CogAT: flip through a few CogAT threads here, and you'll see that many children with very high WISC scores perform markedly lower on the CogAT, so while some do well, quite a few do not.
Keep in mind also that the CogAT primary level is entirely pictorial (no reading or calculating), with a significant listening comprehension component, and not insubstantial social comprehension demands, on the verbal portion. If you reference some of the hyperlexia links mentioned earlier, remember that deficits in listening comprehension are often paired with hyperlexic behaviors, so that reading is a more effective channel for accessing environmental input than listening is. Bing. Poor performance on the CogAT verbal, and high reading comprehension scores.
And if one were to interpret the scores as given, it would suggest that his fluid reasoning is quite a bit better than his concrete intelligence, actually, as the highest score was in nonverbal, which is usually most closely associated with fluid reasoning.
Oh, and CogAT is normed by age, typically, but can be reported on grade norms. You would have to consult your evaluator or evaluation report to determine which was used in this case.
Caveat on the ITBS: Notice how low the ceiling is on the ITBS grade 2, especially in math, making the grade equivalents even less reliable than their general level of unreliability, and suggesting that the percentile differences between math areas are also not significant (probably reflective of a difference in one or two items). For example, the grade equivalent of the 99th %ile in math computations is only about half a year beyond the 50th %ile, and clearly doesn't include mastery of all multiplication facts. I wouldn't read too much into concrete skill/abstract application achievement differences.
