who score in the upper extreme see their scores flattened (naturally) due to the absence of extended norms on the WAIS, which effectively lowers the ceiling. Learners with learning disabilities that affect access to text often see score depression in the verbal indices, often with increased diversity of performance within the VCI (e.g., differential impact of reading delays on fact-weighted vs reasoning-weighted verbal tasks). Certain kinds of 2e learners sometimes see their scores rise, as they learn how to play the testing game (e.g., often GT/ASD learners).

And then, of course, the actual task composition is somewhat different on all three tests, which doesn't affect most students much, but does sometimes affect learners with low-frequency profiles.

We tested DD with WWPSI for CTY at 6 and then she did the WISC for gifted program at 8. It was about the same and about the same as tests done earlier. She hasn't had much variance since preschool. All tests were done for school or program admittance. I was curious to see what happens at 21, after final brain development. She is really pushing herself now at school and I notice her strategic abilities are getting stronger, her risk taking, going around obstacles. But that would be just for curiousity. And she is only 15 now. Based on where she was at 8, going through difficult life changing events, I am thinking it would go up through this period.

CTY were taking IQ scores then?

They still take them for preK-2nd grade.

Ah! Thanks AEH.

Caveat - eligibility is valid only till the end of 2nd grade...

https://cty.jhu.edu/talent/eligibility/online.html

I see you (or your computer!) re-posted this question recently...

Finally decided to take the plunge and get DS (5y 3m) tested on the WPPSI in 2 weeks. I was initially going to wait till he was 6 to take the WISC, then I realized the WPPSI takes an hour but the WISC takes almost twice the amount of time to administer. Don't think DS will tolerate 2 hours even in 9 months' time.

So far what I'm hearing is that the WPPSI is either an underestimate or similar to a future WISC (if the child was focused that day?)

What do you tell a 5yo about the WPPSI? I'm worried he'll reply with silly answers for fun and/or take too long with the processing subtests out of perfectionsim?

First, the average administration of the WISC is under an hour, so as a baseline, it wasn't necessarily going to take two hours. OTOH, in a putatively GT kiddo, it would probably take longer than average...

Second, to be clear, the WPPSI is just as good a measure of current performance as the WISC. I.e., the validity and reliability of the score would not necessarily be different between a 6 yo taking the WPPSI and the same 6 yo taking the WISC (other than ceiling effects in the same putatively GT individual, of course). The difference is not in the instruments, but in the developmental level of the child, and how that impacts testability and score stability. IOW, the instability in formal numbers originates from the child, not from the test. So testing now or in a few months is probably not going to affect that aspect much. Unless you expect your DC to mature significantly in test-taking tolerance in that time (which it doesn't appear you do!).

Anyway, I typically tell my students (including the little ones that I used to work with more frequently), in language developmentally appropriate to them, something like this: We're doing a collection of different activities [not "games", please!] that help us understand how you learn best, because everyone learns a bit differently. Understanding how people learn helps teachers and parents to do better at teaching them in a way that fits them the best. Some parts of the activities might be easier, and some might be harder, and that's normal. It's just part of how I learn about the way you learn. Just do the best you can, and don't worry if I ask you to go onto the next one when you think you might not be done. Sometimes that's part of the rules of the activities. Please ask me any questions you like about the testing. Sometimes I won't be allowed to answer the questions because of the rules, or I might ask you to say your question again when we're all done, but otherwise, I'll answer them as much as I can.

And yes, I really do answer questions about the nature and process of testing, what tasks are supposed to measure, etc., although for certain questions, not until after testing is complete. I would happily explain their final results to them, after all (and do, routinely, with my adolescent students). They need to understand themselves as learners more than anyone else does. (Although little ones, who have less stability in their profiles, likely wouldn't benefit from quite as much detail as older students. I also historically haven't gotten as many questions from the preschool/primary set, anyway.) As a parent, you'll know best what level of information makes sense for your child, of course.

And btw, if perfectionism affects the processing speed subtests noticeably, that also has clinical significance. In any case, there's still a GAI, without the processing speed tasks.

Thanks aeh! That was super helpful! I'm so glad you replied because I almost told my 5yo that he'd be playing games :P