Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment What do these WISC V results suggest?

We recently had our son tested using the WISC V because of some questions we had about schooling (Our district canceled GATE so we tested on our own). We anticipated his high verbal scores (133 on comprehension and 140 on the expanded crystallized) but were surprised to find he is relatively low in others which, according to the doctor, may be indicative of a learning disability/ issue. In particular, within three composite sections he scored high on one subtest and noticeably low in the other subtest. He also scored relatively low on both subtests in working memory. His scores are:

Verbal Comprehension
Similarities 15/95% / very high
Vocabulary 17/99%/ extremely high
Information 19/ 99.9/ extremely high
Comprehension 16/98/ extremely high

Visual Spatial
Block Design - 12/ 75%/ high average
Visual Puzzles - 15/ 95%/ very high

Fluid Reasoning
Matrix Reasoning- 6/ 9%/ Average
Figure Weights- 14/91%/very high

Processing
Coding 11/63%/ Average
Symbol Search 15/95% very high.

Working Memory
Digit Span 8/25%/ Average
Picture Span 9/37%/Average

We are following up with the doctor who performed the testing as she is concerned about the discrepancy in scores. In the meantime, I've done some research about poor working memory but am stumped as to why there would be such a discrepancy between subtest scores. Any ideas?

Thanks!

Welcome!

If these scores are really accurate for Matrix Reasoning, you might want to know that that number is not in the Average range (as listed); it's more like Very Low, and would indeed make one concerned about possible learning disabilities. The intra-index discrepancies that I would examine closer are those in FR and PS, especially FR. VS is not really significant.

My first question, though, would be if there is any reason to doubt the validity of any of these scores: e.g., if your child is very young, and unfamiliar with testing, or was not feeling well/not well-rested/etc. on that day. If your child is age six or seven, you might consider having the psych re-administer Matrix Reasoning using the WPPSI-IV, just to see if it was an artifact (or in case he did not understand the task the first time around).

If sustained attention/impulse control are concerns, they could have affected any of the lower scores.

Another area to check would be perceptual-motor skills, since two of the relatively lower scores are visual-motor involved (BD, Cd).

And more importantly, do you see any evidence of learning challenges or unexpected delays in development IRL, or general unhappiness or frustration with school?

Thank you for your response! A little more information... Our son is 8 and in the 3rd grade. He is reading around a 6th or 7th grade level and generally is a happy, healthy kid. I don't think we have any reason to doubt the validity of the tests- he was well-rested and understood the purpose of the tests. I will check with the doctor who administered the test about the MR score. Assuming the score and percentage are correct the range is probably a typo.

We don't have any concerns about attention/impulse control/etc. The only concern we had with schoolwork before this test was that he has trouble completing tasks in the time given- an he has noticed it. Last year he had trouble completing "timed math" (a worksheet of 90 one digit addition or subtraction problems to be completed in one minute) and, no matter that he knows the answers when not timed, could not complete the worksheets in the time given. Also, he came home one day and told me that he was bad at math word problems because he could not copy the answers the teacher wrote on the board fast enough before she erased them. He doesn't really like school and says his favorite part is lunch and recess. But, quite frankly, with what they do at his school I can't blame him- it is a lot of worksheets. He'd much rather be home working on his favorite subjects (currently obsessed with the Titanic and WWII) :0).

We spoke with the neuropsychologist yesterday and she recommended we have vision testing completed and then, based on the results, follow up with further academic testing. I will ask her about the WPPSI-IV.

Off for more research based on your reply....

Thank you again. We were not expecting this and certainly appreciate the input.

You're welcome.

The issues with timed tests and masses of worksheets make sense, given his lower Cd/fine-motor speed score. You might also consider some fine-motor/occupational therapy evaluation, which is what I meant by perceptual-motor. Vision testing is reasonable.

He's actually too old for the WPPSI-IV. Other tests with comparable measures to check if that was a fluke score would include the WASI-2, Wechsler Nonverbal (WNV) and DAS-II.

I'll second aeh's suggestion of a fine-motor/OT eval. FWIW, his symbol search subtest is high (95%)... and that's a subtest where a student has to identify a specific figure in a field of multiple chaotically arranged figures - a bit like looking for Waldo. Coding (under processing) requires a student copy strings of specific directional markers, which is a task that relies on both visual and fine motor skills. Both subtests are timed... but the disparity between SS and Coding *might* indicate a fine motor issue.

One thing you might want to do is google "WISC-V subtest descriptions" - and read through the description of what each test is and how it's administered, then compare that with subtest scores and what you see in your ds' life - looking for any explainable correlations.

Best wishes,

polarbear

Thank you, both. When we first received the test results I looked up the subtests and what he actually was required to do. It seemed like the problems were all over the place- for example- block design vs. visual puzzles. What is different between them if he is picking blocks in both to copy the design given? Processing- what is the difference between searching for symbols and writing them? But then I realized, like you are saying, that in addition to the design of the test itself there are issues of whether he was required to respond verbally or in writing, and whether the test was timed or not timed. That's when I became discouraged. LOL. He came home today and told me he is far behind the class in "writer's workshop" and wasn't sure he would be able to catch up. He said when he is writing by the time he finishes the first part of a sentence he can't remember how he was going to finish. It sounds like we need to follow up with the fine-motor skills and memory-related tests.

90 questions in under a minute? Can he write that fast? Check about that really low score then come back.

Good catch, puffin! That is a really unrealistic math minute, not just for third grade, but for anyone. Just try writing any 90 one or two digit numbers down in one minute, without the math. (I could only get to 66, just writing the numbers in order.) Perhaps they had three or five minutes? That would be more reasonable.

You're right- it was three minutes!. I think I had my own feelings about it were coming out...

Yes.

One difference between block design and visual puzzles is that actual blocks and physical assembly are involved in BD, while VP is multiple choice (point to the pictures of pieces that could be put together mentally to make the puzzle), and can be answered either by pointing or verbally. Also, for most children, speed has more impact on BD.

Similarly, symbol search, while it does require pencil marks, just requires a slash or tally mark (or really, any distinguishable mark). Coding requires drawing specific forms.

For both pairs of subtests, one task is much more heavily loaded for fine motor skills, including coordination, motor planning, and visual-motor integration.

In addition to OT and memory, I would consider academic achievement testing, specifically in the area of writing--really, though, beginning with a more comprehensive evaluation might be in order, so that there is data on a wider range of possibilities, rather than starting from narrow confirmation of a hypothesis.