I just received the evaluation and test scores for my dd, age 10 yrs 6 mo, grade 3. The IEP meeting to determine eligibility is Thurs AM. The testing was originally delayed because my daughter was in ESL, (adopted and in this country 2.5 years) but when she did satisfactorily on the ESL exit test, they agreed to do the Sp Ed testing.
I was concerned by the psychological evaluation (which includes the intelligence tests) because it seems as if her processing difficulties may be adversely impacting her scores – how can they really do a test of intelligence, without the processing getting in the way? And the educational portion concerned me because they seem to want to interpret many of the difficulties on her English proficiency, and I don’t always agree.
I’m hoping some of you out there can help me interpret and the scores and what to expect from the CST, so I can be better prepared to respond, as my gut says that she won’t qualify because her IQ is low.
Also, if anyone has specific remediation or further testing ideas based on what you read below, any and all input is appreciated.
My own personal gut says further testing for CAPD and Visual Processing, and remediation with TLP (already started) and Audiblox (sequencing, auditory processing, and memory). I also have the brain gym book at home, as well as the Vision-builder software, and earobics. Does that sound right?
Here’s what the “experts” found (sorry if it’s too long):
PSYCH EVALUATION:
Her overall WISC-III scores were as follows:
Scr. IQ Indx %tile
Verbal 33 81 10
Performance 37 83 13
Full Scale 70 81 10
Verbal Comp 25 80 9
Perceptual Org 26 80 9
Freedom fr. Distractability 17 93 32
Raw scores were:
Verbal Scaled Score Performance Scaled Sc.
Information 6 Picture Completion 6
Similarities 9 Coding 11
Arithmetic 8 Picture Arrangement 7
Vocabulary 5 Block Design 7
Comprehension 7 Object Assembly 6
(Digit Span) (9)
Excerpts from the interpretation and evaluation:
“presently functioning in the Low Average range of intellectual classification. The difference between her verbal and performance functioning is not statistically signficant”.
“On verbal scale…displayed average Short-term verbal memory and att. span…low average ability to do mental computations and simple arithmetic…low average understanding of theoretical social situations, low avg abstract verbal reasoning and ability to see relationships between things and ideas. Her general education, cultural knowledge, long term memory, and her verbal knowlege, fluency and word usage were below age expectancy.”
“The Performance Scale demonstrated average ability to learn new non-verbal material. Her ability to plan ahead and understand sequences of action, and her ability to construct an abstract design from its parts were in the low average range. Her ability to visualize and construct a common object from its parts, and her ability to distinguish essential from non-essential deatil were below age expectancy.”
“Visual motor integration skills, as assessed by the Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test, were similar to those of a child age 7-0 to 7-5. Her six scorable errors were distortion of shape as to angles, and circles; and integration. Her angulation skills were immature. She did not place her figures in order on the paper, demonstrating a lack of organizational skills. None of her renderings were severely distorted. She was able to improve her renderings by erasing……This suggests a developmental lag in the ability to integrate visual and motor functioning.”
“Observation: Her teacher reported that she appears to have problems focusing in the classroom. She needs re-direction and frequently misunderstands directions.”
And the grand conclusion: “Perceptual deficits and low average functioning make academic success a challenge”.
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION:
From the Educational Evaluation, we have the following observations, interpretations, and test scores:
“teacher explains that she needs time and reinforcement to grasp concepts fully so that she can transfer this understanding to other skills. At times exhibits difficulty in focusing and staying on task….following directions presents a problem because of her language background”. [I DO NOT AGREE THAT THIS IS A LANGUAGE BACKGROUND PROBLEM…I BELIEVE IT MAY BE A MANIFESTATION OF CAPD.]
“At times she is slow to understand new concepts, and problem-solving multi-step procedures is challenging. With one-on-one instruction she is able to grasp the concept.”
“In the one-to-one testing situation she was not seen as figety or distractible….communication skills adequate for age…some difficulty with grammar and elaborating thoughts verbally….usually able to understand direction if simply stated or modeled, but occasionally did not understand if language or vocabulary used was more complex or involved more than one step.”
“On the Reading Comprehension Tests….performed significantly better on the short, modified cloze method approach on the WJ-III than the paragraph reading samples on the WIAT-II.”
“Reading fluency was adequate, but displayed some difficulty tracking a line of print, which caused misreading errors. Her ability to comprehend and reason reading matter was inconsistent and varied with the level of vocabulary and language complexity….Scores for Picture Vocabulary and Story Recall subtests measured in the low average range suggesting delayed vocabulary, language development, and memory skills.”
“slower to recall number facts and needs to use manipulatives…. consistently made errors when grouping and tended to miss operational signs. On word problems, she exhibited auditory processing and recall weakness. When listening to information, she did not consistently understand when initially presented. She was slower to process information and repetition and prompts were needed. When visual aids and time allowed her to work out, she could be successful. She was able to count sums of money, interpret graphs, and use patterns to solve problems. She was slower to complete 2 step problems, and used repeated addition to substitute for multiplication when problem solving.”
“language arts skills fell in the average to low average range. Spelling of Sounds test revealed mild underlying weakness in sound sequencing when encoding more complex words. ….Able to construct basic and complete sentences fairly well….with more complex sentences she was not as confident. Paragraphs lack sequence and organization of ideas. Handwriting quality varied depending on complexity of writing task.”
“Summary….Classroom performance inconsistent and can be inattentive. Understanding concepts, following directions, and transferring learning are her more significant areas of weakness. Her expressive and receptive language scores (low average) reflect her ESL background. She demonstrates auditory and visual processing weakness which is interfering with academic progress. She is generally more successful when provided a structured approach to academic activities. It is difficult for her to manage multi-step tasks or concepts requiring a higher level of reasoning. She appears to have sequencing and integrative difficulties….She will experience frustration as she moves to the next grade level.”
WJ-III:
Test Raw GE AE
Letter-Word ID 46 3.5 8-10
Reading Fluency 34 3.6 9-0
Story Recall - 1.5 6-11
Calculation 15 3.8 9-4
Math Fluency 47 3.6 9-0
Spelling 29 3.6 8-7
Writing Fluency 17 5.3 10-9
Passage Compr. 25 2.9 8-3
Applied Problems 33 4.4 10-1
Writing Samples 10-C 2.8 8-6
Word Attack 21 4.7 9-11
Picture vocabulary 19 1.6 7-1
Oral Compreh. 15 2.6 8-3
Spelling of sounds 23 2.9 8-4
WIAT-II (Grade Based Scores)
Test SS GE AE
Word Reading 92 2.8 8-0
Reading Comp 93 2.4 7-8
Numerical Ops 92 3.3 8-8
Math Reasoning 110 4.6 9-8
Spelling 100 3.8 9-4
Written Expression 99 3.2 9-0
Listening Comp 81 1.2 6-8
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration
SS 95, Percentile 37
(“Average range — visual motor developing well for her age”).
I would look at both vision testing and testing by an
audiologist. A good friend of mine recently went to an audiologist (here in N.J.) that was very familiar with all of the programs we frequently discuss. Her son has severe CAPD.
The audiologist recommended she do the all the programs in the following order;
The listening program, fast forward and then interactive metronome. It appears this may all be covered by insurance. I will let you know how it goes.
It seems very clear from that report that they admit that your daughter does have processing issues. It is unfortunate that schools in general see such problems as a dead end for the child when that just is not the case. I am not an expert at getting services from the school. I would request the school do an OT and a speech eval as both those things could help her and supplement what you do at home.
I also think audiblox is a very good fit for her and something you may want to do intensively putting all else on hold while you work through that program. It is a great program but only if done intensively.
Audiologist and Dev Optomotrist
Are you the same Linda F that sent me the name of the Dev Optomotrist in NJ a while back? I’ve looked high and low for it, and can’t find it anywhere. Can you post it or send it to me again? Also, it sounds like your friend found an excellent audiologist. I’d appreciate that name as well.
Thanks,
dab-nj
scores
dab,
You don’t give any background on your child. Was she in an orphanage in the other country? Had she had any schooling in her native language? It would be natural if she came from a deprived environment to not have had the experiences to be prepared to score well on an IQ test. She may have never played with puzzles and blocks before. Certainly her vocabulary would not necessarily be age appropriate if she just came here at age 8. I would not blame it all on language; I would blame it on language and deprivation. I honestly don’t think these kinds of scores would be unusual at all for a child adopted from another culture at age 8, and especially if she came from an orphanage with little stimulation. We had a 4 year old adopted in our travel group and she still has similar delays at age 11.
Our child has language delays and APD and she was adopted at age 6 months, so just consider how much longer your child did not have exposure to English and educational stimulation. Many older adoptees have these issues. And more than likely, it will be up to you to work on them as it will be hard to place her LD since they technically see her working to her potential. Not that the school would do the therapies she’d need anyway.
I also don’t particularly see the need for a lot of extra testing either. You basically know she needs to improve her vocabulary and auditory and visual skills. Audiblox sounds good, Earobics, and do direct vocabulary instruction. Her basic picture vocabulary is low, so that needs to be worked on before you get into more complex vocabulary. I’d need to look back at the scores to see what else stands out. But these things would be a good start.
Janis
Hi Dab
My optometrist is Dr. Moskowitz of Park Vision Therapy in Bridgewater. I would highly recommend him. All the evals were covered by our insurance and we may even get the whole thing covered. My fingers are crossed.
The audiologist was recommended by Princeton Speech and Language. They do all these programs so recommend an audiologist who is familiar with all these programs. Now if you can find an audiologist that is in your insurance plan that knows about all these programs you might be able to get this covered. It might take some doing. You can try calling Princeton Speech and Language but I will also try to get the name of the person they directed my friend to. They may have someone closer to your area that they use.
Had eligibility-turned-IEP meeting
I just got back from my eligibility-turned-IEP meeting. They said that although her IQ functioning is “low average”, they still see areas where she has more potential than she is showing, and will classify her and give her help.
So for next year she is getting resource room for lang arts/reading as well as for math, and an available support period (during Sustained Silent Reading time) for getting help with homework or Sci and Soc Studies tests and projects. They suggested totally self-contained, but I said no. She’ll also get one 30 min session a week with the Speech-Language specialist to work on vocab and relationship between words and stuff like that.
They are all so frustrating — none of them seem to believe in, or even know about, remediating the underlying deficits. :? The psych that did the IQ testing never even heard of IM, and didn’t respond at all when I suggested executive function deficits. And when I asked him how the testing could separate the processing deficits from the IQ, and suggested that the processing deficits could be remediated to some extent, he said “you’ve got what you’ve got”, and don’t expect to see more than a few points variation in IQ going forward. I feel like it’s a personal challenge to prove him wrong. :twisted:
And no one seemed to think that she needed to be CAPD tested — it’s just vocabulary and semantics, they think. They said — “she’s only been here 2 years, lets see how she does with the help we plan to give her and go from there.” I said, “and you’ve only seen her a few hours, and I see her every day, and that might give me an edge on knowing what her issues are.” I told them that I don’t want to wait a year to find out whether there are additional strategies or accomodations that would be appropriate, and I expect her to be tested come September.
They are so condescending and pretend to be such experts — they make me crazy. If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself, I guess. So while they help her get by in school, I’ll work on the underlying issues to the best of my available resources. Has anyone experienced a leap in IQ scores after private remediation therapy?
dab-nj
Re: HELP -- test scores and CST interpretations
My son scored 84 on two different IQ tests (age 3 and age 5). We did Fast Forward when he was 7. He then scored 99. Both early evaluations noted that he had trouble following directions.
He still scored very low on several performance subsets—object assembly, picture completion (something like 5 or 6). I think this reflects a difficulty with going from parts to whole and the ability to visualize. He scored above average on other visual parts so it isn’t visual processing in general. I think this can be remediated to some extent and would expect in the long run his IQ to further increase.
Beth
IQ increase
Short answer—yes IQs can leap when underlying deficits are addressed.
My ds was tested five years ago at age 8—VIQ was 91, PIQ was 107 (no FSIQ was given because of the split). This evaluation was done privately, so I have no reason to believe they were biased toward underestimating.
I did not find the neuropsychologist’s recommendations helpful—essentially his sole recommendation was that ds be placed in a private special ed school. He did not recommend CAPD testing (which I didn’t know about at the time) and, although he had heard of FFW, he recommended against it as not helpful. I am sorry to hear that psychologists administering these test are still giving out this type of advice.
I got my son tested for CAPD—he had it—and put him through FFW (spectacular gains in languge scores) and more language therapy. All the while he remained mainstreamed.
He was retested at age 10 1/2 by the school district (which clearly has a bias towards underestimating scores). Also, at the time he was in his worst stages of an autoimmune neurological disorder (also by the way missed entirely by the testing neuropsychologist). VIQ was 104, PIQ was 120 and FSIQ was 114. He was recently tested by an OT who thinks these scores may be low—he scored over 145 on a test she gave him on motor free visual perception.
In a nutshell—yes getting at underlying deficits can raise IQ. You don’t necessarily have what the scores say you have and you really want to make sure that you don’t have a fundamentally intelligent child stymied and frustrated at every turn by processing deficits that are holding him back. I don’t even want to think of what kind of adolescence we would be facing if we hadn’t addressed them.
Re: HELP -- test scores and CST interpretations
That’s great that you got services! You do need to find out what they use for reading, though. Sometimes the kids are no better off unless an appropriate method is being used.
I think if you suspect auditory processing problems, you should seek that testing on your own. I relate that to ADHD, the school can suspect it but cannot not make the diagnosis. I believe it is the parent’s responsibility to get medical testing and the school’s responsibility to do educational testing and remediation. I’d be doing APD testing on my own and advocating at the school for a good reading instruction!
I also understand the schools not dealing with unproven programs like IM or FFW. There just isn’t the independent research there yet to conclusively say it will help all the kids who try it. I did ask my child’s school about providing FFW this summer, but when they declined, I did not complain, as I understand it is not a proven educational method.
Janis
I would check out both CAPD and ADD
I have seen kids with both disorders and many times they are co-morbid, meaning they occur at the same time. In addition it takes a child learning a second language at least 6 years to become proficient in both languages so if she didn’t get a solid base in her first language this could be part of the problem as well.
However, things are popping out at me that show inattention to VISUAL details and kids with CAPD usually do better on the visual tests as they will use their eyes to make up for what their ears aren’t gettting, but kids with ADD will miss both the visual and auditory details as they have sporadic attention. Also, the teacher has concerns with her focusing in the classroom which could be impacted by different variables, distractions in the classroom, signal to noise ratio and the acoustics in the classroom, is her delay in processing due to the fact that she is translating the meaning of words into two languages? It is hard to say without futher testing and I really doubt that a school district will pay money for Interactive Metronome as it is too new and it’s results are also controversial in regards to the generalization of the skills learned through IM to everyday life.
Unfortunately, the way the board formatted the test scores in my last post, the spaces were removed that formed the columns, making it almost impossible to read, unless you were exraordinarily patient. :? So I have reposted the scores with dots and slashes to make the columns readable.
PSYCH EVALUATION:
Her overall WISC-III scores were as follows:
Test……………………………/ Scr /……./IQ Indx/……. /%tile
Verbal………………………../ 33 /……… /81/…………./ 10
Performance………………../ 37 /………/ 83 /…………/ 13
Full Scale……………………./ 70 /………/ 81 /…………/ 10
Verbal Comp………………../ 25 /………/ 80 /…………/ 9
Perceptual Org……………../ 26 /………/ 80 /…………/ 9
Freedom fr. Distractability./ 17 /……../ 93 /…………./ 32
Raw scores were:
Verbal……………….Scaled Score/////Performance………..Scaled Sc.
Information………………6………./////Picture Completion…….. 6
Similarities……………… 9………./////Coding………………….. 11
Arithmetic………………. 8………./////Picture Arrangement….. 7
Vocabulary…………….. 5………./////Block Design……………. 7
Comprehension………. 7………./////Object Assembly……….. 6
(Digit Span)………….. (9)
WJ-III:
Test……………………/ Raw /…………/ GE /……….. / AE
Letter-Word ID………../ 46 /…………/ 3.5 /………../ 8-10
Reading Fluency………/ 34 /…………/ 3.6 /………../ 9-0
Story Recall……………/ - /…………./ 1.5 /………../ 6-11
Calculation……………./ 15 / ………../ 3.8 /………../ 9-4
Math Fluency…………./ 47 /…………/ 3.6 /………../ 9-0
Spelling………………../ 29 /…………/ 3.6 /………../ 8-7
Writing Fluency………./ 17 /…………/ 5.3 /………./ 10-9
Passage Compr………/ 25 /…………./ 2.9 /………./ 8-3
Applied Problems……./ 33 /…………./4.4 /………../ 10-1
Writing Samples……../ 10-C /………/ 2.8 /………./ 8-6
Word Attack…………../ 21 /…………./ 4.7 /………./ 9-11
Picture vocabulary…../ 19 /…………./ 1.6 /………./ 7-1
Oral Compreh………../ 15 /…………./ 2.6 /………./ 8-3
Spelling of sounds…../ 23 /…………./ 2.9 /………../ 8-4
WIAT-II (Grade Based Scores)
Test……………………./ SS /…………./ GE /………../ AE
Word Reading………../ 92 /…………./ 2.8 /………../ 8-0
Reading Comp………./ 93 /…………./ 2.4 /………../ 7-8
Numerical Ops………./ 92 /…………./ 3.3 /………./ 8-8
Math Reasoning……../ 110 /…………./ 4.6 /………./ 9-8
Spelling………………./ 100 /…………./ 3.8 /………../ 9-4
Written Expression…./ 99 /…………../ 3.2 /………../ 9-0