45 minutes? That seems super fast. When my DS was tested at the beginning of this summer he was there for 3 hours. We started with me in the room helping him feel comfortable. They took breaks to play games etc. The psych met with me before testing for an hour & I had a stack of evals to fill out so she could get the whole picture.
Did the tester have experience with gifted & more importantly 2E? If I've learned one important thing from this board it is that the tester needs to be qualified to recognize how to work with a gifted child.
A couple thoughts here:
The WISC should take about an hour to administer omitting breaks, etc. so 45 mins is fast but not outrageously fast especially if one is dealing with a child who truly is average and, thus, not being asked all of the questions b/c s/he hits discontinue guidelines reasonably soon into each test.
Secondly, the GAI, which someone else mentioned as an alternate IQ score when either the PSI or WMI is significantly lower than VCI or PRI, would be higher, but not dramatically so. His GAI would come out at 108/70th percentile.
In general, "average" children with average scores tend to have most of their scores clustering between 8 to 12. Scores in the 15 range, like your ds' matrix reasoning score, are generally considered MG (moderately gifted, in case I'm throwing in too much board lingo w/out defining
!) I'd say, for the most part, that psychometrically speaking, a child isn't considered MG, though, w/out at least one index (usually the VCI or PRI) as a whole coming out in the mid to upper 90s area (upper 120s to 130s or so) not just one part of one index. That isn't to say that this might not have been the best day or test for your ds and the scores may still be a poor indicator of his ability.
FWIW, I'm not seeing anything in there that stands out as 2e on face value other than possibly the low coding score. I'm curious whether the other poster (polarbear?) with the dyspraxic child found that it impacted symbol search and block design as well. I'd guess that it would which is why I'd be less likely to go to 2e, but I could be wrong. Polarbear??
While I do agree that having a tester with familiarity with 2e-ness or giftedness in general is a good thing when dealing with a gifted child, my one 2e kid has been tested twice, neither time by a tester with any experience with 2e or gifted (once with a doctoral student with almost no testing experience at all) and, while her scores were seriously erratic btwn the two testings, there was clear indication both times that she was gifted and that there was major scatter/something else going on both times. The testers didn't recognize that there was an issue (lack of experience came into play here when scores ranging from 8-19 meant nothing to them), but to someone with some idea of what gifted and 2e looked like, there were clear warning signs.
After that long ramble, my point on the last paragraph is that I would not assume that he has a learning disability just b/c the scores were lower than expected. 2e usually presents with more significant scatter than overall depressed numbers.
