Anonymous wrote:Ok, thanks. Is there a way to work on visual spatial relationships?

There are online games and learning materials, but also such activities as puzzles, Legos and parquetry tiles (copying the designs--not just creating own patterns), mazes, word searches, etc.

Ok, thanks. Is there a way to work on visual spatial relationships?

Anonymous wrote:Is it unusual to have a verbal of 131 and non verbal of 109? Is this a normal learning pattern?

"Unusual" isn't the term I'd use, but there is a statistically significant difference between the verbal score of 131 (98th %ile; Very Superior range) and the nonverbal score of 109 (73rd %ile; upper end of the Average range). Subtest scores give additional indications of a student's cognitive and learning profile (for example, is the verbal score higher because the child has been exposed to and memorized a lot of vocabulary words), but these scores do suggest that his/her verbal abilities are significantly better developed than nonverbal reasoning skills. There are many students who do beautifully in school with a similar profile. Sometimes, there are students with this profile who might have more difficulty with math-related subjects.

I don't think that's unusual. I think for educational purposes (i.e. success in school), the higher verbal score is better than a higher non-verbal score.

Is it unusual to have a verbal of 131 and non verbal of 109? Is this a normal learning pattern?

It is not easier, just scored slightly differently.

People on this forum have been saying that Form 7 is easier and that's why there have been higher scores, but I don't know the truth to that. The scoring is a little different.

Does anyone know the difference between the Cogat form 7 and the version previously taken? I submitted a parent referral this year, and just realized that my child who took the Cogat at George Mason took a different version than other kids.

Thanks in advance.