RESPONSE TO INCONSISTENT
Below is a copy of the actual response sent to "Dr. Weksler"
Dear Dr Weksler
Thank you so much for your thorough evaluation of Kate X. We have
read over the report and have just a few teensy questions to ask of
you. One request as well: Please forward to us copies of her
protocols (WISC-III and WIAT) as well as the work sheets from the
WIAT. I would especially like to see the Written expression subtest
from the WIAT. With so many difficulties described in your report,
without that data we could not fully understand and help Kate. She is
certainly a unique individual. Also, "In god we trust, all others
forward the protocol."
You note significant strengths in quite a few areas as well as
significant weaknesses in just as many areas. Some examples:
Significant strength in verbal comprehension,
crystallized intelligence, and extent of outside reading, verbal
concept formation, verbal conceptualization, and verbal reasoning.
Could you please delineate the difference between each of these.
How is verbal comprehension different from crystallized intelligence?
How is verbal concept formation different from verbal comprehension;
verbal conceptualization; crystallized intelligence. Might these each
just different names for the same thing? How can we use these
'strengths' to aid Kate in her classroom?
Significant weaknesses were noted in short term auditory
memory, attention, and concentration.
Where was this noted on the WISC-III? Was it the Arithmetic
subtest, or the Digit Span subtest, or a combination of the two? Were
there any behavioral indicators to support this weakness. Please
define the difference between attention and concentration. Are they
the same or different. Does Kate have a weakness in one or two areas
or both? Memory as measured by the Digit Span (9) was 'average' by
your own definition. Other areas of weakness are identified as being
in sequential learning, memory (as opposed to short term auditory
memory?) convergent production (please define) auditory memory (as
opposed to short term auditory?) simultaneous processing, non verbal
reasoning, visual motor coordination, trial and error learning, and
working under time pressure. Could you please define each of these,
and explain what subtests make them up. Also, isn't this again
calling the same thing by a different name.
You go on to enumerate more weakness based on factor analysis.
Weaknesses in Freedom from Distractibility, perceptual organization,
and processing speed. Weaknesses with scores all in the average range
(90 to 93)? Weakness when compared to what. Other children? Surely
not with standard scores of 90's. Weakness when compared to Verbal
ability? Maybe, but might she have no weaknesses and simply some
wonderfully developed verbal ability. Since Processing speed is new
to the WISC-III, could you please define it for me? I'm having a hard
time understanding what it is really measuring. Could you also tell
us if her score on the Symbol Search was obtained by sacrificing
speed for accuracy or accuracy for speed. How many errors were there
in her raw score of 23? What was the breakdown for digits forward vs. digits backwards?
You note that
"The WISC-II ACIDS Profile indicate index scores of 90 to
So? Is this another areas of weakness. What does ACIDS mean
anyway. Is she reading disabled? Is she anything more or less than
average with scores of 90 to 91. Is this the WISC-II or WISC-III?
Thank you for forwarding the WISC-III printouts you apparently
used to interpret the test. Some questions:
Is it appropriate to play IQ roulette with different index scores.
You chose to take strengths and weaknesses from Bannatyne, Guilford,
Horn, Dean, and Kaufman. Which conceptualization of intelligence do
you espouse and why? Would you please give explanations of each of
these conceptualizations of intelligence. You seem to have determined
strengths and weaknesses by simply looking at lowered scores. Are
they compared to any other score to determine significant
differences. At what level of confidence did you determine the
strength and weakness? 68%? as indicated by the printout. Do you
accept that you are probably wrong 1 out of 3 times. Should we make
educational and remedial decisions and be wrong 33% of the time? What
does Kate's profile look like at the more appropriate 90 or 95%
confidence? Could you please reexamine her in this light? What mean
was she compared to. If she has such a large difference between her
verbal and performance IQ scores, which mean should we compare her
to? The verbal, the performance, or the full scale?
Based on the printout that listed a whole lot of 'index' scores,
how did you choose which to pick for strengths and weaknesses. You
included as a weakness Auditory memory with a standard score index of
90. Why then did you not include Symbolic content with a standard
score of 88. Why not visual motor speed with a standard score of 88?
Emotional and behavioral scales filled out by her teachers were
interesting. They indicated problems in a number of areas including
abstract concepts and reading comprehension. Can you explain the
difference between the teachers perceptions and the results of your
testing. Specifically, difficulty with abstract concepts: Kate's
highest scaled score on the WISC-III was on the Similarities subtest?
Reading comprehension? Your WIAT has standard scores of 109, 105, and
107 for the reading subtests and composite.
Speaking of the WIAT, her lowest score was on the written
expression subtest. A raw score of 9. Could you please forward a copy
of her writing sample and your scoring page. We wish to analyze the
elements of her style. Was her difficulty in Ideas and development,
Vocabulary, Grammar and usage, etc. Your recommendations at the end
of your report list nothing about her 'disability.' If there is a
disability in the area of written expression, why are there no
Her second lowest score was on Oral Expression. How does this jibe
with a child you identified as having strengths in verbal
comprehension, crystallized intelligence, extent of outside reading,
verbal concept formation, verbal conceptualization, and verbal
reasoning. Again the protocol may help us to understand your
interpretations. Might it be that you forgot to add in the 10 points
allotted for items 1-10 on that subtest? Might it be that item 15 on
the protocol does not give room to place the correct number of
You diagnosis lists under Specific developmental disorder NOS,
oral expression. Her oral expression score was not significantly
different from her predicted score? Again, how does this coincide
with the verbal strengths that you identified from the WISC-III?
Also, is 'organization and planning' a developmental disorder listed
The scales also highlighted some other areas of concern
(organizational deficits, lack of preparation for assignments and
homework, short term/long term memory deficits). You conclude that
these characteristics are consistent with undifferentiated attention
deficit disorder. Could you explain this in more detail. According to
DSM-IV, in order to 'qualify' as ADD, a child must meet at least a
certain number of characteristics. You have described 3.
You note that the Juvenile sentence completion suggested themes of
low self esteem. Can you explain how this fits with the descriptions
from the California Test of Personality:
"Strengths were noted in feelings of self esteem, denial
of withdrawal symptoms, and freedom from nervous symptoms or anti
Overall you report that her profile
"suggests that Faith perceives her social and personal
adjustment to be average."
Can you explain the apparent contradictions from your summary that
"poor school achievement, and immature social skills manifest during
elementary school." ? Is this a complete sentence or just a mistake
when transferring from the computer printout?
In the area described as the Diagnostic interview, you note that
"The rest of her spelling was so poor her writing was
Was her spelling poor, her writing poor, or both? The spelling
subtest of the WIAT had a standard score of 99? Below average (?)
What happened? Which is the most valid measure of her ability?
The Personality Inventory for Children reflected poor study
skills, distractibility and difficulty in completing assignments. Is
this the 180 question short form, the 200+ question intermediate form
or the 420 question long form.
You did include in the packet page 7 of the PIC printout. Could
you provide the rest of the printout. What personality type was she
anyway. From your write up (or should I say your copying of the PIC
printout) I could not tell what type Kate was. She appeared from page
7 to match closely the personality of type 5 and 6 (.66 and .69
respectively). Why or how were these personality types discounted.
Please explain in writing how we are to put faith in a computer
printout that has identified Kate as most closely resembling children
placed in classrooms for the Educable mentally retarded and the
trainable mentally retarded. You had noted that this may be related
to Kate's difficulty in socialization. Could you expand on this poor
socialization. According to the body of your report, there is nothing
to suggest poor socialization. According to the California Test of
Personality, "Kate's social adjustment is at the 40th percentile and
her overall adjustment at the 50th percentile."?
What was the t score for the L and F scales on the PIC. Maybe they
In your summary you again highlight that the ACIDS profile was at
the 25%ile. What is this indicating?
In the paragraph that starts with "Personality testing suggests
adequate personality development....." you write
"they function well within their families and within
special education programs."
Who are "they?"
In the recommendations,
1: you note that these findings should be shared with the school
in designing a special education program. Did you check with the
school to see what is being offered now, whether Kate is having any
difficulty in school, and what her current achievement is?
3: "Continued individual counseling focusing on low self
esteem,...." This for a child who in the report is described as
having "adequate personality development" and a "strength" noted "in
feelings of self esteem"???
4.g: Again the comment about low self esteem. We need some
4.h & i: oops. same recommendation
4.l: Who is Faith?
4.n: Independent reading. Does she need to reap benefits in the
area of vocabulary? Your WISC-III Vocabulary score was one of her
4.p: "Fatigue is likely to increase versus decrease activity
level, hence, Kate should be well rested." Nice suggestion, but where
is this from. Nowhere in the report did I read of any mention of
fatigue, etc.? Again enlighten us please.