Hi, this is my first post here. We recently had our DD10 tested for gifted education at school. We live in Europe, schools operate with cutoff at approximately 130 but no fixed limits.

I got the results today, but no numbers, only percentiles.The psych would not give out the rest because she does not believe in IQ-scoring children. (!)

I think she might score above criteria on GAI, but not FSIQ. The percentiles we were given were:
VCI 93rd percentile (approximately 123?)
PRI 99.7 percentile (approximately 142?)
FSIQ 96 percentile (approximately 127?)
WMI 85 percentile (approx 118?)
PSI 79 percentile (approx 112?)

Is it possible to find a conversion table that would indirectly give us scaled scores and thereby GAI? Or does anyone have the same scores and could tell us what the scaled score would be?

Thanks!!

You'd need the 10 subtest scores (each with max of 19) that go into the VCI and the PRI to calculate GAI.

Yeah I know, and I wrote an e-mail today trying to persuade her to let us see the test report. In the meanwhile I am trying to extrapolate what her scaled scores might be based on the percentiles that I got.

I thought someone else might have gotten a similar percentile and then use the underlying scaled score to calculate GAI.

So far, I have gotten this far:
-Scaled score for PRI should be approximately 54 in order to yield 99,7 percentile.
-Scaled score of VCI should be approximately 42 in order to give 93rd percentile.
-Altogether SSS of 94-96 and thereby a GAI of 142-144?

Does that sound about right?

My DS's PRI score was the same and VCI was 114 and his GAI was 133 if that helps you at all.

It said specifically in the report by the neuropsych that the GAI should be used to get an idea of his reasoning ability, not the FSIQ which was 126 or 127 or something like that.

Who paid for the test?

pm'd you.

Based on the percentiles, the index scores would be, in the order you originally presented them:

122
141 or 142
126 or 127
115
112

While you are understandably concerned about the GAI vs the FSIQ, I should mention that the distance between the two indices that make up the GAI is substantial enough that even the GAI may not be the best indicator of ability.

Thank you so much everyone! We paid for the test ourselves so it's kinda strange that she won't release the scores. She gave out some of the scaled scores (unsorted by category), and if the SSS for the GAI is either 87 or 89 she might just "squeeze in", I think.

But if we can't use neither GAI nor FSIQ, what can we use as a measure of her ability?

..Does anyone know exactly what the critical limit for PRI/ VCI-discrepancy is, before GAI is inadmissible?

I had no idea that it made a big difference with the spread between those two scores! I have the same question as Morcheeba then. I'm wondering if my kids' GAI (WISC IV; I had all the scores so calculated it myself) isn't correct.

The GAI likely is technically correct, it just might not be the best representation of that individual's true range. In my experience, (backed up by the tables calculating predicted achievement from only one index score (e.g., VCI or PRI/VSI/FRI)) when an index score is significantly higher than the others, it is a better predictor of that individual's academic achievement in strength areas than composites (FSIQ or GAI) that combine cognitive strengths and weaknesses. This, of course, is why the aforementioned tables exist.

I can look up the actual critical value when I have my tables in front of me, but I can tell you now that Morcheeba's child's scores exceed it. It doesn't, btw, actually make the GAI invalid; it just makes it not fully representative of the range of that individual's ability.

Pinecroft, if you would like to tell/pm me the PRI/VCI difference in question, and its direction, I can check whether it tips the critical value for you, while I'm at it.

The question of index variation and which indices and composites are the best indicator of cognition is another one of the reasons it's important to have an evaluator who is a skilled clinician, and who will spend time with you explaining test results in the context of the whole child.

Thank you aeh!! So kind of you!

DS12 - VCI=158, PRI = 115 (other scores WM = 120, PSI = 97)
DD10 - VCI = 158, PRI = 129 (other scores WM = 123, PSI = 103)

Actually, I don't even have to look at the tables--these are definitely significant VCI>PRI splits, with a very low base rate (occurrence rate). Both DCs have an extremely wide range across all index scores, although your DD's profile for projected math ability is stronger than her brother's. (That doesn't mean it's played out that way IRL, of course.)

Thanks again aeh. Our tester (school psych) was not the best, and I got very little explanation of what all this means. I'm guessing this just means they have one area of significant strength and they aren't gifted across the board. Is that about right?

Depends on how you view globally gifted. They both have an area of extreme strength in verbal reasoning, and DD should be considered gifted in nonverbal intelligence as well (not clear if it's both fluid reasoning and visual spatial thinking, or only one of them, from the index scores, as this is the -IV, when they were conflated). As is not too unusual for GT populations, their efficiency skills are not as high, especially with respect to rote speed. I wouldn't consider that a factor in identifying them as globally gifted or not.

I think you could reasonably describe your DD as globally gifted, with particular verbal gifts, and your DS as verbally gifted (but the nonverbal area might conceal additional gifts, depending on the subtest breakdown). If you'd like, you may pm me details, and I can offer additional thoughts.

In this IQ range, and depending on other assessment data, I personally would begin to be more cautious about interpreting the GAI when PRI > VCI by 18 points or more. Other clinicians may have different cutoffs. Validly obtained scores don't really become inadmissable at any point, they just may hold less weight in the interpretation of a child's overall profile.

Sorry to piggyback on this thread, but my DS6 is in a similar boat with the WISC-V, and aeh seems to be better at helping people interpret results than many of the testers used!

I'm assuming a FRI of 151, VCI, VSI, and WMI in the low 120's, and an average PSI would also be above the split threshold, right? We weren't even given a GAI (his relevant subscores would total 79, FWIW).

How should we interpret significant splits between subscores within a section? For example, DS scored 99.6th percentile in digit span but 50th in picture span, making his index in the 92nd percentile. But his actual strengths seem very different to me than a child who is in the 92nd percentile with a more even split.

Thanks in advance for any help!

DS's level of difference occurs in less than 0.5% of the GT population.
DD's occurs in about 2.0%.

So if schools have difficulty figuring out how to teach them, it's not exactly surprising. Especially considering this is on top of having VCIs occurring in less than 0.1% of the population.

Different test, but yes, that's generally correct.

With regard to splits within indices: they also suggest that interpretation at the index level is not going to capture the full range of a child's strengths and weaknesses.

For example, in older children, a split between verbal reasoning (Si) and verbal knowledge (Vo) favoring reasoning is not uncommon in learners with a history of early or on-going reading delays, because as one progresses through school, more and more high-level vocabulary comes from text, rather than one's oral language environment. The reasoning task is not quite as heavily weighted for reading vocabulary as (obviously) the vocabulary task is, and consequently is not as affected by prolonged lack of access to text. In the VSI, one of the tasks is quite motor-involved, and the other is not; children with motor deficits might be expected to have diverse performance along those lines. WMI is made up of an auditory memory task, and a visual memory task. One is also more symbolic, while the other is more concrete. Memory profiles can be quite diverse as well (there are whole tests designed to hone in on specific memory skills, far more comprehensive than these two subtests can be).

Thanks aeh!! Sending a pm.