The KeyMath is a very good test, better than the WJ math tests for giving a comprehensive look at how a kid approaches different aspects of math (when I was doing the norms collection, I was impressed at how much I could learn about a kid even with no ability to generate scores). Curriculum coverage doesn't make it very far into high school, but it's great for a 5yo. That said, when I test for DITD, I typically just use the WJ Broad Achievement (reading writing math) because it answers the question pretty efficiently, gives RPI scores (which I invert to give an estimate of "how impossible would it be for a typical kid this age to keep up with curriculum this kid finds challenging?"), and is conormed with the SB-5. I tend to use the KeyMath either for specific diagnostics regarding problems in math, or to document a kid whose particular talent is in math. My guess is that most psychologists have never seen or heard of the KeyMath -- most don't get much training in educational testing.
I like the SB-5, although it's not without its warts. Haven't yet found a test that doesn't have warts, although I'm warming up to the DAS-2 and it will probably eventually be my favorite -- the things I don't like about it thus far are largely related to usability (the amount of different stuff I have to juggle and remember and do on the fly) rather than to psychometric properties. WISC mainly just has market dominance.
The VMI is almost undoubtedly the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration. That tends to be used when there are concerns about handwriting -- I've never seen it used to document a strength. The main VMI (green booklet) is all most testers give. I typically also take the few extra minutes to give the visual perception (blue booklet) and motor control (brown booklet), because it gives a good differential on why the kid might be having trouble.
Remember that on modern IQ tests, you will not see the kind of stratospheric scores you heard about from your own childhood. They use a different metric -- the scores look similar but mean very different things from what they used to (it's like the difference between weight and body mass index -- they're both numbers that refer to how chubby you are, but they can't be compared to each other). Basically, a 145 is *awesome*, and a 160 is almost unheard of (yes, you can sometimes see scores like that when you test young GT kids on achievement tests, although the normative update from the WJ has reduced some of what really are statistical artifacts). 96% of kids who break 130 will not break 145, and that's all okay.
Relax. It's hard to wait, but regardless of the data, he's still your kid and you still love him. If the tester does a good job, you'll learn more about him regardless of whether he qualifies for DYS.
