There are two main considerations relevant to your concerns about comparing the WISC-V and WRAT-5:
1. regression to the mean: there is some expected variation when you compare two instruments. An eight-point difference is not all that huge, when you consider standard error and regression to the mean.
2. screening vs comprehensive assessment: the WRAT-5 is considered an academic screener only, as it samples only a few academic skills, all of which are mechanical, rather than problem solving in nature. For reading, it samples word calling (reading a list of words), for writing, spelling in isolation, and for math, computations. No data on higher-level comprehension, expression, or reasoning is obtained. It is also not timed, so any fluency issues would not necessarily show up.
What concerns drove you to pursue evaluation?
ETA: Checked back on your previous post. Was this eval just to clarify the GT questions, or did you have other concerns, such as dyslexia?
Oh, and I'd be concerned about an evaluator claiming that dyslexia is not genetic, too. Although your DC doesn't appear to have indications of reading disabilities, at the moment.
Last edited by aeh; 05/15/18 12:52 PM.
