Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, one issue is that WISC seems to place a mathematically impossibly high number of people above the 90th percentile. I am not sure if it is not scaled correctly or if graders routinely score students above what the original base lining used.

90th % means 1 out of 10. From a class of 30, it is possible to have 3 kids who will make around 90% or better on WISC.
It is different from 98% (1 out of 50) and 99% (1 out of 100).

Thanks for doing some simple division problems for me?

Anonymous wrote:Well, one issue is that WISC seems to place a mathematically impossibly high number of people above the 90th percentile. I am not sure if it is not scaled correctly or if graders routinely score students above what the original base lining used.

90th % means 1 out of 10. From a class of 30, it is possible to have 3 kids who will make around 90% or better on WISC.
It is different from 98% (1 out of 50) and 99% (1 out of 100).

Anonymous wrote:Well, one issue is that WISC seems to place a mathematically impossibly high number of people above the 90th percentile. I am not sure if it is not scaled correctly or if graders routinely score students above what the original base lining used.

This is a skewed sample obviously. That is not evidence that the WISC is overestimating intellectual ability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my case my child's word knowledge and vocabulary (meaning social and practical knowldge) a section in VCI came out to be weak. The other one "similarities" is 92%. Rest are above 90%. I am under impression that WMI,PSI are inherent(genetic) but VCI is environmental like how much exposure child is given. So can VCI be improved by giving good exposure? I might be comapletely wrong. Correct me if I am wrong.

My child had very low "comprehension" 2 years ago (when tested by GMU) -- think 25th percentile. A neuropsychologist tested her (for ADHD and LDs) this year and comprehension was in the 90th percentile range. I questioned the neurospcyh and she told me a lot of things in the earlier test seemed "off" compared to her 3 days of testing with my child (including the WISC). She told me to shred the first WISC because she thought it was totally wrong. I think either the tester was clueless or DD really matured over that 2 year period.

This is the long way of saying I think comprehension could come with maturity (especially considering what they are testing) and testers can be bad or have a poor rapport with your child.

Thanks for explaining it ti me, but in my case tester was not bad nor did he/she have poor rapport but I am hopeful that after few years my child's comprehension will improve with maturity.

OP (pp here whose son took the WISC V) a high score in similarities is fantastic. That is verbal, abstract reasoning. I was pleased to see that it was my DS's highest score in VCI. I was less interested in the other subtests. If your DD also did well in matrix reasoning, then intellectual potential is very high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my case my child's word knowledge and vocabulary (meaning social and practical knowldge) a section in VCI came out to be weak. The other one "similarities" is 92%. Rest are above 90%. I am under impression that WMI,PSI are inherent(genetic) but VCI is environmental like how much exposure child is given. So can VCI be improved by giving good exposure? I might be comapletely wrong. Correct me if I am wrong.

My child had very low "comprehension" 2 years ago (when tested by GMU) -- think 25th percentile. A neuropsychologist tested her (for ADHD and LDs) this year and comprehension was in the 90th percentile range. I questioned the neurospcyh and she told me a lot of things in the earlier test seemed "off" compared to her 3 days of testing with my child (including the WISC). She told me to shred the first WISC because she thought it was totally wrong. I think either the tester was clueless or DD really matured over that 2 year period.

This is the long way of saying I think comprehension could come with maturity (especially considering what they are testing) and testers can be bad or have a poor rapport with your child.

Thanks for explaining it ti me, but in my case tester was not bad nor did he/she have poor rapport but I am hopeful that after few years my child's comprehension will improve with maturity.

Anonymous wrote:In my case my child's word knowledge and vocabulary (meaning social and practical knowldge) a section in VCI came out to be weak. The other one "similarities" is 92%. Rest are above 90%. I am under impression that WMI,PSI are inherent(genetic) but VCI is environmental like how much exposure child is given. So can VCI be improved by giving good exposure? I might be comapletely wrong. Correct me if I am wrong.

My child had very low "comprehension" 2 years ago (when tested by GMU) -- think 25th percentile. A neuropsychologist tested her (for ADHD and LDs) this year and comprehension was in the 90th percentile range. I questioned the neurospcyh and she told me a lot of things in the earlier test seemed "off" compared to her 3 days of testing with my child (including the WISC). She told me to shred the first WISC because she thought it was totally wrong. I think either the tester was clueless or DD really matured over that 2 year period.

This is the long way of saying I think comprehension could come with maturity (especially considering what they are testing) and testers can be bad or have a poor rapport with your child.

I have heard an admissions officer at a good school claim literally half of their applicants get above 90% on the WPSII (sp?). There is obviously a sample selection bias there since the stronger kids seek admission. But it still seems nearly impossible statistically.

Anonymous wrote:Well, one issue is that WISC seems to place a mathematically impossibly high number of people above the 90th percentile. I am not sure if it is not scaled correctly or if graders routinely score students above what the original base lining used.

Yeah, I wondered about that too PP!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am getting an impression in this forum that AAP committees consider FSIQ of low 130s are pretty common or low for admission to AAP.
My DC also got rejected with WISC FSIQ of 132(98%) and GAI 135(99%).

Did your tester actually provide and discuss the GAI? The very small difference between the FSIQ and GAI indicate that there was not even enough of a discrepancy between the VCI/PRI and he PSI/WMI to necessitate calculation of the GAI.

No, GAI was not in the original report. But school put the wrong number for GAI on Data report sheet (it should've been blank) that I asked for the right calculated GAI score from the doctor, so I can provide right number for the appeal.

Anonymous wrote:I am getting an impression in this forum that AAP committees consider FSIQ of low 130s are pretty common or low for admission to AAP.
My DC also got rejected with WISC FSIQ of 132(98%) and GAI 135(99%).

Did your tester actually provide and discuss the GAI? The very small difference between the FSIQ and GAI indicate that there was not even enough of a discrepancy between the VCI/PRI and he PSI/WMI to necessitate calculation of the GAI.

Anonymous wrote:I started suspecting because anyone I see in this forum all have almost minimum 130

It takes at least an IQ of 130 to get into Mensa. That is the top 2% of those taking IQ tests. I seriously doubt that very many of those posting here are at that level.

That is to say, very many of the kids who are getting above 90% would not do so if they took an IQ test designed for grown ups once they have completed schooling.

Well, one issue is that WISC seems to place a mathematically impossibly high number of people above the 90th percentile. I am not sure if it is not scaled correctly or if graders routinely score students above what the original base lining used.

I am getting an impression in this forum that AAP committees consider FSIQ of low 130s are pretty common or low for admission to AAP.
My DC also got rejected with WISC FSIQ of 132(98%) and GAI 135(99%).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my case my child's word knowledge and vocabulary (meaning social and practical knowldge) a section in VCI came out to be weak. The other one "similarities" is 92%. Rest are above 90%. I am under impression that WMI,PSI are inherent(genetic) but VCI is environmental like how much exposure child is given. So can VCI be improved by giving good exposure? I might be comapletely wrong. Correct me if I am wrong.

Maybe, but probably not by much. These are reasoning scores, not achievement scores. In fact, processing and working memory could see some modest improvement with some therapies-- core intelligence (verbal and non verbal reasoning) is more likely to remain within a certain bandwidth.

I think the new WISC V (my son took it last month) is even less vulnerable to environmental influences or preparation than the WISC IV. My DS took the WISC IV about two years ago, and I much prefer the WISC V.

Did your child score the same with wisc 4 and 5?

Yes- all scores fell within the 95% confidence interval given on the first test. The only score that changed, was non verbal reasoning, which went up by 10 points. The WISC IV tester from two years ago said at that time that she expected that DS was still developing in that area.

I do agree with the pp that executive functioning and age can affect test scores This does not mean that the test results is manipulated- an experienced tester will indicate if they think a child underperformed, and it's generally recommended that six is the minimum age to expect a stable score. My son has ADHD (unmedicated) and obtained a very high score on both tests, with a relatively lower score in processing which tends to be more vulnerable to the affects of attention issues.

I would add the the quality and experience of the tester could play a role in scores.