Background:

I've got two boys - 8.5 and 7, both very bright with the 7 y.o. being more consistent across the board and the 8.5 y.o. being more curious, a more voracious reader, and a quirkier sense of humor.

Because of the 8.5 y.o.'s inconsistency and (relatively) poor writing skills we had both boys evaluated about a year and a half ago. The scores came in at 140 (7 y.o.) and 135 (8.5 y.o.) which was within the ranges I expected, albeit at the lower ends. My older son showed less consistent abilities and the discrepancy between his verbal/reading skills and his writing skills caused him to be classified as LD.

I was not overly concerned as I was slow to develop the ability to tranfer my ideas to paper and he was only 7 at the time. Since then has improved and contintues to do so.

The boys are at a great school in a mixed-age classroom. However, our financial situation has changed and we need to switch to public school.

Getting to the point:

The charter school I would like them to attend prefers I.Q.s over 145, will consider children in the 130 - 145 range. They require a test done within the last year. So I had them both re-tested. My 7 y.o. scored 148. This is at the upper level of the range I would have guessed prior to the original test. So I am a little surprised, but not shocked. However, my older son scored 121. I have my doubts about the validity of this score....but I'm his mother. I discussed it with the tester and she felt it was representative. I have no reason to doubt her competance. So my questions are:

Is this possible? I thought he was old enough at the time of the first test for reliable results.

Can I assume the higher score is more accurate, using the logic that anyone can have a bad day, but you aren't going to get a lot of answers correct by accident?

Is it worth calling around and trying to find another tester? I have no reason to think either evaluator did a poor job, but why the large discrepancy?

How much subjectivity is built into these test?

Given my older son's characteristics, what test is likely to result in a higher score? The test he took for the 135 score was WISC-IV and I think it was the same one this time around.

Thoughts and concerns:

In my understanding you are supposed to wait a minimum of two years between testing with the same IQ test in order to get accurate results, so if it was the same test all scores would be in question for that reason. The other thing that might be making a difference with your older is that he might be past the ideal age to test. Once they pass that point it is harder to get the same or higher scores because of the different weight for the higher ages.

But wouldn't re-taking the test too soon tend to skew the score high, not low? If you mean having him retake the test for a third time would result in a questionable score then I see the point. But maybe he can be re-evaluated with a different test?

I have heard that young children tend to sometimes score unreliably high, but I thought that by age 7 he was already out of that range?

Do you already have their full reports? I think it would be very telling to look at specific subtests and indexes and see where the changes were. Can you ask the tester to calculate the GAI? That is removing the processing speed from the FSIQ. Maybe that is where the discrepancy is coming from?

If tester can't give it to you and you have the total scaled scores for verbal and performance, then you can find it online.

Yes, you could not retest now, it would not provide reliable scores. Most people advice waiting at least a year between same test, and maybe a bit more for gifted kids. Potentially, you COULD use an alternate test (perhaps SB5). Maybe, instead, you could look into achievement testing for both of them (for younger one, you could then perhaps apply to Davidsons). For older one, achievement being in line with the older or newer test would give you some extra clues.

I really think, without looking at where the discrepancies are, it is hard to make any conclusions.

Another thought; if he does have a LD; then maybe the effect would have amplified as he got older...

From the first test:

VC 142 (18,16,17)
PR 133 (16,13,17)
WM 113 (11,14)
PS 112 (10,14)

Using the link below I calculate a GAI of 97, corresponding to a FSIQ equivalent of 146, but this is higher than ANY of the subtest composite scores, so maybe I did something wrong.

I already saw the report on my younger son from the second tester and it does not contain as much detail. Maybe we will just have the old report sent even thought it will probably disqualify him. They were pretty clear about it being less than a year old.

http://appliedgifteded.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hCQi0wn-g08%3D&tabid=1888&mid=3178

No, the GAI can certainly be higher than any of the subtest scores. It has to do with rarity. It is more rare for someone to have very high and VCI and PRI scores, so the composite of the two is higher than either one.

That said, we had a similar experience with dd#2 and the WISC-IV. She was tested at 7.5 on the WISC with an IQ score of 148. Her school was disinclined to believe the score b/c her CogAT wasn't even in the gifted range and her achievement scores were wildly erratic. So we had her tested again on the WISC a year later at 8.5. She also took the SB-V, the RIAS (another IQ test) and the WIAT (achievement) at that time. Her WISC at 8.5 had dropped about 20 pts from the year prior. The psych also told us that it was accurate but I didn't get what seemed like a reasonable explanation for the change other than "fluctuation in abilities." I'm having to assume that time #1 was inaccurately high or time #2 was inaccurately low, but I don't know which it was.

The RIAS score was uninterpretable b/c the spread was so large w/in subtests. Her SB scores w/in subtests also varied from the 16th to the 99th; she was sick when she took it; and the psych had never given that particular test before; she came out somewhere in the upper 1-teens on that one with all of those disparate scores merged into a FSIQ. Finally, her WIAT scores were much higher than would be predicted by any of these IQ scores (2+SDs higher).

I, too, don't know what to make of such wild fluctuations.

As far as your younger son, though, why don't you go ahead and send both reports? Even if the newer one is lacking in detail, it sounds like the scores are qualifying for the school and would only help with getting him in.

Thanks Cricket2. It does sounds like a similar situation. Did you have the tests administered by the same psych each time? Maybe in children with disparate abilities it takes longer for their scores to get consistent.

I've got two things going on at this point:

1 - what am I going to do about schools? We figured we had a good chance of getting at least one boy into the charter for next year and the year after that we would get the sibling wink - provided the miniumum score was achieved. Now we have to reevaluate our educational plans.

2 - How far apart are the boys in intellectual ability?

My prior post was a little unclear - my younger son is good to go with the current test scores. I went ahead and sent the out of date report for my older son and I'm just going to keep my fingers crossed. I reviewed the school's admissions requirements and it does not say anywhere that the scores need to be within a year - but I thought I heard it at the open house and the psychologist thought this too. The school is kind of disorganzied - typos on the application, out of date materials on the website....but the kids are smart and the parents are involved and the other alternatives are pretty sorry.

I spoke with the woman who did the earlier evaluations and she remembered the boys and was surprised at the wide variation. She was very accomodating and agreed to send the old scores for me. He is going to be tested next week using the SB V and we will see if those scores align with either of the WISC results.

Ugh. I didn't expect this. Now I'm thinking that if the GAI of 146 is right I should apply for DYS for both, so that in the future we have more weapons in our arsenal when it comes to demonstrating intelligence for gaining admission. Both kids have a talent so maybe that would help with DYS.

No, but the two psychologists both worked for the same university and knew one another.

I, too, would still like to figure out what dd#2 needs and is able to do b/c I don't want to expect more of her than she can do. I also don't want to let her coast by with no effort getting Bs b/c she has very little work ethic. If high-avg grades are the best she can do, that is fine. I just don't get the impression that she is working at all or really even showing up for school other than in body only. Ideally, I'd like to homeschool her even though she and I really clash a lot. I am worried about where she is heading in a lot of regards, though, but it isn't in the budget for me to quit my main job at the moment. I'm still prepping resources in case we are able to move in the direction in the next few years.

I also hate to keep retesting her even if it were financially feasible b/c I don't want to leave her with the impression that all I care about are her having high IQ scores so I'm going to have her tested over and over until we get the results we want.

Good luck with your boys. I hope that you are able to figure out what is going on with your older ds better than I have been able to with our dd as of yet.

Yep, similar situation. I've also thought about homeschooling (but in the future, middle school years), but I anticipated dealing with two kids doing similar things. If one really is a lot brighter, I don't think that would be the best environment for either.

Sent you a private message...

Update - I went ahead and had my older son re-tested with a different test (SB). His overall score was 139. His demeanor with the tester was very different too - he really enjoyed being with her.

I was impressed with the other psychologist, but I'm going to conclude that it just wasn't a good fit and my son's performance was affected.

I think it's interesting that his score varied so much. At this point I'm about 99% confident that the lower score is not reflective of his ability.

I've taken a lot of standardized tests myself and I've been around enough bright people to be confident that my son is very smart. I am also confident that my sons are not almost two standard deviations apart. One is smarter, yes. But not THAT much smarter. So I pushed and had the additional testing done. But not everyone is going to be as confident in their judgement nor have the ability to get extra testing. So it's disturbing to see so much variation. I thought these tests were more reliable.

I realize we are lucky he wasn't getting sick the day of the most recent evaluation. If his perfomance had been impaired a second time I would have concluded that the lower scores were accurate. So I would STRONGLY advise people to take care in selecting testing dates/times/environments.

It's high enough that it won't keep him out. Even if he gets through whatever subjective screening they use for kids in the 130 - 145 range he will still have to get a good number in the lottery.

But we have been told that if his brother gets in for 2010-2011, they will be more likely to view him favorably the following year.