Has anyone had their child take the DASII? We are in a position where our daughter was administered the WISC IV last August but the neuropsych was new and did not score accurately. Experienced doctor who is well known in the gifted space around the world wants a new test administered. She is deciding between the DASII vs. readministering the WISC IV/V in a few months (1 year from the original test date). Does anyone have any thoughts on which provides more information for a 2e 10yr kid?

Thanks for any guidance

Yes, DASII was very helpful in revealing giftedness (and level thereof) in a very 2e here.

Either the DAS-II or the WISC-V would be good. I would not re-administer the WISC-IV to a (especially) gifted kid at one year re-test. The likelihood is way too high that there will be score inflation, which may very well obscure the second e. I do understand, though, that a gifted clinic might lean toward the -IV because of their clinical experience, and availability of the extended norms.

If we were talking about a younger 2e kiddo (like age 5 or 6), my preference would be the DAS-II, which I find to be more developmentally friendly to small people. Plus, it has the school-age form extension down to age 5, which allows for a much higher ceiling for 5-year-olds than the WPPSI-IV has.

For a 10 yo, though, either one would be fine, with a slight edge for the newer norms and more organized factor structure of the WISC-V.

Thanks DeeDee and aeh! We know 10yDD twin B was gifted but with 2e, not sure how much of behaviour is gifted vs. 2e. Wasn't sure if one test was better at ferreting out the differences between the gifted vs. the 2e component and what I read on Hoagies and Davidson sites, knowing an accurate IQ helps determine what support the school should provide. Again, really appreciate your guidance.

Our school-administered DAS-II at age 9 gave a mildly gifted, very even profile.
Our privately-administered WISC-IV at age 11 gave a DYS-level GAI with a processing speed in the 90's, like 35th %ile, as I recall.

Obviously, these are very very different, and point to different paths for helping DD. Most experts seem to like the DAS-II but for us it really didn't help clarify what was going on. Some of the difference may have been due to changes in DD, of course, but even at the time the DAS-II profile didn't make sense. I hate to think the school psych deliberately botched the administration, but what does that leave?

Whatever you choose, if the results make no sense, question their relevance.

Yes.

Additional info: the DAS-II has a different structure from the WISC-IV, with three primary clusters feeding into the global measure, consisting of verbal, spatial, and nonverbal, roughly equivalent to the WISC GAI (verbal, perceptual reasoning), where perceptual reasoning is a mixed measure including one spatial and two nonverbal/fluid reasoning subtests.

The DAS nonverbal subtests are not quite like the WISC, though each has a matrix reasoning task. The DAS second measure is a quantitative reasoning subtest, while the WISC second fluid reasoning measure is a concept formation task using concrete images, which is highly amenable to verbal mediation (so it's not a pure nonverbal measure).

The DAS spatial tasks consist of a patterning task comparable to the WISC block design subtest, and a fine-motor copying task with significant visual memory component, which is unlike most of the WISC, though it might have some relationship to some aspects (fine motor) of coding from the PSI. I usually find that it lines up fairly well with the Rey Osterreith (RCFT) copying task. If you have a child whose specific weaknesses are in visual memory and fine motor skills, it is possible that the DAS spatial cluster would be lower than the WISC PRI for those reasons (though one would expect similar depression on block design).

The main reason for the even profile on the DAS vs the diversity on the WISC is likely the fact that the DAS GCA is essentially the same idea as the WISC GAI (with above caveats), so the (auditory) WMI and PSI aspects have already been removed from the profile. They are supplementary/diagnostic subtests only on the DAS, while they are counted into the FSIQ on the WISC. If you wish to compare results, the GCA should properly be compared to the GAI, the supplementary recall of digits to WMI, and speed of information processing to PSI.

And may I gently remind you that it is possible to get less than optimal performance not by design. Sometimes rapport is not established effectively enough. Many GT examinees also pick up on tells from the examiner, and alter their performance in response to perceived success or failure. An examiner who is inexperienced with DYS-level students (which, statistically, must be most of the ones not employed at gifted centers) may inadvertently generate flawed results because of this or other factors, such as not knowing how to score unusually creative or divergent (but correct) responses.

aeh, thank you very much. That explains quite a lot in our case - there are good reasons she would not have been at her best at 9, it just didn't make sense that she would look so uniform. Fine motor is a particular weakness, and her memory in general was worse that spring than usual, seen in all her testing and in daily life. I'm relieved to put that mystery to rest. Hopefully this comparison will help the OP, as well.