Dr. Devon MacEachron\'s Blog

    SUBSCRIBE

    Sign up and I'll let you know when I update the blog.
    * = required field

Breaking News! Full Scale IQ is out for identifying 2e students as gifted! Measures that capture their strengths better are in!

What is the WISC-V? The most common IQ test most of us use to assess intelligence is the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). It was first published in 1949 and is updated about every 10-12 years. We’re now on the WISC-V which came out in 2014.

What was wrong with the WISC-IV? Why did they have to change it? There are several reasons the WISC is updated. One is to reflect what we’ve learned about abilities. For example, the WISC-V places a greater emphasis on fluid intelligence which we’ve learned is a critical higher order process. It also separates fluid and visual-spatial reasoning into separate processes, as they should be. Tests are also updated in order to re-norm them. The “norm group” is the group of people in the test sample that constitute the comparison group. Newer versions of the WISC try to ensure that the norm group is representative of the current population, with representative samples from different ethnic groups, income levels, IQ levels, etc. Also, re-norming is important to compensate for the Flynn effect. I could write a whole blog about the Flynn Effect, but the gist of it is that IQ scores in the population are increasing, so if we use older IQ tests today we are likely to get inflated scores. This is one reason why scores on tests like the Stanford Binet-LM are suspect (in my opinion) as that test was published in 1972. There are newer versions of the Stanford Binet but some testers prefer to use the older version partly because it results in higher IQ scores.

But I’m supposed to be talking about the WISC-V. At first I was excited to see it conformed better to what we know about intelligence today. But then I began noticing that there are some problems, especially for 2e gifted identification. I reached out to some colleagues and it turned out a number of us were concerned. So we decided to figure out what was going on and try to do something about it.

Why is it harder to identify gifted and 2e students with the WISC-V? There were a number of changes from the WISC-IV to the WISC-V which have made it less useful in identifying gifted and 2e learners. One was to have the Full Scale IQ score calculated from only 7 tests rather than the prior 10 subtests. I can only imagine this was to make it shorter to administer. They also reduced the number of subtests in each of the key composites (Verbal Comprehension, Working Memory, etc.) from 3 subtests to just 2. They added a fifth index (visual spatial). Nice, but the use of five indexes skews the longtime balance between verbal and visual reasoning toward visual. Yet, children are often referred for testing for giftedness based on articulate verbal expression, and we need robust measures of verbal intelligence to identify them. Furthermore, substitutions are no longer allowed to accommodate disabilities; only one substitution is permitted within the Full Scale IQ score. In the past we could substitute certain tests emphasizing higher order reasoning processes which are better measures of giftedness. Discontinue criteria (the point at which the tester stops asking questions when the student has gotten several in a row wrong) on the WISC-V (compared to the WISC-IV) were shortened from four or five items missed in a row to three for most subtests. This again makes the test shorter to administer but may prevent a student from showing all they know. Use of timing on subtests has increased on the WISC-V. Two key subtests allows only 30 seconds for the most difficult items. Gifted students who are more contemplative in nature and not as speedy are really disadvantaged. Plus – and this is egregious in my opinion – they haven’t yet published an Extended Norms table for the WISC-V for calculating IQ’s of super-bright children. That deserves another separate blog post…

But let me get to the good news. We discussed the matter in the assessment committee of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), and decided to take the issue on. In August 2018 we published this Position Paper with recommended guidelines for use of the WISC-V in the assessment of gifted and twice exceptional children.

All position statements are approved by the NAGC Board of Directors and are consistent with the organization’s position that education in a democracy must respect the uniqueness of all individuals.

The NAGC recommends that the WISC-V Full Scale IQ score not be required. In fact, it states: “The Full Scale score may…impede efforts to ensure that gifted classrooms, programs, and schools are accessible to children with disabilities.” This is a disability rights issue!

Instead, the NAGC recommends that any one of the following WISC-V scores (subtests in parentheses), should be accepted for use in the selection process for gifted programs:

• The Verbal (Expanded Crystallized) Index (VECI): (Similarities, Vocabulary, Information and Comprehension),
• The Nonverbal Index (NVI): (Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Coding, Figure Weights, Visual Puzzles, and Picture Span),
• The Expanded Fluid Index (EFI): (Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights, Picture Concepts, and Arithmetic),
• The General Ability Index (GAI): (Block Design, Similarities, Matrix Reasoning, Vocabulary, and Figure Weights),
• The Full Scale IQ Score (FSIQ): (Block Design, Similarities, Matrix Reasoning, Digit Span, Coding, Vocabulary, and Figure Weights), and/or
• The Expanded General Ability Index (EGAI): (Similarities, Vocabulary, Information, Comprehension, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights and Arithmetic).

Note: The test developers (Pearson) have a technical report in progress with tables for calculating this last index. All the other indexes can be calculated by test scoring software or the use of tables in the test manual and technical reports.

Why is this important? Because now gifted children can be more readily identified for their strengths without their relative weaknesses pulling them down. This is especially critical for the twice-exceptional who have cognitive profiles full of extreme ups and downs. You don’t want to “average” that profile to the 50th percentile! In addition, if a child is gifted in one higher order reasoning area but not the other, their strength can still shine. I often work with children who are exceptional at fluid reasoning but not verbal comprehension. Or the reverse. They’re still gifted.

What should parents do? First, make sure whoever tests your child administers enough subtests to calculate the above indexes. If they just give the 7 subtests in the Full Scale IQ you won’t have what you need. You will need at least the following 13 subtests to be administered: Block Design, Similarities, Matrix Reasoning, Digit Span, Coding, Vocabulary, Figure Weights, Visual Puzzles, Picture Span, Information, Picture Concepts, Comprehension, and Arithmetic.

Second, lobby for your child using the Position Paper as support!

Where does the concept of overexcitability come from?

Overexcitability was introduced to psychology by Polish psychiatrist Kazimierz Dabrowski in the 1960’s as part of a “Theory of Positive Disintegration.” The theory proposed that psychological tension and anxiety are necessary to achieve the highest levels of personal and moral growth. Hence these “disintegrative” processes (tension and anxiety) were seen as “positive.” Dabrowski believed that some people have more “developmental potential” than others, and that high intelligence (giftedness) and overexcitability were predisposing factors.

So what exactly is overexcitability?

Dabrowski defined overexcitability as a heightened physiological experience of stimuli resulting from increased neuronal sensitivities that cause a person to experience life more intensely and to feel the extremes of joy and sorrow more profoundly. He called it a “tragic gift.”

He outlined five forms which have been elaborated by others over the years:

Psychomotor overexcitability manifests as a capacity for being active and energetic. It can include loving to move and being physically active, restlessness, speaking quickly, frequent impulsivity in action, and having high stamina.

Sensual overexcitability manifests as increased pleasure from the senses (e.g. tastes, smells, textures, sounds, and sights) and, conversely, extreme negative reactions to unpleasant sensations. It can include an exceptional dislike for particular stimuli or sensations, like the sensation of a shirt’s tag on one’s neck or the texture of certain foods.

Intellectual overexcitability manifests as an extreme desire to seek understanding, gain knowledge, and analyze and categorize information. It can include asking a lot of questions, being a quick thinker and observer, love of ideas and theoretical analysis, and the search for truth.

Imaginational overexcitability manifests as an intensified play of the imagination and vividness of imagery. It can include fantasizing, day-dreaming, a craving for novelty, and dramatization.

Emotional overexcitability manifests as a capacity for feeling emotions intensely and deeply. It can include being highly sensitive, empathetic, anxious, sad, lonely, nervous, fearful, having a heightened sense of responsibility, and a tendency toward self-examination.

What’s the link between giftedness and overexcitability?

Dąbrowski’s followers suggest that the gifted disproportionately display overexcitabilities, positive disintegration, and hence the potential to attain higher levels of personal and moral growth. The notion was popularized in the gifted education and research communities by Michael Piechowski initially in the 1970’s, Sal Mendaglio, who edited the book Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Integration (2008), Susan Daniels and Michael Piechowski, who edited Living with Intensity (also published in 2008) and by Linda Silverman of the Gifted Development Center in Colorado, who worked with Piechowski and others on the development of the Overexcitability Questionnaire II, a self-report form widely used as a research instrument. You can try it out yourself by following the link.

I think parents find the concept appealing because it links giftedness and experiences and behaviors that could otherwise seem problematic or dysfunctional (like melt-downs over labels in clothes and extreme emotional reactivity), suggesting these are just part of the child’s gifted temperament. I personally found solace in the idea when my daughter was hypersensitive as a young child. However I have seen parents who take it to an extreme by attributing everything to only one aspect of their child’s profile (their giftedness), and ignoring areas of challenge that need to be addressed.

Is a link validated by the research?

I don’t think so. But I may get in trouble with my friends and colleagues in the gifted community for saying so. The idea that overexcitabilities are higher in the gifted has so captured the imagination and loyalty of researchers, practitioners, and parents that it has, in effect, become accepted as an article of faith or ideology. Practically every website and book written for parents on the social and emotional aspects of giftedness promulgates the view. There’s very little debate about it in the presentation to the public – it’s simply accepted as truth. That’s why I’m writing about it. It bothers me when everyone jumps on the same bandwagon without questioning where it’s going. Also, I have a problem with the idea that the gifted are more capable of attaining higher levels of moral and personal growth than the non-gifted.

Let’s look at the research literature:

On the “pro” side, in 1984 Colangelo and Piechowski summarized the literature, noting that overexcitabilities were consistently present in the gifted. Falk and Miller conducted a literature review of 28 studies in 2009, reporting that gifted individuals were significantly more overexcitable than the non-gifted, especially in the Emotional, Intellectual, and Imaginational areas. In Taiwan, Kuo and Chang (2013) concluded that gifted persons are significantly overexcitable. Many professionals involved in counseling the gifted (e.g. Linda Silverman, Ann Marie Roeper, Susan Daniels) have cited their personal professional experience as evidence that the gifted are more intense, sensitive, and overexcitable.

On the “con” side, in 2006 Mendaglio and Tillier conducted a literature review and concluded that gifted groups did not significantly outscore non-gifted groups. When Pyrt (2008) analyzed the effect sizes (strength) of the relationships reported in research studies he found most to be “small” and “trivial.” The only relationship that had a decent-sized effect was with Intellectual overexcitability. Jane Piirto, a researcher who’s made overexcitabilities her primary research focus, has administered the overexcitability questionnaire to over 600 gifted students, and who personally organized three of the first Dabrowski conferences in the U.S., was an “early adopter” but has grown skeptical over time. In an article titled “21 Years with Dabrowski Theory” she wrote that almost all the studies conducted have had small numbers of participants, making conclusions suspect, and that the only consistent finding has been for Intellectual overexcitability. A 2014 meta-analysis conducted by Daniel Winkler focused on answering the question: “Do the gifted have greater excitabilities than the non-gifted?” He did find a relationship between Intellectual overexcitability and giftedness. For the Emotional and Imaginational overexcitabilities he found that more studies failed to find a relationship than succeeded. The findings for Sensory overexcitability were deemed “insufficient.” And he reported that no studies conducted in the United States have found that the gifted have greater Psychomotor overexcitability.

I agree that the data indicates a link between giftedness and Intellectual overexcitability, but this doesn’t impress me.  I expected it. When you look for a relationship between two things that are conflated – like height and basketball prowess – you are likely to find one. The Big Five Factor Model of Personality, which has been strongly validated by the research, has a factor called “Openness” which is near identical to the concept of Intellectual overexcitability. Openness is the degree of intellectual curiosity that a person has. Of course it is associated with giftedness, and of course Intellectual overexcitability is associated with giftedness as well. As for the other excitabilities, it seems the evidence is just not there.

Why, then, is there such a strong ideology built up around this notion?

This makes me wonder why the gifted community has been so dogmatic about its belief in overexcitabilities, despite the lack of empirical evidence. It may be that people decided they liked the idea when it was just a hypothesis and haven’t kept up with the research findings. It was striking how fast thought-leaders in the gifted community jumped on the wagon when the hypothesis was first popularized in the 1980’s, despite a near total lack of any evidence at the time. I think it could also be due to the “halo effect.” Professionals in the gifted community want to see the people they work with through a positive lens. For parents, the idea that their child is oversensitive as part of their giftedness and that’s a good thing may be more appealing than an additional diagnosis of AHDH or Asperger’s or anxiety. Finally, we all want to think that pain and suffering will prove, in the long run, to be for the best. We want to believe it, and so we do.

Why does this matter, and what should parents do?

It matters because making the assumption that a gifted child is more excitable because they are gifted and that it’s fine (even good) to be that way can focus attention away from challenges that need to be addressed. Let’s remove the halo of giftedness, and look at the whole child. The potential for a child to realize their potential and to grow into a happy and productive (and personally and morally developed) member of society is increased when we support both their strengths and their weaknesses.

When interviewing parents about their child’s strengths and weaknesses, I often hear statements like the following: “I don’t think my child has a problem with attention – he can focus really intensely on his cartoon-drawing (or video-gaming or Lego-building or reading) for hours at a time! In fact I can barely get him to stop. But his teachers complain he’s inattentive and distracted in the classroom. Maybe he’s just not stimulated by the material being taught?” Does this sound like your child – or one you know?

Some of the questions I need to help answer are: Is the child gifted? Does the child have ADHD? Is the child gifted and does he or she also have ADHD (i.e. is twice-exceptional)? Which of these factors are impacting the child’s ability to thrive in and outside of school? And what can be done to help.

My friends Xavier Castellanos, MD and Felice Kauffman, PhD wrote a monograph for the National Research Center for the Gifted and Talented on this very topic. It is reproduced here in short form on SENG’s website. They note that “Some people erroneously assume that a child who demonstrates sustained attention, such as a gifted child engaged in a high-interest activity, cannot have ADHD. It is understandable that an observer might discount the possibility of ADHD because from all appearances the child is so absorbed in a task that other stimuli fade into oblivion.”

While in fact: “This state of rapt attention can be described as “hyperfocus,” a condition that individuals with ADHD frequently experience.” Hyperfocus is the tendency for children and adults with ADHD to focus very intensely on things that interest them. At times, the focus is so strong that they become oblivious to the world around them. For more on hyperfocus see an article from Additude magazine here. Felice and Xavier point out that: “Activities that are continuously reinforcing and “automatic,” such as video or computer games or reading for pleasure, do not distinguish children who have ADHD from children who do not have ADHD, whereas effortful tasks do.” So it’s not whether the child can focus – it’s whether they can focus on effortful tasks.

They continue: “Evidence suggests that the gifted child with ADHD is particularly predisposed to exhibit this state of “hyperfocus.” While this can be a positive aspect of task commitment, it becomes a problem when the child is asked to shift from one task to another.”

Does this scenario sound familiar? You ask your child to stop doing what he is hyper focused on and come to dinner and he ignores you or objects strenuously?

Xavier and Felice write: “While cognitively this state (hyperfocus) can have positive aspects, behaviorally it can cause problems. It is important to understand that ADHD is not characterized by an inability to sustain attention, but rather by the inability to appropriately regulate the application of attention to tasks that are not intrinsically rewarding and/or that require effort. Such tasks are, sadly, characteristic of much of the work that is typically required in school, even in programs for gifted students.” So if school isn’t intrinsically rewarding, interesting, and/or requires effort, the gifted child with ADHD may tune-out and turn off.

To complicate matters, “By virtue of their giftedness, the range of tasks that are perceived as “effortless” is broader for gifted children, which is why their ADHD may be less apparent than in children who struggle more obviously and to lesser effect.” Something that would be effortful for a typical child (e.g. understanding a new math concept or comprehending sophisticated text) might not be effortful for the gifted child to whom such things come easily. So when a gifted child does have ADHD, their teachers may under-report symptoms because they appear to breeze through so much of the material. I see this most often when the child happens to be likable and internalizes rather than externalizes their frustrations.

It can take an assessment by a psychologist experienced in working with gifted and twice exceptional learners to tease out the subtleties.

It’s important to find out what’s going on because the student may be under-performing, or may be losing confidence and self-esteem. Their over-reliance on strengths to get by may “inadvertently obscure the disability.” They may get B+’s by answering questions based on superior reasoning skills, not necessarily having learned the actual material being tested. They may be frustrated and grow to distrust their abilities because they realize (consciously, or subconsciously) that they have to struggle to maintain them. They may feel they aren’t very smart after all. There may be negative impacts outside of academics: socially, emotionally, with friendships, and within the family dynamics.

When the student is accurately diagnosed, he or she can be given the opportunity to learn appropriate compensatory and coping skills. It’s especially helpful to address these issues at an early enough age before the student has turned off school, become a behavioral problem, become the class clown, or internalized frustrations in the form of anxiety or depression. While an adult can (if lucky) be happy and successful intensely pursuing their interests, few achieve success and satisfaction if they are unable to push through the less rewarding phases of an activity and keep working when something becomes effortful. These are skills and mind-sets we need to teach our twice exceptional children who are gifted and have ADHD.

If I can help you ascertain whether your child is gifted, has ADHD, or both, reach out to me at dm@drdevon.com. I do not charge for an initial 60 minute conversation.

The nature/nurture debate has been going on for centuries. Is it our genes (nature) that predict success? Or is it the environment (nurture)? In the past 20 years this topic has evolved into the innate ability/natural talent vs. practice/effort debate. One side argues that success is all about innate ability and natural talent, while the other argues that it’s all about how hard one is willing to work. In the early and mid-1900’s as researchers studied intelligence and developed tests to measure it, it was generally believed that one’s “natural endowments” predicted success. In the 1950’s and ’60’s the cold war space race was a boon for gifted education, as national polices were implemented in an effort to identify and educate the “best and the brightest.”

The pendulum swung hard from ability toward practice and effort in the 1980’s and 90’s. In a politically correct world, the practice/effort argument was appealing because it posits that anyone can achieve success if they are willing to work hard (and the right environmental factors are supplied). In 1993 Dr. Anders Ericsson published a paper arguing that training and deliberate practice could explain performance differences that had been previously ascribed to innate talent. Studying expert performance in sports, music, mathematics, and other areas he found that so-called innate ability was unnecessary to predict who would become most successful. The single greatest predictor of success was hours devoted to the activity. The more someone practiced, the better they were. It’s a provocative argument, and one that Ericsson still espouses over two decades later. If it’s true, anyone with any ability profile can follow their dreams and, with enough effort, reach them. Ericson did add one caveat: when it comes to athletics, height and body size do make a difference. Along the same line, in the book Talent is Overrated (2008), George Colvin argued that investing the right type of practice on a focused pursuit is far more important than natural ability in predicting performance. In 2011 Malcolm Gladwell popularized the “10,000 hour rule” in Outliers, attributing the success of the Beatles and Bill Gates almost entirely to intensive practice. 10,000 hours of practice was identified as the threshold level required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert in anything.

If this is true – that success is all about practice and effort, and that anyone can achieve anything they set their heart to – does giftedness as a construct even matter?

Recently, the pendulum has swung the other way – toward innate ability. In a 2014 meta-analysis, a study analyzing the results of 90 other studies carried out across disciplines ranging from sports to the arts to academia, authors Hambrick, et. al. reported: “More than 20 years ago, researchers proposed that individual differences in performance in such domains as music, sports, and games largely reflect individual differences in amount of deliberate practice, defined as engagement in structured activities created specifically to improve performance in a domain. This view is a frequent topic of popular-science writing—but is it supported by empirical evidence? To answer this question, we conducted a meta-analysis covering all major domains in which deliberate practice has been investigated. We found that deliberate practice explained 26% of the variance in performance for games, 21% for music, 18% for sports, 4% for education, and less than 1% for professions. We conclude that deliberate practice is important, but not as important as has been argued.” In  2017 authors Wai & Rindermann studied what factors contributed to high educational and occupational achievement by examining a sample of 11,745 high achievers across disciplines. They found that about 50% of these super successful individuals were in the top 1% in terms intellectual ability (in other words, they were gifted).

I agree that innate ability is important, and I don’t think all the practice in the world can take someone who has poor native ability to a level of super high achievement in most areas. But I also feel that innate ability alone is rarely enough.

What does it take to turn giftedness into success – for gifted children to become high achievers?  Giftedness is a raw ability. In his “Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent” Robert M. Gagné made an important distinction between natural abilities or giftedness and talents. He defined giftedness as: “the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed natural abilities in at least one ability domain, to a degree placing that student in the top 10% of age peers.” Talent, on the other hand, implies “the superior mastery of systematically developed abilities (or expert skills) and knowledge in at least one field of human activity to a degree that places a student in the top 10% of peers in that field.” This is an important distinction because the terms “gifted” and “talented” are often used synonymously. Gagné differentiates between giftedness as raw capacity and talent as a developed ability. Talents progressively emerge from the transformation of high aptitudes into the well-trained and systematically developed skills characteristic of a particular field of human activity or performance.

Thus, a young child might be described as gifted to highlight that they have exceptional abilities and, when they have favorably developed these abilities may be described as gifted and talented. While such a child will always (barring exceptional mishap) remain gifted, only when a high level of performance has been attained can they also be described as talented. This alludes to the common phenomenon of gifted underachievement, and points us in the direction of beginning to understand and therefore remedy this.

Gagné’s model  illustrates the process and factors influencing whether a child’s giftedness will develop into a talent. Chance is a significant factor, but so are the environment and intrapersonal catalysts. Environmental influences include culture and family, teachers, peers, and the provision of programs and services. Intrapersonal catalysts include health, motivation, concentration, and temperament. Efforts can be made to facilitate the development of gifts into talents through a developmental process encompassing informal and formal learning and practice, enriched curriculum and training, a goal of challenging excellence, systemic and regular practice, regular and objective assessment of progress, and personalized accelerated pacing. Sounds like a great gifted education program to me!

So, to answer the question posed at the beginning of this blog: giftedness does matter. I feel that in many domains, it’s a necessary but not sufficient condition to predict high achievement. The development of gifts into talents is a process impacted by environmental, intrapersonal, and chance factors.

Let me add a caveat of my own that the discussion above focuses solely on the outcomes of “success,” “high achievement” and  “talent.” I believe it is quite possible for a gifted person to eschew such outward measures of achievement, and perhaps not contribute their talents to society at large in any measurable way, but to still be a happy and fulfilled person in part because of their giftedness. Giftedness can provide the individual with a rich inner life entirely separate from societal measures of success.

I thought it would be helpful to post a list of the books and other resources I most frequently refer my clients to.

Books:

8 Keys to Parenting Children with ADHD by Cindy Goldrich (2015). Excellent “instruction manual” for how to parent children with ADHD including behavior management strategies. Author available for consultations.

Bright Kids Who Can’t Keep Up by Ellen Braaten and Brian Willoughby (2014). How slow processing speed impacts students and what can (and can’t) be done to help.

Executive Skills in Children and Adolescents by Peg Dawson and Richard Guare (2004). This is a manual – a “how-to” guide with specific interventions to be implemented at home and/or school for executive function weaknesses. I used this guide to help my son get through high school.

Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnoses of Gifted Children and Adults: ADHD, bipolar, OCD, Asperger’s, depression, and other disorders, by James T. Webb, et al. (2005). In my view a bit extreme in suggesting that many behaviors characteristic of disability are actually just signs of giftedness, though I agree that does sometimes occur. I find that more often giftedness and disability coexist and that giftedness alone is not always (or even often) associated with dysfunction.

Overcoming Dyslexia by Sally Shaywitz (2003). Primarily about how to properly remediate reading problems but also specifically addresses challenges faced by bright dyslexics (Shaywitz is at Yale so discusses and works with students there).

The ADHD Explosion by Stephen P. Hinshaw and Richard Scheffle (2014). Chapters on the causes of ADHD (where biology meets culture) and diagnosing and treating ADHD are well worth the cost of the book. Much of the rest delves into social and educational policy issues. Anything by Stephen Hinshaw (one of my mentors at Berkeley) is recommended.

The Dyslexia Empowerment Plan by Ben Foss (2013). Focuses on strengths associated with dyslexia, explains assistive technology, and argues in favor of “reading” by listening rather than scanning text with one’s eyes. My son has taught himself to listen at 3x normal speed and says it is a “game changer” for him.

The Dyslexic Advantage by Brock and Fernette Eide (2011). Focuses on identifying the 4 main strengths associated with dyslexia. Powerful reading for adult dyslexics as well as parents. I give a copy to any parent of a dyslexic child who thinks they, too, might  be dyslexic. The book launched a foundation and website listed below.

The Mislabeled Child: How understanding your child’s unique learning style can open the door to success by Brock and Fernette Eide (2006). Covers misdiagnosis  and has chapters on different issues including communication challenges, ADHD, dysgraphia, dyslexia, and giftedness.

Websites, Facebook, and Other Resources:

2e Twice-Exceptional Newsletter. 2e Newsletter. An online bimonthly publication dedicated to understanding twice exceptional children. Modest fee for  online subscription. I think it’s well worth it.

Davidson Institute. Davidson Young Scholars. Non-profit providing free counseling to families of exceptionally gifted students accepted as Davidson Young Scholars. Many of my clients find the counseling to be very helpful.

Devon MacEachron, PhD. www.drdevon.com. That’s me! 2e assessment and educational advising. Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/2Egifted/. Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/2egifted.

Dyslexic Advantage. Dyslexic Advantage Foundation. Focused on uncovering and celebrating the strengths associated with dyslexia. Testimonials, famous people, advice, assistive technology, etc. Premium membership gives access to a wonderful magazine and other resources.

Gifted Homeschoolers Forum. GHF. Primarily for families who are homeschooling, but much of the material and resources are of interest to all.  Publish articles, books, active online community, blog, ask the expert “column,” and have a section of their website devoted to twice-exceptionality.

Hoagies Gifted Website. Hoagies . Huge resource on giftedness and 2e with a plethora of articles, chat groups, blogs, etc.  Hoagies Gifted Discussion Group is a related Facebook group with 4,835 members you must apply to participate in.

Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. CTY. Students testing as highly gifted in math or verbal qualify for their summer camps, online courses, family vacations, and day programs. The programs are not inexpensive, but they are phenomenal and can change a child’s life.

National Association for Gifted Children. NAGC. National advocacy group, posts articles, position papers, annual conference, offers Parenting for High Potential magazine, program and camp lists.

Parents of Twice Exceptional Children (2E): Closed Facebook group with 7,762 members you must apply to join. Active discussion with responses from parents in similar situations.

Raising Poppies: Closed Facebook group with 13,279 members you must apply to join focused on issues raising gifted children.

Twice Exceptional Children’s Advocacy (TECA): www.teca2e.org. Modest membership fee to access moderated online parent support groups, message board, and other specifically 2e resources.

TilT Parenting: www.tiltparenting.com. Features a weekly podcast focused on parenting 2e learners, referred to positively as “differently wired” kids, in the TilT manifesto.

Intelligence is multifaceted. When people tell me they want to know their IQ, I feel like asking: “In what area?” There are many different cognitive abilities and they have different impacts on what one is trying to accomplish. That’s why I approach the assessment of a person’s abilities from the perspective of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model which is, in effect, an inventory of “the intelligences.” It’s the most comprehensive and empirically supported theory of the structure of cognitive abilities to date, reflecting 70 years of research. About 80 different abilities are defined, with 20-25 of these playing important roles in school learning.

What I’d like to talk about today is the future and the role fluid intelligence might have in it. In the CHC model there are basically two main groupings of abilities that represent higher-order reasoning: crystallized intelligence and fluid intelligence. They can be traced to two separate brain systems. Crystallized intelligence is a function of brain regions that involve the storage and usage of long-term memories, such as the hippocampus. Fluid intelligence involves the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and other systems related to attention and short-term memory.

Crystallized Intelligence is the ability to use learned knowledge and experience. It’s not the same thing as memory, but it does rely on accessing information from long-term memory (learning that has become “crystallized”). Crystallized intelligence encompasses vocabulary, depth and breadth of general knowledge, the ability to listen to and understand oral communications, knowledge of grammar, and the like. It is the product of educational and cultural experience. When you meet someone who has a large vocabulary, knows a lot of facts, is a Crossword puzzle or Scrabble master, and is a voracious reader, you can be pretty sure they have strong crystallized intelligence. People who have strong crystallized intelligence tend to sound really smart and they tend to do well in school.

In contrast, Fluid Intelligence is the capacity to reason and solve novel problems, independent of any knowledge from the past. It involves drawing inferences, concept formation, classification, generating and testing hypothesis, identifying relations, comprehending implications, problem solving, extrapolating, and transforming information. Fluid reasoning encompasses inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and quantitative reasoning. Sherlock-Holmes kind of thinking. When you meet someone who has strong fluid reasoning you may not have any idea how smart they are until you throw a problem at them that needs solving. People who have strong fluid intelligence don’t necessarily excel in school, especially in the lower grade levels. If they make it to the PhD-level they may have trouble memorizing all the information they need to pass their oral exams. But boy can they defend their dissertation!

Some of the children I work with are strong in both areas. Others are strong in one or the other, but not both. The ones with strong crystallized intelligence tend to do well in school, as so much of school (the way it is structured today) is about learning facts and procedures. The ones with strong fluid intelligence may be so busy questioning the assumptions that they don’t learn the rules and procedures their classmates do. They may resist authority and question the value of what’s taught in school.

The Future: Our world is changing very rapidly. I know people have often said that about the times they live in, but it’s more true now than ever before. The pace of innovation and disruption is accelerating. As a society we are facing all kinds of novel problems to which we have no learned solutions, from political changes to global warming to the potential dangers of artificial intelligence. By 2020, the Fourth Industrial Revolution will have brought us advanced robotics and autonomous transport, artificial intelligence and machine learning, advanced materials, biotechnology and genomics. I wonder: What kind of brains will our children need to work in that kind of environment?

Now I’m going to enter into an area of conjecture and hypothesis, as I can find very little research literature on the topic. I guess I’m tapping into my own fluid intelligence.

I think the minds that will be best-suited to solving the world’s problems in the future are those with strengths in fluid intelligence. I believe that individuals who rely on crystallized intelligence may look to the past and rely too much on book learning and facts and procedures. In contrast, individuals who rely on fluid intelligence will be able to think on their feet around something totally unfamiliar, and be comfortable with the kind of complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity we’re facing. They will be flexible and fluid thinkers who like challenging the assumptions and thinking outside the box. Because many aspects of crystallized intelligence (e.g. stores of knowledge) can be easily accessed with a quick swipe on our phone, they may not be hampered by having weaker crystallized intelligence.

I feel a shift in the kind of intelligence we need for the future necessitates changes in the way we teach children. We’re teaching 19th century skills in our 21st century schools. To teach 21st and 22nd century skills will require a move away from the teaching of standard procedures and rote memorization toward creative problem-solving and how to tap into inductive and deductive reasoning processes. Intelligence is not fixed – it’s malleable. That’s what having a “growth mentality” is all about. So I’d like to see schools, parents, employers, and others focus more on the benefits of enhancing human fluid intelligence. After all, machines can probably do crystallized intelligence a lot better than we can anyway.

I speak with parents all over the world about their twice-exceptional children. One thing that keeps coming up again and again in nearly every state and country is that no one believes them that their child could be simultaneously gifted and dyslexic. A parent senses something is amiss, but friends, family (sorry to say this – but this often includes husbands), educators, and even psychologists are skeptical. It can be a very confusing and lonely position for the parent who is trying to advocate for their child to be in.

Why do so many people have trouble with the concept that someone can be good at something and bad at something else? The gifted dyslexic reader is often good at higher order verbal and nonverbal reasoning and bad at phonological decoding and naming speed. These are very different abilities. It’s not all that different from being good at skiing and bad at ball sports like soccer. These sports require different skill sets – just as higher order reasoning and phonological decoding do.

To make matters worse there are well-meaning researchers and psychologists who have urged that we do away with using IQ tests in the diagnosis of dyslexia. But if we don’t use IQ in a discrepancy analysis to ascertain how much lower achievement is than ability it can be hard to find the gifted dyslexic. The anti-IQ, anti-discrepancy formula “movement” was driven by good intentions. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds with IQ’s too low to show discrepancies were being under-served. And yet they had very real reading challenges which needed to be addressed. One of the first articles that got a lot of attention was one by Linda Siegel published in 1989 titled, bluntly: IQ Is Irrelevant to the Definition of Learning Disabilities. Around the same time reading researchers established that the core processes impaired in dyslexia were phonological processing, orthographic processing, and rapid naming. So the well-meaning crowd decided to throw out IQ tests and focus on assessing those abilities.

The only problem – which no one seemed to notice – was that this left out the gifted dyslexic. I remember sitting in a conference at Berkeley listening to Linda Siegel present her views on the topic knowing full well that if I stood up and challenged the assumptions I would probably be booed out of the room. It was not politically correct to say that IQ mattered.

I agree that low IQ shouldn’t be a barrier to children receiving needed services. But I also feel that high IQ should not be a barrier. And it often is under the current educational/political climate.

Gifted dyslexics are often “hidden.” This is because their strengths can camouflage their weaknesses. Despite poor word-level reading skills, they may have such strong verbal abilities that they can guess what’s going on in text. Their reading comprehension and even their phonological skills may test in the average (often low average) range. Teachers may not notice anything alarming. True – they don’t gravitate to independent reading and they stumble when asked to read aloud, but they appear to get by.

Some people (educators and psychologists included) misinterpret the diagnostic criteria and make the assumption that someone only has dyslexia if they are failing their classes or performing below grade level or below the level one would expect the “average person” to attain.

Diagnosis of disability is based on criteria set forth by the American Psychological Association in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM-5) and in the International Classification system, called the ICD-10.

The DSM-5 does start out saying that to have a Specific Learning Disorder the student’s academic skills must be “substantially below” expectations for their age. Many people stop there and interpret this to mean that performance has to be below average, which may be defined as being below a standard score of 85 which is at the 16th percentile. Thus, a student with verbal ability at the 99th percentile and reading performance in the low average range at the 17th percentile may not be seen as having a disability. This is known as the “average person standard.” You’re only considered disabled if you’re not doing as well as the average person.

However, when one reads the fine print in the DSM-5 they go on to say that “average achievement that is sustainable only by extraordinarily high levels of effort or support” is evidence of disability. So if a bright dyslexic child is getting tutored and working harder than his peers and is still performing in the average range, that’s evidence of a disability.

The DSM-5 also says that “there is no natural cut point that can be used to differentiate individuals with and without” a learning disability. It’s not appropriate for a school district to use an arbitrary cut-off at some percentile or say that if the student is getting A’s and B’s they can’t have a disability.

The DSM-5 further states that intellectually gifted students can still have learning disabilities despite being “able to sustain apparently adequate academic functioning.” There’s a clear recognition here that a gifted student may perform at an average level and yet still have a disability.

By definition a learning disability is an “unexpected” difference between ability and achievement. A student who has exceptionally high ability and yet performs academically at a level significantly below expectations displays an ability/achievement gap that can be  evidence of disability.

And now let me direct you to some of the neuroscience to support this view. Dr. Fumiko Hoeft is a brilliant (Harvard,  CalTech, and Stanford educated) and stunningly beautiful neuroscientist at UCSF School of Medicine who strides into a room in 5” heels as if they were sneakers. She’s written articles for The New Yorker on How Children Learn to Read and at Understood on Stealth Dyslexia. A YouTube of a presentation she gave at a Dyslexic Advantage conference on the Brain Basis of Dyslexia shows in clear images that gifted dyslexics process language using the same less efficient pathways as non-gifted dyslexics.

Basically, what Fumiko has shown through neuroimaging is that you can be gifted and dyslexic. Thank you Fumiko!

Multi-potentiality is the state of having many exceptionally strong abilities or talents. The child who has the Midas touch and is good at everything he does from math to science to English to music to sports to art to leadership has multi-potentiality. It sounds wonderful doesn’t it? But for many children and young adults it can becomes a burden.

Why?

External Reasons: If you’re good at something, people tend to encourage you to pursue it. The child who is good at a lot of things may be pulled in many different directions by well-meaning teachers, coaches, and parents. Who should the child listen to? Their violin teacher who’s urging them to apply to Juilliard, their math teacher who wants to enter them into prestigious math competitions, or their tennis coach who’s encouraging them to become a nationally ranked player? There simply isn’t enough time in the day to pursue all of these talents. Disappointed adults can make the child feel he is “wasting his potential” if he doesn’t follow their advice and encouragement. This is particularly difficult when a parent has a dream for their child that fits with one of their child’s strengths. How can they let their parent down by not pursuing it? It’s a lot of pressure for a child to feel they need to live up to another’s expectations and dreams.

Internal reasons: We often decide what we’re interested in and want to pursue based on our abilities. The multi-talented high school student may try to do everything they’re good at and become so over-scheduled and exhausted that they have little time for reflection (or sleep). Adolescents and young adults approaching critical decision points like what major to declare in college and what career to pursue afterward may experience debilitating anxiety and stress over the decision. The student who excels at math and science but just gets by in English may decide to lead with his strengths and major in a STEM field in college. But the student who is good at everything may feel overwhelmed by the multitude of choices before him. I had a gifted friend in college who was brilliant at everything. She still hadn’t decided what to do in our senior year so she sat for the LSAT, GRE, and GMAT, thinking she’d choose between law, business, and graduate school based on her test scores. Her scores came in at the 99th percentile on all three exams, leaving her no further ahead in her decision-making.

What can we do to help students suffering from the downsides of multi-potentiality?

First, it’s important to encourage the child to try to not be influenced by external influences. They shouldn’t feel pressured by others to use their gifts. Parent alert: just because you wanted to be a concert pianist and your child appears to have the talent to do so doesn’t mean you should live your live through theirs.

Second, it’s important to inculcate the importance of genuine interests as a driver from a young age. Abilities are one thing – they are what the student is naturally good at. Interests are another thing altogether. Interests are what the child is drawn to. A child can be good at something they aren’t that interested in and interested in something they aren’t that good at. A way of helping the multi-talented child narrow his or her list of possibilities is to focus attention on what genuinely “lights their fire.” Interests can be formally assessed, but there are also ways parents can flush them out. Ask yourself: What makes my child smile and laugh? What gets and keeps my child’s attention? What gets my child excited? What are my child’s favorite things to do? What is my child willing to work hardest at doing? What “brings out the best” in my child? And what does my child choose to do most often in his or her free time (assuming they have any)? For most children, identifying these genuine interests significantly narrows the list of possibilities. A “sweet spot” can often be found where abilities and interests intersect, but I feel interests should win any contest between the two. The gifted child with multiple abilities is likely to be able to develop stronger abilities with effort in an area of strong interest.

Of course there are some children with multi-potentiality who are interested in everything too. For these children I recommend the Chinese menu approach. Take one interest from column A (academic subject), one from column B (arts activity), and one from column C (physical activity). Explore these for some time. Then try other items. This can be an iterative process until about high school when I feel it is best to narrow one’s commitments to at most 3-4 major areas.

Adding values to the mix can further narrow the list. Values are intrinsic core “wants” – the deep inner reasons or desires that motivate us like money, status, autonomy, fame, helping others, variety, power, security, risk-taking, and changing the world. The multi-ability, multi-interest child may be able to focus their efforts further if they consider what they truly value. This requires honest reflection.

It’s also important to let children know that the average person changes careers 3 to 7 times in their lifetime. They may be able to be a scientist and a doctor and a musician and an artist and an environmental activist in succession. Or they may successfully combine several disciplines into one career. While it’s harder today to be a polymath like Leonardo da Vinci, examples can be found of people who successfully combine fields. Noam Chomsky combines cognitive science, philosophy, psychology, and linguistics. Stephen Wolfram is a computer scientist, mathematician, physicist and cosmologist. Viggo Mortensen (perhaps best-known as Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings) is a professional singer, composer, photographer, painter, founded a publishing house, and publishes poetry he’s written in three languages.

Another idea is to let children know that they can pursue their extra interests outside of their careers as hobbies. They can sing in the local choral group, coach baseball, and even build a lab in their garage to tinker with tech start-up ideas. All while having a full-time job doing something else.

No child is really “too gifted.” They just need to figure out which gifts among an abundance of many to open and play with first. If you would like to learn more about how to help your gifted child, contact Devon MacEachron, PhD. 

This blog article is part of the Hoagies’ Gifted Education Blog Hop on “Multipotentiality.” I thank my friends at Hoagies’ Gifted Education Page and elsewhere for their inspiration, support, and suggestions.                                                            

Does your bright child, despite all she has going for her, seem anxious or depressed or both? Do you lay awake at night worrying about her? Is she acting up or turning inward? What happened to the happy childhood you dreamed of for your child?

Being twice-exceptional often carries a strong emotional burden – for both child and parent.

Chloe was a happy, creative, outgoing, fun, little girl as a toddler and through preschool. She was fascinated by nature and science, highly verbal, organized gangs of children to play parts in elaborate role-playing games she created, and was so well-liked that every child thought she was their best friend. True – she was highly sensitive, a bit too energetic, and demanded a lot of attention. But, a phrase her parents chose to describe Chloe at age five was: “a child who sees the glass as neither half-full nor full, but rather as brimming over.” A true optimist with a rosy outlook on life.

Things began to change in first grade. Her teachers noticed she wasn’t learning to read as fast as the other children. She had trouble sitting still in class. Math facts went in one ear and out the other. Because she was so sensitive, Chloe grew hyperaware of these deficiencies. By the time her parents took her for a neuropsych assessment at age 7 she was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder in addition to dyslexia, ADHD, and giftedness. She was placed in special ed. She grew withdrawn and depressed.

Eventually, as Chloe’s challenges were addressed and her strengths reinforced in ways appropriate for a twice-exceptional learner, there were times when she could be described as happy. Especially over the summers when she could pursue her interests at gifted and other summer programs. But so many forces worked against her during the school year that she ended up in therapy and ultimately on antidepressant and anti-anxiety meds by high school.

An interesting question to ask is how much of this anxiety and depression was caused by her twice-exceptionality, and how much would have existed anyway. She might have had a genetic predisposition that would have pushed her that direction regardless of her struggles. But one thing we do know about genetic predispositions is that they must interact with factors or triggers in the environment to be expressed. Being just gifted or just having ADHD or just having dyslexia might have been enough to trigger the expression of a genetic predisposition. However being twice exceptional adds an extra burden that may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back for Chloe. Students who are twice exceptional often hold themselves to high performance expectations, fear failing to meet them, and develop low self-esteem (SENG article).

What are 5 things parents can do to support their anxious or depressed twice-exceptional child?

  1. Understand what your child is dealing with in all areas of exceptionality – the gifted/strengths side and the disability/weaknesses side. This may necessitate a neuropsych assessment. Share understanding with your child in age-appropriate terms. Let your child know they are really smart, they just have a few areas of challenge that need to be worked with. Knowing when your child can’t do something as opposed to won’t may help you to be more supportive at homework and report card time.
  2. Address areas of challenge. Try to fix what you can (the brain can be rewired to a certain extent), remediate learning challenges, let your child learn the way he/she learns best (e.g. viewing videos or listening to read-alouds), find tutors, seek support at school, consider homeschooling, find work-arounds to problems as they crop up (e.g. sitting on a bouncing ball if fidgety while doing homework). Ignoring challenges in the hope they will go away is rarely an effective strategy.
  3. Reinforce strengths and interests. This should probably be listed as the number one most important step to take, and is too often overlooked. Chloe wasn’t anxious when she could pursue what she was interested in and was good at. It was only constantly being required to do things she wasn’t good at in school that created stress and self-doubt. Encourage your twice exceptional child in the pursuit of his or her genuine interests and they will develop a protective core of self-confidence.
  4. Learn about anxiety and depression, especially in twice-exceptional learners. There are many excellent articles about anxiety and depression in twice-exceptional and gifted students on the Hoagies, Social and Emotional Needs of the Gifted (SENG) and Association for the Education of Gifted Underachieving Students (AEGUS) websites.
  5. Take care of yourself. Parenting a twice-exceptional child is exhausting, frustrating, and can feel like a full-time job. Take breaks, take vacations, get therapy for yourself, do some marriage counseling if you and your spouse are not on the same page, meditate, exercise, take a class in something you enjoy. If you feel guilty doing things for yourself, know that a depressed and anxious parent is a risk factor contributing further to anxiety and depression in the children they parent.

And remember that the biggest predictor of success in a child with an exceptionality like Chloe is a parent who believes in them – who stands by them and picks them up when they fall. That’s really what parenting is all about anyway, isn’t it?

Back in the last century and through the early 1900’s researchers operated under the assumption that intelligence was a uni-dimensional construct. You were either smart, or you weren’t. And how smart you were could be measured with one test resulting in one number: IQ.

In the 1970’s a shift began away from the IQ construct. Gardener argued in his Theory of Multiple Intelligences that there were up to ten kinds of ability: musical-rhythmic, visual-spatial, verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, existential, and moral. Sternberg proposed practical, creative, and analytical intelligences. Daniel Goleman popularized the notion of emotional intelligence, or EQ. While these theories add considerably to our understanding of broader abilities and what it takes to be a happy and successful person, I’d like to focus in this blog on the kinds of mental abilities required to reason, solve problems, think abstractly, and comprehend complex ideas. What I’d call “intellectual abilities.”

Research has advanced to the point where we probably know more about the underlying cognitive and brain processes involved in mental abilities and intelligence than any other complex psychological construct. Click here for more information on this concept. The consensus is that the most useful and descriptive model of intelligences is the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Model. This model has become so prevalent that nearly all modern IQ tests have been changed to incorporate the theory as their foundation.

I find the CHC model to be a very useful framework for understanding individual student’s ability profiles and how they impact learning –how they are intelligent.

The CHC model identifies over 80 different cognitive abilities. About 30-40 of these are important in school learning and achievement. The others, like “musical discrimination and judgment,” aren’t as directly related to academic achievement.

It is a fact that most of us have uneven profiles of strengths and weaknesses across these 30-40 abilities. Let me illustrate the concept. But instead of showing all 30-40 school-related abilities, I’ll illustrate the point with 11 of the more important ones (e.g. verbal reasoning, listening ability, inductive and deductive reasoning, aspects of memory,  processing speed).

The stereotype of a highly intelligent, gifted child is that they are good at everything. If they were, one would expect to see a profile like the graph below – all abilities would be in the highest ranges.

I rarely see a uniform profile like this, even among highly and profoundly gifted learners. Most gifted students are not equally gifted at everything. They may have some abilities in the average range and even some in the well below-average ranges.

The flip side of the gifted stereotype is the learning disabled stereotype. This stereotype holds that students with learning disabilities are bad at everything academic/intellectual. A student who is weak in all of the cognitive ability areas contributing to academic learning would be expected to have a flat profile with low scores in all areas.

I have never seen a student with learning disabilities with a flat profile like this. Students with learning disabilities, by definition, have areas of cognitive strength. They are not bad at everything. But when I ask students who are having difficulty at school what they think their profile looks like, many think it looks like the graph above. They’ve lost sight of their strengths (if they ever knew they had them). They tend to think they’re “bad at school” and maybe even “not too smart.”

In reality, very few people are good at everything or bad at everything. Most of us have uneven profiles with strengths in some areas and weaknesses in others – more like the chart below. Terms like “gifted” and “learning disabled” are too vague to describe these variations. Gifted at what ability? How gifted in that specific ability area? Learning disabled at what? How learning disabled in that specific ability area?

From a practical standpoint what’s important is to understand where the student’s strengths and weaknesses are, and how to work with them. How they’re intelligent.

Recently I worked with a boy whose parents and teachers felt he was not achieving his potential in school, and wondered if he might have ADHD or a learning disability. Zack was a hard-working and motivated student who was engaged in class, diligently turned in his homework, and studied hard for tests. He tended to get great marks during the semester but couldn’t seem to break a “C” on tests and exams. My assessment ascertained that he didn’t have ADHD or a learning disability, and he had a nice solid IQ at the 90th percentile. But he had a surprising weakness in long-term auditory memory. This explained his underperformance – he wasn’t consolidating learning efficiently into long-term memory so he couldn’t efficiently retrieve what he had learned for tests and exams. The good news for Zack and his family was that this is quite fixable. One can get better at memorizing and storing information. We came up with a tutoring plan to build his ability utilizing his stronger visual memory and fluid reasoning.

An understanding of how the student is intelligent can be helpful to any child (like Zack, who it turned out was neither learning disabled nor gifted, but had an area of weakness that needed to be addressed). But it is especially important for twice-exceptional learners. The discrepancies between the twice-exceptional student’s strengths and weaknesses are more extreme than they are for most people. This unevenness of abilities causes considerable frustration. A 2E student may have very strong vocabulary and verbal reasoning, and excellent listening ability and fluid reasoning (inductive and deductive thinking), but their weaknesses in ability areas like phonetic coding and naming speed may severely inhibit their ability to read and demonstrate what they know in writing. In other words, they may be dyslexic. Or they may have extremely high quantitative reasoning and visual spatial ability yet be unable to reliably process information quickly and efficiently due to slow processing speed. An in-depth assessment of cognitive strengths and weaknesses is a very important step in figuring out how to help such students achieve their considerable potential.