Giftedness assessment report template (high intellectual potential)

A giftedness assessment report (in French, "compte rendu de bilan HPI", for high intellectual potential) is the written document in which the psychologist sets out the referral question, the testing conditions, the results on a validated intelligence scale (WISC-V for children, WAIS-IV for adults), their clinical reading and recommendations, and places the profile against the conventional giftedness benchmark: a Full Scale IQ or, under strict conditions, a General Ability Index around 130. Giftedness is not a diagnosis: the report describes how a person functions, it does not apply a label.

What "giftedness" covers, and what it does not

High intellectual potential is not listed in the DSM-5. Child psychiatrist K. Ackerman makes this point in the Revue Médicale de Bruxelles (2023): it "is not an official diagnosis in the DSM-5" (our translation). The Swiss CSPS Foundation document (2021) says giftedness "is not a disorder, but an intellectual functioning outside the norm". In France, the Eduscol handbook defines it as "a score on psychometric scales well above average", without setting a numerical cut-off.

The 130 benchmark is two standard deviations above the mean (100, standard deviation 15): about 2.3% of the population, as psychologist Ghislaine Labouret explains. It is a convention, not a boundary. The 95% confidence interval of the FSIQ spans about 12 to 13 points on the French WISC-V: a measured FSIQ of 127 and one of 131 do not describe two children who differ in kind. We therefore recommend writing in intervals and keeping the word "gifted" for the conclusion.

FSIQ, GAI and uneven profiles: what the report must settle

The FSIQ is below 130 but some indices are very high: can we speak of giftedness? The report should answer with an explicit rule.

When the GAI can replace the FSIQ

On the WISC-V, the GAI (General Ability Index) uses five of the seven FSIQ scores: Similarities, Vocabulary, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning and Figure Weights. It leaves out Digit Span and Coding. According to the Pearson Clinical France document "Du bon usage de l'Indice d'Aptitude Générale (IAG)" (2023), the GAI "is a valid measure provided that it is significantly higher than the FSIQ and that the five scores used to calculate it are sufficiently homogeneous" (our translation). In practice:

• Condition 1, a significant difference: according to that document, GAI minus FSIQ must reach at least 3.92 (appendix C.6 of the French WISC-V manual) to be significant at the .05 level. As indices are whole numbers, that means 4 points or more.
• Condition 2, consistent scores: the five GAI scores must be sufficiently homogeneous and all higher than the Coding and Digit Span scores.
• Not a rare case: the document notes that, according to appendix C.7 of the manual, a GAI 4 or more points above the FSIQ is found in 17.2% of children in the standardisation sample. The difference alone is not enough.
• The warning: the document notes that some practitioners tend to pick whichever of FSIQ and GAI is more favourable to the child, without regard to the criteria for using the GAI. The report must show that the choice follows the rule, not the family's hopes.

The same document notes that in gifted children the lowest score is often Coding. That is a clue, not proof. It sets no giftedness cut-off: applying the 130 benchmark to the GAI is your clinical judgement, and should be written as such.

When the profile is very uneven

A difference can be significant without being rare. We recommend stating, for each difference you keep, its significance, its frequency in the sample (often considered rare below 5%) and what it means in the child's daily life. Avoid categories such as "uneven gifted" or "FSIQ cannot be calculated": describe the strengths, the relative weaknesses and what remains to be explored (attention, handwriting, written language) if your observations justify it. Also avoid listing personality traits as if they followed from the score: Ackerman's article points out that not all gifted people are hypersensitive, and vice versa.

Giftedness assessment report template, ready to copy

For the general framework, see our psychological assessment report template and, for the detail of each index, our WAIS-IV and WISC-V report guide.

Square brackets are fields you fill in yourself from your scoring and your manual.

Header

• Psychological assessment report: evaluation of intellectual functioning
• Psychologist: [Name], psychologist, registration number [ADELI or RPPS in France; applicable register in Belgium or Switzerland], [professional contact details]
• Child: [First name SURNAME], date of birth [date], age at testing: [X years Y months], school year: [year]
• Dates: initial interview [date]; testing [dates]; feedback [date]
• Purpose: [assessment of intellectual functioning requested by ...]
• Recipients of this document: [holders of parental authority]; other recipients only with their consent: [name, role]

1. Reason for referral

[First name] was seen at the request of [who], who wonders about [advanced learning, boredom, feeling out of step, difficulties despite apparent ease, plan to skip a year]. Question for this assessment: [one sentence].

2. History and context

[Development, schooling and teachers' comments, family and social life, previous assessments with date and conclusion.]

3. Testing conditions

Tool: [WISC-V, French adaptation by ECPA par Pearson, or WAIS-IV / other scale, exact edition]. Testing over [N] session(s) of [duration], [morning / afternoon]. [First name] was [observed attitude]. [Factors that may affect results: fatigue, medication, context.] The results can be considered [representative / to be interpreted with caution because ...].

4. Overall results

• FSIQ: [value], 95% confidence interval [lower to upper bound], percentile [value], range [manual descriptor]
• GAI: [value], 95% CI [bounds], percentile [value] (report it if GAI minus FSIQ is significant or if the question requires it)
• FSIQ interpretability: [The FSIQ gives a faithful picture of overall functioning.] OR [Scatter across indices leads us to favour the index-level reading; the FSIQ is given for information.]

5. Index analysis

For each index: [value], 95% CI [bounds], percentile [value], then what the subtests show.

• VCI: [Similarities, Vocabulary: abstraction, precise vocabulary.]
• VSI: [Block Design, Visual Puzzles: visual analysis and synthesis, strategy.]
• FRI: [Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights: deduction, new problems.]
• WMI: [Digit Span, Picture Span.]
• PSI: [Coding, Symbol Search: speed, checking, possible perfectionism.]

6. Differences and scatter

[Difference between [index A] and [index B]: [N] points, significant at [x]; base rate in the standardisation sample: [x%].] [Clinical reading of the difference.] [If GAI used: The GAI ([value]) is significantly higher than the FSIQ ([value], difference of [N] points, critical value of [value] given in the manual) and its five scores are homogeneous and higher than Coding and Digit Span; it is therefore used as the more representative estimate of reasoning.]

7. Qualitative observations and socio-emotional aspects

[Strategies, response to errors, emotional elements noted in interview without extrapolation, points to explore.]

8. Summary and conclusion

In answer to [referrer]'s question, the assessment shows [overall intellectual functioning in the [descriptor] range / a profile marked by clear strengths in [areas] and average functioning in [areas]]. Choose one wording.

• Variant A: These results are consistent with high intellectual potential in the psychometric sense (FSIQ [value], CI [bounds]).
• Variant B: The FSIQ is below the conventional 130 benchmark, but the GAI, which here meets the conditions of use set out by the publisher, reaches it; the profile is consistent with high intellectual potential, with a relative weakness in [PSI / WMI].
• Variant C: The results do not support a conclusion of high intellectual potential in the psychometric sense; they show [strengths] that explain [the family's observations].

These results describe [First name]'s functioning at the time of assessment, under the conditions described. High intellectual potential is not a medical diagnosis.

9. Recommendations

• At home: [concrete ideas linked to the profile].
• At school: [enrichment, deeper work, adapting repetitive tasks, dialogue with the team; any formal plan to be discussed with the school under current rules].
• Next steps: [none / reassessment at [time] / referral to [professional] if [observation]].

Oral feedback given on [date] to [people present]. Document written on [date], at [place]. Signature: [Name], psychologist.

Fully completed fictional example

All data below are fictional. The child does not exist, and the scores were chosen to illustrate the reasoning on the GAI. They come from no norm table: the indices, intervals and percentiles do not necessarily match what these scores would give, and are not a standard. Always use the values, intervals and critical values from your own manual.

Psychological assessment report (example)

Child: Malo T., 9 years 4 months, year 5 (French CM1). Testing: two 50-minute sessions, in the morning. Referral: the parents, on the teacher's suggestion; she describes a pupil who "finishes everything first, then switches off". Question: understand the gap between Malo's quickness when speaking and the slowness of his written work.

Context and conditions: early reader according to the parents, slow and neat handwriting, no previous assessment. WISC-V. Malo is engaged and checks his answers at length on Coding and Symbol Search. The results appear representative.

• Scaled scores (fictional): Similarities 16, Vocabulary 17, Block Design 14, Visual Puzzles 13, Matrix Reasoning 15, Figure Weights 16, Digit Span 13, Picture Span 12, Coding 9, Symbol Search 11
• VCI: 138 (95% CI 128 to 142), percentile 99
• VSI: 124 (95% CI 114 to 130), percentile 95
• FRI: 133 (95% CI 123 to 138), percentile 99
• WMI: 118 (95% CI 109 to 124), percentile 88
• PSI: 102 (95% CI 93 to 111), percentile 55
• FSIQ: 128 (95% CI 121 to 133), percentile 97
• GAI: 134 (95% CI 127 to 139), percentile 99

Differences: the GAI exceeds the FSIQ by 6 points, above the 3.92-point critical value. The five GAI scores (14 to 17) are homogeneous and all higher than Coding (9) and Digit Span (13). Both conditions are met: the GAI is used as the more representative estimate of reasoning.

Conclusion: verbal and fluid reasoning well above his age. The FSIQ (128) is just below the 130 benchmark; the GAI (134), which meets the conditions of use, reaches it. The profile is consistent with high intellectual potential, with processing speed in the average range that is a relative weakness and helps explain the slowness seen in class. These results describe Malo's functioning at the time of assessment and are not a medical diagnosis.

Recommendations: at school, deeper tasks rather than more exercises of the same kind; limit copying when writing is not the goal. If slow handwriting persists, raise it with Malo's doctor.

Giving feedback to parents, the child and the school

The French code of ethics for psychologists (2021) asks psychologists to present their conclusions "clearly and in a way suited to the person concerned" (article 15) and to give "contextualised, non-reductive conclusions" (article 22) (our translations). Our psychological assessment feedback template covers the meeting itself step by step.

• To parents: "The overall number does not sum up your child. He reasons very fast but writes at an average pace, and that gap is what makes class hard for him."
• On the word gifted: "It is neither an illness nor a diagnosis, it describes how he functions today."
• To the child: "Your brain finds ideas quickly. Writing takes you longer, that's normal, and it doesn't mean you understand less."
• To the school: we recommend a short, separate note, handed over by the parents if they wish, focused on teaching levers and without detailed scores. Article 15 of the code states that conclusions passed to a third party include the psychological elements behind them only if necessary, and that the person's assent or prior information is required.

School adjustments: what official texts say

• France, PPRE: according to the Eduscol handbook, the PPRE is a formal, free-format action plan, used first of all to motivate and value the pupil.
• France, PAP: the same document reserves the personalised support plan for pupils with lasting school difficulties linked to a learning disorder; the disorder is identified by the school doctor or the child's own doctor, and the school doctor gives an opinion on setting up the plan. Giftedness alone does not justify a PAP.
• France, skipping a year: the handbook states that a psychological and intellectual assessment is not required for this decision. Your report informs it, it does not condition it. For any adjustment, the handbook says of families that their agreement is required and keeping them informed is essential.
• Switzerland: the CSPS Foundation document recommends enrichment and deeper work first, then considering skipping a year if that is not enough, and notes that accelerating the curriculum within the class is not recommended. Procedures vary by canton.
• Belgium: as we found no equivalent official text, we recommend directing parents to the school management and its PMS centre.

Checklist before sending

• The referral question is restated at the top and the conclusion answers it.
• The scale, its exact edition and the age at testing appear in the document.
• Every score comes with its confidence interval and percentile; the FSIQ is never given alone.
• If the GAI is used, both conditions (significant difference, homogeneity) are written out with the values from the manual.
• The conclusion uses careful wording and states that giftedness is not a diagnosis.
• The header carries the items listed in article 18 of the code: date, identity, title, registration number, contact details, signature, recipient and purpose. Only the psychologist who wrote it may sign, change or cancel it.
• The parents have agreed to any sharing with another recipient.

Why Delta for your assessment reports

Delta writes your assessment reports in your vocabulary and structure, learned from your existing reports, and keeps the memory of each patient. It calculates no scores, interprets no tests and makes no diagnosis: you give it your results and conclusions, dictated after the session or written, and you review and sign the report. Data stay in Europe, in France, on infrastructure certified for health data (HDS). More structures are gathered in our clinical document templates.

Sources

• Pearson Clinical France, "Du bon usage de l'Indice d'Aptitude Générale (IAG)", document ref. DCL1-08/2023 (in French)
• Eduscol, handbook "Scolariser un élève à haut potentiel", French Ministry of Education (undated, in French)
• CSPS Foundation, "Haut potentiel intellectuel (HPI) à l'école régulière", April 2021 version (in French)
• K. Ackerman, "Au-delà du génie : plongée dans le monde complexe du haut potentiel", Revue Médicale de Bruxelles, 2023, 44(4) (in French)
• French code of ethics for psychologists, version consolidated on 9 September 2021 (in French)