Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Please help interpret WISC-WIAT scores (newbie)

Please kindly help me and my husband make sense of our son's WISC-WIAT scores. He was 7 years and 5 months old when tested a couple of weeks ago.

WISC-IV
Raw Scores (we have no access to the scaled scores)
Similarities 17
Vocabulary 33
Comprehension 13
Block design 48
Picture concepts 13
Matrix reasoning 19
Digit span 12
Letter-number sequencing 12
Coding 57
Symbol search 41

Composite Scores
Verbal comprehension 112
Perceptual reasoning 121
Working memory 99
Processing speed 131
FSIQ 121


WIAT-II
Raw Scores
Reading 48
Mathematics 38
Language 41
Writing 31

Our psychometrician says that our son's FSIQ is in the "superior" range ("mildly gifted" in other definitions) and that his current grade placement (3rd grade) is correct. What we are baffled about is the working memory of 99 vis-a-vis the processing speed of 131. What does this discrepancy mean?

Also, is there a way we can compute GAI from raw scores only? We have no access to scaled scores right now. Thank you very much in advance for all your help.[/b][b]

Dottie, thank you so much for the quick and extensive reply. I must say you're probably holding a crystal ball because your estimates correspond with "test age equivalent" that we did get for each raw score:

Chronological age is 7:5.

WISC-IV
Raw Scores/ Test Age Equivalent
Similarities 17 9:2
Vocabulary 33 10:2
Comprehension 13 6:10
Block design 48 14:10 (yes, definitely a spike!)
Picture concepts 13 7:6
Matrix reasoning 19 9:2
Digit span 12 7:2
Letter-number sequencing 12 7:6
Coding 57 Above 7:10 (reached ceiling, apparently)
Symbol search 41 Above 7:10 (reached ceiling, apparently)

Composite Scores
Verbal comprehension 112
Perceptual reasoning 121
Working memory 99
Processing speed 131
FSIQ 121


WIAT-II
Raw Scores/Test Grade Equivalent
Reading 48 3:3
Mathematics 38 2:9
Language 41 4:2
Writing 31 2:9[i][/i]

Do you have any idea what a spike in block design means in practical terms? My husband and I believe we are already addressing our son's academic needs with the third grade curriculum, but we're concerned that we might need to supplement the block design aspect because of the unusual score. That and the high processing speed-low working memory discrepancy.

P.S.
Thank you so much for computing the GAI. We thought it would be lower, which goes to show how much we don't know about this test. Thanks again.

Dottie, thanks again for patiently explaining all these. We paid for this test out of pocket and honestly we can't afford any more post-test counselling so your input is very much appreciated.

I will research on visual-spatial learning styles, thanks for the tip. In my country, our son would just be finishing 1st grade. He started reading early and there were no adjustments in the local preschool for that, so we decided to homeschool him. After a couple of years he placed 3rd grade on the homeschool curriculum rpovider's placement test. His abilities are so scattered though, which is why we had him tested using WISC and WIAT, to see if we needed to get an easier/more difficult curriculum, and in which particular subjects.

The cut-off for the local school for the gifted is 120 (exactly the corrected GAI you mentioned), but since his abilities are just so scattered and his achievement level just on par for third grade, we're staying put with homeschooling.

I really just hope that the WM-PS discrepancy is not indicative of any LD...

Thanks again!

Dottie, US norms are used in my country as well, for want of giftedness research in the local context. Our system of education (the curricula/scopes and sequences) is fundamentally patterned after US's, though. Thanks for your guestimates, they're definitely useful.

I just found this resource for calculating GAI from raw scores:
http://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/Special%20Education%20Services/gifted/QuickGuidetoUsingtheWISC-IV.pdf

I will be using the values obtained using the WISC-IV Technical Report #4. It looks quite interesting.

You're right, there it was on p. 2 of Technical Report 4. :P