My DS is 8 and is grade skipped into third grade this year (skipped second grade). He was just tested with the WISC-V and Woodcock Johnson IV for TAG. He didn't qualify, but his teacher thinks he may in the future if we re-test him and it definitely confirmed that he's in the correct grade and the decision to skip a grade was a good one.

His WISC V Scores are:
Verbal Comprehension: 121
Visual Spacial: 105
Fluid Reasoning: 112
Working Memory 82
Processing Speed: 132
Full Scale: 117

My Dh and I are pretty confused how his Working Memory score is so low compared to his Processing Speed...is that normal? He has a terrible memory at times, but can do complicated math problems in his head no problem. Conundrum.

Also, he has a bit of a "I'm super smart" attitude and we're not sure how seriously he took the test and how hard he really tried. Apparently he told the tester right off the bat that he was smart and skipped 2nd grade. Wondering if he assumes he knows everything without actually trying all that hard on the test.

I have no idea how to share his WJ scores since they make no sense to me, but we are surprised that he tested higher in basic reading skills then math which is where he's stood out in the last few years. He only needs to be shown a math concept once and he gets it, he's in the highest math group and still needs more of a challenge in our opinion. He's weakest in reading comprehension which his teacher thinks is because he goes too fast and assumes he knows everything which I think is pretty accurate. We've known he's an above average reader since kindergarten but it's been hard to get him to read anything other than non-fiction books with stats (things like the Guinness Book of World Records or video game manuals).

How can we help him improve his working memory? Is it indicative of anything else?

Welcome!

Regardless of nominal classification, these are generally nice strong scores, with working memory the only low outlier. Whether he gave adequate effort, I can't say. He may or may not know himself.

In answer to your question: no, that is not statistically normal. But it's not necessarily pathological, either. You do report functional memory problems, so that suggests that this WMI result is more real than not. It's useful to understand that the WMI tasks are relatively rote in nature, and allow limited access to cognitive strategies. The skills involved are more akin to those involved in following multistep directions, and sustained attention for presentations of disconnected, decontextualized information.

His processing speed is very high, and may actually be contributing to the ambiguity about GT identification. Especially in the early grades, when the vast majority of academic skills are rote in nature, it is not unusual for speed of work completion to be confounded with speed of concept acquisition. This is a handy strength to have IRL, as he can be very efficient with already-learned skills. However, it is distinct from his actual rate of learning new skills, and especially abstract concepts.

I don't disagree with his grade placement, especially since he's obviously proven himself successful there. Actually, his profile is one which is (other than WMI) quite nicely suited to the kind of widespread academic advancement that schools are most likely to be able to offer. However, I suspect that his challenges with reading comprehension are not only because of overconfidence and careless responding. When you look at his abstract thinking (FRI), it's in the beginning of the High Average range, which would suggest that his inferential thinking may not be at the level of his basic reading skills. Decoding, after all, is more of a rote efficiency skill--which he is very, very good at. Keep in mind that, even if his FRI (which is probably the most closely related to mathematical ability) is only High Average, challenge and advancement in math instruction may still be appropriate for him.

As to his WJ scores, posting them is, of course, entirely up to you. They should be organized into up to four major skill areas: oral language (least likely to be reported), reading, written language, and mathematics. Within each area, there may be scores in a number of sub-areas: basic skills (e.g., reading decoding, computation, spelling/mechanics), applications/problem solving (comprehension, problem solving, written expression), and fluency (word or sentence level reading fluency, sentence writing fluency, math fact fluency). Each of these sub-areas can also be combined across subject areas to generate composites in academic skills, applications, and fluency. Sub-areas may also be composed of multiple tests. Yeah, it's a bit confusing!

I'd start by looking at the composites titled "Reading" or "Broad Reading", "Mathematics" or "Broad Mathematics", and "Written Language" or "Broad Written Language".

The next level down of interpretation would be (e.g., under Broad Reading): Basic Reading Skills, Reading Comprehension, Reading Fluency. Similar composite names for math and writing. You may or may not have all of these second-tier composites, as it depends on which subtests were administered.

And I sent you a pm.

I agree with aeh, his scores aren't atypical for a highly academic child. Executive functioning (in which processing speed plays a role) correlates more strongly with academic performance than overall IQ...so according to his profile (higher PSI, lower GAI), your child is more likely to do well academically than if the scores were reversed (higher GAI, lower PSI). Additionally, your child's VCI/FRI/VSI fall in what's often considered a sweet spot of IQ.
All that said, I wouldn't assume this to be an underrepresentation of his abilities. For the most part, it's more or less consistent. And, the majority of children tested (including those used for the norms) aren't perfect examinees, sitting still in their seat and giving their absolute best throughout the tests with zero frustration...they're kids, after all. A good examiner can generally pull out adequate answers from a child even if the child is a handful.