.

If I may ask some clarifying questions:

You describe the subtest scores as superior, but also state DC hit the ceiling in 4 out of the 6 GAI subtests. That would place those subtests in the very superior range. In order for the VCI and PRI to fall in only the superior range, that would suggest that the remaining subtest in each index was significantly lower. Is that the case? Also, if 2 of 3 subtests in VCI and PRI hit the ceiling (max scaled score, usually of 19 for a six or seven year old), then the psych should have considered extended norms, and explained their decision on extended norms one way or the other.

You report a 16 point difference VCI > PRI, generally considered statistically significant. Did the psych comment on this?

PSI factors into the FSIQ through its arithmetic contribution to the sum of scaled scores. There are 10 core subtests in the FSIQ, and two PSI subtests, hence 1/5 of the FSIQ contribution comes from the PSI.

Elsewhere on this forum, we have discussed low PSI a number of times recently. In brief: there are many potential causes of a divergently-low PSI, including difficulties with vision, fine-motor coordination, fatigue, attention, psychomotor retardation as a side effect of medication, anxiety, depression, and perfectionism. Many high cognitive examinees exhibit a conscientious task approach that values accuracy over speed (likely an overlapping category with perfectionism).

Actually, just over one SD. 39 was the PRI > PSI difference.

That makes sense. If, in fact, fine-motor speed/processing speed is an issue, block design would be the PRI subtest that would be affected the most by it, as it is timed, with bonus points for speed.

It isn't unusual for gifted kids to have slow processing speed. Many kids on this board have a similar spread, including my dd 12 DYS who has about 50 pts between her VCI and her PSI. My son has a 60 pt spread. GAI takes out PSI and WMI and only uses the PRI and VCI. PRI and VCI are better measures of g. I am sure others will chime in who can explain it better!

So all of the subtests, with the exception of the three timed tasks, were in the Very Superior range.

With those VCI scores, extended norms most certainly should have been considered for that index. Although PRI still looks slightly lower than VCI, it does look like this is due mainly to block design, so not necessarily as significant a difference.

I would say the naked scores support a genuine difference between speeded and untimed tasks, with all other skills banging up against the top of the norms. Of course, it doesn't explain the etiology of the difference.

Did the examiner give you any indication as to his/her interpretive direction? This is difficult to interpret meaningfully without clinical observations or additional data about academic, behavioral, life function, etc. performance.

Does your child appear to work slowly IRL? Have difficulty with fine motor tasks? Had a recent vision check? Appear distractible or unfocused?

If you don't have IRL concerns about processing speed, this may not be a problem. More like a working style, accompanying a reflective task approach.

DD showed a similar pattern but wasn't quite as high with anything and her processing speed scores were 8 and 10. Her General Ability Index was about 15-20 points higher than her FSIQ (depending on whether you calculate extended norms or not). There was a gap of about 55 points between PRI (her highest scoring area) and PSI. She does have processing speed issues in real life. She is slow with anything requiring fluency. She also has ADHD.

As Gabalyn has said, this profile is fairly common on this board.

My DD has a 29 point drop between her VCI and her PSI.

Her true Achilles Heel on the test was her WMI which is an area that your child has no weakness in!

Well, my DS had a 72-point discrepancy.
Such discrepancies need further investigations as pointed out by others. He's still quite young and this will prevent him to face some problem which may appear(or not). I mean, for instance, that being very intelligent may lead him not to stand his low processing abilities. So improving those will help him.
Also, with such a discrepancy, it is very important to have the WISC evaluation passed by a very skilled psychologist who more than only measuring the abilities is able to analyze how the tests are performed. It was not our case. And knowing now more on him, if our son has to redo the WISC, we will carefully choose the psy.

It's all relative, Sully's kid's processing speed is not low.

It is just lower than the other (very strong) subtest scores.

Yes, it does stand out as a result and it is useful to know so that perfectionism ( a possible factor) can be tackled early on.

JM (completely unqualified) O, YMMV.

I would keep an eye on the fine motor aspect of things, as that can impact work completion, which can affect how teachers perceive skills, which, of course, affects their grading and recommendations for more challenging coursework. Once one reaches the upper levels, where keyboarding is the norm, handwriting is not as critical.

Cursive is often easier for kids with some fine motor or dysgraphic issues, as there are fewer initiations.

Although sully's ds' coding and symbol search scores aren't "low" in an absolute sense, they are very low compared to his other scores. Although this may not be uncommon among HG/+ kids, it *is* something that tracks with the other symptoms sully noted which, as aeh noted, may indicate a challenge with fine motor - which in turn, can potentially be an issue for a child at school.

If you only looked at my dysgraphic ds' coding and symbol search scores on the WISC, it would be easy to think there's no issue. If you look at the discrepancy between PSI and VIQ/PRI, then yeah, there's a large discrepancy but it would be easy to say "this is a not-so-unusual pattern in HG/+ kids". BUT…. in real life ds has obvious struggles with fine motor issues. So put that all together, and you understand what's going on isn't just perfectionism. Kids who are perfectionists with academics aren't necessarily typically slow with other fine motor tasks etc.


This description fits my dysgraphic ds to a tee at the same age. We also thought his slowness etc were due to perfectionism, but we were wrong. Neurospych testing, which includes not only WISC, but achievement testing, observation of handwriting and review of academic work plus additional tests of fine motor etc revealed ds has Developmental Coordination Disorder and related fine motor dysgraphia. FWIW, ds is also an excellent skier. Totally unrelated motor skill set required for skiing

polarbear

Yes. You might want to consider further testing to include achievement (with measures of fluency), and occupational therapy (visual-perceptual, fine-motor).

Not necessarily; but maybe. As it is a computer-administered multiple choice test, there are negligible fine motor demands. It is true that being untimed is likely to favor a child with processing speed issues. But only one problem is presented at a time, which could help with visual organization. It might be meaningful if he did way better on this measure than a similar measure that required significant pencil skills.