Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Twins - getting evaluated for gifted program

Hi, I am new here. My sons are twin 8 year old boys, in 2nd grade. We requested their school to evaluate them for the gifted program based on the teacher's recommendation. WISC-IV was administered, and KTEA-3 for academic assessment in April 2015 (at the time, the boys were 7, and in 1st grade).

Twin 1 qualified with a GAI calculation of 135. Twin 2 did not qualify as his FSIQ/GAI calculation was 117/118 (which is less than the 130 +/- 5 requirement of the school district). The school psychologist observed that he was extremely anxious, and some other behaviors that are uncharacteristic of my son. The psychologist also noted - "Therefore, test results should be interpreted with some caution, as they may slightly under-represent his current cognitive functioning."

We were extremely surprised with these results, especially for Twin 2. When we requested for gifted evaluation, we were certain that Twin 2 would qualify. He has all the behavioral qualities that are typical of a gifted or highly gifted child - he is intrinsically curious, is ahead of his peers academically reading at 2.5 grade levels higher, learns rapidly, retains a lot of information, etc. We attributed the unexpected results to the fact that he was on allergy medication in April 2015, which do make him jumpy and hyper active. Along with a few other things that were going on at home (grandma passed away couple months before after an ugly battle with cancer).

Fast forward a few months, we approached a reputed private practitioner, an independent certified school psychologist. He administered the WISC-V to avoid practice effect. He warned me about the Flynn effect, and told me that the scores could be lower. I considered what he said, but we were so certain that the WISC-IV results from April were complete BS, that we went ahead with WISC-V in December.

Lo and behold, just as we thought, his scores were far superior!! His FSIQ was calculated as 132 (VC-133, VS-126, FR-123, WM-122, PS-108). The psychologist noted in his report that this was very unusual, but the previous anxiety and hyper active behaviors were completely absent when he tested him. He noted that he was "orderly, methodical and persistent". The psychologist even noted that he could have scored higher on subtests - Block Design, Coding and Matrix Reasoning, had it not been for his need for perfectionism.

We presented this new information to his school, assuming that now we can enroll both children in the gifted program (we did not enroll Twin 1 in April, because we were worried and knew that it would have a negative affect on Twin 2. We wanted to wait until we had a good idea of what would happen with Twin 2). Anyway, the school now threw a curve ball and wants to do their own academic assessment as "IQ alone cannot determine giftedness". We are very worried that the school is only using delay tactics at this point as this process could again take up to 60 days. We are also wondering if they are trying to save face, and are looking to prove that my son is not qualified for the program. I hope this is just our paranoia, but our conversations with the school counselor have made us wonder!

We have a meeting with the school to discuss our concerns.

Meanwhile, I had a couple of questions for the wonderful members of this group:

1. Does anyone have any thoughts? And help with this situation?
2. How can we calculate GAI for WISC-V? I have an email out to the second psychologist asking him for it, but he hasn't responded yet.

Thank you so much!!

PS: I have so much information to share, but I tried to be concise so the message may seem very disjointed. I can elaborate if needed.

Just want to add the details on the new WISC V scaled scores that may be needed for GAI calculation.

FSIQ-132

Verbal Comprehension -133 (Similarities-16, Vocabulary-16)
Visual Spatial -126 (Block Design-14, Visual Puzzles-15)
Fluid Reasoning-123 (Matric Reasoning-13, Figure Weights-15)
Working Memory -122 (Digit Span-15, Picture Span-13)
Processing Speed-108 (Coding-13, Symbol Search-10)

Thanks again in advance!

Hi Tulip,

The thing to do with schools when they throw you what looks like a curve ball or a new wall to leap over is to just stay focused on steadily advocating - collect as much data as you can, prepare for your meetings by thinking through what point you need to get across, determining your goal for the meeting, and thinking through the conversation ahead of time (consider every curve ball they might throw back at you and think through your response). Don't let emotion get the best of you - it's easy to get annoyed about these things, but best to use that emotional energy to plug away at finding more data (as you are).

I am not terribly familiar with the WISC-V (there are other experts who will answer re the WISC-V), but I do see one thing you might want to pursue re your ds' results. The score for processing speed is significantly lower than some of this other scores, and while this may be somewhat common among gifted students, I'd suggest trying to dig into this and be certain it's not indicative of some other challenge. It's probably nothing, but, for instance, one example: the gap in processing speed is similar to subtest score pattern for dysgraphic students (the other two subtests mentioned, Block Design and Matrix Reasoning, involve skills that might be impacted by dysgraphia). If you've also noticed other symptoms of dysgraphia, I'd pursue further testing to see if there's some type of challenge as the source of lower coding score.

Best wishes,

polarbear

eta - just saw your WISC scores - symbol search pulled down the average on the processing speed score - symbol search requires the student pick out and circle identical symbols in a random field of symbols - a bit like looking for Waldo Have you had your ds' eyes or vision checked?

Welcome! Nice numbers all around, for both twins.

1. Hard to say. Looking at it from a neutral school perspective, it would make sense to want some confirmatory data (academic, IOW), since the in-house eval was so different from the outside eval. If they don't have experience with this evaluator, it wouldn't be totally crazy to wonder a little about score shopping. Believe me, I've seen people do it before. There's also another consideration, which is that even a very bright child may or may not be successful in an academically advanced program if it doesn't match their skill set. If this is the right program for your child, I don't think there will be anything to fear from additional academic evaluation.

2. I don't have my tables with me, but I can check tomorrow.

I cannot believe that both responses are just so spot on!!! I love this forum.

polarbear, Symbol Search was the only one he scored higher on the first test in April (it was 15, and now a 10). I was wondering what could have caused that. I have noticed him rubbing his eyes occasionally, and wondered about it. I have not thought too much about it until just now! I will need get his vision checked!

MHID, These are the exact two concerns we have "subtly" raised with the school via a formal email last week, and are going to be meeting them today regarding the same things.
1. possible prejudice about the child or the second test results or the private psychologist (who is certified and has an experience for over 30 years)
2. Twin 1 and Twin 2 now have similar IQs. KTEA-3 academic assessment in April were very very similar for the 2 boys.

I hope they don't backtrack now on Twin 1's eligibility?!

aeh, Thank you so much for your response!

We have considered what you listed could be the school's concern. I am very worried about that too. I hope to prove to them that there was no score shopping. I did a simple google search for "psychologists near me" and clicked on the first link to the website psychologytoday.com and emailed the first two psychologists that seemed relevant and in my zipcode. Only one of them replied back to me. I loved his responses and his knowledge and we just went with him. Sounds so cocky, but I had no doubt in my mind that the first results were just so incorrect, we didn't have to do much else!

Thanks again. It would be nice to see the GAI and add that to our data!

I'll run the actual number tomorrow, but by eye, I'm not expecting the GAI to be substantially different from the FSIQ, as most of the lower subtests do not contribute to the FSIQ, though they do, of course, contribute to their specific index scores.

As far as I know IQ is the defining factor of giftedness so by definition giftedness is solely based on IQ. I know however educationalists disagree.

You could try the "are you questioning the judgement of a respected professional who studied x years at y and has z years experience in the field? Is it really likely they would put their career and reputation at risk by writing false reports?"

GAI = 130

aeh,

I PM'ed you.

Thank you