Recently, I had two of my children evaluated by a psychologist for giftedness. We homeschool and I wanted to have that third-party objective evaluation to help guide my choices for their education. In this thread, I'm hoping to get feedback on one of my kids.

DC is 8 years old and took the WISC-V and WRAT-IV.


Subtest:
Block Design 16
Similarities 13
Matrix Reasoning 11
Digit Span 7

Coding 13
Vocabulary 15
Figure Weights 5
Visual Puzzles 14
Picture Span 10
Symbol Search 13


Composite score:

Verbal Comprehension 121 (92%)
Visual spatial 129 (97%)
Fluid Reasoning 88 (21%)
Working Memory 91 (27%)
Processing speed 116 (86)
FSIQ 110
GAI 113



WIDE RANGE ACHIEVEMENT TEST: FOURTH EDITION

Subtest Standard Score % Rank Grade Equivalent
Word Reading 108 70 4.0
Sentence Comprehension 128 97 6.0
Spelling 97 42 2.8
Math Computation 107 68 3.5

The fluid reasoning seems odd to me, particularly when I look at the two subscores. The 5 on the Figure Weights is what I want to investigate further.

I want to know, is my child truly at this level for FR, or did something weird happen during that subtest?

I asked DC later by pulling up an online example of a figure weights puzzle. DC told me they chose based on which option would weigh the right amount to balance. It's clear to me that there was a misunderstanding on the instructions, but maybe the point is for the child to figure out how to solve the question? Once I said there was a clue on the left balance, they then understood what to do and was able to solve and explain why.

So, the psych said that subtest ended very quickly and she was puzzled as to what happened there.

I'm wondering if it would be worth doing other subtests to asses Fluid Reasoning to either confirm the score range or see if we can just gather more data.

I never suspected this child would be in the range required for Davidson admission, but I did wonder if they could be mildly gifted. It appears I "just" have a bright child on my hands.

I also wonder if this mega spread could point at any sort of learning disability or twice exceptionality?

As for the WRAT, these scores were more or less what I was expecting. The math was a little lower than I thought -- the psych told me there were careless mistakes, but who knows. Could have been fatigued by that point of the assessment. Spelling I knew would be low. It's more a battle of the will on that front.

I'd appreciate any interpretation of this or ideas for better understanding my child's mind. Thank you for your time and thoughts!

Welcome!

It's worth noting that, even if the FW subtest is a low estimate, for whatever reason, the remainder of the FRI cluster suggests that there is a genuine personal weakness in fluid reasoning (although possibly not quite as severe as FW would make it appear)--which does have some direct predictive connections with math achievement. So the available data, even if possibly not of the quality one would optimally like, is consistent at both the cognitive ability and academic achievement levels. And to your concern about directions on FW: the directions are quite clear in explaining how to solve these puzzles using the completed balance. If the examiner used standardized administration procedures, it is unlikely that your additional training on the task was qualitatively different from that provided during the formal test, especially since your DC's original explanation of the solution process is accurate.

If you wish to complete other FR subtests, there are two remaining on the WISC-V: Picture Concepts and Arithmetic. The former is a visual classification task, somewhat analogous to Similarities, but with images instead of words. The latter is a series of increasingly lengthy and challenging word problems that are presented and completed orally (no paper and pencil), and likely would not generate high scores, given his personal weakness in auditory working memory (Digit Span).

And to offer some perspective: none of his achievement scores are low. They are either perfectly age-appropriate, or above average. Please do not be misled by the grade equivalents, which are not truly anchored to grade levels. Any standard score 90 or above is at least age-appropriate. His strength area in reading comprehension is quite as expected, given his comparable strengths in verbal cognition.

Continuing, his cognitive profile is not inconsistent with being mildly gifted in verbal reasoning and in visual spatial thinking, but with some personal weaknesses in abstract-fluid reasoning--a profile which often means it may take him longer to adapt to new concepts and situations, and to shift strategies when the initial attempt is unsuccessful, but that hands-on exploring and experimenting helps him to problem-solve, especially once he sees how something connects to his experience and relevant applications.