Did the report mention which norms were used? There are two: one is more or less a population of neurotypicals, and the other is derived from identified gifted. Obviously which norms were used would make a huge difference in interpreting the scores you reported.
Taking the assumption that these are NT norms, the aptitude measure ("IQish") is in the top of the High Average range, while the other two (the achievement screeners) are dead on for Average, most certainly consistent with his Proficient score in ELA, but maybe slightly low for an Advanced in Math. This is greater than a standard deviation difference between the estimate of ability and the estimate of language/writing achievement (1.23, if anyone cares), which does suggest further investigation into the presence of some kind of language-based learning disability, preferably using an actual comprehensive assessment, rather than a screener like SAGES. I would want to see better measures of cognition, phonological processing, and achievement, including fluency measures. The last because if we do suspect 2e, high cognitive ability dyslexic compensators often reach a point where they can decode, comprehend, and express (spelling kind of a toss-up) for accuracy, but not for speed. They are pouring a ton of cognition into something that is automatic for others, so they can generate a quality-enough product, but at great energy cost.
Last edited by aeh; 05/11/14 06:53 PM.
