Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Re-testing etiquette?

Not really sure if thats the right title but here's what I'm wondering.

What's the way people usually approach re-testing? Do you share the former scores with a new tester? Does a tester having previous scores make a difference - either positive or negative? I''m guessing it really depends on the circumstances.

We recently re tested DS 8 as part of a multi disciplinary assessment which included iq testing, prior to medicating for ADHD - we just wanted to ensure we'd covered of all possibilities before we took the step to medicate. We had tested him at 4 on the WPPSI with results in the 150s. As part of the testing we supplied those results. As often happens those results got lost somewhere in the process and when DS went in for his assessment they didn't realize he'd been previously tested. The neurophys to his credit, without the testing results just the achievement results from school reports etc and the consult with my son, immediately floated the idea of him being gifted and not challenged enough.

The psych tested him with no background. His results came back in the mid 130s, big lag in PSI, surprise, surprise, with the psych saying he thought the results were highly likely to be an underestimate given his level of distraction while testing and their general interaction. When the earlier WPPSI results were found later that day the entire team agreed they were probably more indicative of his potential and our final report reflects that.

As a result of that I've been wondering how that process may have been different if they'd had the earlier results up front - funnily enough I felt more confident in their assessment because they reached their conclusions without the earlier results, KWIM. It actually turned out really well for us.

More generally it made me wonder if how people approach re testing makes a difference, can introduce unintended biases etc. If you're re testing due to concerns with earlier testing to you declare that upfront? Does a psych having earlier results - high or low - change their approach? etc.

Edited to add: are you required to disclose you've had previous testing? If not officially required do you have an ethical or moral obligation to do so?

Well the previous testing was given to a later tester but there wasn't a WISC....one at 6 was some sort of IQ test that wasn't supposed to penalize for language skills (our county is full of English language learners) because he had a history of language delays...it scored at 106, which was a joke. The next was the RIAS given at age 11 and it just isn't thorough. He did better on that and qualified for the gifted program with it.

The third testing was outside the school at age 13 and was to confirm an older dx from when he was 8 of ASD. The WISC was just one part of the bigger picture so since prior testing was a bit all over the place we gave it to show more of a time line of what had transpired in the past. But state achievement scores from age 10 on always showed 98- 99%tile. 106 was never a valid score and I don't think it influenced the tester at all. The RIAS qualified him for gifted but I don't think it influenced her any more than just having a few conversations with him influenced her.

It is entirely at your discretion whether you wish to share the scores with a later tester, but please, please, please let them know that prior testing has been done, and the tests that have been given, especially if it is within two years of the last test, as a premature re-administration of the same instrument will invalidate the second administration, which clouds the picture, and may result in wasting time, money, and aggravation.

As an evaluator, I much prefer to have the results of prior testing; I think all data contribute to my understanding of a child. Changes in performance can be just as informative as consistency, especially in cases where 2e is suspected.

Thanks AEH. The notion of invalid results from not disclosing testing on the same instrument in close sucession had occured to me as well - thats why I was wondering if there was a hard rule on disclosing. I imagined some might number shop.

I have to say the notion of NOT handing over results prior to re-testing had never occured to me until the second tester managed to misplace our first results. It was heartening to see both psychs reach the same conclusions even with quiet different sets of test results. And you're right when the earlier numbers were found, they did add to the overall picture and nicely illustrate the likely effect of the ADHD.

Cookie - yes I think the conversations often disclose more than any numbers.