We also debated on asking the tester to use extended scores. Our son had 4 19's and an 18. The tester was unfamiliar with extended scoring but did take it on her own to read the advisory report and instructions. Ultimately we agreed that she would draft her report using a chart that represented both sets of scores. It did bump the scores up but when you are talking numbers in the high 140's to high 150's its our opinion that it is already too difficult to make any meaningful inferences beyond the obvious. To us the extended scoring has not been particularly useful in advocating for our child. The educators we are dealing with already get he has a very high IQ and don't seem particularly interested beyond that and aren't reviewing or consider particular numbers.
Now we've recently applied to Davidson Academy and I will be curious to learn if a school familiar with the numbers gleans any value from extended scoring in their decision making. I am curious as to why DYS considers GAI as a measure for acceptance but DA is still only looking for VC, PR or FS.
For us WM and PSI are definitely disproportionately lower than his other scores but they had no measurable, detrimental impact on his FS which was over 150 but for us we noticed it in the very high GAI.
Our tester has repeatedly told us that PSI will develop at a normal pace and won't necessarily get a bump because of the giftedness. At least anecdotely it seems many of the younger kids who test experience this discrepancy and from our own observations of our son it certainly does seem to be true.
