n/m

[idnib]

.

[albeto.]

n/m 

[MomatHWTK]

If there is too much of a spread between the individual components, then the average would be skewed for a composite. 

[maize]

The low processing speed would make the score appear lower than his actual abilities indicate.

[idnib]

. 

 

[idnib]

. 

 

[PeterPan]

It's normal for them to give a GAI (adjusted score), dropping the disability scores to generate a score that more closely shows ability.  If your psych didn't even give you that, it means you have so many discrepancies that even that adjusted score would be meaningless and inaccurate.  This can happen with very bright kids with significant disabilities and does not mean the psych did a bad job.  Rather it means some kids are complex and cannot be quantified simply.  Extreme challenges with extreme capabilities, basically.

 

What I would ask is what she wants you to DO with those scores, what interventions or further evals you should be considering, and what the labels are.

 

Glad you're getting some help!  It's a frustrating process.  Hopefully as they work through it it will get you somewhere with time. 

[idnib]

. 

 

[PeterPan]

Well I guess it just depends on what they're seeing.  If there's anything extreme (giftedness plus disabilities, etc.) the psych will usually have some opinion.  And some docs are just more empowering than others.  The psych I used with dd spent hours with me, letting me talk through every subject, asking questions, and he gave me this CONFIDENCE to go way out of the box.  Next psych (psych #1 for ds) was an utter jerk (irrespective of his being a nice human), didn't listen, may have missed a major label/diagnosis, and basically told me multiple times and my dh that parents should not teach their dyslexic kids.   :glare:  Not empowering.  Third psych (#2 for ds) was very complimentary, as has been EVERY PROFESSIONAL I've taken ds to except the jerk, saying I had clearly worked hard with him and they could see the disability.  

 

Fourth psych is seeing ds more today.  I spent 40 minutes with him unguarded and it changed my world.  Like literally, he expanded my mind with just a few comments, and everything came together. I'm sure I'll have more questions for him and more discussions. It's just some psychs are more helpful than others.  Maybe that dude who was a jerk to me is fabulously helpful to some other people, as he has a good reputation, but for my situation he wasn't bringing much to the table with perspective and ideas.  This new psych is.  And I think it's totally fair to want that.  Whether that's a psych at $250 an hour or ladies here on the board or whatever can vary.  Did Tokyo suggest the Ed Therapists in this thread?  That would be another way to look.  You can get a certified Ed Therapist.  I went to a talk by a couple, and wow were they amazing at pulling things together and putting shoe leather on what to DO with it.

 

Your full was probably 10-20 lower, I would guess.  That's how my kids' were.

 

[geodob]

The 'processing speed' uses 2 tests, Coding and Symbol Search.

You might like to have a look at what the Coding test actually is?

Here's a link, where if you scroll down, you will see it.

At 10, he would have used the numeral one, with symbols under each number.

http://www.thinktonight.com/WISC_IV_subtests_s/331.htm

 

What it involves, is copying the corresponding symbol under each number on the worksheet.

But their are 2 ways to do this?

One way is to work across the worksheet, from one number to the next. Doing one at a time.

The other way, given that it only uses 5 numbers?

Is to do all of the  1's on the worksheet first, then all of the 2's, etc.

If it is done this way, it can be done quite quickly.

Just look for all 2's,  and draw a ] under them.

 

But if instead, you go from one number to the next across the worksheet ?

With 45 numbers to draw symbols under.

You would find that you take a great deal longer.

 

As a 'timed test', the way that you did it would give you a totally different score.

To then use the score as a measure of 'processing speed'?

Is a ridiculous conclusion, and would skew the overall results.

[Crimson Wife]

If your psych didn't even give you that, it means you have so many discrepancies that even that adjusted score would be meaningless and inaccurate.  This can happen with very bright kids with significant disabilities and does not mean the psych did a bad job.  Rather it means some kids are complex and cannot be quantified simply.  Extreme challenges with extreme capabilities, basically.

 

Yep, this is what happened to my little one back in January. The subtest scores were so all over-the-map that the school psych didn't list any kind of full IQ in the report. It's the classic "head in the oven, feet in the freezer" type of a situation.

[LaughingCat]

I know there was a thread a while back that talked about how to calculate the full score vs. the gai score  -- so theoretically you could do it yourself. 

 

Also you sound like you think the full score might be higher -- but the gai score drops certain low scores (such as processing speed/working memory) -- so it is never even used unless it will gives a higher score than the full score.

[idnib]

.

[idnib]

. 

 

[texasmama]

FYI, my son's oultlier HIGH scores were dropped in order to calculate the GAI.  I didn't care for that one bit, even though I understand why. :glare:

[PeterPan]

I would not do a major accommodation like typing for everything (being very literal here) unless you have documentation.  You could be reading someone else's accommodations that had more going on.  You want documentation for that.  

 

Yes, the GAI is trying to give you a sense of what their real abilities are when you remove the disability.  

 

Have you had his eyes checked by a developmental optometrist?  Sounds like you could have a vision issue there.  COVD.org is where you find one.  

[idnib]

. 

 

[kbutton]

FYI, my son's oultlier HIGH scores were dropped in order to calculate the GAI.  I didn't care for that one bit, even though I understand why. :glare:

 

Oh my! That would be distressing.

 

OP, one gifted specialist I've heard speak (not a psych, but more on the education side) says you can't easily fake high scores, but you can have a bad day and bomb a test. She believes that high scores show true potential, so if they are mixed with low scores, they either have really high (gifted) abilities in specialized areas, or they have some deficit that affects their performance but not really their IQ. She said that verbal IQ is the area that is most influenced by a good environment (or hot-housing), so a high verbal score alone is less indicative of overall gifted IQ. She is very clear to state this as an opinion, but it's a pattern she's seen.

 

I am kind of surprised that some superior and very superior scores didn't push him over to a gifted cutoff, though you could be using a higher cutoff than what some people do (to catch more 2e students, I've seen 125 used as the lower range).

 

:grouphug: Hugs on the processing speed. I have one with single digit percentile processing. It's tricky!

[idnib]

. 

 

[LaughingCat]

FYI, my son's oultlier HIGH scores were dropped in order to calculate the GAI.  I didn't care for that one bit, even though I understand why. :glare:

 

The GAI is not calculated by dropping the lowest scores -- it's calculated by dropping specific tests.  But the definitions for GAI I've seen usually say something like "used in place of FSIQ if GAI is at least 7 points higher than FSIQ"   so either the GAI was higher even with dropping the outlier high scores -- or I'd be demanding a detailed explanation of why GAI should be used instead of FSIQ!

[Arcadia]

I had FSIQ and GAI scores for both boys eventhough their report says FSIQ won't be accurate for them because of significant differences between scores. Both of my kids have a 50 points difference between the indices.

 

FYI, my son's oultlier HIGH scores were dropped in order to calculate the GAI. I didn't care for that one bit, even though I understand why. :glare:

My kid's "very superior" WMI score was drop when calculating GAI but his low PSI was drop too. Their GAI is higher than FSIQ.

 

I do agree VCI can be affected by "home enrichment".

 

ETA:

Link was what was given to me to explain GAI. My kids took the WISC-IV but I guess the general idea apply to WISC-V

http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/assets/WISC-IV/80720_WISCIV_Hr_r4.pdf

[Tiramisu]

We didn't get a FSIQ or a GAI from the neuropsych as she thought neither would be accurate. She didn't give a dx of dyspraxia even though those weaknesses accounted for some of the discrepancies. She also was found to have some visual processing weaknesses, which would have also affected different subtests. The only official learning related dx she has is CAPD but that didn't even come up as a weakness in the np testing because the specific problem she has is related to processing competing signals and that's not an issue when she's one-to-one, but it can realy cause problems in real life.

 

The np told us that there would be some things that dd would find easy and others that she would find impossible, but couldn't predict what type of things. And I think that could be true for lots of kids who wouldn't get a FSIQ.

 

Dd is a sophomore in college, in an intense program and is working very hard. She messes up sometimes (usually forgetting or misunderstanding things) but in a small program in a small school, people look out for her. The thing is, she's motivated and dedicated and there are some things that she's very good at, and I think she's recognized for that. I'm sharing this to let you know it will be okay for our kids who can't get a FSIQ. They have their gifts as well as their challenges and they will find their way. In our case, I think the key was dd finding something that she really loved and a career path that would enable her to explore her interest.