We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum. CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.
I kind of wonder (not that I'm generally a conspiracy theorist) whether the folks at WISC designed their test specifically to reduce GT scores, thereby lowering the amount of people that are identified into public GT programs to save the schools money.
I kind of wonder (not that I'm generally a conspiracy theorist) whether the folks at WISC designed their test specifically to reduce GT scores, thereby lowering the amount of people that are identified into public GT programs to save the schools money.
Maybe it's an unintended consequence of wanting to ID children whose WMI and PSI bring down their FSIQ below the normal range, so they can be eligible for services.
Not my area of expertise, but it may be related to diagnosing ADHD and LDs.
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 3rd and 4th editions (WISC-III n = 586 and WISC-IV n = 118), profiles were compared for children with ADHD and normal intelligence. Mean Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) and Perceptual Organization/Perceptual Reasoning Index (POI/PRI) scores were significantly higher than Freedom From Distractibility/Working Memory Index (FDI/WMI) and Processing Speed Index (PSI), and Symbol Search was higher than Coding. FDI/WMI and PSI scores were similar on both tests, but VCI and POI/PRI were higher on the WISC-IV than on the WISC-III. Therefore, index discrepancies were greater for the WISC-IV, suggesting that the WISC-IV might be better than the WISC-III in delineating the strengths and weaknesses of children with ADHD. All children in the WISC-IV sample scored lowest on WMI or PSI, whereas only 88% of the WISC-III children scored lowest on FDI or PSI. Thus, the WISC-IV may be more helpful in diagnosing ADHD than the WISC-III. (Contains 2 tables.)
Well, if they wanted to lower the # kids in GT programs, they wouldn't have come up w/ GAI. I don't think it was intentional. I'm not sure why they increased the weight of PSI and WMI over WISCIII but I think it goes back to the idea that gifted kids are speedy (many are and many are not).
Flanagan and Kaufman (2004), in Essentials of WISC-IV Assessment, deem the FSIQ �not interpretable� if Composite scores vary by 23 points (1.5 standard deviations) or more.
My DS12 just took the WISC-IV. His PSI came out ~40 points lower than the other three. I'm trying to figure out what that really means. Not much luck in finding anything I believe so far. The math is all pretty fuzzy. (JZ)
DS had the same issue with ~20 point difference in PSI. That's why I asked the question about the significance of PSI, especially when it affects the FSIQ. It seems odd to me that a test would be improved, yet have potential differentiations between GAI and FSIQ. I'm sure there's rhyme and reason to it, I've just not quite made sense of it yet. I didn't know what GAI was until I came here, that info wasn't provided on DSs report. I would think that if PSI was the primary factor in a FSIQ being depressed, then the GAI would automatically be provided and used because the ability is there, KWIM? Eventually, I'll grasp it all.
I found this slide amusing from a presentation called Making the Switch: Unlocking the Mystery of the WISC-IV by Shelley C. Heaton, Ph.D. http://www.phhp.ufl.edu/~jhj/WISCIV.ppt#2 Why another revision? A. Keep us on our toes B. Revisions to theoretical foundations C. Make more money D. The old pictures were ugly E. Improve psychometric properties Answer: B & E
DS7 has a 37 points spread between PSI and VCI. The psychologist brought up a point that we might consider an evaluation on dysgraphia. If he is diagnosed, he is entitled for extra time in tests.
A low PSI could mean anything, not just dysgraphia. I am no expert in this area.
Obviously, we are focused on IQ tests as they relate to the gifted. However...
Quote
The IQ tests are designed to make the finest distinctions for most of the children taking the test (the 95% of children who fall between 70 and 130.) We are asking a test to make fine distinctions with a relatively blunt tool when we are looking at the extremes.
