So...my question is...can these these tests produce underestimated results? And if so, what is the purpose of them if they cannot be an accurate measure? Can giftedness be masked by a LD in the scores (not sure if she has one, just wondering)? Any other ideas for an unexpectedly low score? (she was not ill or tired and felt positive about the test - although she is a very reflective child and a perfectionist - so tends to take her time to make sure she is absolutely correct. maybe that could play a role?).
An underestimate for one child doesn't necessarily mean that they cannot be an accurate measure, just that the test didn't measure things well for that one child.
I'd expect reflectiveness and perfectionism to potentially impact the vocab portion of the VCI index if she just gave minimal answers and didn't expand and the PSI index b/c speed really helps there and slow reflection doesn't.
For comparison, how many 90th percentile type of kids do you know since that's about where Dottie puts the scores you have? Does she appear dramatically more able than these kids?
I, personally, don't give a lot of credence to personality measures of giftedness (i.e. exhibiting personality signs of giftedness) b/c I know a lot of kids who are sensitive, deep, etc. and who are not intellectually gifted. It's one of those, all squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares things. OTOH, reading at 3.5 is something I'd put a lot of more weight on when assuming giftedness (again, depending on how you are defining reading). Most 3.5 y/os don't read at all, though.
The other thing to consider is what measures were used to identify you as gifted as a child. I, too, was labeled gifted as a child, but was never given an IQ test for that id. (I did take two IQ tests later, though, as a teen and adult.) I mention this to play devil's advocate b/c it is entirely possible for a child of a similar ability to your dd or even lower to be identified as gifted in a school system based on performance or the verbal ability alone or a number of other things.
Point being, your history (unless it includes very high IQ scores as part of that identification) and the personality characteristics don't necessarily mean that the # your dd got was off. The history of very early reading is of more significance for me.
All kinds of things can depress scores, many of which you mentioned: LDs, lack of cooperation, a tester who doesn't prod the child enough to tell more when more explicit answers would garner higher numbers, fatigue, hunger...
