REPLY ID: gfnp

Me + My Big, Fat Brain! (Are for Sale :) )
by Nate A. Lindell, created 29 Oct. 2012

After reading Docborgas' comments, I was ever so slightly humbled (that's an extraordinary amount of humbling for me!). For that reason, + because I've seen the impressive curriculum vitae of the testing Dr., and nothing of the like for Docborgas, I reviewed my prison psych' file, specifically the scoring pamphlet for the WAIS-III (as the WAIS-IV was never completed, nor was the W.M.S., neither's scoring pamphlet was in my file - I'm trying to get them tho'!). Below is an accurate replication of what I found, with my comments/interpretations in brackets.

Testing was completed on 31 May, then 2 June of 2012. [I was shackled, in handcuffs, with a chain from my handcuffs to my waist]. The following tests were completed, followed by the points I earned out of the points I could have earned.

1. Picture Completion 24-25
2. Vocabulary 66-66
3. Digital Symbol Coding 62-133
4. Similarities 33-33
5. Block Design 60-68
6. Arithmetic 19-22
7. Matrix Reasoning 24-26
8. Digit Span (forward - 11-16, backward - 9-14) 20-30
9. Information 27-28
10. Picture Arrangement 22-22
11. Comprehension 33-33
12. Symbol Search 48-60 - Numbers correct, 49, incorrect, 1
13. Letter-Number Sequencing 12-21
14. Object Assembly [not offered or done] 0-52

Full-scale score (Verbal + performance) 170

The second column contains the "Age Adjusted Scaled Scores", which are determined with a formula that's unknown to me. Those scaled scores are then added up in specific clusters and in total. [You'll note that the Dr. erroneously added the total, above, + came up with 170 - actually it's 198, + that is without the up to 19 score I could have earned had I scored 52 on the test that was not done].

Anyway, the scaled scores for the subtests are summed up in specific clusters. Then, under that, using another formula I'm unaware of, their IQ/Index Score is determined, under which the percentile the scores rank in is noted.

In my case, it contains the following:

[table of scores]

This pamphlet notes that the highest I.Q. score possible is 155, the lowest 45, on THIS test. Other I.Q. tests may allow for higher scores, and lower too, though I find it hard to believe someone with lower than 45 (or even 45) is testable.

Remember, this [arrow pointing to a score of 170] should be 198, but the 170 is already a 144 I.Q., in the top .2 percent. The proper "full-scale" I.Q. score may put me in the top .1%, or even top .01%.

Okay, so my explanations are not restricted to brackets. I just didn't want readers to think I was altering what I noted from the testing pamphlet, want you to be able to distinguish that info from my words.

The pamphlet also revealed how the Bell or Normal Curve for I.Q. scores lies and the criteria for each 10-point segment, as follows:

[diagram explaining this]

Docborgas is right that my W.M. [working memory] + P.S. [processing speed] fall within the "high average" range, but was wrong to conclude that the 127 he greatly underestimated my F.S.I.Q. [full-scale I.Q.] to be merely falls within the "gifted" range - it'd fall within the high end of the "superior" range, a hair short of "very superior", around the top 4.5%. But, given that even the testing doc short changed the sum of my scaled scores - coming up with 170, when it's really 198 - and neglected to even do the 14th subtest, which could have added up to 19 more points to [being conservative, let's say I would have earned 10] even the testing doc's full scale I.Q. of 144 is short. - "Doc" Borgas - are you REALLY a PhD? Please prove it, beyond using some jargon.

Maybe, because the 14th subtest was never factored in, that's why the testing doc estimated my WMI to fall between 108 + 141, my PSI to fall between 102 + 117, which far exceed the normal SEM. I've invited the testing doc to comment.

Brain power! :)