The WISC-R profiles of 456 Grade 3 students with full scale IQs of 120 and above were analyzed. Large subtest scatter, verbal-performance discrepancy, and idiographic variability appear to be normal for the test profiles of bright students. They excelled in complex reasoning but were often not different from average students in their attention span, memory, sequential reasoning, visualspatial perception, or visual-motor coordination. Differences were identified in subgroups according to verbal or nonverbal strengths and gender. Boys showed strengths for simultaneous and visual-spatial reasoning, and girls showed strengths for sequential and social reasoning. Academic achievement varied as a function of full scale IQ and verbal or nonverbal strengths. Implications for educational programming are discussed.The WISC-R is one of the most widely used tests for identifying gifted children. However, there is a limited body of literature regarding its use for assessing children of high intellectual ability, particularlv normal functioning bright children. Many of the studies were based on small samples (Brown & Yal~imo~vski, & Saphire, 1990). Moreover. different criteria were used in defining giftedness, ranging from verbal (VIQ), performance (PIQ), or full scale IQ (FIQ) above 119 to FIQ of 130. Small sample sizes and inconsistent definitions of giftedness limit the comparability and generalizahility of their findings.The scarcity of research data provides scanty empirical support for the interpretation of WISC R profiles. There is considerable controversy in the literature regarding the cognitive profile characteristics of bright children. Several studies found significant variability within their WISC-R profiles, but the interpretations differed. Mueller. Dash. Matheson. and Short (1984) suggested thai WISGR pmfile patterns differ as a function of FIQ in normal (non LD) subjecis. They examined profile configurations of different ability groups constructed from a metaanalysis of published data and found that there was greater variation in the hrofile of the &dquo;above average group than that of the &dquo;average group. Comparisons within the above average group revealed that thev performed better on verbal subtests and less well on performance subtests. Arithmetic and coding were the lowest ranking subtests. Intergroup comparisons indicated that after adjusting for the difference in overall profile elevation, above average children were superior to average children on verbal subtests. Kaufman (1979) suggested that the reason bright children perform better on verbal subtests is that it is more difficult to obtain extremely high scores on performance subtests which involve bonus speed points at the upper end of the score range.Hollinger and Kosek (1986) also discovered considerable variability within the profiles of children with FIQ of 130 and above. Using Kaufman's (1979) method of determining intrascale differences, they found that 84.6% of their sample demonstrated significant idiographic strength(s) or weakness...