I have several meetings with administration and teachers coming up at which my children will or may be discussed. Will you all help me to use the right terminology to describe them? Are they highly gifted? Just generally gifted with high giftedness in one area?

I don't want to 'overstate' what they are in any way, but also need to make it clear that their needs are not the same as a smart but non gifted high achiever (and I don't want to downplay them either, likewise a disservice). I'm pretty sure they get it, but just in case....

Here are their profiles -- what do you make of them, and what would you call them? Clearly I'm a little confused :-)

My DS10 was tested two years ago (2nd grade, 8 yo), my DD was just tested this year (2nd grade, 8 yo). Their scores are as follows:

WISC iv:
DS
VCI 158
PRI 115
WM 120
PSI 97
GAI: 148

DD
VCI 158
PRI 129
WM 123
PSI 103
GAI: 153

I would call them highly gifted, yes. (My DS is right there in the same GAI range but with more even scores).

That said, I don't know that talking to schools directly about levels of giftedness is going to get you anywhere. You're better off discussing needs of your individual kiddos and keeping them engaged. The scores are rare enough that they should speak for themselves (I know they startled our gifted coordinator when we first met with her). The WISC is pretty well known do it probably doesn't need interpretation on your part to signal that your kids may have some extraordinary needs.

Agreed. And double for Portia's comment that most people think they know what gifted means, but really don't have a clue about the kinds of giftedness that drive people to this board (heck, until DS came along, neither did I).

What might be more effective than discussing LOGs, if you are not sure they are getting the point, is to gently note that the infrequency of such scores. Your children have scores in the 1 in 10,000 frequency, with VCIs perhaps closer to 1 in 20,000. A teacher with 30 kids a year would see such a child once every 300 years, 600 years or so...

ETA: Specific data, according to http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx, is that an IQ of 158 is at the 99.9944812644 percentile, representing about 1 in 18,120

Thank you all. This is so helpful. I have a number of meetings coming up to discuss my kids and a couple of folks at the school interested in learning more about all this. I just want to be sure I'm clear (in my own mind) what we're looking at so that any gentle steering I do is in the correct direction :-). Truly a lot of the clarification is for myself, so I can feel confident in picking articles that discuss that HG profile rather than ones that fits a G/MG profile. Does that make sense?

And thank you MichelleC for the info on the 1 in 10,000 or 20,000 numbers. Its useful for me to hear, and also may be for some of the educators. Helps to drive the point home that my kids really might need something different.

I do believe that the GAI can be used as an overall IQ score, if any administrators care about that "overall IQ" number. It's particularly important in your case to not use the FSIQ (in fact, it wasn't even reported it looks like).

Even so, you're talking about a rarity of 1 in 1,500 (maybe two or three of these kids in the entire school district across all grades) and 1 in 5,000 (two or three of these kids across all grades from several school districts). That should get you some sort of acknowledgment from the district that they don't see very many kids at these levels at all, so that they inherently might not be as equipped to meet their needs.

I think that, as others have noted, understanding rarity is the key to accepting how much "different" an educational plan may need to look.

This was shocking/hard to accept for us, even though DD was 12 at the time-- but one local school counselor who had been in the same building for two decades in a district with 30% of the students ID'ed as "gifted" by the state benchmarks-- he'd seen one other student "sort of like that." He has seen half of the students in this district (and there isn't a local private school with better academics-- so he does see the top students)-- and that adds up to about 16,000 kids over that period of time.

The students that he sees are usually those with FSIQ 105 (my state's estimated average) to about 140. That is the center of the local distribution-- and DD is still apparently an outlier in that group-- enough to really be a novelty among educators she has encountered.

That was a real wake-up for us as parents, but it has been useful in that it has given us the courage to ignore what "everyone knows" that one does-- or does not-- do with kids.

Courage. That's it. This is why I will never, ever regret the time and money we spent get a full evaluation by gifted-experienced pros. When my courage falters, I recall that stark report to remind myself that I do, in fact, know better.

It helps me withstand my impulse to cave to peer pressure, do something dramatically, typically disciplinary just to show, "Hey - look I really am a good mom and I really do work on this stuff with DS."

Do you see the average processing speed scores in everyday life?

Puffin -- With DS, yes. I think. Hard to tell. He has some other issues that slow him down (fine motor issues/hand strength that make writing extra frustrating) but I notice it with speaking as well - he starts to tell you a story or something he's excited about, and he stumbles over it, re-starting several times. Almost sounds like a stutter (but multi word stutter) at times. Part of it is thinking as he goes, and part of it is trying to perfect his thoughts, I"m sure. It can be hard to tell how much is processing speed vs. trying to say things "just so" (but maybe that's all one and the same?). He also has some organizational/exec function issues... he can't do multi step directions well, and I wonder if some of that isn't the weakness there too. He also has a distinct issue with timed skill tests. Things like 1+1 (you know, stuff he's known forever) he seemingly has to think about when timed (and occasionally when not, so not all timer anxiety).

With DD not at all. She's quick. The tester - with whom I just spoke the other day - wasn't entirely sure that was accurate for her; she thought some of the slowness may have been perfectionism (which resonates for DD).

All that said - I am never entirely sure what to look at for the processing issue, or what it truly means for them. I'd love help with that angle, if anyone has ideas :-)

Just to clarify something.

GAI (General Ability Index) is derived from the sum of the subtests that go into calculating the VCI and PRI. It is not, in and of itself, a set of subtests (meaning it doesn't have its own "private" subtests). It's essentially used as a replacement for a full-scale IQ score that cuts out working memory and processing speed results (because these tests have much lower levels of 'g'). From what I understand, you can always calculate a GAI from WISC-IV subtests, but it isn't always explicitly calculated because it often doesn't differ wildly from full-scale IQ (which is a summary of all of the subtests).

It's believed by most professionals that GAI is actually a better indicator of IQ than FSIQ, as the WMI and PSI are often areas of relative weakness, particularly for 2e individuals.

Thanks George C. I calculated them myself, using the wisc iv guidelines online. :-) The tester (our school psych) provided me with FSIQ for DS (although stating it wasn't meaningful) but didn't even bother with DD. That is one of the few parts of this I am actually clear on! (Phew!)

When DS10 was tested at 8, I did come to these boards and do some reading, its just been a long while. And at the time, I had little hope of any help or acceleration from school. Now I think I do!

Just to clarify, while I agree that the GAI is probably a more accurate representation of a child's potential intelligence, doesn't the FSIQ have some role to play with non 2e kids in determining how easy it is for kids to display their full potential? Particularly in being able to work at higher levels at a speed that doesn't require extra support.

I'm just curious as I only have a FSIQ as a percentage so I'm not able to calculate the GAI anyway (I don't think). I just haven't heard that "most" professionals think GAI is a better indicator, having said that my research is limited to several professionals. rather than most.

I think you are right Squishy. I think I mean that given all necessary accommodations a GAI can indicate how well a child can go, but the FSIQ is more of a real world, no accommodation type IQ.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I say I don't have access to my kids GAI, it may well be higher or not so I have never had a vested interest in researching it fully. I just get a bit curious/concerned when I see a discussion about one being more important/relevant than the other, I think there was a recent thread discussing a Facebook page that wanted to exploit the differences recently.

It's my understanding that the most important figure is the one that best represents your kid.

ds8 has processing speed and working memory above the 99.9%ile and he still has a slight pause for basic facts so I am not sure that that is indicative. It just may be something to watch. It may never cause a problem and if it does I'm sure it can be managed.

I misspoke. I meant to say that most professionals think that GAI is a better indicator of LOG than FSIQ. Both measure potential ability, but ability of different things. It's apparently very common to find gifted kids with high VCI and PRI but average to low average PSI. If you need to use one measure as a "cutoff" for gifted programs, it's recommended to use GAI.

That's not to say the other subtests aren't important to consider. I was reading an interesting study (I forget where but I could find the link) that essentially demonstrated that a higher WMI provides advantages in school, whereas they weren't really able to correlate PSI to advantages.



This topic seems to cover the difference very well: http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/112015/FSIQ_vs_GAI.html

Totally agree that this kind of perspective is important. Most teachers are familiar with "gifted" kids and pushy parents, but not HG+ kids. And when you look at the numbers, you can't really blame them for the lack of familiarity.

In my experience the most effective means of explaining the rarity of HG+ kids has been to throw out ratios for the general population AND give stats relating to the frequency one could expect to have kids like this in the course of a career (as stated above).... BUT I'd be very careful about wording. Trying to explain kids to a teacher is a bit like trying to explain juries to a trial lawyer. You might have some good points, but it's easy to come across as arrogant and condescending.

Better to print out supporting statistics and say something like, "It's our understanding that if a teacher has 30 kids in his/her class every year, she/he would only see a kid at this IQ level or above every ___ years."

In terms of GAI and FSIQ, FWIW, when DS took the WISC and WIAT, the discrepancy analysis showed that he was performing MUCH closer to his GAI than what would be his FSIQ (the tester actually opined that the DYS-qualifying WISC was probably a low estimate, which frightened me a bit). I still think that both numbers are relevant, but they give slightly different pictures of his abilities.

While DD never had a discrepancy analysis, I would guess from her achievement scores, her results would be similar, where she performs closer to her GAI. Both DC have DYS-qualifying FSIQs (but for both we were told the GAI was a better measure), but GAIs approximately a standard deviation higher. Neither DC has been diagnosed as 2e. From reading these boards and from my own experience with my DC, I tend to think that this might not be an unusual pattern for a child with a high LOG.

GAI is recommended as the measure for the GT population, but FSIQ still improves g-loading somewhat, for the NT population, and certainly is informative for anyone (used intelligently).

interesting aeh, how then would I calculate GAI when I only have percentiles for the subtests (and FSIQ) Our Ed psych is no longer in our town and hard to get information out of. Are you saying FSIQ over estimates when you say it improves g loading? Or do I need another coffee?

Mahagogo, we Canadians also seem to be deemed insufficiently immature to cope with real scores, and are only given percentiles. Here's my MacGyver method:

You can turn percentiles in scores using this:
http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/shimels/Courses/Files/ConvTable.pdf

And then add them up and convert to a GAI using this:
http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/assets/WISC-IV/80720_WISCIV_Hr_r4.pdf

The only problem is you can't identify/ count any points over 19, so if you have scores that are listed as 99.9th, you can't know if they were exactly 19 points, or higher. So your GAI could be a floor rather than an final answer.

aeh - am I making sense?

Wow - good for you Michelle!

All I got (also in Canada) was a single score as a percentile, rounded? to an even number. Later a different Ed. Psych. let slip the decimal.

I called her later to ask if they had sub-scores, but she couldn't/wouldn't tell me.

DS supposedly did the WISC IV, but she told me they didn't look at processing speed or working memory - so was it an abbreviated version of the test?

Michelle is very resourceful!

Mahagogo, I mean that FSIQ, in a balanced profile (which appears to be more common near the mean), more closely approximates g. When the index scores are as diverse as they often are for GT pops, GAI more closely approximates g.

You can calculate GAI from subtest percentiles using Michelle MacGyver's method, but, as she notes, you won't be able to obtain ExIQs. Of course, that is no different than if you had conventional scaled scores, instead of percentiles.

Can2K, if a WISC-IV without PSI or WMI was administered, then the score you received was likely the GAI, in percentile form. Alternatively, she may have been assessed with the brief version, the WASI-II, which is a two- or four-subtest abbreviated version. If only two subtests were given (vocabulary & matrix reasoning), the most interpretable score would be the FSIQ-2. I wouldn't withhold anything from a parent, but I admit I would be a bit reluctant to put too much weight on the subtest scaled scores in that case, unless they were quite significantly different. The FSIQ-2 takes about 15 minutes, usually, and isn't an unreasonable individual screening option. Probably better than group CogATs and NNAT-2s. Plus, if you add testing within a few months, you can actually combine them with the remaining subtests of the WISC-IV for a complete battery.

Do our neighbors to the north not have some equivalent of FERPA? Down here, parents have a right to any individual student data on their children. (Much to the distress of publishers and most psychologists, parents can even demand to view the original test protocol, since it represents child products.) Although districts can make it very difficult to obtain them.

Thanks aeh - whatever version of the WISC he did, it took about an hour, from what I understand.

I had suspected low processing speed, which is why I was digging for more info. Interestingly, the Optometrist I spoke to today about DS's vision testing results said one of her test suggested low processing speed.

It was a timed test where he had to just read two columns of numbers. Apparently he was accurate but slow. Don't know if that's the same as what the WISC tests for though...

I have no idea if we have a FERPA equivalent up here - it may differ by province. I expect that you can see whatever is in the official school record, if you ask. I do know that I never received the results from DD's OLSAT - but I've not asked for them either...

Thanks all - sorry to hijack the thread. Being as I only have wppsi 3 results I'm just going to have to make do with the FSIQ -although DD's processing speed is only 63% so I imagine her GAI would be a little higher. I'll use the table to figure it out for novelty value.....

In New Zealand I don't think there is a set policy about disclosure, I'm sure if I jumped up and down I could get it. I think it's more likely to be a case of "why would you need a higher number other than to brag - we don't do bragging in NZ" smirk.

Pinecroft, I haven't read all of the replies, so please forgive me if I repeat what someone else has said. This is just my experiece/opinion, based on having older kids and having advocated for a number of years at this point in time. I'd first not worry about what to call the LOG - the definition of terms such as "highly gifted" etc varies depending on who you are talking to or who you are referencing. To quantify intellectual giftedness, I've found it's easier to frame test results in terms of how unusual the results are. Percentiles and the bell curve are things that most school staff are familiar with and are easy ways to quickly put a frame around how atypical your child is. Understanding a little bit about the statistics involved with typical testing can go along way too.

Fwiw, your children have an additional level of not-being-typical in the split between VCI and PRI. Do you see a reflection of this in their academic work?

Which leads to my next piece of advice about advocating - it's been my experience that schools are much more interested in using achievement as proof of need to accelerate rather than accelerating based on IQ alone. It will help you when advocating to have work samples, a list of work that your child has accomplished, or out-of-the-ballpark achievement scores etc with you when you meet with the school.

Last piece of advice, learn what you can about the school district curriculum specs for the grade your child is in and the next 2+ years (whatever span is relevant for your child). Go in armed with the information you might expect the school to supply you with - I was surprised how many times our school staff would just say "I don't know" or "We do that in grade x" etc expecting me to just shut up, accept what they had to say, and go home so they could move on.

Best wishes,

polarbear