SAMPLE REPORT CONFIDENTIAL

PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

NAME: XXX SCHOOL: Central Elementary School

DATE OF BIRTH: 09/09/2000 GRADE: 4TH grade
DATE OF EVALUATION: 01/04/2011 PARENT(S):
CHRONOLOGICAL AGE: 10 years, 5 months
EXAMINER: Jessica F. Castine

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

XXX was assessed as part of a routine reevaluation as is mandated by the New York
State Department of Education.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
XXX is a 10-year, 5-month-old young man, currently in the 4th grade at Central
Elementary School. XXX has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). He has been
previously evaluated and has been identified as having Multiple Disabilities due to his ADD
coupled with a learning disability. XXX has an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) in place. Within
his IEP, XXX receives special instruction in a 15:1 Special Education self-contained classroom for
reading, math, ELA, and spelling. XXX is able to participate in his general education classroom
for social studies and science, as well as specials (i.e., music, gym, art).
EVALUATION PROCEDURES:
XXX presented as cheerful, well-mannered, young man. Rapport was easily established
and was maintained throughout the evaluation process. XXX came willingly to the testing
sessions without hesitation. On occasion, XXX participated in some off-task or avoidance
behaviors such as changing the topic of conversation to be about him; particularly during
vocabulary, which required redirection back to task. At the same time, XXX did appear to put forth
his best effort on all that was asked of him. Testing was completed in two sessions that lasted
approximately three hours in length.
The evaluation is a valid and reliable estimate of XXX’s abilities, assessed in a
controlled, quiet setting free of distractions. The following evaluation tools were used:
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition (WISC-IV)
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition (WAIT-III)
Behavioral Observations
Record Review
EVALUATION RESULTS:
 XXX (09/09/2000) pg 2

XXX was administered the WISC-IV, an individually administered standardized

intelligence test for assessing the cognitive ability of children aged 6 years through 16 years 11
months. The test consists of ten core subtests. The WISC-IV yields a Full Scale Intelligence
Quotient and four indices: Verbal Comprehension Index, Perceptual Reasoning Index, Working
Memory Index, and Processing Speed Index. XXX’s Full Scale IQ fell within the below average
range [Standard Score (SS)=74, Confidence Interval (CI)=70-80, Percentile Rank (PR)=4].
Meaning, only four percent of children his age scored at or below the level obtained and due to
the possibility of error associated with the WISC-IV, there is a 95% chance that his FSIQ would
fall in the range of 70-80, if the test were administered again. These results are consistent with
past assessments of his ability.
The Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) measures XXX’s verbal ability. XXX’s
performance within this index fell in the below average range (SS=81, CI=75-89, PR=10). His
ability to answer questions that involve knowledge of general principles [Comprehension: scaled
score (ss)=9], as well as his ability to draw conceptual similarities between words (Similarities:
ss=7) fell in the average range. XXX’s ability to define words (Vocabulary: ss=4) fell in the well
below average range. During this portion of the test, XXX occasionally would change the topic to
be about him and had to be redirected back to the task.
Working Memory (WMI) was assessed through tasks that required attention,
concentration, and the ability to attend to and hold information in the short-term memory. Within
this area, XXX’s performance within this index fell in the below average range (WMI: SS=80,
CI=74-89, PR=9). His ability to recall auditory information and repeat the information aloud in
proper sequence (Digit Span: ss=7) fell in the average range. XXX’s ability to sequentially order a
series of numbers and letters that were presented orally (Letter-Number Sequence: ss=6) fell in
the below average range.
The Processing Speed Index (PSI) measures cognitive processing efficiency. PSI
requires visual perception and organization, as well as visual scanning, and the efficient
production of multiple motor responses. XXX’s visual-motor coordination and cognitive flexibility
fell in the below average range (SS= 80, CI=73-91, PR=9). His ability to learn combinations of
symbols and shapes and to make associations quickly and accurately about them (Coding: ss=8)
fell in the average range. XXX’s speed of visual-perceptual discrimination and scanning was
assessed through tasks that required him to look at a target symbol, and decide whether that
symbol appeared in an array of symbols (Symbol Search: ss=5) fell in the below average range.
The Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) involves the manipulation of concrete materials or
processing of visual stimuli to solve problems nonverbally. XXX’s performance within this index
fell in the below average range (SS=77, CI=71-86, PR=6). His abstract, categorical reasoning
ability (Picture Concepts: ss=10) fell in the average range and emerged as a statistical strength.
Throughout this task, XXX would often talk to himself about how different pictures might go
 XXX (09/09/2000) pg 3

together as a strategy. XXX’s nonverbal reasoning and visual-spatial organization (Block Design:
ss=8) also fell in the average range. However, XXX’s visual-perceptual ability (Matrix Reasoning:
ss=1) fell in the well below average range and emerged as a statistical weakness. A possible
explanation for this emerging as a weakness is that this task requires XXX to use abstract
thinking to determine patterns of novel pictures.
XXX was administered subtests from the WAIT-III to determine his achievement levels
within the areas of reading, writing, and math. XXX’s ability to write an essay on a given topic
(Essay Composition: SS=95, CI=85-105, PR=37) fell in the average range. In terms of content
XXX was able to successfully answer the essay question; however, the grammar and mechanics
were a weakness in his writing. In addition, XXX immediately started writing his essay and did not
take time to plan/ organize; this lack of planning is a possible explanation for XXX only writing one
paragraph for his essay. XXX’s ability to spell dictated words, which requires writing the correct
spelling of words presented orally (Spelling: SS=87, CI=80-94, PR=19) fell in the average range.
XXX’s Basic Reading performance fell within the average range (Basic Reading: SS=91,
CI=87-95, PR=27). His reading decoding skills, which requires pronouncing nonsense words
(Pseudoword Decoding: SS=99, CI=94-104, PR=47) fell in the average range. XXX’s reading
comprehension of contextual information, which requires reading a short message and answering
questions about it (Reading Comprehension: SS=90,CI=80-100, PR=25] fell in the average
range. XXX had access to the reading passages during this test, and he often referred back to
the passage when she was unsure of an answer. In addition, it is noted that XXX had trouble
answering inferential questions about the reading. However, XXX was able to answer the majority
of factual questions about the passages he read which is a possible explanation for XXX’s high
score. Furthermore, XXX’s decoding skills for words (Word Reading: SS=83, CI=78-88, PR=13)
fell in the below average range.
His performance within the Mathematics cluster fell in the below average range
(Mathematics: SS=78, CI=71-85, PR=7). XXX’s mathematical reasoning, which requires
analyzing and solving practical math problems (Math Problem Solving: SS=81, CI=72-90, PR=10)
fell in the below average range. XXX’s ability to perform mathematical computations, which
requires calculation of simple to complex mathematical problems and equations (Numerical
Operations: SS=77, CI=69-85, PR=6) fell in the below average range. Throughout this math
section, XXX provided with paper and pencil to solve the problem; however, XXX did not use
them.
In speaking with Mrs. Adams, his special education teacher, XXX is doing well in school.
However, he does work at a slower pace than his peers and occasionally has trouble with
sustaining attention. Mrs. Adams stated that XXX’s reading fluency is at level with his peers and
XXX is able to answer factual questions about what he has read. However, XXX has trouble with
inferential questions, which is similar to test results discussed above. In addition, Mrs. Adams
 XXX (09/09/2000) pg 4

stated that in terms of writing XXX tends to have trouble with grammar and mechanics. XXX often
writes how he speaks; however, if he goes over his writing a second time with her he is able to fix
many of these errors. In regards to math, XXX is currently performing at a 2nd grade level and is
slowly having 3rd grade math integrated into his lesson.
SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATIONS:
XXX, a 4th grade student at CCRS, was assessed at this time as part of a routine
reevaluation process. XXX is currently identified as a student with Multiple Disabilities. XXX has
an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) in place. Within his IEP, XXX receives special instruction
in a 15:1 Special Education self-contained classroom for reading, math, ELA, and spelling. XXX is
able to participate in his general education classroom for social studies, science, and specials
(music, gym, art).
Current intellectual test results indicate that XXX is of overall below average ability.
XXX’s abilities evenly distributed among all indices that make up his Full Scale IQ. These results
are consistent with past assessments of his ability. Furthermore, XXX’s overall achievement
within the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics fell in the below average to average range.
Similar to what reports from his teacher, XXX is able to answer factual questions about what he
has read; however, he has trouble with inferential questions. In regards to writing, XXX had
particular weakness when it came to grammar and mechanics. In addition, he did not take time to
plan what he wanted to write. XXX performed the poorest in mathematics; when supplied with
paper and pencil to help him solve problems he did not use them.
In summary, it appears that XXX is a student who continues to qualify for special
education intervention. His academic testing results as well as input from his teacher still indicate
need for help in his overall subject areas of reading, writing, and math. This justifies why he
receives special instruction in a 15:1 Special Education self-contained classroom for reading,
math, ELA, and spelling. Due to XXX’s ADD coupled with his learning disability, the classification
of Multiple Disabilities can be considered to be the most appropriate.

Jessica F. Castine, B.A./B.S. Date

School Psychology Trainee
 XXX (09/09/2000) pg 5

Summary of Scores: WISC-IV

Composite Composite Percentile Confidence Description
Scores Rank Interval (95%)
Full Scale IQ 74 4 70-80 Below Average
Verbal 81 10 75-89 Below Average
Comprehension
Working Memory 80 9 74-89 Below Average
Processing Speed 80 9 73-91 Below Average
Perceptual 77 6 71-86 Below Average
Reasoning

Subtest Scaled Percentile Description Strength/Weaknes

Scores Rank s
Verbal Comprehension
Comprehension 9 Average
Similarities 7 Average
Vocabulary 4 Below Average
Working Memory
Digit Span 7 Average
Letter-Number 6 Below Average
Sequencing
Processing Speed
Coding 8 Average
Symbol Search 5 Below Average
Perceptual Reasoning
Picture Concepts 10 Average Strength
Block Design 8 Average
Matrix Reasoning 1 Well Below Weakness
Average
 XXX (09/09/2000) pg 6

Summary of Scores: WAIT-III

Composite/ Subtest Composite/ Percentile Confidence Description
Scaled Rank Interval (95%)
Scores
Essay Composition 95 37 85-105 Average
Spelling 87 19 80-94 Average
Basic Reading 91 27 87-95 Average
Pseudoword Decoding 99 47 94-104 Average
Reading 90 25 80-100 Average
Comprehension
Word Reading 83 13 78-88 Below Average
Mathematics 78 7 71-85 Below Average
Math Problem Solving 81 10 72-90 Below Average
Numerical Operations 77 6 69-85 Below Average