Hmmm, so this confirms my gut feeling, then. Thank you so much for your insight. My background is in counseling, so I only have a rudimentary knowledge of testing, but for a student who had been screened in the 99th percentile a week prior, with extremely strong verbal skills, no evidence of learning issues, and a long attention span, I just could not see any reason why he'd choose the WPPSI to determine gifted program eligibility. And at this point, after reading your thoughtful response and talking with 3 different elementary SPs (friends/acquaintances, not involved with DD's testing) who all felt that this was completely inappropriate, I'm thinking it was a significant and potentially unethical error in judgment (fulfilling an internship requirement maybe? not consulting the manual before administering the test?) and I agree that it needs to be resolved.
I know the district owns the WISC-V but for some reason typically uses the RIAS in gifted evals. They may be in the building next door, but really should be accessible. I'm concerned that they'll push back if I request the WISC because of potential overlap with the WPPSI she just took, but may more readily agree to the RIAS? I'm also not sure who we'd prefer to administer any additional testing, since I'm clearly not thrilled with this intern and also know how swamped the supervising SP is, at this point in the year. But she'll be calling me tomorrow morning, so I'll be interested to hear her perspective.
I've already been conflicted about this process since DD7 is my sensitive, understated, "fly under the radar" kiddo, and while I recognize that an additional, more valid test could still result in a similar score, I think it needs to happen for our peace of mind. I just hate the idea of her slipping through the cracks because of somebody else's mistake. Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts.
