Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Good tester.. what a difference! Scores are in..

The whole point of this post is to make a point for trusting your parent's instincts. We knew the first test my dd had did NOT represent what she was capable of.

Background info. We tested my dd at 4-10 to apply to local gifted schools. Testing left much to be desired. We knew whatever verbal score she got would be an underestimation of her abilities, since she had been in a limited English environment prior to testing.

However, the whole way the tester related to dd (who usually related really well to adults, was confident and ready to go), just seemed to have affected her results.

She was tested on the WPPSI-III, and her VERBAL scale was 121 (92nd %), full scale 127 (96th) and taking the coding out was 129 (97th).

Since there was a very signficant spread on the verbal subtests, and with her bilingual background, tester agreed that a substitution would give a better estimate. This changed her verbal to 133 (99th) and full scale 132 (98th), we never got the results w/o coding for that.

Fast forward to where she was retested, 6-7.

WISC-IV results. (she hit ceilings so extended scores were used in one subtest).

VCI 144 (99.8th%)
PRI 139 (99.5th%)
WMI 126 (96th%)
PSI 106 (66th%)
FSIQ 139 (99.5th%)
GAI 151 (>99.9th)

In terms of subtests, vocabulary went from 15 in WPPSI to 21 in WISC (this is with one year of full day school under her belt, plus, very extensive reading). Comprehension from 16 to 17. Another big change was Information, going from 11 to 15.

Block design actually went down from 17 to 15, picture concepts from 14 to 18, and matrix reasoning from 13 to 16.

Coding went down, but tester said she was being very meticulous and careful. She was able to strike a better balance of speed/legibility in the achievement part of the testing.

For Achievement, she had the WJ-III.

Total Achievement was 142 (99.8th)
Broad Reading was 157 (>99.9th), all subtests in the same range (153-to 159).
Broad Math 144 (99.8)
Calculation 131, Applied Problems 154, and Math Fluency 128 (lowest score in the whole battery).
Broad Written 149 (>99.9th) with spelling 148, writing samples 133, and writing fluency 135.

I am thrilled that we went ahead with testing and that she has DYS qualifying scores. I expected a very high reading score (she is an obsessive reader, her summer reading list included Narnia, first 3 HP (we jointly decided to wait for the others), The Hobbit, etc.

I knew she was ahead in writing, but was surprised that it was that ahead.

Math really took me by surprise. I am really glad we went ahead with the WJ instead of WIAT. The "fluency" scores really give me significant information. I know that my dd is good at conceptually understanding math, however, she is not super fast with numbers, mostly because she doesn't have her facts memorized. Her grade equivalent for fluency was 2.3, but 4.4 in applied problems.

Now, off to fill in the application, find letters of recommendation, etc.

Oh, and now I also have to rethink how to approach her school about this. She is loving school and learning a lot in the enrichment parts, but I think she needs a little bit more drastic acceleration. (like for instance, making her take the a pre-test on the 100 high frequency words for spelling, and then having her other spelling words...).

Wow, what a difference! Glad you followed through on your instinct and thanks for sharing the old/new results.

Did the assessor have any tips on sharing the information with the school? I'd recommend meeting with the principal to give him/her a copy of the results and see what's offered to meet her needs. If they don't make a good offer, then I'd jump in with requests for things like the alternate spelling words, accelerated math, etc. Good luck with the school and DYS!

WOW on those scores! Great job listening to your gut. I wonder how much the increase in age played in as well.

INKY. I am thinking of taking the scores to the division head; see what ideas they suggest. Then, I could also wait until the fall conference. I am afraid that they will say that she needs to have her math facts straight and fast before moving on further on that. I am on the fence about that, she does need to be faster on those (but she did get 97% on math fluency, I just don't know, maybe that was with smaller numbers?).

DAZED&CONFUSED. Certainly the age had something to do with it. I am positive that a year ago, she would not have done as well in writing or math in the achievement test. This year she leaped ahead a ton in both of those.

I was also expecting a big change in vocabulary. After all, she spends countless hours reading advanced books (part of her summer reading included 1st 3 HP, HObbit, Chronicles of Narnia...). So, yes, it was to be expected that 1.5 more years of schooling in English, plus the reading, would increase her vocabulary.

However, there was a marked difference in the Perceptual area as well, in the previous one, it was 97th.

She came out from both tests (separate days) super happy, when she did at 4, she did not. I asked her who she had liked better (I never thought of a non-direct way to ask before), and she said she'd liked the second one much better. Oh, and speaking of, she also had more fun with the achievement tahn IQ.

I'm going to try and get a copy of a book called Faster Isn't Smarter. It expands on the ideas discussed here:
http://www.mathsolutions.com/documents/9781935099031_message18.pdf
DD7 has a much lower PSI relative to her other scores. Next week her teacher will start giving them "Math Minutes." DD7 hated these when she had them in K and it was a relief when her 1st grade teacher didn't use them. I'm hoping DD7 won't have a setback in her attitude towards math because of these timed drills.

Yes, I am concerned about how she perceives herself in regards to her math ability. I don't know that the school has them do those timed tests.

School says that they used to let kids advance more on the math curriculum, but that students would later hit a wall, as they did not know their math facts. They then changed their system, and they make the kids do a lot of hands on, manipulatives, etc. to work on the number combinations. In K, Dd would have a target number, where she'd do combinations, for instance 7=5+2=1+4+1+1=3+4.... etc.

I don't think that is bad. She knows that 8+8=16 right away, but might need to calculate 7+6.

I remember those "math drills" at school, they called them "mental calculations". I was fast at those, but probably not the fastest; and I am a mathematician. Even if I know that being a human calculator doesn't mean you are super good in math; it did take me by surprise how well she is doing in math.

Thanks for the article, I took a quick look and I'll read it later more thoroughly.