I am wondering if anyone is able to give me some thoughts on this testing ... what do you make of the different results?
age 14 WISC-V places him with FSIQ of 127 done with only the VCI and FRI (127 and 121 respectively). Instead of the other measures the WRAM-2 was used with scores 102 for LTR. The WCJ was given with scores of low for math facts (65), word attack (85), sentence reading fluency (75), word reading fluency (88), and spelling (82). Average scores for letter-word identification and oral reading (104 and 101 respectively), passage comprehension 99, reading recall 98, calculation 100, number matrices 91. He got above average on writing samples and sentence writing fluency 111 and 110.
Some general comments:
1. There isn't a generally-allowable FSIQ with only VCI and FRI. It may be that this is actually a standard FSIQ, without the additional subtests necessary to obtain the other three primary index scores (VSI, WMI, PSI). The standard FSIQ uses the two VCI, two FRI, and one each from VSI, WMI, and PSI. That's why only two primary index scores are generated. That does not mean the WRAML-2 was done wholly in place of the WMI (it has no particular relevance to the PSI). If the standard FSIQ was obtained, you do have a little data on PSI, in the form of the Coding subtest. The similarity of the FSIQ to the VCI and FRI suggests, though, that at least one of the WMI or PSI were likely in the same ballpark as the rest of the test.
2. It appears from your report that the working/short-term memory measures of the WRAML-2 were not administered, which means the WISC results are the only indicators of working memory that you have (Digit Span).
3. Overall, his cognition looks comfortably in the Very High range, into the MG neighborhood. Nothing you've shared suggests focal areas of notable weakness, though his LTR is very slightly lower than the other domains.
4. Academically, he appears to have the most difficulty with decoding and fluency skills: Math fact fluency, sentence reading fluency, and word reading fluency, among the fluency skills. Word attack and spelling, among the decoding/encoding skills. Interestingly, his performance was age-appropriate for accuracy when reading real words aloud in a list, or in a sentence/passage context--as long as it wasn't timed.
That he scores well on sentence writing fluency is also striking, in comparison to his other fluency scores. This task is not, however, scored on spelling or other mechanics, only on accurate use of the provided vocabulary.
Finally, he is in the average range for all listed untimed academic tasks.
Put together, this looks to me like someone who's developed or been taught sufficient strategies for functioning reasonably well academically when given adequate time, but still doesn't have automaticity for rote basic skills in reading, writing, or math facts. I'd guess the process of accessing higher-level academics is fairly laborious, despite the capacity to achieve at high levels. He'll probably do better in math when he reaches algebra II and above, where everyone uses a calculator as a matter of course, because the focus is on problem solving, and when he reaches writing courses such as those in college, where, similarly, everyone uses technology (typing, spellcheck, autocorrect, etc.) as a matter of course, because the focus is on higher-level language expression and argument.
If you wanted to throw labels around, you could probably discuss specific learning (SLD)-reading (dyslexia) and SLD-writing (dysgraphia). Some people might even include SLD-math (dyscalculia), but that's most likely an expression of the same underlying automaticity deficit, and doesn't seem to have as much impact on untimed performance as the reading/writing skills do.
thank you so much Aeh... I was hoping you would comment as you have been so knowledgeable in the past.
to answer your question- coding 9, symbol search 10, digit span 11 (fwd 13, bwd 10,seq 8), matrix rea. 13, figure weights 14, block design 14, similarities 13, vocab 17. Story memory 10, picture m 13 and story recognition 10
Block design had a huge decrease since previous testing had been 19 (WISC-IV in 2013 ) and 16 (WISC-V in 2015). How do I read this decrease?
Do you think that in a cold writing task he would perform the same or worse?
Ah. The score you describe as FSIQ with only VCI and FRI was actually the GAI, which is calculated from the two VC, two FR, and block design subtests. That was a reasonable call to make, since his PSI (98) is well lower than VCI and FRI.
Also, the more manipulations he has to make in his head, the weaker his working memory scores become.
I wouldn't describe the change in his BD scores as a huge decrease. It dropped by three points when moving from the WISC-IV to the WISC-V, which isn't crazy, considering the phenomenon of norm obsolescence. And it's essentially the same on the WISC-V from three years ago as on present testing. Bonus points for speed matter more as you get older, which is probably sufficient to explain any changes that aren't just typical test variation.
I can't explain what it says in your report, but if the subtest scores you reported are accurate, then the index scores are as I described above. You might go back to the evaluator and just ask for clarification, as you can see that all three of the subtests that are not primary reasoning subtests (Coding, Symbol Search, Digit Span) are a bit lower than the VCI and FRI, so how does that fit in with the statement about no PS or WM weaknesses?