Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Understanding testing!

This thread is about finding the essence of how to interpret the function of a sub test. Personally I'm striving to understand what Processing speed and coding is about!

With coding in particular, there is major confounding due to the need for sensory motor control (handwriting) and good visual processing & visual memory. Strengths or weakness in both these areas will also impact some of the subtests that make up the GAI (block design for example) but others may not be impacted at all.

Using the two subtests you mention is a particularly good example because a blind person with no hands could score 18 on similarities just as much as any other person might be able to, and would be completely unable to undertake the coding subtest at all, despite possibly having quite excellent executive function.

Also with coding, the person being tested has to actually be motivated to do such a thing in some sort of timely manner. Ask me how I know.

If the person taking the test doesn't push themselves to go quickly or worse, drags their feet the entire time, the score will be lower, sometimes far lower, than if they had.

One of my kids was like this. He had us all convinced that he had a processing speed deficit that was getting worse over time. He was also homeschooled, and my impression of his processing speed was that it was sometimes lightning fast and sometimes dismally slow--and tests of processing speed seemed to be designed to bring out his dismally slow side.

Fast forward to his high school years, where he was able to finish the SAT in half the time and still get all (or almost all) of the questions right.

But more generally, when you use test results to infer something essential about a person (intelligence, for example), there is an implicit assumption that the person was trying to do their best when taking the test.

I have one of these! I have said the exact same thing to various professionals in their lives "Slow and deep... also, sometimes lightening fast"



Mine is horrified at the suggestion that they should have (and use) extra time...


Our recent report explicitly states that child worked hard and it was a "Valid" and accurate result... No actual explanation for the very bizarre pattern of strengths and weaknesses. We often hear about a child with some indexes very strong, other's weaker (ie strong VCI, weaker PS or WM). My child managed to have nearly two standard deviations between the two subtests in most indexes (except VCI which was even, and VSI with only one deviation). Even AEH struggled to find a pattern if I recall correctly. Tests that might normally clump together just don't (ie two tests which rely heavily on visual memory and no motor component) and areas that I know are personal strengths have scored relatively poorly compared to relative weakness in day to day life.

I don't think this was a conscious act on the part of my child. But I am not fully on board with the psychologist that the test results accurately reflect best effort or accurately capture my child's strengths and weaknesses. Except in so far as my child has a problem with very variable engagement and performance.

I think it's extremely important as an assessment professional to maintain a level of humility with regard to any client, but especially for low-incidence learners like twice-exceptional students. Even for those of us who may have encountered a few more of them than others. There's an old principle in assessment along these lines: interpret the test in the context of the child, not the child through the lens of the test.

cool

cool

Glad you added a new post to this thread...I remembered that someone had asked me a question a while back, but didn't get a chance to answer it at the time, and then couldn't find the question!

Taking into consideration a number of things you've shared, it sounds like the critical executive function that impacts your daily life may be the one we call shift or cognitive flexibility (switching, on the assessment you completed). This can result in or combine with low processing speed to generate the "slow but accurate" presentation you describe, as well as the single-minded focus that sometimes causes you to respond to the unexpected poorly, late, or not at all. I find that it can be helpful

1. to be patient with yourself. Extend some grace to yourself when you realize after the fact that you've arrowed past something that you wish you had responded to. And then try to think if there's a more planful avenue still open to you to go back and offer an appropriate response. Sometimes there will be, and other times there won't. That's okay. In the second case, look for any small skill that you might be able to learn from it for a future similar situation, such as a short, civil comment you might be able to make, either internally to yourself, or aloud to the other person, to communicate that you would love to respond further, but after you finish this task. To do this, it helps to

2. prepare a menu of standard, pleasant responses to situations that arise repeatedly. You note that you don't have difficulty with things you already know; it's novelty that throws off your cognitive flexibility. So, when you encouter a new situation, learn what you can about appropriate responses for it, and practice them (preferably with a friend or therapist) until they don't feel new anymore. Quite a number of mental health professionals can help you generally with what they'll recognize as social skills training/coaching, but for more tailored practice, you'll want to detail the kinds of situations that affect you the most, so your practice partner can work with you on those.

3. Managing your environment also helps, such as by learning some verbal stalling tactics, to give yourself more time to process incoming information and shift your thinking. Some people use phrases such as, "give me a moment," "explain that again," "so you're saying...[and repeat or restate what they just said], or even take the direct approach with, "let's slow this down."

Both cognition and executive function are important to daily life needs. One way to think about it is that EF is the collection of skills that allow efficient, on-demand access to your other skills (including cognition). And yes, just as most have patterns of strengths and weaknesses among cognitive skills, one can have strengths and weaknesses among the EFs, such as good planning but weak flexibility. It's also important to note that we've made some artificial and arbitrary distinctions between executive and cognitive skills. The reality is almost certainly that they are intertwined (and, well, they're all in your brain!).

All formal measures are attempts to access incompletely understood and interconnected skills in a complex system. IOW, none of them are ultimate descriptors of you or your abilities. That being said, the FSIQ does appear to be the most robust predictor of academic function for most people--but you are not most people. EF is probably a better predictor of general life function, since it affects all dimensions, but it's also a set of skills that can be learned and accommodated. Which is to say, it's all of the above. The GAI is a purer measure of reasoning, but the FSIQ includes estimates of the impact of some EF skills (in the form of the CPI). One might say that, when your EF vulnerabilities are well-accommodated or remediated, you are capable of functioning at the level of your GAI, but when they are not, your performance is likely to fall somewhere between your CPI and your GAI.

This should not be discouraging, btw, since it simply describes one variation of the state of every finite, imperfect human, and underlines our need for each other, and to seek completion in community.

Since your old friends are academics, I wonder if you could spend some time with them and try to connect with friends of friends.

I'm curious to see how it works out for you, because I'm afraid I will be in exactly the same situation 10 years from now. I find it very hard to connect with people who aren't very intelligent in a meaningful way. I realize that I bottle up all of my substantial thoughts or things I find interesting to read because I know most people will not get it. And then I feel a sense of rejection when I don't get any enthusiasm from their side. This can kill interest for me in a way that little else does.

Work is a bit different from day to day life. Professionally, if you come across as smart and capable right out the gate, people will be willing to hire you. After all, it is good for their bottom line. There are horror stories of envious coworkers but I don't think that's the norm, unless they feel intimidated by your presence or see you as a threat to their source of income.