How valid is WISC III?

It is part of a snapshot in time in evaluating an indiviual’s intelligence; read more about it on http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/test_descriptions.htm The most reliable look at a child’s IQ would be to have 2-3 testings done 2-3 years apart using the same instrument. Are you questioning your own child’s testing? I would urge you to talk to the evaluator, not to rely on advice received over the web from persons who have never met or tested your child. It’s like getting medical advice over the web, be very careful. In fact the new IDEA and the latest info. on identfying LD does not depend on an IQ/achievement discrepancy…read more about it on this site.

Of course an LD affects IQ … the test assesses abilities, and if you are disabled in one area, if the test is doing its job you won’t do as well.
And you’re right, you can’t isolate the raw “ability to process information” from the opportunities to get information from your background — and the more subtle ways the test is angled towards the way the culture of the test designers process information.
And then there’s the whole emotional deal — there was this fascinating study where two groups were given IQ tests — but one group was told that it was an IQ-type test, the other… that it was a problem-solving skills test or something like that. The latter group did significanlty better. Same test, different semantics, I believe “minority” students who, the obvious hypothesis was, had already absorbed an expectation of “not doing well on IQ tests.” I can tell you that I’ve seen kids’ scores go up from one triennial to the other because they had learned to try to figure out what a tester wanted instead of being satisfied with “oh, I don’t know.”
The numbers can be very useful for telling you what kinds of thinking come mroe naturally and what could be developed. I’ve found those subtest scores a valuable piece of information, extremely useful in understanding patterns of thinking and learning. I have had students who simply didn’t match those numbers, though — for them, at least, that particular test was not valid.

you found an evaluator you know and trust. Others have paid well over $1000 or $1500 to evaluators who for myriad reasons have failed them. Many of them can administer the tests competently enough but really fall down on the job of interpreting the results and figuring out what steps need to be taken to remedy the child. Re-evaluation often isn’t option because of money or not wanting to put their child through the process all over again. For these people who have not been as lucky as you, this website is a godsend. As is the web generally for parents with children with medical problems mainstream doctors know little about.

“In fact the new IDEA and the latest info. on identfying LD does not depend on an IQ/achievement discrepancy”

I found this a topic of great interest as well….I’ve often wondered how they can come up with a valid IQ if LDs detract from the testing scores.

And I am particularly curious about the above statement from SAR’s post. Does the “new IDEA” refer to something that is already in effect, or changes that are proposed?
dab-nj

I suspect this inital post was from a parent…I would always start with asking the intial evaluator to explain the testing; then move on …use the web site I rec. in my initial post to help understand testing in general, and search that site for a good article called psychologist or soothsayer. Testing is only a piece of the story, but if it is repeated every 2=3 years you will have a more accurate picture.