Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment WPPSI/WIAT results -- please help!

Hi All,

We just received the test results for DS5. He apparently scored a 154 FSIQ on the WPPSI. This sounds high considering the sub-scores:

135 verbal
131 Performance
134 Processing speed

Could these result in a FSIQ of 154???

As for the WIAT, the psych said he was unable to compute the age-based norms because he used the 1st grade form and the chart had no numbers for 5 year olds.

He reported the results of 3 subtests with 1st grade norms: early reading, numerical operators and spelling. He said he could not calculate composite scores from these subtests.

I am very confused and am not sure what to ask. Did the psych 'skip' necessary subtests? Or does he lack the correct table to use the age based norms? Or is it just not possible to calculate the composite WIAT scores Davidson wants at the age of 5?

Thanks for your help!
Ul.H.

aeh can give a better answer, but it sounds like what happened is that he thought the age appropriate section would not have a high enough ceiling. My understanding is that the WIAT has different sections for different ages. My daughter has taken it twice and hit the ceiling for reading (she had a perfect score in comprehension). Apparently the reason she was able to so that is that you run out of questions for a particular age group. We wanted information for her acceleration, so he calculated her scores based on age, current grade (kindergarten), and proposed grade (first grade).

The subtests differ for different levels (e.g., I think phonics is no longer tested after grade 3 and prereading skills, etc., aren't relevant at higher ages).

So I think he used a section that was for a higher age and therefore couldn't give age based results. That could also explain why he couldn't give the appropriate subtests to generate a composite score.

If you wanted scores for DYS, you could always submit the IQ score and then include the achievement subtests that you have as part of a portfolio.

I'm sure aeh can give you more detailed advice, but that is just what I know from our experience with the test. Our psychologist recommends the WJIII for future testing because they can work up to higher levels.

On the FSIQ, the apparent difference between index scores and the IQ is most likely because of the infrequency of earning high index scores in all of the index areas at the same time. It is more likely that someone in the standardization sample received only one of those high index scores than that they received multiple high scores, and this is reflected in the IQ. However, it looks like you received the WPPSI-III, which is not the latest version. (The WPPSI-IV came out in North America in 2012, and in AU/NZ in 2014. If you are in AU/NZ, it is still okay to have used the III, as that was just this year.)

(I'm assuming, by the way, that you are talking about the North American edition of the WIAT-III. If this is an international version of the WIAT-II, there will be some slight differences.)

apm221, you are correct about the WIAT. One of the disadvantages for young high-performers is that the test is not welcoming to out-of-level testing. At age 5, there are age norms only for preK and K skills, which are largely pre-academic. The first grade subtests were probably more skill-appropriate. However, in this situation, I would have given all of the age-appropriate subtests, in order to be able to generate some age-normative achievement data, and then added what was necessary to obtain a complete set at the estimated grade-appropriate level, so that I would be able to compute composite scores.

These are the composites that should have been available for kindergarten:

Oral Language (probably not that important in this case): 2 subtests (listening comprehension, oral expression)
Written Expression: 2 subtests (alphabet writing fluency, spelling) (not available for AU/NZ)
Mathematics: 2 subtests (math problem solving, numerical operations)

If awf and mps had been administered, you should have been able to get age-normed composite scores in writing and mathematics. The same subtests (plus sentence composition) would get you the writing composite on the first-grade norms, and the same subtests unchanged would get you math on the first-grade norms. In order to get composite scores in reading, you would have had to go up to first grade norms and have reading comprehension, word reading, pseudoword decoding, and oral reading fluency.

Early Reading Skills does not go into any composite, except the Total Achievement Composite, which samples all academics. I suppose if you wanted to, you could make a case for using it as a reading composite, since it is the only age-normed measure of reading for 5-year-olds on the WIAT-III.

So, in summary:
1) Yes, the psych skipped some necessary subtests for age-normed composite scores in writing and math.
2) Puzzling: the psych should not need additional tables to calculate age norms, as the age and grade norms are all in the same document (paper or pdf).
3) Partially: it is possible to calculate some of the composites at age 5 (writing, math), but not others (reading). Unless this is the WIAT-II, in which case math is an option, but not the others.

With regard to reading comprehension and oral reading fluency, there are particular limits on those subtests, because there are grade-restricted item sets, with provision for dropping levels for low-performers, but not for upping levels for high-performers. Early reading skills is indeed not administered after third grade.

I think what the psych did was to give three out of the seven possible kindergarten subtests, and then to score them using first grade norms. Or, the WIAT-II abbreviated (international edition), which only has those three subtests. Or the Wechsler Fundamentals, which is the NA abbreviated form (except that it has reading comprehension, which could have been administered to generate a reading composite).

Bottom line, you did not receive a comprehensive assessment of achievement. Effectively, this was only a screening of achievement. Perfectly reasonable for an NT or low-performing K student, but not for a high-performing student.

aeh, I'm so glad to see you on these boards; your posts are so helpful!
The Wiat scoring is so confusing; I had to have our psych throughly explain this to us also.
Because we wanted to to qualify for DYS, we had almost the all subsets administered with the exception of written and math fluency (DD is in kinder).

The ceiling for Early Reading is 123 at 94th percentile, if you get all items correct.

I do want to add that it was important for our DD to have been tested on the oral expression and language subsets since she scored really highly in these areas and helped her achieve >99.9 percentile in total achievement. She wouldn't have qualified for DYS without it; she was ever so close in math but just barely missed it and 99 in all others except for written.

Ultra, perhaps you can speak with the psych. to adminster the required missing tests to get those subsets? I'm not sure what the timeframe to get this done is, however.

Aeh -- Thank you so much for your detailed response! I will see if I can get the psych to administer the missing subtests for the WIAT.

And yes, the psych administered the WPPSI -iii but as far as I know the older test is still accepted by Davidson.

I am still concerned that the FSIQ was miscalculated, perhaps by summing too many subtests together. That appears to be what happened here:
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/24732/1.html

Has anyone else on the board received a 150+ FSIQ from composite scores all in the 130s?

Ul.H.

I would target getting the additional subtests administered within a month or two of the original ones, to maximize the chances of staying in the same age norm bracket. If you can't do that, being in the adjacent bracket (most tests are three or four months per bracket) will probably still be more or less okay. The only problem is that GT kids often go through little bursts, so the results might reflect either side of a burst in the same academic area. Another option would be to wait until it's been six months since the original achievement testing, and do the whole WIAT again. The acceptable retest interval for achievement is six months.

And I think it would be a good idea to check on the derivation of the FSIQ. If it is real, then great, and you'll feel more at ease about it. If not, then obviously you need to know that, too. I don't have a WPPSI-III manual, so unfortunately I can't check it myself.