Processing Speed and The Interactive Metronome

I can honestly say that in the post test that was done my son’s processing speed did not really increase. She did a modified version of a woodcock johnson.
He was very still very low in processing.
In a more recent test done (2 months after IM finished)at a Vision therapists office his processing was improved by one grade level from the post test. These were different tests and I may be comparing apples to oranges but it is all I have. They both say they use a woodcock johnson but they call each skill something a little different. One uses grade equivalent and one uses age.
I am assuming age 5=k, age 6= 1st grade, age 7=2nd grade etc. If I am wrong to assume that I would appreciate being corrected.

I don’t know what this really means. I have seen my son make big gains at school. The gains continue since IM is finished. His coordination has improved and he is doing more things that I feel are furthering those skills along. He still sometimes takes longer than most to get things done like homework. I really don’t think I have a good sense of his processing speed. It seems to vary based on alot of external factors, like being tired, doing some exercise before taking on a mental task etc.

To truly look at the impact of IM on your child’s processing speed, it is important that the pre and post tests use the same type of scoring criteria- thus if they calculated an age- based score for the first test, then they calculate an age- based score for the second. It does not really matter whether they use age or grade- based scores- only that the same type of score is used both times. Glad I’m hearing so much about IM on this board- I’m a psychologist deciding whether to offer it as a service. I appreciate the input from parents.

Thank you for that. I am not someone who is very familar with tests and their meaning. After giving the tests another look, I think I can explaing the change better.
We did not do a pretest.

Immediately after IM my son was given (as it is stated on the form) The Wookcock-Johnson 111 Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Achievement based on age 8-10. At the time of this test he was 8 years and 10 months.
I am only giving age equivalents here because although they give many scores for the first test the second one only gave age equivalent.
Processing speed = 6 years 8 months
Visual Matching = 6 years and 6 months
Decision Speed = 7 years and 0 months

At a different office 1 month later he was given a test based on The Gibson Cognitive Test Battery and the Woodcock Reading Mastery.

Processing speed = 7years 8 months
Visual processing = 7 years 5 months
Auditory Analysis = 7 years 3 months.

I have to say that in the month that followed IM I have seen my son continue to make gains. I can’t say for sure if that is why his processing speed seemed to make that jump. I do feel that these gains were sparked by IM because I started to see them during IM and they just continue.
I still see gains. I would really like to have his processing speed tested a third time because I think it has improved further based on a change I have seen in his math abilities and a few other things.
I really wish I could provide even more objective evidence but as I said this is all I have.

Thanks for the information about your son’s scores. Yes, it’s impossible to know what impact IM had on his scores since there was no pretest. I’m not familiar with the Gibson scales so it makes it also hard to compare the WJ and Gibson processing speed scores. You see the two scales may view processing speed differently. Moreoever, two similar tests should not be repeated in short periods of time- children do better and better with each administration because of the practice. OH well. I do value your impressions and observations and was glad to hear that you see improvement. I’ll keep researching IM- and will give more thought to pre and post testing.

Is “processing speed” an absolute, universally agreed to , description of something ? Or does the phrase mean different things to different people? I’m asking because as I posted above about the CAS test my son took, he looks on paper like ADHD, not LD, according to those results. But our neuropsych refutes a conclusion of ADHD saying his low scores in attention and planning are a result of slow work. But isn’t slow work a result of slow processing, and therefore correlated with ADD-inattentive? And how does exec. function fit in here? I ‘m just trying to drill down to the root cause if I can.

Many people on these boards are using the processing speed score from the WISC III, I think, when they speak of processing speed. Take a look at your child’s WISC, is the processing speed one or more standard deviations from the FS IQ score? Executive functioning is well described at www.tourettesyndrome.net/ef.htm Yes, there’s a big overlap between ADHD and executive function problems; if you read the work of Dr. Russell Barkley, you’ll get the feeling that it’s all ADHD. Many people on the fence do a trial of stimulant meds, because if they work, they work…if they don’t then you go on to something else.

Yes his processing speed on the WISC was very low (6th %tile), and his planning and attention on the CAS were also really low. And fits some, but not enough for a dx, of ADD-inattentive. (Interactive Metronome by the way has improved his focus at home - can’t tell how much has carried over at school.)

But the low processing on the WISC was described as being primarily due to graphomotor problems. His freedom from distractibility was 88th %tile. He is described as having a good attention span.

Can’t blame you for your confusion- I’m often confused and it’s my job to try to evaluate it! Generally we assess processing speed by having the child perform a simple rote task as fast as they can. So there shouldn’t be any reasoning or complex problem solving involved- the task is supposed to be that simple. One major problem with trying to weed through these functions is that they are intrinsically inter-related. While there are areas of our brains the “specialize” in certain functions- there are so many interconnections that make the complexity of our thinking possible, that it is very difficult to pinpoint that specific deficit (root cause) that explains the child’s difficulties. Moreoever, while we’ve made great progress in our neuropsychological evaluations, we are still only assessing the outward manifestation of the deficit- we cannot look directly at the deficit (I’m becoming interested in brain imaging techniques for this reason). Also, our tests, while designed to be narrow in their focus, cannot help but tap on multiple functions. For instance a “processing speed” task may also tap on sustained attention, short- term memory, and visual tracking- and even graphomotor skill if it’s a paper and pencil task. We still have a long way to go. A good evaluator will evaluate functions from many angles and will integrate the information- look at the overall picture- for the final conclusions. The fact that our diagnostic system is woefully inadequate doesn’t help! However, when recommendations are considered, keep that interconnectedness of the brain in mind- you can intervene in multiple ways and help the child.

I agree with the other poster (can’t remember her name is that ADD or over 40? :0)

These areas, as I am finding out, (only done the graduate study of life with an LDer) are very intertwined.

My daughter has visual processing and auditory processing deficits, also executive functioning problems,k SI and ADD. ADD meds helped TREMENDOUSLY, but still she can’t copy from the board and write well.

If the ADD is a BIG part of the problem, then the meds should show a tremendous improvement early on (ours within 2 days) , though the other deficits are still there.

I think its a process of elimination. Unfortunately a very costly and time consuming experience, but well worth the effort when you begin to fit the puzzle together.