Some general comments:
1. There isn't a generally-allowable FSIQ with only VCI and FRI. It may be that this is actually a standard FSIQ, without the additional subtests necessary to obtain the other three primary index scores (VSI, WMI, PSI). The standard FSIQ uses the two VCI, two FRI, and one each from VSI, WMI, and PSI. That's why only two primary index scores are generated. That does not mean the WRAML-2 was done wholly in place of the WMI (it has no particular relevance to the PSI). If the standard FSIQ was obtained, you do have a little data on PSI, in the form of the Coding subtest. The similarity of the FSIQ to the VCI and FRI suggests, though, that at least one of the WMI or PSI were likely in the same ballpark as the rest of the test.
2. It appears from your report that the working/short-term memory measures of the WRAML-2 were not administered, which means the WISC results are the only indicators of working memory that you have (Digit Span).
3. Overall, his cognition looks comfortably in the Very High range, into the MG neighborhood. Nothing you've shared suggests focal areas of notable weakness, though his LTR is very slightly lower than the other domains.
4. Academically, he appears to have the most difficulty with decoding and fluency skills: Math fact fluency, sentence reading fluency, and word reading fluency, among the fluency skills. Word attack and spelling, among the decoding/encoding skills. Interestingly, his performance was age-appropriate for accuracy when reading real words aloud in a list, or in a sentence/passage context--as long as it wasn't timed.
That he scores well on sentence writing fluency is also striking, in comparison to his other fluency scores. This task is not, however, scored on spelling or other mechanics, only on accurate use of the provided vocabulary.
Finally, he is in the average range for all listed untimed academic tasks.
Put together, this looks to me like someone who's developed or been taught sufficient strategies for functioning reasonably well academically when given adequate time, but still doesn't have automaticity for rote basic skills in reading, writing, or math facts. I'd guess the process of accessing higher-level academics is fairly laborious, despite the capacity to achieve at high levels. He'll probably do better in math when he reaches algebra II and above, where everyone uses a calculator as a matter of course, because the focus is on problem solving, and when he reaches writing courses such as those in college, where, similarly, everyone uses technology (typing, spellcheck, autocorrect, etc.) as a matter of course, because the focus is on higher-level language expression and argument.
If you wanted to throw labels around, you could probably discuss specific learning (SLD)-reading (dyslexia) and SLD-writing (dysgraphia). Some people might even include SLD-math (dyscalculia), but that's most likely an expression of the same underlying automaticity deficit, and doesn't seem to have as much impact on untimed performance as the reading/writing skills do.
Last edited by aeh; 09/10/18 06:33 PM.
