Hmm, they don't go back to an easier one if the kid can't get the age-appropriate ones?
What if the kid needs more than 20 seconds to get it? Score is zero? Does the kid know there is a time limit?
Still seems strange. Seems pretty unhelpful to score zero if the kid is, say, 2/3 years behind.
we back up to try and establish a base score - but of course there are only so many questions to go back through.. if you reach the bottom of the test with no correct responses then it is, indeed a zero. Some tests the child knows there is a time limit, some they don't. We usually try to prompt a response if we think they have it but are running out of time. That's something I'd comment on in the narrative report though.
I remember a poster on here ages ago (KPzz, I think) said that if the test scores don't match the child you know, then there is something wrong with the scores. You would know if your child had such a problem with tasks like the visual puzzles tasks (to the point of her getting a zero) without needing a test to tell you.
this is so true... there shouldn't be too many suprises in test results, more like aha moments usually. I tell clients though, that I can only report on what I see on the day, and it is merely a snapshot of the child at that time. I cross reference with extensive background info and school / home reports to try and make sense of what I'm seeing.
Which brings up another thing. I thought IQ was mental age over chronological age. So there were two sections where the average "age equivalent" was over 15yo, which would give a quotient close to 150, but the score and percentile did not fit with that. So color me confused. I should be able to ask the psych about this, but I don't trust her at this point.
this is the old fashioned ratio IQ score, but is not relevant to current scores
Block design was also supposedly below average, as was coding (processing speed). But within a range where it could have been her being distracted or whatever.
I see several other things that make no sense. For one, in the verbal section the age equivalent of 14:6 and 14:10 get a scaled score of 14, but in the fluid reasoning section 14:10 gets a scaled score of 11 and 63%ile. (Kid's age was 10:8 so if 14:10 is accurate then I don't think that is 63%ile.) Another FR subtest is ">16:10" age equivalent but only 91 %ile.
you mentioned poor motor skills - this could certainly impact on coding which is a pencil and paper task. The rules for block design are also fairly tight, so if motor skills are poor enough they can impact on the result. This would e commented on in the narrative report.
The variance in the subtest scores reflects how rapidly those skills develop at different ages. So if a particular skill is likely to develop quickly at, say age 10, then 5 more points might not make much difference to the scaled score, and only move the age equivalence a few months, but if another skill is likely to develop slowly, then 5 points could be a huge leap in scaled score and a few years in age equivalence. I'm thinking of one subtest on a test battery that goes something like 7y3m, 7y5m, 7y6m, 8y, 9y6m, 12y, 14y for consecutive scores. I can also idenitify at least two subtests on that same battery where a 10 year old scoring at 14 would be at the mid 60th percentile... it just means that it's not too unusually to have 10 year olds score at that level on that subtest. The scores you're mentioning above are entirely possible.
It sounds like you have a number of valid concerns and more information should definitely be forthcoming (and not at extra cost to you!) Any subtest that is scored (genuinely) at 0 would get a specific comment from me about what was going on.