Welcome!
I do encourage you to see if a parent or guardian can contact DYS on your behalf, but I will note that you only have one score in the qualifying range (WJ-III Broad Math), on a test that typically requires two qualifying scores, so this may or may not be an avenue that results in the preferred outcome.
As to why you find your overall experience at odds with your apparent score profile: you have some interesting features in your profile, which makes it one of the strength patterns that commonly is more difficult to capture on the kind of cognitive assessments currently available. If we start from your achievement scores, you clearly show exceptional strength in math skills, both at the basic skills level and at the abstract reasoning level. Your verbal achievement scores are good, but not in the same range--more top 1 in 10 than 1 in 1000. Almost all assessments of school-related skills are more heavily weighted for verbal skills than math skills, even when they attempt to measure different, nonverbal dimensions of thinking ability. So although we can see the pattern of strengths in cognitive skill areas associated with math ability, those strengths don't end up pulling the global measures of cognition up by much, with the verbal skills still dominating at the composite level.
I'll explain area by area:
Quantitative skills:
On the cognitive measures (WISC-V and WJ-III COG), you show very strong skills in Quantitative Reasoning, approaching DYS level, especially excelling in procedural skills (Arithmetic, Digit Span). The value of strength in Arithmetic is, I think, self-explanatory. Digit Span reflects exceptional auditory working memory, which, while often considered on its face to be a less abstract skill, turns out to correlate quite highly with math ability. Figure Weights is the other half of the QRI (with Arithmetic), and is a figural reasoning task using symbols to access algebraic reasoning skills. You did not do nearly as well on this, which suggests that you are better able to access your math reasoning skills in known contexts (conventional math problems, such as on Arithmetic and the WJ-III math subtests). You see how the cognitive pattern is borne out in the achievement pattern.
Verbal skills:
Your cognitive measures are, again, very consistent with your achievement measures. They fall very consistently in the 120s, with the minor exception of the 130s for reading lists of words. This is above average, of course, but not at the same level as your quantitative thinking skills. As I mentioned above, this is in the top 1 out of 10 range, where you might expect 2 or so students at or above this level in a typical class.
Proficiency/efficiency skills:
The strength in this area explains why your FSIQ is higher than your GAI. You consistently perform in the 140s in this area (WISC-V CPI, WJIII Cognitive Efficiency (this cluster is mislabeled on your list of scores as "cognitive ability")), both on cognitive measures and on achievement measures (KTEA-III Academic Fluency, WJ-III ACH one of two subtests contributing to Math Calculation Skills). Although the data indicate that GT learners do not necessarily have cognitive proficiency skills as high as their reasoning skills (hence encouraging the use of the GAI for GT identification), it does not mean that conversely those with high CPIs cannot be gifted. Many are high across the board, and rarely, I've encountered students who were "merely" High Average in reasoning, but Extremely High in cognitive proficiency skills, who probably should not be considered GT. In your case, you also have reasoning strengths, just not with your strongest and most exceptional skill in one of the standard composites. The presence of consistently 120s ability in those standard clusters justifies your overall global GT status.
Global ability:
When these ability domains are combined (sometimes with some others, which I will discuss in a moment), you consistently generate global scores in the 130s, which are certainly within the consensus GT range. So, to answer one of your questions, the available data quite clearly is consistent with your identification as a gifted individual.
However, your profile is diverse, with strengths in some areas that are easily recognized and appreciated by teachers (e.g., proficiency skills, which encompass speed and memory, and mathematics, which is more easily appreciated at the secondary level), and relative weaknesses (less notable strengths, shall we say) in some areas (reading) which typically comprise quite a bit of the school experience. Consider that the distance between your verbal ability and your mathematical ability is comparable to that between a learner of average ability and a learner globally at the 99th %ile (or IQ 130s).
I should pause here for a moment and clarify also that your Similarities score is not bad. It is in the upper half of the Average range. This cannot possibly be considered extremely poor. It does happen to be your personal weakest score (that and Picture Span), but it is most definitely not bad. I think you just do even better with verbal cognitive tasks for which the rules are better defined, such as knowledge tasks. (I do wish the examiner had administered Picture Concepts, as that is a similar type of reasoning task, but using pictures instead of words. It might have given a better sense of what the pattern might be, with regard to, say, inductive vs deductive reasoning. But no matter.)
And to another one of your subtest-based questions: picture span is in the same working memory cluster as digit span, but doesn't always use the same pathways for memory. Notice that you did rather well on both auditory memory tasks (DS and the supplementary LNS), but "only" Average on the visual memory task. This might mean simply stronger auditory memory than visual memory, or it might reflect the other commonality those subtests have, which is that DS and LNS are both symbolic, while PS uses images of concrete-familiar items, which many people encode as language. It seems to me that you display a marked absolute strength in symbolic working memory--which aligns well with your demonstrated strengths in mathematics. I think the Average performances in verbal reasoning (Similarities) and in memory for familiar images (also potentially verbal in nature) may reflect something about how you process and retain decontextualized language. Your early history of being classified as ASD fits with some subtle differences in language and communication, even though your diagnostic category has been changed to social anxiety. In any case, communication differences are frequently observed to feed anxiety. (Keeping in mind this is all speculative on my part, since I don't have any direct knowledge of you.)
So to summarize, the data supports your standing identification as gifted. Your area of strongest giftedness is in mathematics-related thinking skills and achievement, in the 1 in 1000 range. The magnitude of this strength makes your above average verbal abilities look like a relative weakness, even though they are 1 in 10. You happen also to have high speed and memory skills, which easily draws the attention of teachers. And no, this is not contrary to the data on GT learners. On an additional note, I suspect you do much better when you know the rules going into a task (deductive reasoning) than when you have to feel out the rules from the scattered data presented to you (inductive reasoning).
And, btw, I know another individual who did not speak until age 2, and learned to read within weeks of their second birthday (the two milestones occurring within very close temporal proximity). That person is also profoundly gifted in math (in addition to being globally gifted).
Last edited by aeh; 08/29/20 07:35 PM.
