Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Thoughts on the KABC-II?

I'm hoping some of the folks on here have some insight into this. I'm having a difficult time finding much on the KABC-II and testing gifted, and I know there are many knowledgeable people on this forum.

My son was administered the KABC-II last year (he'd just turned age 6) as part of an IEP process for his SPD (Sensory Processing Disorder) by the school psychologist. I understand why he'd chose the KABC, kids like it and it's more fair demographic assessment, but I've also read it can be an inaccurate assessment of giftedness, especially when the child has other issues such as SPD (which my son has.) He scored in the 98-99% for 3 of the 5 areas, 96% for another, and high average 90% for one. His overall IQ from the KAFB-II was 124.

Based upon his abilities and just the way he thinks, I'm pretty sure the KABC-II was an inaccurate representation of his abilities. He taught himself to read right after his 4th birthday, was skip counting at age 4 and doing simple math. Now he's age 6 in first grade and doing division and multiplication, some fractions, reads at at least a 3rd grade level. He also can work double digit addition/subtraction in his head. And the questions he asks are not 6 year old questions!

I am planning on scheduling him for the WISC-IV with a psychologist experienced with testing gifted. My question is, do you think this is really warranted? None of the local extra-curricular programs for gifted in my area will accept the KABC, and he'd need one more point to qualify anyway. It's expensive, but if it opens doors for him, I think it would be worth it. Anyone have any thoughts? Is the KABC-II usually a close approximation or can it be off by quite a bit?

I have no comment on whether you re-test with the WISC-IV (or, preferably, WISC-V; now out a year, the -V is recommended over the -IV, because of norm obsolescence--and I like the index structure better), from the standpoint of providing access to programs; naturally, that would be a family decision.

On the KABC-II, it is a solid instrument, and entirely appropriate for assessing giftedness. The more significant factors in your DS's scores are likely to have been not the instrument administered, but his age and disabilities. Depending on the pattern of performance, it is also possible that you would have scores that align better with your experience with him if alternate composites had been computed. (Though I must say his index scores are not extremely diverse; 90th %ile is only one point off of the Superior range.)

Thanks for the reply! I wasn't aware there was a WISC-V out, but I think regardless I need to go ahead and proceed with testing him again and see what results we find. I'm hoping with a tester more skilled in the gifted (and familiarized with his SPD issues) his scores will reflect closer to his ability. I need to dig out his test scores on the KABC-II to look at them again. I'm not sure which composites were used.

Well I dug out his scores, and I was off a bit. It's been a year and a lot has happened! This is what I have:

Mental Processing Index: 124 95th% rank
Sequential:109 73rd% rank
Simultaneous: 130 98th% rank
Learning 111 77th% rank

The school psychologist said the test took about an hour.

Ash, if it is so solid an instrument why doesn't DYS take it? My son got a 149 on it but they don't accept it.

Cookie, I can't speak to exactly why DYS doesn't accept it, not being privy to their decision-making process, but I would suggest that it has to do with its very different factor structure and theoretical design. There is conceptual overlap at the level of some of the indices, but overall, it is more challenging to compare to the Wechslers or Binets, and it's not as commonly used as the Woodcock. All of the contemporary tests have some ties to CHC models of intelligence, but the KABC-II, though it offers an alternative interpretive structure that is CHC-friendly, is really based on the Luria model of intelligence, whose clusters are a bit different. Also, one of the design values was limiting cultural loading (aiming for culture-fair/free). As a result, there is limited information on verbal intelligence to be derived from it.

Well, finally got DS tested with the WISC-V, and I'm so glad I did. I'm still awaiting the official report, but she gave me some info on the phone. This test gave a much clearer view of his strengths and weaknesses. Very apparent his auditory SPD issues have an impact on his scores. Visual-spatial score of 138, fluid reasoning 134, processing speed 111, verbal 108, working memory 117. GAI of 127. She said he was obviously very analytical, so some of his answers were scored lower on verbal due to how he responded (details, not generalizations). She said his visual spatial abilities and mathematical reasoning (99.6% on figure weights) were amazing, and his mind was "like a computer." I asked him tonight if he had problems hearing or understanding his teacher, and he said he did, but he usually already knew what to do or could figure it out. I think I will at last be able to show his school that he's a super bright little guy, but his SPD does impact how he learns. His intelligence has masked his problems in the past and is probably why his diagnosis was so long in coming despite all the red flags. Had he been of average intelligence and his SPD drove down his scores 20 points in one area, it would have been obvious. As it was, he was always so far ahead academically it was easy to write off the red flags. Thanks to those that gave good advice here (and thanks so much, aeh!)

Good to hear you've found the recent testing helpful in understanding your DC.