I think that adding these tests that sort of seem like measures of intelligence but that don't measure any specific cognitive skill add to the overconfidence in the ability of the IQ tests alone to predict how a kid learns. The tests were designed decades ago to predict which groups of people would do well in school. But it just doesn't do a good job at that for an individual child. For a gt kid who has a relative weakness (but not impaired) in, say, speed, the IQ test may "make sense" in light of their weaknesses in school. But IQ tests are being used irresponsibly to diagnose learning disabilities and to make recommendations for intervention on the basis of subtest score scatter. That overconfidence is causing kids to slip through the cracks that may have a very specific learning issue (e.g., memory disorder). IQ tests do not test isolated cognitive functions and don't give a full (or even close) profile of strengths and weaknesses in learning. With kids who may be 2E, all it can do is raise red flags that should point to further evaluation. Including tests that are not related to 'g' just adds to that overconfidence. Why aren't the examiners making the limitations of the IQ test clear?
