Sigh. This is a good example of a situation in which trying to avoid doing too much testing is leaving us with data that is very difficult to interpret. It's also a good example of a situation in which getting testing done by people who spend most of their time in situations in which "average" would be wonderful means that they get bedazzled by the few high scores and figure nothing's really wrong.
It is really hard to tell from this whether you're looking at a kid with a language-based LD, stealth dyslexia, ADHD, Asperger's, nothing really wrong but splinter skills that are confusing people into expecting that everything should be that good, or something else. I could defend any or all of those hypotheses based upon the data, but couldn't prove anything with what we've got here.
You need some broad-based cognitive testing to put this data into perspective. Given that they did the K-TEA for achievement, it might be a good idea to use the K-ABC for the cognitive test. It's conormed with the K-TEA, so it will be more possible to compare data and say, "Are these differences statistically significant? Are they unusual in the population? Do they match up with the problems we see in real life for this kid?" It also has some nice options at this age for out-of-level administration of subtests for gifted kids, too.
But my bet is that if you do only the IQ test, you're still not necessarily going to have a good basis for resolving between those hypotheses -- neuropsych screening at least will help, and if the Asperger's thing has any possibilities (note that it is typically extremely subtle at this age with GT kids), my experience has been that projectives are the place where that becomes the most clear one way or the other.
