Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Working memory - why is it deemphasized here?

With all the research on the importance of working memory to high achievement I find it interesting that WM is sometimes considered of secondary importance on this board. (i.e. statements like "GAI is a better measure of giftedness"). Processing speed I can understand why it may be secondary, but working memory??? Please help me understand.

Ul.H.

It may be because the board attracts a high % of kids who are 2E or 2E-ish, or who are clearly gifted but not fitting into the school "box" all that well. My DD didn't take an IQ test that measured WM, but hers is clearly very good (I posted in another thread about her digit span, which is better than mine). She's also (so far) cruising through school at a gifted magnet.

That said, I feel like I have read this other places as well. It seems to be a useful puzzle piece to have, however.

Just guessing, but maybe (like processing speed) it's easier to remediate than other aspects of IQ? E.g., maybe someone with low working memory will do as well on a maths problem as someone with high WM, provided paper is available? In which case, it's interesting that one of them needs paper while the other doesn't, but not really very important in many circs.

I don't think that it's generally considered to be unimportant. Discussions about GAI tend to arise with respect to meeting threshold scores for entry to a gifted program. Some other parents seem to want primarily to present their children to best effect (for want of a better term), but to me this seems minimal by comparison with the desire for access to services.

Informationally, the GAI of course doesn't add anything when the subtest scores are available; one can then see the lower working memory and processing speed coupled with higher scores in other areas that would make the GAI useful to calculate. One thus might fairly conclude that presentation of a GAI with the subtest scores implies a tendency to disregard low working memory as unimportant, except that some testers will generate the GAI as a matter of course when indicated, and a parent might just be reporting the information they were given.

I agree with ColinsMum that aids as simple as pencil and paper, plus good organizational skills, can compensate a great deal for a relatively weak working memory. I still think the effects of a relatively weak working memory will be felt some of the time-- in my opinion a person will tend to have fewer or at least less deep or complex flashes of insight under those conditions. Basically, anything where it's useful to hold many things at once in one's head would be impacted. I know this is not a revelation.

I confess that I have only a very surface comprehension of this concept. The Wikipedia entry is pretty interesting, although I'm not positive they're using the term in exactly the same way we do.



I don't know how controversial any of this is or anything. I know that DD's excellent WM seems to give her an advantage over and beyond the gifted stuff-for instance, she has no difficulty with math facts or spelling, which seem to be relatively common stumbling blocks even among the highly intelligent kids here. It was one of the first things we noticed about her as a baby--it set her apart at an early age. Interestingly, though, there is one memory-related thing she is not so good at, and that's remembering and following through on a long string of verbal directions. She can parrot back a long quote, but something about "Listen to this AND GO DO this" must be different. (I don't think this is just her being obstinate.)

I have two sons who have very similar WISC-IV profiles except in the area of working memory. My younger son's WMI is about 40 points higher than the older son's. Their PSI scores are the same and quite a bit below average.

I'm sure there are other differences (one being the older one has dyslexia and the younger one doesn't), but the difference in their ability to learn is like night and day. The younger one is very much more obviously gifted.

I have poor working memory when tested (below average), but am known for "flashes of insight." The difference is that testing uses novel info, and y "insights" rely on learned info. I *don't* learn fast. But once I've learned something, I can manipulate complex models easily and in my head.

I think maybe thisjust isn't really very well understood.

Paper and pencil help a lot. Now, someone go tell DH that. He's forever making verbal lists and expecting me to remember what's on them.

(oh, I'm 2e, incidentaly)

I'm curious where the concern stems from - is it a concern that GAI isn't valid or relevant or that if working memory has deficits no matter how high the IQ, that one cannot be gifted? I'm a bit confused by the question and would love to hear more about your concerns.

I'd tend to say that it is b/c VCI and PRI measure aspects of intelligence that are more salient to giftedness whereas WMI and PSI measure processing skills that enable one to perform well in school. I've seen kids with high PSI and/or WMI and average VCI/PRI who are very high achievers in school, but who lack the kind of depth and abstractions that I associate with giftedness.

I've also seen kids with very high VCI/PRI and lower WMI and/or PSI who may not always appear to be the types of kids who get ided as gifted in schools (not convergent consistent high achievers), but who are clearly gifted.

I, too, think that having high WMI (and high PSI for that matter) are truly helpful in a school setting and probably in life in general, but I also think that they aren't the things that make one gifted.