I am apparently not using the quote function correctly, so my apologies. I've interwoven my responses to polarbear's very thoughtful list of questions below.
1) What order did she give the subtests in? (I'm curious if the two subtests that are relatively low were at the end of testing). If you didn't have a chance to ask this, you can google "Order of WISC subtests" and find out - it's my understanding that they are supposed to be given in the same order each time.
--Comprehension, one of the low scores, is usually the last verbal subtest administered, and is #9 out of the 10 core subtests. Picture Concepts is the second of three perceptual subtests, and is #4 out of 10 overall.
2) What reasons does the psych feel came into play re the lower subtest scores? Did she see other issues? Does she recommend any follow-up testing? Is there anything you can look for in your dd's academic work or life functioning that would show a correlation with lower scores in those areas?
--excellent question, especially looking at social reasoning, analogic thinking, that sort of thing.
3) Is the subtest scatter statistically significant? There is a certain amount of scatter that is acceptable; above a certain amount composite scores are considered not reliable. I think the statistically significant difference is greater than 1.5 SDs, but I'm not 100% certain of that.
--the standard for scatter is a little more complicated than that, and I'd have to check my manual at work for the exact figures, but offhand I'd say it is likely that the VCI is questionable, or at least that the Comprehension subtest is an outlier. When I encounter this kind of divergence, I usually give an additional verbal subtest, such as Information or Word Reasoning, to see if there are any patterns of verbal strength/weakness.
polarbear[/quote]
--as to general thoughts on this profile, assuming it is legit (at this point, a big assumption): I have had one or two students in the past with this profile (it is not that common in my experience as well). Generally, it is better to place these students based on their VCI and PRI, not their WMI and PSI, as the former two Indices have more to do with the kind of higher-level, abstract thinking that G&T programming is supposed to serve, while the latter two are more reflective of the efficiency with which simpler tasks are completed. These children usually have very good rote memory, which allows them to master the basic skills easily, and their high processing speed has them zipping through mastered tasks efficiently. But when we demand abstraction, divergent thinking, concept integration, etc., they often find themselves out of their depth. Historically, I have not recommended this kind of profile, or those who are similar but less extreme, for G&T, mainly because they are prone to being stressed out by the expectations.
This is the kind of profile which is best suited to always being placed in the top group in a differentiated regular classroom. If placed with majority high VCI/PRI children, they may keep up as long as the emphasis is on basic skills (say, through the end of third grade), but will rapidly be left behind as the focus of instruction switches to higher-level problem-solving. Certainly, the profile as is supports being supplemented a bit in the regular classroom. And being given more acknowledgment for her strengths.
