Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Will learning to read and write improve IQ scores?

"Indication" and "diagnosis" may not be synonyms, but in the context of HappilyMom's post they convey the same idea. HappilyMom said that the "discrepancy" in the OP's child's results "is an indication of a learning disability". It's pretty clear to me what this means.

As Cricket2 said " "Profile analysis" (i.e. determining diagnoses from an IQ profile or scatter alone) can be inexact and is controversial." Evidently this is something some "professionals" are doing, and it is the viewpoint expressed in HappilyMom's post, and attributed to 3 "professionals" she talked to.

I didn't want the OP to be unnecessarily alarmed by that viewpoint. Fortunately all the other posts provide the appropriate counterview.

That kind of discrepancy is probably pretty common even in HG children, and in PG ones, it's a rare individual that doesn't have an asynchronous area of (relative) weakness.

It's not that they are not going to eventually have a high level of performance/mastery-- just that at the moment, that particular domain is in the shade of the other areas of strength.

I'd actually go so far as to say that this is THE biggest problem that I face as a parent; how to manage that asynchrony so that DD doesn't internalize it as "I'm not good at," when that is the only really logical thing, at least in context.

She's a VERY good writer. She's a VERY good mathematician. Just not PG in those two domains, which have (functionally) limited her academic acceleration, though not as much as her underlying maturity and EF have.

It's a serious problem not just for psychologists, but also for anyone that has to live with this kind of asynchrony.

As for the titular question, I think that the theoretical answer must be "no," but the practical one might be "maybe" instead.

Theoretically, IQ testing doesn't depend on the person's LEVEL of attainment/achievement, but is adaptive to reflect the developmental level at which the subject presents. So it wouldn't be appropriate to IQ test a high school student using the same tool as a preschooler.

Pragmatically, however, there are not an unlimited series of endlessly adaptive tools to choose from, and therefore, if a tester selects on the basis of an assumption about attainment/achievement (e.g. that a subject can read independently) which turns out to be false, then yes, the scores might be invalid.

In that situation, using a different tool might well lead to higher scores.


That's not an "improvement" in IQ, though-- it's correction of a measurement error.

Hi,

This interests me as I've been exploring how DS6s fine motor difficulties would impact taking the wisc iv and whether to ask the tester to consider subtest substitution. I know the OP was discussing the wppsi but I think the wisc is relevant.

Trying to understand if the processing speed index (PSI) on the wisc is "supposed" to be incorporating fine motor at all I have been reading a wisc assessment manual. If the wisc intent of timing the response was to time fine motor response, or even to time mental motor planning time, then I wouldn't want to try to avoid ds having that assessed by substituting something that was easier on the fine motor skills. But if the PSI is supposed to reflect only the speed of premotor mental aspects then I do not want his fine motor issues to obscure that. I of course want a score to honestly reflect what it is supposed to so that he's correctly pigeon holed as to needs.

Anyways, here's a couple quotes:

a. "Consider the 4 WISC-IV indexes. Subract the lowest Index from the highest Index....Is the size of the standard score difference less than 1.5 SDs (<23 points)? If yes then the FSIQ may be interpreted as a reliable and valid estimate of a child's global intellectual ability."

b. If there is more than 1.5 SDs between the highest and lowest Index, and the difference between the VCI (verbal) and PRI (perceptual reasoning) is less than 1.5 SDs "then the GAI may be be calculated and interpreted as a reliable and valid estimate of the child's global intellectual ability".

To me this mainstream interpretation of the wisc iv (Flanagan and Kaufman, Essentials of WISC IV Assessment) is saying that of the 4 indexes, the VCI and PRI are the most essential aspects to gifted identification and that a relative weakness in WMI (working memory) or PSI (speed) should not prohibit a child from being recognized as gifted. How they decide that scores specifically further apart than 1.5 standard deviations represent "unfairly" (my word) decreased scores I don't know.

They also note that in gifted children the most common index to be lower is the processing speed. Ie that that some degree of lower processing speed would be considered normal.

There do seem to be quite a few schools/programs that only accept FSIQ. And I would guess that many of those do not use GAI not because they feel WMI and PSI are important (ie that they on purpose want to exclude children with lower working memories or with slightly slower speeds) but because they haven't actually thought about it or don't know they should. A few schools and programs likely have thought it through and did get some expert advice and made a conscious decision that they do not agree with many other experts and that they do only want the children in their program that are exceptionally fast and have exceptional working memories. Likely if one just asks the program/school, they'll have no idea why they only accept FSIQ.

The types of things that seem to lower WMI or PSI are poorer auditory memory, poorer visual memory, poorer working memory (holding info in your head while working with it). For PSI weaker thinking speed, ie needing to mull things over before answering. But a whole host of other things can lower those also: actual visual difficulties such as keeping one's spot on a page, ability to direct attention, ability to maintain intense concentration, ability to search for visual features. How experienced one is at knowing when is the critical moment to listen carefully to verbal info (ie if one is thinking of questions about the instructions when the actual question is read and you are so good at internal focus that you don't hear the question, and you don't get a redo, then speed will be impacted). If a child has been part of a quick moving preschool program they might have more experience with listening to instructions than one who hasn't. And then on the output end to quickly find and indicate a visual choice or make a understandable verbal output. So for example a super quick thinking child who likes to give a background or discuss things or ask a lot of questions could be penalized for time. Even extraneous comments by a chatty child can impact speed. For example, during one of the timed tests perhaps a child immediately knows the answer but first says, "You know, I have a book at home with illustrations that look just like these. Do they say who did these illustrations?", and then points and says "There, that's the answer". As far as I can tell they would be docked by the amount of time they took to say their extraneous sentence because the timer starts at the end of the tester asking the question and ends when the child indicates the answer.

Anyways, if the goal is to access a school/program that only accepts FSIQ then one would want to fully assess all aspects of the child's abilities and personality too that could impact the WMI and PSI, before having them take the WISC or retake the wppsi. There might be things one finds that would suggest a supplemental subtest be used instead of a core subtest. Or there might also be simple things one could say to the child on the day of the test that would help them show themselves best. For some kids it's more effective to say, "this is a test" than "you are going to do some puzzles". For others the reverse would be better at making them do their best.

One of the things that's hit me over and over as I'm reading about wisc assessment is that a well trained thoughtful tester can provide an enormous amount of information about the learning strengths or needs of the child, way beyond just these score number totals. A well trained tester will also get more accurate scores because they will have the ability to check in and see if the child fully understands the task before starting (once the timer is going it's going), they'll better know when they are allowed to remind the child to finish, etc. So no matter the goal, a really experienced good tester is important.

It's not a test where the tester just presents the parts in order and sits back until the child is done. For example, a tester is supposed to watch the child while they do the tests and note how they are planning their approach, what their eye movements are (giving insight to how they are thinking about the task), whether they brush over easy things too quickly, whether they give up easily when it gets hard, the number of words in their response, whether they get to the point or beat around the bush, what types of things distract them, etc. After the child is gone they look at the patterns of responses and how the scores change through the test (ie get over initial worry, get more into it with time, or get tired or bored of testing), patterns of scores, etc. There are very specific moments a tester should say very specific things, prompt a child to continue or ask a child if they can explain more, etc. An inexperienced tester might err on the side of not saying as much because they are unsure of the rules.

Anyways, to the OP maybe one place to start would be make an appointment with the original wppsi tester and see what else they can tell you based on their notes from their testing session back at age 4. A conversation with them or them reviewing their notes might help know where to start with the lower processing score. At the same time try to gauge their experience level, how many wppsis they give a year or whether they recorded insightful comments about your child's learning style versus just having a pure numerical score.

It may also help to talk more to the next tester about your child's particular personality. Ie with my anxious child if the tester says, "Don't forget to go as fast as you can, I am timing this", my child might break down and cry when they don't finish a section in the time allotted, and then because of their emotional distress bomb the rest of the test. Instead the tester says, "Don't forget to take your time, we are timing this but because some of the tasks are designed for teenagers it's normal to not finish every single thing".

Polly, does it actually state in the manual that the child is supposed to be told that they are being timed?

22B-
Again, I think it was quite clear that some people misinterpreted 80 in the original post to be the subtest score not the percentile ranking. That has been clarified. However, it is also important to note that other people, beyond the original poster, do read these threads. A person coming along and reading that there is a 40, 50 or 60 point difference in subtest scores should MOST DEFINITELY take that as an INDICATION that something else might be going on and investigate further.

Indication by definition, does not state there is a problem. It is a sign of a potential problem. Sometimes a lump is cancer, sometimes it is a pimple. The lump is an indication of something happening.

Just as you cannot make a diagnosis from an indication on the WISC, nor should you disregard the information completely. Perhaps it's an indication of perfectionism, a learning disability, a visual tracking issue, an attitude problem or a lack of sleep that day. Regardless, if you are going to bother to test, you should also bother to consider the information presented.

As to the OP, I do not think a discrepancy of that amount would qualify as a true learning disability. Whether or not it meets Webb's "functional" learning disability definition, well you'd need further information. Only you know your child's personality and mood on that day and whether or not it's reliable data or not.

Squishys, what I'm reading does not include the exact phrases that the tester must use in introducing the subtests (those are not meant for anyone but testers to see). I do not know if the actual test instructions mention timing at all or not.

As the tester will be repeatedly touching the timer I would imagine the child would see it. My child would be likely to ask what the timer is for and thereafter ask before or during each part whether it's timed or not, want to know how many seconds each part took, etc. I imagine either his direct questions or his tendency to get distracted might lead a tester into making comments about timing. .

This assessment guide's comments are all very rational sounding. It recommends, "be subtle, not distracting, when using a stopwatch". If children ask if they are being timed say, "yes but you don't need to worry about that". They also say "If possible, use a stopwatch that does not make beeping sounds".

Polly my DD was not told, when doing the Coding subtest of the WPPSI (at 4.5), that it was a race, timed, she had to do as much as she could as fast as she could, or anything like that. She was told HOW to do the task, demonstrated one or two items to prove she understood and then set to it. So she did each item exactly twice (perfectly), and then put down her pencil and watched the timer for the second half of the available time. She scored 10 for what she did (perfectly average score achieved in half the available time with no errors). Once she'd put down the pencil no amount of coaxing would make her do more, but if she'd be told it was a race, or to do as many as she could, or SOMETHING beforehand she almost certainly would have kept going.

Once she'd already decided she'd finished the test perfectly, she so was not going to do anymore. It was obvious to me, as her mother, that she felt doing each one twice and with no errors demonstrated mastery and that was all that was required. The psychologist came up with some completely hair-brained explanation that I can't even remember accurately now. I think she said my DD "was uncertain how to do the rest" Seriously? No errors, each one done exactly twice and you think she doesn't know how to do more identical problems? She's bored witless and was not forewarned that volume or speed mattered. The coding test is completely mind numbing, I wouldn't do more than I had to either.

Thank you so much for all the insight. As I posted before, I am going to wait a little while longer and retest - maybe use another method than WPPSI.
My son said (at that time) that there were flashcards with words and pictures in the test - and that he could not read the words and had to ask to see the flash card again - for example a picture of a fish with a word "Lion" written on it - and he was asked to tell the tester if the word and the picture matched (this is what I understood from him). Another tricky question was to identify the odd object in a picture - it had a lot of things in one color and a single object being in another color. He is diagnosed as colorblind for shades of Red and Green, so he really cannot see some of the shades of color and we did not have that diagnosis at testing time.
I am beginning to believe that testing during early childhood can have a wild range of results that reflects a child's mood, knowledge base, abilities and also the child's understanding of what the testing is about (he was told that he was going to a room to play some "puzzles and fun games" by the tester and he was set to have "fun" rather than finish tasks in a timely manner).
The private school we tested for rejected my son based on the IQ test, which is why I had a suspicion that a deviation in number for processing speed could well be an indicator of a LD (in their eyes atleast) and they did not want to do the "hard work" of educating a student who might require special effort.
I am glad that I came out of lurkdom to ask this question. And I am overwhelmed that so many of you took so much time to respond to me. Thank you!

Good luck Ashley! Hope you see good results when you retest.