 
WJ III Odd
Scores Explained
I recently tested an 8 year old girl, referred in response to concerns
regarding math difficulties and, to a lesser extent, reading delays. I gave her
the first 17 tests on the WJIII Cognitive, which produced a GIA score of 79.
Her GIA is surprisingly low, given her scores on each of the 17 tests. Of the
17, one standard score was 79, one was lower, and the other 15 were higher. In
some cases, scores were considerably higher than the GIA.
I understand that some scores carry more "weight" than others in determining
the GIA, and that not all 17 scores I obtained are used in the GIA. I'm
still surprised that the scores listed below yielded a GIA that low. I'd
appreciate it if someone could enlighten me as to how this occurs. Many thanks.
GIA Ext. 79
VERBAL
ABILITY Ext. 91 
THINKING
ABILITY Ext. 87 
COG
EFFICIENCY Ext. 72 


Verbal Comp. 91 
Gen Inf 91 
VisAud 86 
Ret. Flu.
88 
Spat. Rel.
90 
Pic. Recog.
102 
Sound
Blend. 87 
Aud. Atten.
111 
Concept
Form. 89 
Analysis/Syn
86 
Vis. Match.
79 
Dec. Speed
84 
Num. Rev.
72 
Mem for
Words 83 


Inc. Words
95 

Aud.
Working Mem. 101 

VisAud
Learning Del z=.32 

First, of course, Inc.
Words 95 and Aud. Working Mem. 101 don't count in the GIA.
Second, the mean of the 14
tests that do count is 88.5. That would be equivalent to a scaled score of
7.7. If a student averaged 7.7 on ten WISCIII subtests, the FSIQ Sum of Scaled
Scores would be 77, which would yield a FSIQ standard score of 85, so the
difference between your GIA of 79 and the mean standard score of 88.5 is 9.8
points and the difference between the GIA and the FSIQ you would get on a
WISCIII with similar subtest scores is only 6 points.
Third, if you multiply each
test by its weight for age 8 (p. 153 of the Technical Manual), the weighted sum
is 87.58. The two
highest scores (Picture Recognition and Auditory Attention) had the two lowest
weights.
Fourth is that issue we
discussed at great length some time ago, and for which Mark
Daniel solicited a name. [My choice, the
Luke Composite Effect, from the Gospel of Luke 8:18, imitating Keith
Stanovich's Matthew (25:29) Effects and
Ron
Dumont's Mark (4:25) Penalty was voted out.]
The point, though, as discussed most recently by Cathy Fiorello and Hubert
Lovett, was that composite scores are
more extreme (farther from the mean) than the average of the component scores.
The fifth issue is how one
defines general intelligence. [I don't, so I am out of the discussion from here
on.] The Wechsler scales have traditionally emphasized mostly Gc and Gv, which
would have left you with scores of 91, 91, 90, and 102 for a mean of 93.5.
Colin
Elliott included Gf in his Differential Ability
Scales core subtests, which would add scores of 89 and 86 for your kid, making
the mean 91.5. The WJ
III, based on CHC theory, includes Ga, Gs, Gsm. and Glr, which pulls your kid's
average down to 88.5 and the weighted sum farther down to 87.5 before the
composite effect kicks in for the final pull to 79.
John Willis
