Confidential Psychoeducational Report



Confidential Psychoeducational Report

Name: Jason Y. Date of Birth: June 8, 1996

Address: 5555 Thrift Street Evaluation: Feb. 11, 2012

Address: Ronkonkoma, NY Chronological Age: 15 years, 8 months

School: Connetquot Teacher:

Grade: 10th Examiner: Kerri Watkins

Reason for Referral:

Jason was referred by his father, Mr. Y., for the purpose of giving his examiner experience administering a cognitive ability test. The results of this evaluation will not be used for any purpose, other than to grant the examiner experience. The results of this evaluation are confidential and will not be shared with neither the participant nor their legal guardians.

Background Information

Jason is a 15-year, 8-month old male of average height for his age and slightly underweight for his age. Jason has dark hair with a light complexion. His medical history is unremarkable and he did not wear glasses or a hearing aide during testing because he does not need them. Jason lives at home with his mother, father and 21 year-old sister. He attends Connetquot school district. The test was given in the comfort of Jason's home with limited distractions. Jason had let the examiner know that he has a lot of homework and hoped there wasn’t any math on the test.

Behavior Observation:

During Administration of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), Jason’s mood seemed very calm and collected at the beginning of testing. He seemed eager to perform well on the test. As time went on he appeared to become restless as his attention seemed to wander, especially in between subtests. He maintained constant eye contact with the examiner at appropriate times. Rapport was easily established and maintained throughout testing. He exhibited no unusual behaviors throughout the evaluation and his patterns of responding to questions left nothing to be noted. Jason responded to all test items in English, his only fluent language. Based on these observations, the results of testing are most likely a reliable indicator of Jason’s cognitive ability.

During Administration of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition (WIAT-III), Jason’s friendly mood seemed to stay the same through to the completion of the test as evidenced by his smile and joking with the examiner throughout testing. Jason remained focused and in his seat throughout testing while maintaining constant eye contact with the examiner at all appropriate times. Due to a history with the examiner, a strong rapport was easily established and maintained throughout testing. He exhibited no unusual behaviors during the test. Jason responded to all test items in English, his only fluent language. Based on these observations, the results of this evaluation are most likely a reliable indicator of Jason’s level of achievement.

Assessment Procedures:

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) – February 11th, 2012

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition (WIAT-III) – March 13th, 2012

Discussion of Results:

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV)

Cognitive Functioning:

Jason’s current Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) data is described in the summary scores below:

|Composite Score Summary |

|Scale |Composite |Percentile |95% Confidence Interval| |

| |Score |Rank | |Qualitative Description |

|Verbal Comprehension (VCI) |119 |75 |112 – 126 |High Average |

|Perceptual Reasoning (PRI) |94 |34 |87 – 102 |Average |

|Working Memory (WMI) |80 |11 |73 – 87 |Low Average |

|Processing Speed (PSI) |97 |42 |88 – 106 |Average |

|Full Scale (FSIQ) |99 |37 |92 - 106 |Average |

The composite scores have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 with 109-90 being within the “Average.” Scores that are above 110 are considered to be within the “High Average” range and scores that are below 90 are considered to be within the “Low Average” range.

Jason is a 15-year, 8-month old who was administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) for the sake of allowing his examiner practice. Jason’s Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) was 99, which is in the “Average” range. A score of this nature indicates that Jason score is as high or better than 37% percent of children his age (37th percentile) within the standardization sample. If retested, there is a 95% probability that he would earn a FSIQ between 92 and 106. The FSIQ is a measurement of general intellectual functioning and is comprised of four index scores: Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing

Speed. Jason’s performance in each of these areas ranged from “High Average” to “Low Average.” Given the significant amount of variability between the individual ability scores that comprise the test, Jason’s ability is best understood in terms of the individual index scores.

|Verbal Comprehension Subtests Summary |

|Subtest |Scaled Score |Percentile |

| | |Rank |

|Similarities |14 |91 |

|Vocabulary |9 |37 |

|Comprehension |12 |75 |

|(Information) |11 |63 |

|(Word Reasoning) |9 |37 |

The Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) is made up of three core subtests which measure a student’s verbal abilities, reasoning and understanding of basic facts, word conceptualization as well as general knowledge. Jason earned a VCI of 119, which is within the “High Average” range and is at the 75th percentile. There is a 95% probability that if retested, his VCI would be between 112 and 126. Given the significant variability between the individual tasks that comprise Jason’s VCI, his abilities in this area are best understood in light of the individual subtests. Jason performed within the “Superior” range when asked to express how two objects or how two verbal concepts were similar (Similarities). This subtest appeared to be an area of strength for Jason. He performed within the “High Average” range on a task that asked him to explain situations and activities that correlate with familiar events (Comprehension). Jason performed within the “Average” range when asked to identify popular concepts that were described to him through a series of clues (Word Reasoning). He also performed within the “Average” range when he was required to define words (Vocabulary) as well as on a task that had him answer general fund of information questions (Information). Jason’s high performance in Similarities may indicate that he does well in his English classes and subjects that involve a lot of reading and comprehension.

|Perceptual Reasoning Subtests Summary |

|Subtest |Standard Score |Percentile Rank |

|Block Design |6 |9 |

|Picture Concepts |11 |63 |

|Matrix Reasoning |10 |50 |

|(Picture Completion) |12 |75 |

The Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) is composed of three core subtests which measures the visual organization and processing of a child as well as their basic nonverbal reasoning ability, and their ability to utilize visual-spatial design. Jason earned a PRI of 94, which is within the “Average” range and at the 34th percentile amongst his peers. If retested, there is a 95% probability that his PRI would fall between 87 and 102. Given the significant variability between the individual tasks that comprise Jason’s WMI, his abilities in this area are best understood in light of the individual subtests. Jason performed within the “High Average” range on a task where he was required to effectively select conceptually-similar pictures (Picture Concepts). Jason performed in the “Average” range on tasks that required him to complete visual patterns (Matrix Reasoning) and to distinguish between essential and nonessential details (Picture Completion). On a task where Jason was required to reproduce visual designs using dual-colored blocks (Block Design), he performed within the “Low Average” range, which seemed to be an area of weakness for Jason. Due to Jason’s low performance on Block Design, this may indicate that he encounters some issues with activities involving visual spatial tasks. Jason may benefit from games such as Tetris and puzzles, to help him build up his skills with visual spatial designs.

|Working Memory Subtests Summary |

| |

|Subtest |Scaled Score |Percentile Rank |

|Digit Span (DS) |3 |1 |

| Digits Forward |5 |5 |

| Digits Backward |3 |1 |

|Letter-Number Sequencing |13 |84 |

|(Arithmetic) |6 |9 |

The Working Memory Index (WMI) is composed of two core subtests that measure attention, concentration, and the child’s ability to manipulate information contained in immediate recall. Jason’s WMI was 80, which is within the “Low Average” range and at the 11th percentile. If retested, there is a 95% probability that his score would be between 73 and 87. Given the significant variability between the individual tasks that comprise Jason’s WMI, his abilities in this area are best understood in light of the individual subtests. Jason performed within the “High Average” range on a subtest that asked him to sequentially order a series of letters and numbers read aloud (Letter-number Sequencing). This subtest was an area of significant strength for Jason. Jason seemed to exhibit weakness and performed within the “Low Average” range on a task that required him to apply mathematical operations, without the use of a pencil and paper (Athimetic). Jason exhibited “Extremely Low” ability on subtest that required him to repeat series of numbers in both a forward and backwards manner (Digit Span). This subtest appeared to be a significant area of weakness for Jason. Although Jason performed within the “Extremely Low” range when repeating the digits backwards (Digits Backwards), he performed within the “Borderline” range when asked to recite the digits in a forward manner (Digits Forward). Although Jason performed well with Letter-number Sequencing, it was discrepant from his Digit Span scores. The low performance may indicate that Jason has a difficult time with tasks involving his short-term, working memory. He seems to encounter difficulties temporarily storing information and then manipulating it. Jason may have difficulties following multi-step directions or procedures, such as numerical operations and may also have poor rote memorization. Jason may benefit from having important directions and novel class information in both auditory and written form and having the information repeated to him. He may also benefit from doing “do-now” activities.

|Processing Speed Subtests Summary |

|Subtest |Standard Score |Percentile Rank |

|Symbol Search |10 |50 |

|Coding |9 |37 |

|(Cancellation) |1 |1 |

The processing Speed Index (PSI) measures the speed of mental operations and perceptual discrimination. Jason earned a PSI of 97, which is within the “Average” range and at the 42nd percentile amongst his same-age peers. If retested, there is a 95% probability his PSI would fall between 88 and 106. Given the significant variability between the individual tasks that comprise Jason’s PSI, his abilities in this area are best understood in light of the individual subtests. Jason performed consistently within the “Average” range on tasks that required him to quickly indicate whether there was a presence of a target symbol or not in a small array (Symbol Search). He also performed within the “Average” range on a task that required him to copy symbols paired with other symbols (Coding). On a subtest that measured his speed of visual processing and visual-perceptual recognition (Cancellation), he performed within the “Extremely Low” range, which appeared to be a normative and relative weakness for Jason. The reason for this “Extremely Low” performance may be due to the fact that Jason did not follow the directions. The examiner told him to cross out all of the animals and he crossed out plants as well. He argued that plants were alive as well and continued to cross them out. This may indicate that Jason may have issues with authority and a hard time following rules.

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III)

Jason’s current Wechsler Individual Achievement Test- Third Edition (WIAT-III) data is described in the summary below:

|Composite Score Summary |

|Scale |Composite Score |Percentile Rank |95% Confidence Interval |Qualitative Descriptor |

|Oral Language |98 |45 |90 – 106 |Average |

|Total Reading |95 |37 |90 – 100 |Average |

|Basic Reading |85 |16 |81 – 89 |Average |

|Reading Comprehension and Fluency|120 |86 |113 – 127 |Superior |

|Written Expression |101 |53 |94 – 108 |Average |

|Mathematics |74 |5 |67 – 81 |Borderline |

|Math Fluency |80 |10 |74 – 87 |Low Average |

|Total Achievement |93 |28 |86 – 100 |Average |

Jason is a 15 year, 9 month old boy who was administered the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition (WIAT- III) as part of a practice administration for the examiner. Jason’s Total Achievement was 93, which is in the “Average” range. He scored as high or better than 28% percent of his peers (28th percentile) within the standardization sample. If retested there is a 95% probability that he would earn a Total Achievement between 86 and 100. The Total Achievement measures an individual’s academic ability and is composed of eight composites: Oral Language, Total Reading, Basic Reading, Reading Comprehension and Fluency, Written Expression, Mathematics, and Math Fluency. Jason’s performance in these areas was within the “Superior” range to the “Borderline” range. Due to significant variability between the individual ability scores that make up the test, it is best understood if we look at Jason’s scores in terms of the individual scaled scores.

|Oral Language Composite Subtests Summary |

|Subtest |Standard Score |Percentile Rank |

|Listening Comprehension |89 |23 |

|Oral Expression |108 |70 |

The Oral Language Composite is made up of two core subtests, which measures a student’s receptive vocabulary, oral disclosure comprehension, expressive vocabulary, oral word fluency, and sentence repetition. Jason earned an Oral Language Composite score of 98, which is within the “Average” range and at the 45th percentile. There is a 95% probability that if retested, Jason’s Oral Language Composite would fall between 90 and 106. On subtests that required Jason to say words that best corresponded to given pictures and definitions, and had him listen to sentences that increased in length and complexity and repeat each of the sentences verbatim (Oral Expression), he performed within the “Average” range. Jason performed within the “Average” range when he was required to point to a picture that best illustrated the meaning of each word he heard. Jason also performed within the “Average” range when he was required to orally respond to comprehension questions about sentences and passage he had listened to (Listening Comprehension). Jason also performed within the “Average” range on a task that requested him to name as many things as possible belonging to a given category within 60 seconds. Due to minimal variability, these scores should be an accurate portrayal of Jason’s oral language ability.

|Total Reading Composite Subtests Summary |

|Subtest |Standard Score |Percentile Rank |

|Reading Comprehension |109 |73 |

|Word Reasoning |77 |6 |

|Pseudoword Decoding |94 |34 |

|Oral Reading Fluency |112 |79 |

The Total Reading Composite is comprised of four core subtests, which measure untimed reading comprehension, speed, and accuracy of decontextualized word recognition, ability to decode nonsense words and speed, accuracy, and prosody of contextualized oral reading. Jason earned a Total Reading Composite of 95, which is within the “Average” range and at the 37th percentile. There is a 95% probability that if retested, Jason’s Total Reading Composite score would fall between 90 and 100. . Given the significant variability between the individual tasks that comprise Jason’s Total Reading Composite, his abilities in this area are best understood in light of the individual subtests. Jason performed in the “Average” range on tasks that required him to read passages and then orally respond to literal and inferential comprehension questions (Reading Comprehension) and when asked to read passages aloud, and then orally respond to comprehension questions after each passage (Oral Reading Fluency). Jason also performed in the “Average” range on a subtest that required him to read a list of nonsense words aloud (Pseudoword Decoding). On a task where Jason was asked to read aloud from a list of words that increased in difficulty (Word Reasoning), he performed within the “Borderline” range. This subtest appeared to be an area of normative and relative weakness for Jason. Jason’s low performance on Word Reasoning may indicate that he has difficulty de-coding more difficult words that he may find intimidating. He performed within the average range decoding non-sense words so he may have found the difficult words on Word Reasoning to be intimidating and may not have tried as hard as he did on Pseduoword Decoding. Jason may benefit from reading more, especially books and articles with a more advanced vocabulary to help Jason build up his own vocabulary. Jason may also benefit from playing games involving making and solving words, such as “Words with Friends,” “Hanging with Friends,” and “Scramble with Friends.”

|Basic Reading Composite Subtests Summary |

|Subtest |Standard Score |Percentile Rank |

|Word Reasoning |77 |6 |

|Pseudoword Decoding |94 |34 |

The Basic Reading Composite is made up of two core subtests, which measure a student’s speed and accuracy of decontextualized word recognition and the ability to decode nonsense words. Jason earned a Basic Reading Composite of 85, which is within the “Average” range and at the 16th percentile. There is a 95% probability, that if retested, Jason’s Basic Reading Composite score would be between 81 and 89. Due to significant variability, these scores should be his abilities in this area are best understood in light of the individual subtests Jason performed within the “Average” range on a task that required him to read a list of nonsense words aloud (Pseudoword Decoding). On a task that asked Jason to read aloud from a list of words that increase in difficulty (Word Reasoning), he performed within the “Borderline” range. This subtest appeared to be an area of weakness for Jason. Jason performed within the “Average” range on Pseudoword Decoding, yet he performed within the “Borderline” range on Word Reasoning, which shows a discrepancy in his abilities to decode words. He may have tried harder to de-code the nonsense words and may have been intimidated by the difficult words on the Word Reasoning card. Jason may benefit from reading more, especially books and articles with a more advanced vocabulary to help Jason build up his own vocabulary. Jason may also benefit from playing games involving making and solving words, such as “Words with Friends,” “Hanging with Friends,” and “Scramble with Friends.”

|Reading Comprehension and Fluency Composite Subtests Summary |

|Subtest |Standard Score |Percentile Rank |

|Reading Comprehension |113 |80 |

|Oral Reading Fluency |120 |89 |

The Reading Comprehension and Fluency Composite is composed of two core subtests that measure untimed reading comprehension of various types of texts, speed, accuracy, fluency, and prosody of contextualized oral reading. Jason earned a Reading Comprehension and Fluency Composite of 120, which is within the “Superior” range and at the 86th percentile. There is a 95% probability that if retested, Jason’s Reading Comprehension and Fluency Composite would fall between 113 and 127. This appeared to be an area of strength for Jason. Jason performed within the “Superior” range on a subtest that requested him to read passages aloud and orally respond to comprehension questions after each passage (Oral Reading Fluency).Jason performed within the “High Average” range on a task that required him to read passages and then orally respond to literal and inferential comprehension questions (Reading Comprehension). Jason’s high performance in this area indicates that Jason may excel in school activities that involve reading comprehension. Jason also performed well on tasks involving reading comprehension on the WISC-IV, which may indicate this an area of overall strength for Jason. Due to minimal variability, these scores should be an accurate portrayal of Jason’s Reading Comprehension and Fluency abilities. Jason’s overall high performance in this area may indicate that Jason is able to apply knowledge to real life situations and is able to use his verbal knowledge reason deductively.

|Written Expression Composite Subtests Summary |

|Subtest |Standard Score |Percentile Rank |

|Sentence Composition |96 |39 |

|Essay Composition |103 |58 |

|Spelling |105 |63 |

The Written Expression Composite is made up of three core subtests that measure sentence formulation skills, written syntactic maturity, spontaneous and compositional writing skills, and written spelling of letter sounds and single words. Jason earned a Written Expression Composite score of 101, which is within the “Average” range and at the 53rd percentile. There is a 95% probability that is retested, Jason would earn a Written Expression Composite score between 94 and 108. On a task that required Jason to combine two or three sentences into on sentences that preserves the meaning of the original sentences, he performed within the “Average” range. Jason also performed within the average range on a similar task that asked him to write one sentence that uses a target word with appropriate context (Sentence Composition). Jason performed within the “Average” range on a task that required him to spontaneously compose an essay within in 10-minutes time (Essay Composition). Finally, on a task that asked him to hear each letter sound within the context of a word, and each word used in a sentence, and to then write the target word (Spelling), he performed within the “Average” range. Due to minimal variability, these scores should be an accurate portrayal of Jason’s written expression abilities.

|Mathematics Composite Subtests Summary |

|Subtest |Standard Score |Percentile Rank |

|Math Problem Solving |77 |7 |

|Numerical Operations |72 |3 |

The Mathematics Composite is comprised of two core subtests, which measure untimed math problem solving skills and untimed written math calculation skills. Jason earned a Mathematics Composite score of 74, which is within the “Borderline” range and is at the 5th percentile. There is a 95% probability that if retested, Jason would earn a Mathematics Composite score between 67 and 81. This appeared to be an area of weakness for Jason. On a task that required Jason to solve math problems involving basic concepts, everyday applications, geometry, and algebra by providing oral and pointing responses (Math Problem Solving), he performed within the “Borderline” range. Jason also performed within the “Borderline” range when required to use some written math calculation skills involving basic skills, basic operations with integers, geometry, algebra, and calculus (Numerical Operations). Due to minimal variability, these scores should be an accurate portrayal of Jason’s mathematical abilities. Due to Jason’s low performance in this area, Jason may struggle with Mathematics in school. Jason may benefit from sitting closer to the front of the room by the chalkboard, seeking extra help and playing more math games such as Math Blaster.

|Math Fluency Composite Subtests Summary |

|Subtests |Standard Score |Percentile Rank |

|Math Fluency—Addition |78 |7 |

|Math Fluency—Subtraction |80 |10 |

|Math Fluency—Multiplication |82 |12 |

The Math Fluency Composite is made of three subtests, which measure the speed and accuracy of students’ math calculations of addition, subtraction, and multiplication. Jason earned a Math Fluency Composite of 80, which is within the “Low Average” range and at the 10th percentile. There is a 95% probability that if retested, Jason’s Math Fluency Composite would fall between 73 and 87. Jason performed in the “Low Average” range on tasks that required him to solve written subtraction (Math Fluency—Subtraction) and written multiplication (Math Fluency—Multiplication) problems within a 60-second time limit. On a task that involved Jason solving written addition problems within a 60-second time limit (Math Fluency—Addition), he performed within the “Borderline” range and this subtest appeared to be an area of weakness for Jason. Due to minimal variability, these scores should be an accurate portrayal of Jason’s math fluency abilities. Jason’s “Borderline” ability in this area indicates that Jason may have difficulty doing timed activities in school, especially math activities. Jason may benefit from seeking extra help in Mathematics, have him sit in the front of the room, closer to the chalkboard, playing games involving math and numbers that is timed, such as Math Blaster, and to be given math assignments that are not under time constraints.

Summary

Jason is a fifteen-year, eight-month-old male who was referred by his father, Mrs. Y., for the sole purpose of giving the examiner experience administering a test of cognitive ability. The results of his evaluation are confidential, will not be used for any reason other than to grant the examiner experience, and will not be shared with the participant of their legal guardians.

Rapport was easily established and maintained throughout the testing session. Jason maintained constant eye contact with the examiner at all appropriate times during throughout testing. Jason understood the directions and was able to respond properly at all times. He was composed, comfortable, attentive, and remained engaged for the duration of the testing. He responded in English, his only fluent language, at all times. Based on these observations, the results of the test are most likely a reliable indicator of Jason’s cognitive ability.

Jason’s Full Scale Intelligence Quotient was within the “Average” range and due to a significant amount of variability amongst scores, Jason’s FSIQ is not interpretable.

Even though Jason’s FSIQ was in the “Average” range he does possess a number of strengths and weaknesses. Jason performed within the “Superior” range when asked to express how two objects or how two verbal concepts were similar. This subtest appeared to be an area of strength for Jason. This high performance may indicate that Jason excels in classes and activities that involve reading comprehension. Jason performed within the “High Average” range on a subtest that asked him to sequentially order a series of letters and numbers read aloud. This subtest appeared to be an area of strength for Jason. Jason high performance on this subtest is discrepant from the other subtests in the area, which indicate that he may need to be supplied a supplemental test for his Working Memory, the other low scores in this area indicate that Jason may have difficulties temporarily storing information and then manipulating it. He performed within the “High Average” range on a task that asked him to explain situations and activities that correlate with familiar events. Jason performed within the “High Average” range on a task where he was required to effectively select conceptually-similar pictures. Jason performed in the “Average” range on tasks that required him to complete visual patterns and to distinguish between essential and nonessential details. Jason performed within the “Average” range when asked to identify popular concepts that were described to him through a series of clues. He also performed within the “Average” range when he was required to define words as well as on a task that had him answer general fun of information questions. Jason performed consistently within the “Average” range on tasks that required him to quickly indicate whether there was a presence of a target symbol or not in a small array. He also performed within the “Average” range on a task that required him to copy symbols paired with other symbols. Jason seemed to encounter some difficulty. Jason appeared to have weakness on a task that required him to reproduce visual designs using dual-colored blocks. This may indicate that Jason has issues with school activities that involve visual-spatial patterns. Jason seemed to exhibit weakness and performed within the “Low Average” range on a task that required him to apply mathematical operations, without the use of a pencil and paper. Jason also exhibited weakness and performed “Extremely Low” ability on a subtest that required him to repeat series of numbers in both a forward and backwards manner. Although Jason performed within the “Extremely Low” range when repeating the digits backwards he performed within the “Borderline” range when asked to recite the digits in a forward manner. These low subtest scores may indicate that Jason encounters difficulties with tasks that involve using his short term memory to take in information, temporarily store, and then manipulate it. Jason may have difficulties following multi-step directions or procedures, such as numerical operations and may also have poor rote memorization. On a subtest that measured his speed of visual processing and visual-perceptual recognition (Cancellation), he performed within the “Extremely Low” range, which appeared to be a normative and relative weakness for Jason. The reason for this “Extremely Low” performance may be due to the fact that Jason did not follow the directions. The examiner told him to cross out all of the animals and he crossed out plants as well. He argued that plants were alive as well and continued to cross them out. This blatant defiance of the rules may indicate that Jason may have issues with authority and listening to rules.

Jason’s Total Achievement was 93, which is in the “Average” range and due to significant variability among scores; Jason’s Total Achievement is not interpretable. Although Jason’s Total Achievement score was within the “Average” range, Jason possesses a number of strengths and weaknesses. Jason performed within the “Superior” range on a subtest that requested him to read passages aloud and orally respond to comprehension questions after each passage, which appeared to be an area of strength for Jason. Jason also performed well on reading comprehension tasks on the WISC-IV, which may indicate that reading comprehension is an overall strength for Jason and that, may be an area that he excels at in school. Jason performed within the “High Average” range on a task that required him to read passages and then orally respond to literal and inferential comprehension questions. Jason’s receptive vocabulary, oral disclosure comprehension, expressive vocabulary, oral word fluency, and sentence repetition abilities were consistently within the “Average” range. Jason performed in the “Average” range on tasks that required him to read passages and then orally respond to literal and inferential comprehension questions and when asked to read passages aloud, and then orally respond to comprehension questions after each passage. Jason also performed in the “Average” range on a subtest that required him to read a list of nonsense words aloud. Jason performed within the “Average” range on a task that required him to read a list of nonsense words aloud. Jason consistently performed within the “Average” range in his abilities in sentence formulation skills, written syntactic maturity, spontaneous and compositional writing skills, and written spelling of letter sounds and single words. Jason performed in the “Low Average” range on tasks that required him to solve written subtraction (Math Fluency—Subtraction) and written multiplication (Math Fluency—Multiplication) problems within a 60-second time limit. On a task that involved Jason solving written addition problems within a 60-second time limit (Math Fluency—Addition), he performed within the “Borderline” range and this subtest appeared to be an area of weakness for Jason. Jason’s abilities to perform untimed math problem solving skills and untimed written math calculation skills was within the “Borderline” range and appeared to be an area of weakness for Jason. Jason appeared to have difficulty on the Mathematics subtest on the WISC-IV as well. This may indicate that mathematics is an overall area of weakness for Jason, especially when he is under time constraints. Jason may benefit from seeking math extra help and to be given math activities that are not under time constraints. On a task where Jason was asked to read aloud from a list of words that increased in difficulty (Word Reasoning), he performed within the “Borderline” range. This subtest appeared to be an area of normative and relative weakness for Jason. Jason performed within the “Average” range on Pseudoword Decoding, which shows a discrepancy in his abilities to decode words. He may have tried harder to de-code the nonsense words and may have been intimidated by the difficult words on the Word Reasoning card.

Jason had consistent strengths in Reading Comprehension subtests on both the WISC-IV and the WIAT-III, indicating the Jason may excel in classes and activities that involve reading and comprehension in school. Jason also consistently encountered weaknesses on Mathematical subtests on both the WISC-IV and the WIAT-III, indicating that Jason may struggle in his math classes, especially on activities that are under time constraints. Jason may benefit from sitting in the front of the room, seeking extra help, and playing numbers games that involve math and may be under time constraints, such as Math Blaster and Sudoku puzzles.

Recommendations

• Jason may benefit from games such as Tetris and puzzles, to help him build up his skills with visual spatial designs.

• Jason may benefit from having directions and novel information given to him both verbally and on paper.

• Jason may benefit from doing “Do-Now” activities to help him to remember new information from the previous day to help strengthen his short-term, working memory.

• Jason will most likely benefit from playing games involving making, solving and decoding words such as “Words with Friends,” “Hanging with Friends,” and “Scramble with Friends,” to help build up his vocabulary and strengthen his decoding skills.

• Jason may benefit from sitting closer to the front of the room near the chalkboard, seeking math extra help, and playing numbers games that may be under time constraints such as Math Blaster and Sudoku puzzles.

• Jason may benefit from doing math activities that are not under time constraints and possible given extra time on math tests.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download