I posted earlier regarding my son's scores and low processing speed, but I have another question about how processing speed contributes to the FSIQ. His scores were as follows (percentiles):

Information: 91
Vocabulary: 99
Word reasoning: 95
Block design: 84
Matrix reasoning: 99
Picture concepts: 98
Coding: 16 (eek)

Composites:
Verbal: 99
Performance: 99
FSIQ: 98

Is the coding score not heavily weighted, or not included in the FSIQ here? I guess I was wondering how the FSIQ still ended up at the 98th percentile despite the really low coding score. I do know the WPPSI III has been superceded and so the overall scores may be inflated.

Coding is 1/7 of the FSIQ.

Be aware that vision therapy is controversial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/magazine/14vision-t.html?_r=0

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19154276

http://www.aapos.org/terms/conditions/108

These vision therapy links are actually remarkably consistent in the factual detail, and support the research I have been able to find:

* Convergence insufficiency: There is good (though not a lot) of evidence that vision therapy works. Endorsed for this diagnosis by NIH, national colleges of optometrists and many others. Check out your provider carefully, but good therapists seem to be getting consistently good results.

* Other visual processing deficits: Really haven't been tested one way or the other. Might work, might not, we don't know. Proceed with caution, but could be worth trying with an experienced provider who can tell you exactly what they're doing and why they believe it could help. Be suspicious of the oversell, though.

* Vision therapy to fix LDs or anything else: run!

What some of the articles tangle up is the distinction between vision therapy fixing LDs et al, and vision therapy fixing symptoms of visual processing deficits that might *look like LDs* (or other issues) but aren't. For example, a child who can't focus, track, or keep her eyes on the page can have reading issues that look dyslexic. Suggesting VT might help with her reading does not require a claim that VT cures dyslexia, nor a claim that dyslexia is really a visual processing issue.

Caveat emptor! There's a ton of snake oil salesmen out there. But that doesn't mean the real thing doesn't also exist.

I don't know specifically how the scores are calculated, but on the WISC my ds scores a high FSIQ in spite of a large discrepancy in processing speed. The key is how rare the combination of the other high scores is (I think!).

polarbear

ITA with Portia, and fwiw, we've seen remarkable improvements in our dd's vision thanks to vision therapy, and have known other families locally where children who had difficulty learning to read due to vision issues made huge gains after vision therapy. I think the controversy comes from some businesses who have attempted to sell vision therapy as a cure-all for dyslexia etc, which it isn't. It works for people who have physical issues impacting muscle tone, control etc, but it can't solve issues that are neurological in origin.

My one caveat on the scores above is that, while it might be a vision issue, the pattern in the scores might also indicate an issue with fine motor. Whatever, it's worth continuing to watch the overall performance as academic demands increase, and follow up with further testing to determine what's behind the split in scores if there seem to be challenges.

Best wishes,

polarbear