1) Is there a test that accurately gauges math in non-writers?
2) Is there a test that doesn't count deeper processing as if it were the same as "slow" processing?
3) Is it possible that this FSIQ is accurate at all considering that the processing, coding, math portions were written and he gave up on them quickly?
4) Do all parents think their kid's FSIQ should more closely resemble the high scores?
Sounds to me, that your son is very gifted and maybe the tests dont for a variety of reasons accurately reflect his abilities. To answer your questions.
1. I think SB 5 is felt better by some for mathy kids. My dd isnt what I would call a mathy kid and did do the SB 5. I still think her results are pretty valid.
2. SB 5 - I seem to remember isnt timed and with WISC IV you can calculate the GAI which does away with processing speeds etc.
Here is a neat article about different tests:
http://www.neiu.edu/~ourgift/Archives/Kearney_Gilman/Gilman_Closing_Statement.htm
Here is a link in Davidsons about different types of tests:
http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/browse_resources_171.aspx3. Sure, it is very possible that your son's abilities might be better captured on a different test and with a different tester.
4. I am not sure, what you mean? But for my dd, I did read Dr Ruf's book and tracked my dd's early years abilities - so I had a LOG in my mind that I thought dd could be. In the end the results of my dd's testing did reasonably match up the LOG that I had in my head. However, I know other people who have had their children tested and sometimes the results have been way better than they expected and sometimes worse.
If you havent read Dr Ruf's book, maybe that is a good book to have a read through and re-think testing strategies, especially as your son sounds like he is interested in academics.
