I wish to make it clear - I am not a psychologist, I am speaking from knowledge gleaned as a parent (and in the past, frequent subject of IQ tests).
Just so I don't have to keep flicking back up to the top of the page - here are the scores you posted.
"Basic IQ 105
Performance IQ 123
PRI 112
VCI 99
WMI 77---this is the memory thing"
Sveng said it, I'll say it too - IQ tests are not good at testing kids with learning problems.
When IQ tests were developed, they tested a wide range of people/kids who would have all been considered "normal" by the standards of the day. And think about it - anybody who was particularly slow, or different, would probably have not been in school or would have been in an institution.
Once they had amassed data from the wide range of subjects, the ranges would have been charted and at some point (usually based on Standard Deviation) the lines would have been drawn as to what constitutes "normal". We talk about kids being in the "top 5%" or "bottom 30%" of the population, and often these stats are based on these old results which are, frankly, badly skewed in favour of Western, white, Anglo kids with no or minimal learning problems. To then apply these tests and results to a kid with learning problems - you have to keep this in mind if you are to get valid and useful information from the process.
One thing I feel SHOULD NOT be done - is to average out the test results and give a kid an IQ score, when the discrepancies are just too wide.
As you can see from the results, IQ testing is complex and consists of a number of different tests, each working on a different area of function. Kids with learning problems of various kinds - these tests can be very useful because they can pinpoint exactly where the child has problems, which then can be used to help them in these deficit areas.
The trouble is, this isn't always what happens. A problem I've had when my kids were assessed by the school district - they averaged out the sub-scores and then declared that not only was the child not bright enough to warrant extension in what I considered skill areas, the child was considered by the school to be doing well enough "for a kid with that IQ score".
difficult child 3 was the most recent kid this happened to - we had actually taken part in a research project through the uni which was testing kids with a diagnosis of autism in order to see which sub-score areas these kids were consistently scoring significantly lower. I gave a copy of this testing and the report to the school. So there had been no need to re-test difficult child 3 by the school six months later, especially since it was done without my knowledge (or permission). The school counsellor gave me the report which was very brief. Her verbal summary was, "You must be so proud of him, he's got an IQ of 115 so he's brighter than average. And for an IQ like that, he's really doing well especially in maths and science. It's not as if he's a genius, you shouldn't have your expectations too high. And it's good that he won't be feeling as frustrated as we thought."
I checked her sub-scores for difficult child 3 - he had scored very high in most areas but in the deficit areas his scores were so low that when all of the scores were averaged, it brought the overall result down a long way. The highest score was about 18, the lowest was 5.
I looked up the rules for analysing these tests and found a strict injunction - when testing on a child produced wide variations in sub-scores then they should not be averaged out since this will give a false low impression of the child's IQ.
difficult child 3 had, six months earlier, been given a conservative IQ score of about 145. I was also given a list of his problem areas with suggestions to support him and help him overcome the problems in these areas.
If IQ tests have ANY validity, it shouldn't be possible to get a higher IQ score than you're capable of, in any sub-test. Of course it's possible to get a lower score - you could deliberately fail a test, for example, or be having a difficult day and not be able to concentrate. But a child tested on their absolutely best day of all still can't get a higher score than they are capable of.
So this means that if you look at the highest score a child has got in any sub-test, this is likely to be an indication of what the child should be able to do across the board, were it not for the learning problem.
Where there are wide differences between sub-scores for a child in an IQ test, the school can either identify the child as having no problem, or as being both gifted and learning disabled.
The trouble with the latter - the school has now identified a child who needs help in two disparate areas, therefore the school must now strive to meet the needs of this child. Not easy. Not cheap. Much cheaper to average it all out and say, "No problem. Just discipline. Therefore - parenting problem."
A child shouldn't be tested too often, either, or you end up with a child who is very skilled at taking IQ tests. Again, this can give you false results.
We bought a software package (it came as a 'freebie' with some educational software) which screamed on the packaging, "Boost your IQ!"
We all had a go with it. The software was a multiple choice quiz of a few hundred problems randomly chosen from a database of about a thousand problems. The software kept records of who was doing the test, when, and what the previous scores were for that person.
I did the test over and over. By about the fifth time I had raised my IQ score from about 130 to 200 - the highest possible score.
I'm not that smart. I don't believe the software package increased my intelligence. What it DID do - it trained me to get the answers right.
We actually did for difficult child 1 what I suggest for you - send the detailed test scores to someone private. What happened with difficult child 1 - the low scores in areas of concern were the focus, the private expert then did more tests specifically to identify in more detail what the problem might be. It was very helpful indeed. Also a lot cheaper than getting the private person to have done the lot in the first place.
The scores you have given here are themselves each an average. There must exist, somewhere, the finer detail. They may not release it to you, but if you can see if they will send detailed testing scores to a private psychologist of your choice. There should be nothing wrong with the actual testing process itself; it's the analysis where you need a keener eye.
You've got "performance IQ 123" but "Basic IQ 105". I fail to see how a child could be performing ABOVE his capability. And the working memory thing of 77 I think shows clearly the problem he has in actual, practical function. It tells me (remember, I'm a lay person) that your child is brighter than average, within the top 10% of the population, but has considerable difficulty manipulating information in his head. This will mean that he will have difficulty following complex verbal instructions, will have trouble taking notes in class, will only be able to copy notes a few words at a time (less than other kids), will need to be told things over and over, will have trouble with writing tasks. There ARE ways to manage this - we taught difficult child 1 to use mind maps (aka clustering) and to write instructions down and follow written lists. He uses his long-term memory to compensate and over the years has adapted.
Your son's scores are very similar to difficult child 1's. He has (currently) a diagnosis of ADHD plus Asperger's Syndrome. He only had ADHD as a diagnosis until he was 15. It never explained everything.
Taking stims helped difficult child 1 a lot, but never enough. easy child 2/difficult child 2 has a similar (milder) memory problem, a low dose of stims almost eliminates it for her.
We tried a lot of things with difficult child 1 that didn't work. We also found some things that worked brilliantly. He is still a work in progress. If there is anything I can do, or share with you, that you feel could help your son - just ask.
Marg