The IQ Score That Did Not Fit
Lena is 12 and has Rett syndrome, epilepsy, and no spoken language. She uses eye gaze to choose among three preferred items and can activate a switch with her hand when prompts are faded. Her district is conducting a three-year reevaluation to determine continued eligibility for a self-contained classroom for students with severe to profound disabilities. The school psychologist administers the WISC-V; Lena cannot point or speak, so the examiner accepts eye-blink responses and hand movements as answers. The report lists a full-scale IQ of 45 and concludes 'profound intellectual disability.' Lena's mother disputes the score and asks for 'a real assessment of what she knows.' The special education director says the IQ score is required for the severe/profound category and schedules the eligibility meeting in two weeks. The classroom teacher reports that Lena consistently anticipates a familiar music activity by shifting her gaze to the speaker before staff cue her.
1. Identify the technical and legal problems with the WISC-V administration and the use of its score for eligibility.
Read the worked answer
The WISC-V administration is technically invalid for Lena. The test requires pointing, verbal responses, and motor control; accepting eye blinks and hand movements as substitute responses changes the task demands and invalidates the norms. Rett syndrome includes apraxia and hand stereotypies, so motor responses are not a fair index of reasoning. A full-scale IQ of 45 cannot be interpreted as a measure of her ability, and using it as the sole basis for eligibility violates the requirement for multiple, technically sound, nondiscriminatory measures. The report also fails to assess adaptive behavior, communication, vision, or learning under accommodations. The legal problem is not that IQ tests are forbidden; it is that this instrument was not valid for this student and the score was treated as definitive. The team should not use the score to make a high-stakes decision. Instead, it should gather data from multiple informants and settings and document the limitations of the instrument.
2. Outline a comprehensive reevaluation plan that would yield useful information for instruction and eligibility.
Read the worked answer
A defensible reevaluation plan would include: (1) a review of records, including seizure history, medications, vision and hearing, and prior educational data; (2) adaptive behavior scales completed by parent and teacher, interpreted cautiously; (3) a communication matrix and an AAC assessment to document how Lena expresses yes/no, requests, and protests; (4) an ecological inventory of daily routines to identify participation and support needs; (5) dynamic assessment of learning-teach a new response, such as gaze to a symbol, and measure gains with mediation; (6) structured observations across at least three routines and two adults; (7) a preference assessment and validation of eye-gaze accuracy; and (8) a functional vision assessment. The team should use multiple measures, not a single IQ score, and should report confidence intervals and limitations. The purpose is to answer instructional questions: what does Lena need to access communication, literacy, and routines? Eligibility can then be determined from the pattern of data, including adaptive behavior and educational need.
3. How should the team handle the director's claim that an IQ score is required for the severe/profound category?
Read the worked answer
The director's claim should be addressed with policy and evidence, not confrontation. The teacher or team can ask for the state eligibility criteria in writing and point out that a category label does not require an invalid IQ score; eligibility is an IEP team decision based on multiple data sources. If the state does use an IQ criterion, the team still cannot rely on a score from an instrument that was not validly administered. The appropriate response is to request a meeting, present the assessment plan, and ask the director to identify the specific legal requirement. The team should document the discussion and, if necessary, seek guidance from the district special education director or state department. If the district proceeds, the parent can use dispute resolution. The teacher's role is to advocate for a defensible evaluation and to avoid signing a document that misrepresents Lena's abilities. The focus should remain on what services Lena needs, not on defending a number.