She has a marked difference between her VCI and PRI, suggesting that her strength is in verbal reasoning, with a notable personal weakness in processing speed, which is probably why the examiner reported the reading fluency and comprehension scores separately (normally they are part of the same composite). Math fluency is already separate from the core mathematics subtests. Fluency may also have been a factor in her written expression scores, as I'll explain in a moment.
Based on her cognitive profile, we would predict that she would exhibit exceptional strengths in reading comprehension and oral language, do quite well, but not as well as reading comp, in mathematics, and might have mixed outcomes in written expression.
What we actually see is that her reading comprehension is right on target with predictions, oral language is insignificantly different (because of ceiling effects in this cluster), and mathematics is also as predicted. The fluency areas are in line with her processing speed. Unfortunately, reading fluency and basic reading factor into Total Reading, pulling down her composite score. I am also struck by the discrepancy between her actual decoding skills and her comprehension, which suggests a possible weakness in word-level decoding skills, amply compensated by her verbal reasoning when reading for comprehension. I would keep an eye on that.
And, BTW, yes, the Mathematics Composite is the equivalent of Total Math.
Written expression is the big potential outlier, but it is difficult to interpret this without access to clinical observations and subtest component scores. I'll posit a scenario that would be consistent with the known data. At age 11, written expression is derived from three subtests, consisting of four tasks: sentence composition (sentence combining and sentence building), essay composition, and spelling. Essay composition is scored on three dimensions: number of words written (a proxy for writing fluency), theme development and text organization, and grammar and mechanics (accuracy only, not complexity). Because the majority of high-performing writers also write a great many words, word count factors heavily into the essay composition scores, and thus the written expression composite score. Consequently, a very short, but thematically high-quality, essay, will be disproportionately affected by the small number of words written. (I also see the opposite happen, where low-quality essays score well because the examinee babbles on and on.) We already know that speed is a factor for her, so it is not inconceivable that she wrote a structurally and conceptually fine essay, but that it was short. Another possibility is that her essay was strong, but her spelling and mechanics were much weaker. On-demand spelling is one third of the composite, and if her spelling tracks her basic reading (as is the case for most people), it is no better than high average, and could be pulling down the composite score. The two components of sentence composition are also scored much more rigorously for mechanics, especially spelling, than the essay is, so that would be another place that her language expression skills would be obscured by weaknesses in mechanics.
I am going to throw out there my top choices for explanations of her profile. Not exclusive:
1. processing speed: poor fluency is pulling down a variety of academic areas. Reading and math have their own subtests, so we know that this effect occurs there. Writing does not, but it may have factored into the word count component of essay composition, which figures heavily into the written expression composite.
2. basic skills/mechanics weaknesses in word-level decoding/encoding: basic reading (decoding) is relatively low. If encoding (spelling) is comparably low, it could affect the written expression composite directly, through the contribution of the spelling subtest, and somewhat less directly, through the significant impact of mechanics errors on the two components of sentence composition.
It is possible that both hypotheses you present are supported. My experience with homeschoolers entering b&m schools at the secondary level is that they often do lack structured instruction in writing, which could affect performance on this type of test. Usually, those students do fine on sentence composition and spelling, but not so well on the essay, as they are unfamiliar with the basic structure of the five-paragraph essay, which is, after all, the foundation of pretty much all formal academic writing.
On the other hand, the relatively low basic reading scores (not that 119 is by any means poor!) and the pervasive relative weakness in processing speed and fluency scores concerns me, as it suggests that writing fluency may also be low, and that, even more critically, there is some vulnerability in skills that should be automatic by now, such as word-level decoding/encoding. A child with this level of reading comprehension should have had no trouble acquiring an enormous reading vocabulary, much better than that represented by a 119.
It will be difficult, however, to find tests that expose this vulnerability, as she has undoubtedly developed compensatory mechanisms and cognitive strategies that will work around most tests aimed at detecting word-level reading deficits and their underlying cognitive processes. If you really want to do more testing, I would consider the CTOPP-2, but only with an examiner who has experience with high-cognitive compensated dyslexics. Or you could just ignore this, as it obviously doesn't get in the way of her reading, and her basic skills are still above average. On the writing side, I think I would want to know (and you may be able to get this info from the examiner, based on existing testing) where the weaknesses were in written expression, and then think about remediation or compensatory strategies starting from there. That -- point difference between VCI and WE is not normative.
If you already have access to those other subtest and subtest component scores, and would prefer not to post them for the whole world, feel free to pm me.
