Posted this in 2e, then realized I should have posted it here. Hope this is not bad manners for the board.
I want to add another "My kid, too." My DS6 was recently assessed to have a 94 point spread between VCI (extended norms - 188) and processing speed (94).
Amber - I hope you don't mind a little related discussion. Can we use this thread to explore processing speed measurements a little?
Having done a ton of reading - I have a working hypothesis, but can't seem to find research to back it up. I do believe there is a processing issue. But I don't think that's the only thing going on. I'll give a couple anecdotes to illustrate:
Anecdote 1: DS has a whopping difference between processing speed and VCI/PRI. That does not reconcile with his performance on the "name that supercar" game. This is a game with a picture of a supercar (e.g., Ferrari) covered by 20 squares in a 4X5 grid. You click squares to remove them one at a time. As quickly as you can, identify the car from 4 supplied answers. Your score is a function of difficulty, speed and accuracy.
DS routinely kills this game, beating everybody's score - and this includes car nerds from all over the world. Usually he needs to turn over exactly one square, either in the headlight or tail light area. And let me be clear - the answer is not "Ferrari." It has to be "Ferrari 458 Speciale." Very detailed answers selecting from closely related models.
He also does this when we are driving on the highway. A fancy car will flash by. I ask, "Was that a Lotus?" "No, Mom - didn't you see the door handles? That was a Tesla Roadster. That one fools you every time doesn't it?" (It does.)
This is Very. Rapid. Processing. For context, he also does this with sea creatures and gems/minerals.
So - what gives. My working hypothesis is that these HG/EG/PG kids do have processing issues. But it's maybe not just speed. Or not speed at all. They are also processing an enormous volume of information that flashes into their brains when they observe. They gather in waaaay more information about everything, as compared to neurotypical folks. And they do it instantly. This brings me to anecdote 2, which I think illustrates how this volume factor can slow down ANSWERING, even if it doesn't slow down PROCESSING.
Anecdote 2: While working on a budget, I scribbled a sum ($107+$12). Just for grins, I asked DS if he knew the answer. He stared at it for a long while, and finally answered "They should have the euro in England."
As best he could explain, this is because my Dad taught me to write my "7" with a slash through it, like they do in Europe. This appears to have led to a long string of thoughts, naturally leading through Italian super cars (see above), whose price we often see listed in pounds in British car magazines. DS knew about how many dollars were in a pound, and how many dollars were in a euro, but got stuck trying to figure from that how many pounds were in a euro. He found this annoying and decided they should just use the euro in England.
So - exactly what volume of "stuff" is a kid like DS processing when he sees something like "107+12"?
Hypothetical example of how this rabbit-holing could play out: "Wow - this is the third time in a row that the correct answer on an IQ test is 'c'." That's weird. If it was a coin toss then, you might get the same answer 3 times in a row. But there are 4 possible answers here. That would seem to make 3 c's in a row unlikely. I wonder how I could figure out those odds. I mean, how does this compare to the odds of getting 3 aces in a poker hand. I think Max cheated when we were playing poker yesterday. I didn't see him cheat. But he got three of a kind a bunch of times. He must have been cheating. I don't want to play cards with him anymore. Hmmmm - "Max cheats" is not one of the answers to this question. What was that question again"
Maybe this is some variant of ADD or ADHD, if it reflects inability to focus (bad). Or maybe it reflects ability to pull in seemingly unrelated information from multiple sources instantaneously (good). Or both, but we don't want to squash (good) in the interest of improving (bad).
I'm wondering if any of you folks have talked through this sort of idea with your specialists, or if you know of any research on the issue. My gut says it's a big part of the puzzle. It might be mucking up kids' scores on testing to the extent you are really trying to measure "processing speed" versus "processing speed, assuming only this discrete information on the page is processed."
Argh - must stop writing, and thanks if you are still reading by now. But this is really weighing on my mind, and you folks seem like a truly optimal group to discuss this with.
