I am new to this discussion forum, and am in the process of preparing a GT appeal for my 6 year old daughter. She was tested at her school using the COGAT, and her score on nonverbal was the only score above 130 (131). The other two scores fell in the high average and superior range. We decided to have private testing done, and she took the WISC on Friday. My daughter was not feeling her best that day, but she is often not feeling her best due to allergies. Her FSIQ came back as a 129. Here is a breakdown of her scores:
VCI: 114
PRI: 115
WMI: 135
PSI: 131

If you break down the scores even further, the thing that dragged down her VCI was her comprehension score which was a 9 (37%)! By comparison, her Similarities and Vocabulary scores were a 14 (91%) and 15 (95%) respectively. Her other area of weakness was in Picture Concetps were she scored a 10 (50%). Her Block design and Matrix reasoning were 13 (84%) and 14 (91%) respectively.

We are meeeting with the pscyhologist on Tuesday to discuss the results and the appeal is due by Friday. My questions is will this testing even help her appeal? I realize that GT identification is more than a test result, and my daughter displays so many characteristics of a GT child. However, she is my second of 4 children and is extremely quite (my first daughter is the opposite...extremely outgoing and engaging with teachers. She was identified as GT at the age of 4). I feel like my child is often overlooked by her teachers as having potential.

Since my post yesterday, I have found some information that indicates a high WM score along with high processing speed may demonstrate giftedness in mathematics. Our school district identifies students as gifted in "language arts/social studies" and "math/science". For my daughters appeal, should I just be appealing in math science based on the scores? I know that her VCI and PRI score should ideally be higher, but I am hoping that the school district will look at the raw data to see that her vocabulary and similarities scores were quite good. Any thoughts on interpreting the data would be much appreciated.

kids with high working memory can be good at math problem solving, but it is also associated with written expression, reading and language comprehension. It really is a measure of how much information you can store and manipulate to solve different tasks. PRI indexes are also associated with mathematical ability. Her full scale IQ is being brought up by her working memory and speed. Her verbal and PRI indexes are above average but not in the superior or gifted range. If you use these scores on appeal, they might not help you.

Do you suspect any 2E issues with your daughter? Do you think there is a reason why her social comprehension would be 3 standard deviations below her vocabulary? Or her picture concepts is 2 SDs below the other two PRI scores? These are things I would ask the tester about when you meet with her.

I'm guessing you've already had your meeting with the psychologist, but in case you haven't, the questions I'd ask are:

1) What order did she give the subtests in? (I'm curious if the two subtests that are relatively low were at the end of testing). If you didn't have a chance to ask this, you can google "Order of WISC subtests" and find out - it's my understanding that they are supposed to be given in the same order each time.

2) What reasons does the psych feel came into play re the lower subtest scores? Did she see other issues? Does she recommend any follow-up testing? Is there anything you can look for in your dd's academic work or life functioning that would show a correlation with lower scores in those areas?

3) Is the subtest scatter statistically significant? There is a certain amount of scatter that is acceptable; above a certain amount composite scores are considered not reliable. I think the statistically significant difference is greater than 1.5 SDs, but I'm not 100% certain of that. If it happens that your dd's scores *are* statistically far enough apart to question the VCI and PRI calculations, then you can certainly use that to explain a possible reason why they aren't higher if you share the scores with the school. It's usually important in advocating, however, that if you have a case of scores that don't make sense or are scattered or don't match achievement scores etc that you also dig into *why* they are what they are. Just stating that you can't trust them or they aren't accurately reflecting ability without that understanding of what's at the root of it doesn't usually gain you anything when advocating, plus it could mean you are missing out on the opportunity to help your child with an issue that's not obvious on the surface.

FWIW, one of my daughters has a considerably higher WM/PSI than VIQ/PRI (VIQ and PRI are "high", just not as high as WM/PSI). My experience having seen her through several years of school now, as she goes into higher grades and more challenging work, is that I believe she needs to be placed where her VIQ/PRI put her, not the WM/PSI. If anything, having her uber-high WM/PSI just makes her impatient and more likely to become frustrated and not want to have to deal with the details of work such as checking spelling etc. It hasn't caused her to have the same need for a rapid pace of learning or depth of discussion that my higher PRI/VIQ ds needs, so I would be hesitant to accelerate her to the same degree or put her in the same pace of classes that ds needs. Hope that makes sense!

It doesn't mean your dd isn't gifted or doesn't need challenging classes, just that I'd be hesitant to make the class placement decision based on WM/PSI without equally high PRI/VIQ. And of course classwork, achievement testing etc are all important too.

Best wishes,

polarbear

I have to say that I've never really noticed scores like that on this forum. Most kids seem to score high on VCI and/or PRI and then lower on working memory and/or processing speed. I have no idea what scores like that mean, but wanted to comment on the working memory part of it. DS scored high average (I think 118) for working memory but his math achievement score was very high on the Woodcock Johnson Achievement (over 99.9th percentile). His perceptual reasoning score was in the 140's. The neuropsych gave him the working memory section twice. Once several months after a traumatic brain injury, an then again about 6 months after that. His WM score went up maybe 5 points the second time but it wasn't a huge difference. So for him at least, there's not much of a correlation between WM and math ability. His teacher is giving him math that's a 3rd-5th grade level (he's in 1st). Maybe WM will play more of a role with higher level math, I don't know.

You could try getting an achievement test like the WIAT or Woodcock Johnson, which might be more helpful in terms of advocating with the school (or maybe not, it just depends on the attitude of the school). If the school has a certain cut-off for the gifted program and the WISC doesn't meet the cut-off, I don't think those scores will help because usually schools would be the most interested in the VCI and PRI scores (assuming they have any understanding of the test), because those are the scores that test reasoning ability, which is the most helpful in terms of doing higher level work.

I am apparently not using the quote function correctly, so my apologies. I've interwoven my responses to polarbear's very thoughtful list of questions below.

1) What order did she give the subtests in? (I'm curious if the two subtests that are relatively low were at the end of testing). If you didn't have a chance to ask this, you can google "Order of WISC subtests" and find out - it's my understanding that they are supposed to be given in the same order each time.

--Comprehension, one of the low scores, is usually the last verbal subtest administered, and is #9 out of the 10 core subtests. Picture Concepts is the second of three perceptual subtests, and is #4 out of 10 overall.

2) What reasons does the psych feel came into play re the lower subtest scores? Did she see other issues? Does she recommend any follow-up testing? Is there anything you can look for in your dd's academic work or life functioning that would show a correlation with lower scores in those areas?

--excellent question, especially looking at social reasoning, analogic thinking, that sort of thing.

3) Is the subtest scatter statistically significant? There is a certain amount of scatter that is acceptable; above a certain amount composite scores are considered not reliable. I think the statistically significant difference is greater than 1.5 SDs, but I'm not 100% certain of that.

--the standard for scatter is a little more complicated than that, and I'd have to check my manual at work for the exact figures, but offhand I'd say it is likely that the VCI is questionable, or at least that the Comprehension subtest is an outlier. When I encounter this kind of divergence, I usually give an additional verbal subtest, such as Information or Word Reasoning, to see if there are any patterns of verbal strength/weakness.

polarbear[/quote]

--as to general thoughts on this profile, assuming it is legit (at this point, a big assumption): I have had one or two students in the past with this profile (it is not that common in my experience as well). Generally, it is better to place these students based on their VCI and PRI, not their WMI and PSI, as the former two Indices have more to do with the kind of higher-level, abstract thinking that G&T programming is supposed to serve, while the latter two are more reflective of the efficiency with which simpler tasks are completed. These children usually have very good rote memory, which allows them to master the basic skills easily, and their high processing speed has them zipping through mastered tasks efficiently. But when we demand abstraction, divergent thinking, concept integration, etc., they often find themselves out of their depth. Historically, I have not recommended this kind of profile, or those who are similar but less extreme, for G&T, mainly because they are prone to being stressed out by the expectations.

This is the kind of profile which is best suited to always being placed in the top group in a differentiated regular classroom. If placed with majority high VCI/PRI children, they may keep up as long as the emphasis is on basic skills (say, through the end of third grade), but will rapidly be left behind as the focus of instruction switches to higher-level problem-solving. Certainly, the profile as is supports being supplemented a bit in the regular classroom. And being given more acknowledgment for her strengths.

Wow, I really do appreciate such thoughtful and comprehensive responses. I do have a question about how her Cogat scores would play into all if this. She did achieve a 131 on the nonverbal portion or the Cogat. Her quantitative score was lower at 120 (last year it was a 124). Her verbal was not even close at 112. So, does having a high nonverbal score on Cogat along with high working memory and processing on wisc show gifted abilities?

I certainly don't want to put her in a classroom setting that will stress her out, and our GT program is very rigorous starting in 3rd grade. My oldest child is pretty textbook GT (high verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal) and so it was easy to have her identified, and she thrives in the program. But I have always felt that my younger daughter was gifted as well, she's just different from her sister. An example would be that by the age of 2.5, she was able to put together 100 piece puzzles. Like her older sister, she started talking at 9 mos, but her vocabulary was not as robust. She's also very very quiet, and extremely sensitive.

As far as her classroom performance goes, she does well in all areas, and does demonstrate strong math performance (she currently has an overall grade of 99). She does struggle with reading comprehension so that is not surprising that the test revealed that. However, I was surprised at how bad that score was. It does make me question if she has a learning disability or just major asynchronous development on the verbal side.

Drawing from my own experience, I know that I did not initially qualify for GT the first time I was tested. But, I was retested a year or two later and met the requirements. Because her scores are so crazy I feel like something is "off" and some of her abilities will develop further. In the meantime, I am going to appeal on her behalf for math/science and we'll see what happens. If I have time I will post something I found on working memory being linked to strong math abilities. Thanks again to everyone for the responses!

I wanted to post the link to the paper that I found correlating memory and speed of processing with giftedness in mathematics. Thank you again for all of the advice and food for thought!

http://cerme8.metu.edu.tr/wgpapers/WG7/WG7_Leikin.pdf

Interesting article. I don't think the WISC tests for visual spatial memory that well. The closest test might be block design. The digit span and letter-number sequence requires remembering digits/letters numbers said orally (strangely DS did much better on letter/number sequence than on digit span).
DS did take a Test of Visual Perceptual Skills because he had a brain injury and his eyes were looking in different directions. He hit the ceiling on the subtests for visual memory and visual spatial ability. So his visual memory appears to be a lot better than auditory.

Very interesting - your DD's highest area was my DD8's lowest area!

I have no idea whether high WMI is actually associated with giftedness in math skills, but I can relate my DD8's experience with a relatively LOWER area in WMI, FWIW (WMI is "high average," but still AVERAGE):

Math has NOT been an "area of confidence" for her up until this year, but she tests very well in math (ranging between 98-high 99% on standardized tests) and has always been in the highest math group since differentiation in math started. "Quantitative" was her lowest area on the CoGAT, although it was still quite high. DD's recent EXPLORE math score was above the DYS criteria, but only her 3rd highest score. Also, DD has been making remarkable progress in math, and this year scored a VERY HIGH 99% on MAP math (with a RIT very high several grades up).

So while high WMI might indicate mathematical giftedness, lower relative WMI does not seem to indicate, at least for my DD, actual mathematical weakness.

It sounds like your DD had some subtests that were very high and that her VCI and PRI were each dragged down by a single weaker subtest. I wonder if something just did not "go right" for her on that day, for those subtests. I wonder if when eventually retested down the road, she might actually test much higher. I would also look to the other data you have on your DD to see a more complete picture of her strengths - because she clearly has many!

My DS7 scored in the "superior" range for processing and the mildly gifted level for working memory. Good scores, but not outstanding. Broad math on WJ III achievement was 178.

I wish I had known about the optional arithmetic subtest on WISC in the working memory section. It's supposed to demonstrated the highest correlation with giftedness (even higher than vci subtests). I would have loved to have known this in advance and opted for the extra subtest.

I suspect DD would have done better on "arithmetic," too, but can they give optional subtests without a specific reason?

The psych that tested DD did it and just indicated on the report that she substituted. I think the NACG suggests that gifted kids tend to do better on arithmetic than digit span because arithmetic is more interesting/meaningful. It would be interesting to see how DS would do on arithmetic. It could be why DD's working memory score is so much better than DS's although if the psych had done digit span on her instead of arithmetic, I think she would have done fine. She can repeat about 5 numbers backwards. DS seems to have more trouble with it.

So I've looked up the criteria for scatter, and found that most definitely, the VCI should be interpreted with caution. That level of scatter (range of 6 scaled score points) is both statistically significant (p<.05) and rare (base rate of 5.5%). The Comprehension score differing from the average VCI score by that much occurs at an even smaller base rate of only 2% in the norm population.

In short, you should definitely discuss additional testing regarding language-based intelligence.

The perceptual subtests are not that divergent. I should point out that Picture Concepts is a little bit different from the other PRI subtests, in that it is 1) more amenable to verbal mediation, and, 2) not particularly spatial.

On another note: if you want to know more about visual memory span, the Wechsler Nonverbal, WRAML-2, and the UNIT all have some measure of visual/spatial memory span.

The psychologist who administered DS's WISC said that the PRI is an area that tends to improve with age. I'm not sure what she is basing this off of, but she has 20+ years experience with gifted kids.

He was 6 1/2 when he took the WISC. Still scored "gifted" in PRI but the score was 10 points lower than verbal.

For what it's worth, when my DS took his private school entrance exam (before K) they said he scored in the 4th percentile for comprehension. I think they were standing at the ready to accommodate a learning disability.

Every subsequent test- WISC, Gates, Iowa, and WJ has measured his comprehension between the 95th and 99th percentile.

My point is that if your child experiences any anxiety, has a tester who doesn't know their stuff, or has never taken any kind of test before, it can seriously affect the score.

That is a sufficient reason. I usually substitute when there is a significant difference between Digit Span and Letter-Number Sequencing, and Arithmetic lines up better with one of them, and then discuss the profile in the narrative. Or if none of them line up, I use the standard two subtests (DS & LNS), and include cautions about the WMI. BTW, typically, the default substitution is Arithmetic for LNS, not for DS. I do know examiners who routinely make this substitution, for all examinees, regardless of suspected giftedness. It can also be interesting to compare the process score for DS forwards and backwards with the rest of the WM subtests (one can obtain scaled scores for forwards/backwards separately).

Do you mean you would do all three tests and use the two scores of the three that are closest to each other? With DD, she decided ahead of time that she would do arithmetic instead of digit span. Possibly because DD told her she likes math in school, or because of what the NAGC says. I thought that testers had to decide ahead of time which tests would be used in scoring.

Do you have any thoughts as to why there would be a big gap between Digit Span and Letter-Number Sequence for DS? It seems like practically the same test. I think after the skull fractures/brain injury his scores were 10 and 14, and then 6 months later 11 and 15 (or something along those lines), so there was the same gap both times he did it.

Not exactly. (You are correct that examiners are supposed to select subtests before administration, based on perceived need. Sometimes you can't, though, such as when one is spoiled during testing.) I would do the original two: ds and lns, and then if they were widely divergent, I would add ar, and then use the two that were most consistent for the Index score, and also include a discussion of the diversity (and thus lowered reliability of Index score) among the subtest scores, with my hypotheses about the explanation. I justify the selection after testing with the same reasoning that says that excessive scatter among the subtests in a cluster makes the Index score invalid. I suppose this is my way of minimizing the impact of a questionable Index score on the IQ, and of creating a better fit between the numbers people see and the clinical interpretation.

WRT your DS, was there any mention of differences between digit forwards and digits reversed in the Digit Span subtest? Forwards is more closely related to short-term rote memory and attention, while Backwards usually tracks better with LNS, as the mental manipulation aspect of it is more similar.

Also, six months out from a TBI, the brain is still healing. Actually, we continue to see improvements in cognitive functions for a couple of years after the trauma.

Thank you. There was nothing the report about forwards vs. backwards. I should ask him to try some numbers myself and see if I notice if he's struggling with one or the other.

One of the cranial nerves in his brain was paralyzed due to blunt force trauma and concussion, and it took about 6 months for the nerve to heal enough for his eyes to become completely aligned. So that sounds about right for recovery from a brain injury. During the first testing (about 4 months after the brain injury), the psych did a whole bunch of other tests and DS had absolutely wretched scores for fine motor ability (Grooved Pegboard), like below the .01 percentile. So we suspect that the brain injury made his preexisting condition (DCD) even worse. Strangley he scored very high on subtests like matrix reasoning even though he probably had some double vision. And block design wasn't bad either but quite a bit lower than the other PR subtests.

Well, the matrix reasoning score makes sense, as the task is more about abstract reasoning and pattern recognition than it is about straight visual skills, although, of course, you have to be able to see the designs to solve them. Likewise, block design has significant motor and motor speed elements, which were probably impacted, and relies on vision to complete, but it also contains spatial reasoning and nonverbal problem solving components that would not necessarily be as compromised by vision issues. The blocks are big enough, and the color patterns distinct enough, that he was probably able to solve the items accurately, with just some points knocked off for speed. Any comments on slow-but-accurate performance, loss of bonus points for speed, or overtime responses? Those are usually tipoffs that the real issue with a relatively lower block design score is motor speed. Sometimes there is also an alternate score reported (it can be generated for any WISC-IV, but not everybody reports it) for block design no bonus points, which is a less-timed version of scoring. There are still time limits for completing each item, but speed is not factored into the scaled score. If you compare the standard bd score and the bd no bonus points score, and they are noticeably different (there are tables for statistical significance), that suggests that motor speed is compromising performance, rather than actual perceptual reasoning. Typically, you do not substitute the alternative block design scoring into the Index scores, but it is valuable clinical information.

This is interesting Blackcat... From what I remember my DS when he was last tested did well with numbers forward (he always does) and Letter number sequence but poorly on reverse numbers. I read in Portwood's book on dyspraxia that this a common profile for those with dyspraxia - to do poorly on reverse digits but it didn't say why. From what O remember your son has dyspraxia, no? I am pretty sure my son does , too.

Interesting. He wasn't trying to deterimine if DS was gifted and I think everyone was surprised by the 18-19 scores in PR (block design was more like 13 I think). All it said in the report was that the PR score is most likely an underestimate of his visual spatial ability because of the motor component involved with block design. The Grooved Pegboard was timed as well and involves just putting pegs in a board. He was ridiculously slow and I'm guessing that is also what happened with the blocks. He's still slow with fine motor skills but not as bad.

I will probably get him re-tested at some point if we stay with this school district. I don't think they will accept IQ scores from outside providers unless they are specific ones that are pre-approved. DS went to a major university and I'm sure it was fine, so it's annoying if we'd have to re-test just because it wasn't done by the "right" person. I also don't know if they'd accept test scores that were done on a 6 year old for entrance to gifted programming in third grade. The school uses the CogAT but I'm worried he will be too slow since it's timed and probably involves writing or filling out bubbles, so I might refrain from filling out the permission form for that.

whoa - I just looked up my son's score. He scored superior in letter number sequencing! High average in digit span but they didn't break down the reversed and the forwards this time The digits reversed is always worse with him, though. He has always scored well on digits forward, poorly on digits backwards.

As an aside I have no idea that how my son's WMI got so high. At the time I got the scores, I made her double check and also check to make sure she didn't have his scores mixed up with some one else's. His processing though - so, so so low. To me this just really shows that Ds's attention span is not the problem - it's getting the stuff out that is problematic (processing speed) ... But I digress.

Yes, he has DCD. It just seems like if a kid has a problem with reverse digits, they would also have a problem with Letter-Number Sequencing. I don't really understand why they give two tests that are practically the same. Why not do digit span and then something completely different, like visual memory.

Well technically this would seem to make sense but my DD clearly has pretty severe ADHD and her working memory was 96th percentile and processing speed was like 34th. Meanwhile DS's working memory is much lower than hers with a huge gap between PR and everything else, and I don't think he has ADHD.

Oh well, LOL - there goes that theory!

Yeah, I hear you. I agree. I remember really looking for info on this exact issue a few years ago. Back then, DS WMI wasn't good. When it was broken down his LNS was okay and his forward digits was good. His reversed digits? deplorable. Second test with SB-V (has the digits tests but no LNS ... I think?) He did quite well on digits forward - not so great on digits backwards leading to a pretty solidly average WMI. Almost two years later, he scores superior on LNS and High Average on digit span and I suspect DS broke down into superior on numbers forward and probably like low average on backwards... BUT not entirely sure.

It does seem like digits backwards taps into something - and I suspect something specific to dyspraxia or dysgraphia. Portwood seems to say as much but she doesn't say what it is .... probably no one knows yet.

Okay so here is what the book "Understanding Developmental Dyspraxia - A textbook for Students and Professionals" by Madeline Portwood says: "digits forward and digit backwards may involve different cognitive processes, especially in certain clinical groups. Studies show that the performance of dyspraxic youngsters highlights significant weakness in repeating the digits backwards." Unfortunately, that's all it says.

I just asked both kids and DD (age 8) could do 5 backwards easily and DS (turned 7 a couple months ago) could do 4 but struggled w/ 5. So would that really earn a digit span score of 10-11 for DS? I didn't try forwards but I think for DS it's probably around 6-7 digits. I find it so strange how DD doesn't seem to have any problem with this at all but she looks spaced out if you ask her what's 9+4. DS didn't have nearly as many problems memorizing math facts.

Okay, so here's the scoop. Digits forwards typically is reflective of the auditory short-term memory channel, as well as attention. Digits reversed is often reflective of the visual memory channel. In order to be successful at digits reversed without brute force (i.e., repeating the sequence forwards mentally or subvocally, but saying the last number out loud, and then repeating the whole sequence forwards, but vocalizing the second to last digit, etc.), which is quite laborious, and requires a pretty big auditory loop, one inputs the digit sequence into something like a visual scratch pad in the brain. Those who are most successful then read it off the scratch pad, but backwards. If your visual scratch pad isn't very big, or has a short expiration time, you will have a hard time with digits reversed. This is most likely why a child with DCD might be so much more successful with digits forwards, but tank digits backwards. Both DCD and digits backwards are connected to perceptual deficits.

If DSF and DSB are significantly different, then the combined digit span score does not really capture the working memory profile of the individual.

blackcat, with your children in particular, those spans are actually quite good for their age, and would have suggested higher scaled scores to me for your DS7. On the other hand, in formal testing, we expect them to repeat those spans consistently. If you can do it sometimes, but not every time, you may not receive as high a scaled score as your longest span would suggest. And inconsistency is often what you find when the expected low cognitive load means of completing a task does not come naturally, and children have to enlist a great deal of cognition into working around their deficit areas.

Both of my kids had large gaps between PR and the rest of their scores (with PR being very high) so the psychologist who tested DD at least, kept describing her as a visual spatial learner. Maybe she pictures the numbers in her head. DS seems even more like this, he has a photographic memory for maps and hit the ceiling on the visual memory test. But I know that is not typical of kids with DCD who tend to be challenged in terms of spatial ability.

Wow!!! Aeh, You are AWESOME! Are you a neuropsych? How is that that I have had my son see and tested by a psych at a children's hospital (granted, she specialized in anxiety), a school psych, and a neuropsych (the neuropsych seemed very rushed and just seemed not all that thorough) but no one could explain this to me. I mean I SPECIFICALLY asked them each what could be the reason for this... I have been searching for this info. Honestly I am little disappointed that I spent quite a lot of money (well, my insurance in most cases but still) on these professionals and they could not give me any answer to this! WTF?! Anyway, thank you so much for being on this board ! It's just nice to know what the probable weakness is! Maybe it can be remediated! My son definitely has perceptual deficits! Any idea what helps that? He has trouble with geometry, etc. His visual sequencing test is really, really low (or was last time it was tested). He has been getting vision therapy, which has been great for him - will that help with perceptual deficits, do you know?

Aww. You guys are making me blush!

No, I am not a neuropsych, although I've often thought of going back to grad school for that, as it interests me quite a bit; but as I'm busy working full time and being a homeschool mom, that will have to wait. I'm a school psych, and kind of an assessment geek.

Vision therapy may be helpful with elements that have to do with visual tracking, but not necessarily perceptual deficits per se. Vision refers to the sensory aspect, as in what direct signals the brain gets from the environment through the visual system. Perception has more to do with how the brain interprets and manages that sensory data, so although the two systems are closely related, they are not exactly the same. I do think that the whole rising tide lifts all boats thing often comes into play, though, as any load that is reduced in one area frees up some brain to devote to other areas.

aeh-- I have also found your posts informative, so thank you!

Thanks. Bummer. Well, if you have or uncover any info that may be helpful to remediate that deficiency please let me know. Obviously it will never be stellar for him but I'd love to improve it to a point where it is not a huge handicap, ykim?