I have been reading through the forums and also online about the FSIQ and GAI. From what I've read it seems like the GAI typically winds up being several points higher than the FSIQ. My ds has the opposite results and I can't seem to find anything about why that might be or how to interpret the score. Something that has been mentioned is a possible LD.

His FSIQ is 146, his GAI is 135.

Can anyone clarify or direct me to a reference that can explain what this might mean? The tester had no information, just explained why they calculated the GAI, and we're not sure where to go next.

Thanks!

Some individuals are highly efficient in using the skills they have, but not necessarily as high (not that this GAI is by any means low!) in abstract thinking and complex problem solving. A profile such as your son's, although unusual, does not necessarily suggest an LD. Sometimes, this can be advantageous, as these scores indicate a level of cognitive strength which is much easier for most teachers to appreciate and recognize (because speed and memory look more like what most teachers expect giftedness to look like).

What does the rest of his profile look like? Are there other indications of a learning disability, besides these test results?

That can't be true. They are both supposed to have mean 100 and SD 15.

22B, it can be true because they are two different calculations: FSIQ is a composite of the VCI, PRI, WM and PSI indexes; GAI is a composite of VCI & PRI only. I don't remember the name of it, but another # can be calculated that is the composite of the WM & PRI only.

I suspect the reason that GAI seems to be higher than FSIQ when mentioned in these forums is the nature of why it's mentioned, and the profile of what occurs more often in HG/+ children. Although I don't have a GAI calculated for her, I wouldn't be surprised if the GAI of one of my dds is lower than her FSIQ because PSI and WM are her strengths and her scores are higher there than for VCI and PRI.

To the OP - who mentioned the possibility of LD? Was it the tester or is it based on something you've read online? How much lower was the GAI than the FSIQ? If you can share the actual #s (or the amount of discrepancy observed) and also tell us a little bit more about why your ds was tested (was it for a gifted program, routine testing, or was he struggling in some area) - we might be able to give some extra input.

Best wishes,

polarbear

eta - I don't want to confuse the post here.. but fwiw, my dd who does have the higher WM and PSI scores also has a challenge with a different type of memory and it impacts her ability to read. So she is considered to be 2e - but that doesn't mean that a child has an LD simply because WM and PSI are their strengths. It might be a red flag, however, that some type of LD Is causing scores to be depressed in one or more of the PRI/VCI subtests and that would lower that component of FSIQ and also the GAI. Hope that makes sense!

Of course, you are correct, 22b. They both have mean 100 and SD 15, which is why it should not surprise anyone that there are kids out there who have a higher FSIQ than GAI. Actually, probably roughly as many kids have FSIQ>GAI as have GAI>FSIQ. (The actual percentage is known; I could look this up, if I were at work.) We just don't hear about them as much on this forum, because of the nature of the population. (I'm guessing there's a minuscule population of kids with GAI 145+ and FSIQ 160+, as that would suggest a CPI (combined WMI/PSI) up in the 170 range, but the CPI tables I have top out at 162...)

Which part of his profile? He was given the WISC and the WIAT and a few others. The psychologist explained most of them but not very clearly. He indicated that my son may struggle with retaining material and doing any type of mental manipulation based on the scores.

We had initially requested the testing for school purposes. We thought he may be gifted (taught himself to read and write by 3, taught himself to play the piano) but his most current teacher stated he had difficulty writing and couldn't read - both untrue. He doesn't like to write but will when it's something he likes.

The psychologist is telling us to request a special ed placement so he can have accommodations to avoid the frustration. We're not in agreement with him but need to understand more.

Thanks for your input.

There is an 11 point difference between the FSIQ and the GAI - although in my research I found the WISC scoring and if I'm doing it correctly his GAI should be a 142, not sure.

He was tested due to his 3rd grade teacher referring him for special ed, due mostly to his dislike of writing and some behavioral problems that only seemed to occur with this one teacher. The psychologist seems to agree that a special ed placement will allow him to get the accommodations that will help him should there be an frustration or struggling with mental manipulations which he suggests show from his test results. We have not noticed that and are in disagreement but need to understand more about the test results.

We know he doesn't like to write although he will if it's something he has an interest in, he does struggle with fine motor skills - holds things oddly, can't tie shoes easily, clumsy etc.

OK, I've been curious about this for a while. Why does the GAI exclude both WMI and PSI? Are they frequently similar scores?

I'm asking because DDs WMI was high (as were VCI and PRI) and her PSI the lower score. To the degree that our report include both a GAI as well as a GAI + WMI calculation.

This isn't a practical question for us (it certainly won't change anything we've been doing) but just a matter of curiosity.

If you're comfortable posting (or PM me, if you prefer) the subtest and cluster scores for the remaining cognitive and achievement testing, I can give you my take on the results, and try to answer any questions you have about them. (In particular, I see that you are questioning the accuracy of the GAI.) I might be able to explain why the examiner suggested an IEP or 504 plan.

Because neither of them loads as heavily on general intelligence (g) as the VCI and PRI do, and there is some support in the factor analysis for a two-factor solution consisting of VCI/PRI and WMI/PSI. (See Dumont-Willis scoring.) In addition, validation studies support the use of the GAI as it is currently defined to discriminate the gifted population from NTs. Sometimes they are similar (especially in gifted/non2e), where a lower CPI results from two comparable contributing indices, usually in the 110s, in which case you can appropriately discuss the cognitive proficiency cluster as a unit. In 2e, it is fairly common to find any combination of one or both lower, generally average or below.

Speculatively, a non 2e, relatively low PSI might reflect a deliberate working style, with high attention to detail, or perfectionistic tendencies, or prioritizing accuracy over speed, all of which are essentially varying degrees of the same thing, a pattern familiar to most persons working with gifted kids.

(Other explanations include inattention/poor sustained attention, impulsivity (if the number of items completed is within expectations, but poor accuracy lowers the standard/scaled score), fine motor deficits, vision or visual tracking issues, emotional interference, such as from anxiety or depression, or psychomotor retardation as a side effect of some medications, especially the psychotropics used to treat anx/dep.)

Yup, that's my baby! OK, this makes total sense now. The tester also pointed out that the PSI wasn't indicative of a problem (percentile rank was 92nd), so it's not like we ever worried about it.

Thank you for the explanation.

Thanks for explaining why the testing occurred. You have a really bright ds! The thing is, I wouldn't necessarily discount what the teacher and psych have told you - 2e kids can be *very* good at compensating for their weaknesses thanks to their incredible strengths. There are three things I'd take into consideration before deciding that there *isn't* a 2nd e for your ds -

1) Two independent observers have found suggestions that there might be a challenge (teacher and psych)

2) He likes to write, but only when it's something that "interests" him - it's possible that what is interesting to him coincides with a specific type of writing assignment. My 2e ds, for instance, struggles with creative writing and open-ended questions, but can write about science/facts/etc. Because he loves science, it was easy for us to think when he was younger that he was not writing because he wasn't interested in the topic, but the reality was the times he wasn't writing - he couldn't write due to his 2nd e.

3) Struggling with fine motor skills - holding things oddly, not able to tie shoes easily, clumsy etc - that is not something that you will hear parents of most NT 3rd graders mentioning. You'll see it in younger children, but if it's persistent up to 3rd grade, that *might* be an indication of a fine motor challenge. Did the psych perform other tests such as visual motor integration or finger-tapping or suggest an OT eval? Or were the fine motor issues discusses as part of this eval? The tricky thing is - if he's struggling with these, whatever the reason, it's possibly going to impact him when he uses handwriting, and that might also factor into why he will sometimes write if he's really interested in something and other times avoid it. A fine motor challenge isn't necessarily something that will require an IEP (special education) but it may be something that your ds would benefit from having either accommodations (keyboarding) or working with an OT to strengthen muscles, correct grip etc.

Best wishes,

polarbear

One thing I am a bit confused about here is that the comments teachers and the psychologist are making would suggest to me a weakness in WMI and PSI, which leads to the GAI being HIGHER than the FSIQ, not lower. Has a mistake been made and the scores transposed?

Do you have the Index scores so that here someone could check that for you?

The general ability index tends to be higher than the full-scale IQ in high IQ persons because the tests that enter into it are more g-loaded, on average, than those of the full-scale IQ. For example, the general ability index is measured by highly g-loaded tests such as vocabulary, similarities, matrix reasoning, and the like, while excluding low-level processing tasks such as digit span, coding, and et cetera. Still, full-scale IQ is a better estimate of Spearman's g than is the general ability index because of the greater generality of the tasks that enter into it.

Based on the scores you listed, I've calculated your son's CPI as being about 163. That means that his aptitude for low-level processing tasks is exceptional. Perhaps if you list his actual test scores I can make a more comprehensive statement about his abilities.

Polarbear - we suggested to the psychologist that our son was 2e, he also suffers from terrible anxiety and has been diagnosed with adhd. There was no testing of motor skills done,there was a visual and auditory test done though.

aeh and Frank22 - I apologize, as I am not very familiar with these tests and although we kept asking the psychologist to explain things in laymen terms we still aren't clear as to what all this means in detail.

These are the scores from his WISC, if I'm leaving out any that would be helpful please let me know which ones and I will post them

VCI 44
PRI 50
WMI 25
PSI 27
FSIQ 146

One thing that was explained to us was about the digits forward and digits backward - he said that ds did better on the backwards span than the forwards, which often happens with gifted children because backwards is more challenging to a gifted child. He said this may explain why ds sometimes has difficulty in classes that you would think would be easy for him, basically he tunes out because it's not stimulating enough so he does poorly. Does that make sense?


Thank you all for you help, I really do appreciate you taking the time.

Frank22, cbls didn't list any scores besides the GAI and FSIQ in this thread. A CPI of 163 (actually 162) is simply the max score possible on the DW-II, which I would agree is a reasonable estimate of the CPI if her original FSIQ and GAI are correct, which may be in doubt, based on what momof3 just pointed out. What CPI tables are you using, btw?

Momof3, you make a good observation. Apparently you have better reading comprehension than the rest of us!

cbls, if you could clarify: what is the rank order, highest to lowest, of the Index scores (VCI, PRI, WMI, PSI)?

Sorry, crossed in the post.

Again, excuse my ignorance - are you referring to the percentile rank of the scores?

Aeh,

Full-scale IQ and GAI are sufficient alone to calculate one's CPI.

I used the following artificial formula: FSIQ = GAI x 0.6 + CPI x 0.4

Cbls,

I'm sorry but I do not understand those scores; what do the 44, 50, 25, and 27 stand for? It would be extremely helpful if you could list his subtest scaled scores too (they range from 1 to 19, with a mean of 10 and a S.D. of 3).

EDIT: Clbs, I think now that the scores that you listed are the sum of scaled scores for each index.

According to the information you provided, his actual FSIQ is 135, with a GAI of 143. Perhaps the psychologist made a mistake in computing his scores?

Thanks, cbls. It appears you've listed the sums of scaled scores for the four factor indices (VCI, PRI, WMI, PSI). Perhaps you could send us the standard scores (I don't have my tables with you, so these are not real numbers, but they should look something like VCI 135 PRI 142, WMI 117, PSI 120), and the GAI.

From what you've listed though, it appears the GAI and FSIQ got transposed in the report, and it is the GAI which is the 146, and the FSIQ which is the 135. The subtests in the WMI average 12.5, which is in the High Average range (equivalent to about the 110s). The PSI subtests, which are slightly higher, average 13.5, which is also in the High Average range, and should generate a PSI around 120ish. In other words, the subtests which contribute to the GAI are, on the average, higher than those which contribute to the CPI (WMI/PSI), particularly than the WMI.

On the DSF and DSB: yes, that is not extremely unusual in gifted children, and also in those with other reasons for not attending to minimally-engaging activities (ADHD, emotional interference, medication, insomnia/poor sleep hygiene, etc.). Sometimes I also see it in kids with a skewed profile that favors visual memory, which may also be somewhat true of your dc, based on the scores you've provided.

Oh! I think I just figured out what happened: I think you have scores in the wrong columns. The FSIQ you have listed is exactly the same as the sum of all the subtests, which is why you've sent us only sums of subtests. Maybe your column headings are off in the formatting of the report? You're looking for a column called "Standard Scores" or "Composite Scores". It may not be the first column, which, if the psych uses the same software I do, lists the sums of subtest scores. The next column is the actual index scores (Composite Scores), which will be numbers in the low to mid hundreds. After that should be a percentile (probably in the 80-99 range), then a confidence interval (two numbers separated by a dash, more-or-less centered on the Composite Score), ending with a Qualitative Description.

crossed with you frank. I see we are thinking along the same lines.

Frank, thanks. I usually use the Dumont-Willis tables.

can you explain more about dumont-willis... our tester used them as well and I dont get it

thanks

These are the subtest scores

Block design 19
Similarities 15
Digit span 12
Picture concepts 13
Coding 13
Vocabulary 14
Letter number seq 13
Matrix reasoning 18
Comprehension 15
Symbol search 15

I think you are correct, I think the scores are transposed. We've asked the psychologist about this but he said they were correct, how can I present it to him so he makes the correction?

Thank you!

Composite scores
VCI 128
PRI 141
WMI 113
PSI 122

I would like to get the results corrected so we can bring it to the school and move forward from there.

Thanks again!

Hmm. Are the numbers you sent previously actually what he called the Index scores? Is there a table titled "Composite Score Differences"? If there is, it will have the four index scores listed again. The index score part really throws me wrt the psych's insistence that the scores are correct. Maybe you could start by asking him about the index scores, because those are patently incorrect (an index score of 25 would be at the lowest extreme of ability--like 24-hour nursing home care level).

As to the actual subtest performance of your ds:

He did extremely well on the PRI subtests, and borders on being a candidate for extended norms (max scaled score on Block Design). I would say he is probably skewed toward nonverbal intelligence, as, not only are his PRI subtest mostly higher than his VCI subtest, but the lowest PRI subtest, picture concepts, can be a mixed measure in many kids. I would not be surprised that a future re-test, on the WAIS, finds his PRI rising, when picture concepts is replaced. His working memory, honestly, does not look horrifically low to me, especially if the digit span is the result of significantly disparate DSF and DSB. I would look more to his day-to-day presentation to see if you and his teachers observe actual behaviors consistent with attending, remembering, and following directions. Also depends on just how low the DSF was. I don't know if you have that data, buried somewhere in the narrative or the back pages of tables. His processing speed is also not inappropriate for a gifted, deliberate/conscientious worker, clearly falling in at least the top of the High Average range.

I am not a psychologist so I do not have access to tables, but I have computed his scores to be the following:

VCI: 128
PRI: 141
WMI: 113
PSI: 122
GAI: 143
CPI: 123
FSIQ: 135

In that light, your son's profile is not at all atypical among gifted children. He true IQ undoubtedly places him in the moderately gifted range, with exceptional visual-spatial and fluid reasoning abilities, and strong verbal skills. His processing speed and working memory abilities are less remarkable, as would be expected of a gifted child, but nonetheless well above the population mean.

EDIT: Aeh, I just saw your post; brilliant minds think alike!

These make much more sense!

I see why the psych brought up wm as a relative weakness, though, because it is a mild statistical weakness. And this confirms my expectation that he presents with a mild relative strength in perceptual reasoning.

Nice work, Frank!

The actual GAI is 142.
The Dumont-Willis-2 CPI is 121.

Not at work, so I don't have the FSIQ table, but Frank's calculation is qualitatively close enough.

aeh

There is a section called composite score difference, the results are listed VCI-PRI, VCI-WMI and so on, however there are 6 scores not 4.

This is what was written regarding the WMI and DSF/DSB

The largest discrepancy between scores (28 points) was between his Perceptual Reasoning Index and his Working Memory Index. A difference of this magnitude is statistically significant and rare, as it is found in less than 4% of the standardization sample

He performed at an average level when number series were presented forward (five digits; 50th percentile), but exhibited above average skills when he was asked to recite them backwards (four digits; 91st percentile)


Should I have him correct the narrative as well as the scoring? He's been very resistant to any of our questions about the scores so I'm trying to put together the appropriate data to give him.

*I had found the date table from the WISC online and mentioned to him that I found ds GAI to be 142 not 135 but he told me I was incorrect. I'm glad to see that while I may not be gifted I can at least read a data table correctly :-)

The Dumont-Willis tables (they are freely available on the internet, btw: http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/WISCIV_DWI.htm) are conceptually the same as the GAI (for the DW-index-1), and the CPI (for the DW-index-2), but, not having access to the actual WISC-IV standardization data, they used mathematical manipulations of published statistical info to generate them. That's why I use the actual WISC-IV GAI tables instead of the DW-1. There aren't easily accessible WISC-IV CPI tables (although there will be on the eagerly-awaited WISC-V), so, if I want that info, I turn to the DW-2. The discussion upthread about GAI and CPI applies in its entirety to the Dumont-Willis indices. (Frank and myself both posted contributions.)

I know testing for giftedness can be very expensive and the fact that you received an incorrect score and little to no explanation of your child's performance strikes me as rather repugnant.

About your son's performance on digit span: forward digit span only has a g-loading of about 0.30, while reverse digit-span has a g-loading of about 0.40. This difference of 0.1 seems rather small, but in fact 77% more g enters into the reverse digit-span task than it does in the forward digit-span task. Thus, your son's much superior performance on reverse digit-span is to be expected. Moreover, there are many gifted children whose performance on forward digit span scarcely exceeds the population mean, and a number of them even perform in the below average range on this task. Thus, your son's performance is nothing to worry about.

Actually, you've since posted the composite scores, so this is taken care of! I was trying to find another place in your report that might list them. These six lines are the comparisons between the four index scores, and are how the evaluator determines whether there are significant differences in his areas of cognitive ability. It's where he got the comment you list below:
This is a moderately significant difference of about one and a third standard deviations between forwards and backwards, but even the DSF is solidly average. His interpretation of the difference is plausible.
The snippets you have shown us are actually okay. Does he discuss the GAI and FSIQ in the narrative? That's the part that needs correction.
If you had been to graduate school with some of the people I have met in my coursework over the years--or read some of the reports I've received from sending schools, you would know that, unfortunately, the same cannot be said of some of my respected colleagues!

aeh and Frank22

Thank you so much for taking the time to check this and explain it to me. This has been a frustrating experience for us and with the school year so close we just want to make sure the school has the correct report so we can get the appropriate placement for our son. The past two years at school have been a disaster, hopefully the testing results will give them something concrete to work with and help in understanding how our ds learns.

I will be calling the psychologist tomorrow and address the discrepancies making sure he at least corrects the transposed numbers.

I really can't thank you enough :-)

My pleasure. Hope it all works out for your son!

I hope I was able to help. Good luck!