Nice to "meet" you, Raisinghumans!
For some context on your child's scores, it's good to remember that all of them are extremely high (as in officially, the classification of those scores is "Extremely High"!), so none of the skill areas can really be described as weaknesses per se. Typically, the impact of a relative difference, even of this magnitude, is more noticeable when the lower skill is Average or below. Although it may still reflect the profile that led your neuropsych to give the ADHD diagnosis.
As to what "clinically significant" means--conventionally, a clinically significant difference should be statistically significant, meaningful and rare:
1. Statistical significance usually is at p< .01 or .05 (for those of you who care about stats!).
2. Meaningful is the actual clinical part, which is a little more subjective, but usually means there is some perceived or likely impact on function. You can find a statistically significant "weakness" in any set of traits if you run enough comparisons, but some of them really don't have much impact on life. This is a little akin to the question of causation/correlation, in that numbers are distinct from real-life meaning.
3. Rare usually references the base rate, since there are some combinations that are statistically significant, and yet surprisingly frequent in the standardization population. Most interpreters use <10% or <5% base rate as an indicator of rarity. Your child's FRI>WMI difference occurred at a 0.6% base rate in the GT standardization sample (with the caveat that the rates were derived from standardization scoring, not extended norms).
I should also point out that, according to what you've reported, there is really only one outlier score among the reasoning tasks: MR. It appears that all of the other subtest scores included in the GAI are within a point or two of each other. This is not to downplay the phenomenally strong FRI that results, but simply to note that the difference between FRI and WMI may be less extreme than at first appears. For instance, the base rate for a 25 point difference (which is what it would be if the FRI were more like the other FRI subtest) would be a not very more moderately notable 22% 8%.
More context: your child is still very young, so some of the areas that appear relatively lower may simply be later developing. One should also keep regression to the mean in mind, as it is not impossible (in fact, nearly inevitable, given the construction of the standardization table; at older ages, it will become impossible to obtain a max extended scale score of this magnitude) that the extended FRI may decline somewhat in the future. Regardless, it is evident that your child is extremely bright!
A couple of other thoughts: were the two WMI subtests consistent with each other, or were there differences between or within them? And did the NP test under true standardized conditions, or did they make modifications for COVID protocols?
Last edited by aeh; 03/27/21 09:05 AM. Reason: oops...read the wrong row.
