XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 1
Amy Balmanno, MS, NCSP, LEP3747
Licensed Educational Psychologist
6569 N. Riverside Dr. #102-228, Fresno, CA 93722
(559) 448-7128 | [email protected]m | amybalmanno.com
Independent Educational Evaluation
Student’s Name:
XXXXX
Gender:
Female
Date of Birth:
05/20/2007
Chronological Age:
12 years
Parents’ Names:
School:
Address:
District:
City/State/Zip:
Fresno, CA 93711
Grade:
6
Phone:
Test Dates:
4/14, 5/21, 5/30 & 6/7/2019
Primary Language:
English
Report Date:
06/14/2019
REASON FOR REFERRAL
XXXXX was referred for an Independent Educational Evaluation by her parents and the IEP Team at
ABCDE Elementary to assist in determining services and accommodations necessary for her to gain
educational benefit from her IEP. XXXXX has received Special Education services since May 2010. She
currently meets eligibility criteria under the categories of Other Health Impairment and Orthopedic
Impairment. Her current IEP includes Specialized Academic Instruction provided through the Resource
Specialist Program, Adapted Physical Education, Occupational Therapy, and Specialized Orthopedic
services.
REVIEW OF RECORDS
Family and Home Environment
XXXXX lives at home with her mother, father, and younger sister. English is the primary language spoken
in the home. She has a 29-year-old half-brother (on her mother’s side) who lives in the Bay Area. Mr.
Mother has completed an Associate’s degree and is employed by the Air National Guard. Mrs. Mother has
completed a Bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts and is currently a stay-at-home mother; she was the primary
caregiver for her mother from 2004 until she passed away in 2015 and for her father from 2016 until he
passed away in January 2019. Mrs. Mother provided in-class support to XXXXX from January 2019
through May 2019, as she did not want her removed from the General Education classroom.
Developmental and Health History
Records indicated that XXXXX was the product of a normal pregnancy. She was carried to term and
delivery was accomplished without any complications. She was discharged from the hospital with her
mother 1-2 days following delivery. During the first six weeks of her life, XXXXX exhibited low muscle
tone, had difficulty lifting/supporting her neck, and presented with a lazy eye. Attainment of early
developmental milestones was described as slower for motor and speech/language skills when compared to
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 2
her siblings. There were also concerns about the development of self-care skills, as XXXXX demonstrated
no interest and/or resistance, resulting in her requiring full assistance. Current vision and hearing screening
results were not available. Mrs. Mother shared that XXXXX has passed previous formal hearing
evaluations. She was recently evaluated by her eye doctor, who indicated a slight change in her
prescription; XXXXX has been diagnosed with strabismus (exotropia) and astigmatism. Health history is
significant for diagnoses of ataxia, apraxia, speech delays, learning and behavioral difficulties, absence
seizures, and episodic muscle weakness. She has been diagnosed with CACNA1A channelopathy, which
is a genetic mutation that can cause a spectrum of neurocognitive impairments including intellectual
deficiency, executive dysfunction, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD), autism, as well as
childhood onset and episodic ataxia. Mrs. Mother reported that XXXXX is scheduled for a neurology
appointment during the last week of June. XXXXX is not currently prescribed any medications.
Previous Psychoeducational Assessments
➢ A triennial psychoeducational evaluation was completed through the Fresno Unified School District in
November 2018. Test results were as follows:
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II)
Index
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Sequential
83
13
th
Simultaneous
74
4
th
Learning
92
30
th
Planning
72
3
rd
Knowledge
77
6
th
Fluid-Crystallized Composite
73
4
th
Learning - Delayed Recall
94
34
th
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-3)
Subtest
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Letter & Word Recognition
91
27
th
Reading Comprehension
87
19
th
Math Concepts & Applications
68
2
nd
Math Computation
44
< 0.1
Written Expression
69
2
nd
Spelling
95
37
th
Phonological Processing
85
16
th
Nonsense Word Decoding
105
63
rd
Reading Vocabulary
82
12
th
Listening Comprehension
74
4
th
Oral Expression
61
0.5
Composite
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Reading
87
19
th
Math
55
0.1
Written Language
82
12
th
Academic Skills Battery
72
3
rd
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 3
Supplemental Composite
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Sound-Symbol
93
32
nd
Decoding
97
42
nd
Reading Understanding
82
12
th
Comprehension
78
7
th
Expression
63
1
st
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (CTOPP-2)
Composite
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Phonological Awareness
96
39
th
Phonological Memory
85
16
th
Rapid Naming Skills
82*
12
th
*Note: The Rapid Naming Skills composite reported does not align with the subtest scaled scores reported.
If XXXXX earned raw scores that yielded a Rapid Digit Naming scaled score of 12 points and a Rapid
Letter Naming scaled score of 9 points, then this would have resulted in a Rapid Naming Skills composite
score of 104 points, which is at the 61
st
percentile and within the Average range.
Test of Auditory Processing Skills, Third Edition (TAPS-3)
Index
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Auditory Cohesion
73
4
th
Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Sixth Edition (VMI-6)
Subtest
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Visual-Motor Integration
93
32
nd
Visual Perception
92
30
th
Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, Second Edition (WRAML-2)
Index
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Verbal Memory
82
12
th
Visual Memory
73
4
th
Attention/Concentration
88
21
st
General Memory
75
5
th
Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Third Edition (ABAS-3): Parent/Caregiver Form
Domain
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Conceptual
69
2
nd
Social
65
1
st
Practical
70
2
nd
General Adaptive Composite
66
1
st
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 4
Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Third Edition (ABAS-3): Teacher Form
Domain
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Conceptual
69
2
nd
Social
71
3
rd
Practical
67
1
st
General Adaptive Composite
66
1
st
Conners Third Edition (Conners 3): Parent
Scale
T-Score
Descriptor
Inattention
81
Very Elevated Score
Hyperactivity/Impulsivity
48
Average Score
Learning Problems
88
Very Elevated Score
Executive Functioning
90
Very Elevated Score
Defiance/Aggression
77
Very Elevated Score
Peer Relations
90
Very Elevated Score
Conners Third Edition (Conners 3): Teacher
Scale
T-Score
Descriptor
Inattention
90
Very Elevated Score
Hyperactivity/Impulsivity
52
Average Score
Learning Problems/
Executive Functioning
90
Very Elevated Score
Defiance/Aggression
47
Average Score
Peer Relations
46
Average Score
Based on these assessment data, the IEP Team determined that XXXXX continued to qualify for
Special Education services under the categories of Other Health Impairment and Orthopedic
Impairment. The IEP Team determined that she no longer met eligibility criteria under the category of
Speech or Language Impairment. At the IEP Meeting in January 2019, the IEP Team recommended
that XXXXX begin receiving Specialized Academic Instruction through a Special Day Class rather
than through the Resource Specialist Program.
CURRENT ASSESSMENT DATA
Tests Administered
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V)
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III)
Conners Continuous Performance Test, Third Edition (Conners CPT 3)
Conners Continuous Auditory Test of Attention (Conners CATA)
Conners Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales (Conners CBRS)
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition (Vineland-3)
Parent Interview
Mrs. Mother stated that academically, XXXXX is stronger in Math than in English Language Arts. She
said that XXXXX is beginning to socialize better and that she enjoys her small group of friends. She
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 5
indicated that XXXXX loves singing and memorizing (by writing/copying down) the words to songs. She
reported that XXXXX enjoys videogames and that she can master tech media programs (e.g., PowerPoint)
when provided with repeated instruction and demonstration. XXXXX appears to learn best with lots of
visual demonstrations as well as pre-teaching and reteaching of material. Mrs. Mother indicated that
XXXXX requires a great deal of assistance in the areas of reading, writing, spelling, and grammar. Socially,
she is somewhat naïve and has difficulty with pragmatic communication, which appears to result in her
being easily bullied.
Student Interview
XXXXX was correctly able to state her name, age, date of birth, and grade level. She reported her address
as 2058 North Feland (the house number is 6058). She accurately provided her mother’s cell phone number.
She said that she lives with her mother, father, and younger sister; she shared that she has an older brother
who lives in the Bay Area. XXXXX indicated that she likes school and that she gets along well with her
teachers. She said that she was looking forward to attending Six Grade Camp the following week. She
stated that math is her favorite subject. She shared that reading is hard; when asked to explain what she
meant, she said that she has difficulty remembering what she reads. XXXXX reported that she has friends
at school, including a best friend named Alexis. She stated that she feels picked on by her peers at times
and that, when this happens, she usually becomes nervous and just wants to back away from those students.
In her free time, she enjoys watching videos and listening to music. She shared that she has participated in
chorus for three years and that she loves to sing.
Testing Observations
These assessments were completed over three sessions. Rapport was easily established and maintained.
XXXXX appeared to understand the directions on each subtest, as she completed sample items correctly;
when she had questions, she asked for clarification. She appeared cooperative, as she followed directions
and completed requested tasks. She did not seem to be easily frustrated, as she attempted all tasks presented;
however, as tasks became more difficult, she often responded with “I don’t know,” despite encouragement
to give it her best try. She did not appear to be easily distracted during the testing sessions as she attended
to task as needed without redirection by the examiner. Based on these observations, the current assessment
results are considered to be valid estimates of her true potential.
INTELLECTUAL ASSESMENT
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V):
The WISC-V is an individually administered, comprehensive clinical instrument for assessing the
intelligence of children ages 6 years 0 months through 16 years 11 months. The WISC-V provides primary
index scores that represent intellectual functioning in specific cognitive areas (i.e., Verbal Comprehension
Index, Visual Spatial Index, Fluid Reasoning Index, Working Memory Index, and Processing Speed Index),
a composite score that represents general intellectual ability (i.e., Full Scale IQ), ancillary scores that
represent the cognitive abilities in different groupings based on clinical needs (e.g., Nonverbal Index,
General Ability Index), and complementary index scores that measure additional cognitive abilities related
to academic achievement and learning-related issues and disorders (e.g., Naming Speed Index). This
instrument is composed of 10 core subtests. Subtest performance is reported in scaled scores, which have
an average of 10 points and a standard deviation of 3 points. Composites are reported in standard scores,
which have an average of 100 points and a standard deviation of 15 points.
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 6
Subtest
Description
Scaled
Score
Percentile
Rank
Block Design
A measure of the ability to analyze and synthesize
abstract visual stimuli.
7
16
th
Similarities
A measure of verbal concept formation and abstract
reasoning.
10
50
th
Matrix Reasoning
A measure of fluid intelligence, broad visual
intelligence, classification and spatial ability,
knowledge of part-whole relationships, and
simultaneous processing.
4
2
nd
Digit Span
A measure of auditory rehearsal and temporary storage
capacity in working memory; working memory,
transformation of information, mental manipulation,
and visuospatial imaging.
7
16
th
Coding
A measure of processing speed, short-term visual
memory, procedural and incidental learning ability,
psychomotor speed, visual perception, visual-motor
coordination, visual scanning ability, cognitive
flexibility, attention, concentration, and motivation.
9
37
th
Vocabulary
A measure of word knowledge and verbal concept
formation.
6
9
th
Figure Weights
A measure of quantitative fluid reasoning and
induction.
8
25
th
Visual Puzzles
A measure of mental, non-motor construction ability,
which requires visual and spatial reasoning, mental
rotation, visual working memory, understanding part-
whole relationships, and the ability to analyze and
synthesize abstract visual stimuli.
(6)
9
th
Picture Span
A measure of visual working memory and working
memory capacity.
(8)
25
th
Symbol Search
A measure of visual-perceptual and decision-making
speed, short-term visual memory, visual-motor
coordination, inhibitory control, visual discrimination,
psychomotor speed, sustained attention, and
concentration.
(7)
16
th
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 7
Information
A measure of the ability to acquire, retain, and retrieve
general factual knowledge.
(6)
9
th
Picture Concepts
A measure of fluid and inductive reasoning, visual-
perceptual recognition and processing, and conceptual
thinking.
(8)
25
th
Letter-Number
Sequencing
A measure of sequential processing, the ability to
compare stimuli based on quantity or alphabetic
principles, working memory capacity, and mental
manipulation.
(7)
16
th
Cancellation
A measure of speed, scanning ability, and visual
discrimination.
(4)
2
nd
Comprehension
A measure of verbal reasoning and conceptualization,
verbal comprehension and expression, the ability to
evaluate and use past experience, and the ability to
demonstrate practical knowledge and judgment.
(6)
9th
Arithmetic
A measure of mental manipulation, concentration,
brief focused attention, working memory, short- and
long-term memory, numerical reasoning ability,
applied computational ability, and mental alertness.
(4)
2
nd
Primary Index Scores
Composite
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
95% Confidence
Interval
Descriptor
Full Scale IQ
80
9
th
75-86
Low Average
Verbal
Comprehension
89
23
rd
82-98
Low Average
Visual Spatial
81
10
th
75-90
Low Average
Fluid Reasoning
76
5
th
70-85
Very Low
Working Memory
85
16
th
79-94
Low Average
Processing Speed
89
23
rd
81-99
Low Average
Full Scale IQ
The Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) is derived from seven subtests and summarizes ability across a diverse set of
cognitive functions. This score is typically considered the most representative indicator of general
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 8
intellectual functioning. Subtests are drawn from five areas of cognitive ability: verbal comprehension,
visual spatial, fluid reasoning, working memory, and processing speed. XXXXX's FSIQ score is in the Low
Average range when compared to other children her age (FSIQ = 80, PR = 9, CI = 75-86). While the FSIQ
provides a broad representation of cognitive ability, describing XXXXX's domain-specific performance
allows for a more thorough understanding of her functioning in distinct areas. Some children perform at
approximately the same level in all of these areas, but many others display areas of cognitive strengths and
weaknesses.
Verbal Comprehension Index
The Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) measured XXXXX's ability to access and apply acquired word
knowledge. Specifically, this score reflects her ability to verbalize meaningful concepts, think about verbal
information, and express herself using words. XXXXX's performance on the VCI was diverse, but overall
was slightly low for her age (VCI = 89, PR = 23, Low Average range, CI = 82-98). Low scores in this area
may occur for a number of reasons including poorly developed word knowledge, difficulty retrieving
acquired information, problems with verbal expression, or general difficulties with reasoning and problem
solving.
With regard to individual subtests within the VCI, Similarities (SI) required XXXXX to describe a
similarity between two words that represent a common object or concept and Vocabulary (VC) required
her to name depicted objects and/or define words that were read aloud. She exhibited uneven performance
across these two subtests. The discrepancy between XXXXX's scores on the Similarities and Vocabulary
subtests is clinically meaningful. These subtests differ in the specific abilities involved, and consideration
of the difference between the two scores informs interpretation of the VCI. She showed age-appropriate
performance when describing similarities between two words (SI = 10). However, her performance on
Vocabulary was weaker, with performance that was slightly below other children her age (VC = 6; SI >
VC, BR = 7.2%). This pattern of performance suggests that her abstract reasoning skills are currently
stronger than her ability to learn new words and describe them aloud. While her level of word knowledge
is currently an area of weakness within the VCI, it may increase through exposure to an enriched
environment and participation in vocabulary development activities. This pattern of performance also
suggests a relative strength in abstract reasoning and cognitive flexibility compared with lexical knowledge.
In addition to the two subtests that contribute to the VCI, two other verbal comprehension subtests were
administered to gain a more detailed understanding of XXXXX's verbal comprehension abilities. For
Information (IN), she answered questions about a broad range of general-knowledge topics. Her
performance was lower than average for her age, suggesting somewhat weak ability to acquire, remember,
and retrieve knowledge about the world around her (IN = 6). On Comprehension (CO), a subtest requiring
her to answer questions based on her understanding of general principles and social situations, XXXXX's
performance was lower than average for her age. This suggests somewhat weak understanding of practical
knowledge and ability to verbalize meaningful concepts (CO = 6).
Visual Spatial Index
The Visual Spatial Index (VSI) measured XXXXX's ability to evaluate visual details and understand visual
spatial relationships in order to construct geometric designs from a model. This skill requires visual spatial
reasoning, integration and synthesis of part-whole relationships, attentiveness to visual detail, and visual-
motor integration. In this area, XXXXX exhibited performance that was slightly below other children her
age (VSI = 81, PR = 10, Low Average range, CI = 75-90). Low scores in this area may occur due to deficits
in spatial processing, difficulty with visual discrimination, poor visual attention, visuomotor integration
deficits, or generally low reasoning ability. Overall, she appeared to have some difficulty putting together
geometric designs using a model.
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 9
The VSI is derived from two subtests. During Block Design (BD), XXXXX viewed a model and/or picture
and used two-colored blocks to re-create the design. Visual Puzzles (VP) required her to view a completed
puzzle and select three response options that together would reconstruct the puzzle. She performed
comparably across both subtests, suggesting that her visual-spatial reasoning ability is equally developed,
whether solving problems that involve a motor response and reuse the same stimulus repeatedly while
receiving concrete visual feedback about accuracy, or solving problems with unique stimuli that must be
solved mentally and do not involve feedback about accuracy (BD = 7; VP = 6).
Fluid Reasoning Index
The Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI) measured XXXXX's ability to detect the underlying conceptual
relationship among visual objects and use reasoning to identify and apply rules. Identification and
application of conceptual relationships in the FRI requires inductive and quantitative reasoning, broad
visual intelligence, simultaneous processing, and abstract thinking. XXXXX's performance on the FRI was
diverse, but overall was very weak for her age (FRI = 76, PR = 5, Very Low range, CI = 70-85). Low FRI
scores may occur for a number of reasons including poor reasoning ability and difficulties with identifying
important visual stimuli, linking visual information to abstract concepts, and understanding conceptual or
quantitative concepts. XXXXX's relatively weak performance on the FRI suggests that she may currently
experience some difficulty solving complex problems that require her to identify and apply rules.
The FRI is derived from two subtests: Matrix Reasoning (MR) and Figure Weights (FW). Matrix Reasoning
required XXXXX to view an incomplete matrix or series and select the response option that completed the
matrix or series. On Figure Weights, she viewed a scale with a missing weight(s) and identified the response
option that would keep the scale balanced. XXXXX demonstrated diverse performance on these two tasks.
The discrepancy between XXXXX's scores on the Matrix Reasoning and Figure Weights subtests is
clinically meaningful. These subtests differ in the specific abilities involved, and consideration of the
difference between the two scores informs interpretation of the FRI. While she showed age-appropriate
performance when balancing scales under a time constraint (FW= 8), she showed greater difficulty
identifying the missing pieces of patterns (MR = 4; MR < FW, BR = 12.8%). This pattern of scores suggests
that quantitative reasoning is a strength relative to inductive reasoning. It is possible that XXXXX may be
better able to demonstrate her fluid reasoning abilities when mathematical reasoning is involved.
In addition to the two subtests that contribute to the FRI, two additional fluid reasoning subtests were
administered to gain a more detailed understanding of XXXXX's fluid reasoning skills. For Picture
Concepts (PC), she was asked to view two or three rows of pictures and select one picture from each row
to form a group with a common characteristic. Her performance was similar to other children her age,
suggesting age-appropriate categorical reasoning skills (PC = 8). On Arithmetic (AR), a timed subtest
requiring her to mentally solve math problems, XXXXX's performance was below most other children her
age. This suggests weak numerical reasoning and applied computational ability (AR = 4).
Working Memory Index
The Working Memory Index (WMI) measured XXXXX's ability to register, maintain, and manipulate
visual and auditory information in conscious awareness, which requires attention and concentration, as well
as visual and auditory discrimination. XXXXX's performance on the WMI was slightly below other
children her age (WMI = 85, PR = 16, Low Average range, CI = 79-94). Low WMI scores may occur for
many reasons including distractibility, visual or auditory discrimination problems, difficulty actively
maintaining information in conscious awareness, low storage capacity, difficulty manipulating information
in working memory, or generally poor cognitive functioning. Overall, she showed some difficulty recalling
and sequencing series of pictures and lists of numbers.
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 10
Within the WMI, Picture Span (PS) required XXXXX to memorize one or more pictures presented on a
stimulus page and then identify the correct pictures (in sequential order, if possible) from options on a
response page. On Digit Span (DS), she listened to sequences of numbers read aloud and recalled them in
the same order, reverse order, and ascending order. She performed similarly across these two subtests,
suggesting that her visual and auditory working memory are similarly developed or that she verbally
mediated the visual information on Picture Span (PS = 8; DS = 7).
In addition to the two subtests that contribute to the WMI, Letter-Number Sequencing (LN) was
administered to gain a more detailed understanding of XXXXX's working memory proficiency. On this
subtest, she was read sequences of numbers and letters, and was then asked to recall the numbers in
ascending order and then the letters in alphabetical order. Her performance was slightly below other
children her age, suggesting somewhat weak sequential processing, mental manipulation, and attention (LN
= 7).
Processing Speed Index
The Processing Speed Index (PSI) measured XXXXX's speed and accuracy of visual identification,
decision making, and decision implementation. Performance on the PSI is related to visual scanning, visual
discrimination, short-term visual memory, visuomotor coordination, and concentration. The PSI assessed
her ability to rapidly identify, register, and implement decisions about visual stimuli. Her overall processing
speed performance was slightly low for her age (PSI = 89, PR = 23, Low Average range, CI = 81-99). Low
PSI scores may occur for many reasons including visual discrimination problems, distractibility, slowed
decision making, motor difficulties, or generally slow cognitive speed. The PSI is derived from two timed
subtests. Symbol Search required XXXXX to scan a group of symbols and indicate if the target symbol was
present. On Coding, she used a key to copy symbols that corresponded with numbers. Performance across
these tasks was similar, suggesting that XXXXX's associative memory, graphomotor speed, and visual
scanning ability are similarly developed (SS = 7; CD = 9).
In addition to the subtests that contribute to the PSI, XXXXX was administered Cancellation (CA), another
processing speed subtest, to gain a more detailed understanding of her processing speed ability. On this
timed subtest, she scanned two arrangements of objects (one random, one structured) and marked target
objects. Cancellation measures speed, scanning ability, and visual discrimination. Her performance was
weak compared to other children her age (CA = 4).
Ancillary Index Scores
Composite
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
95% Confidence
Interval
Descriptor
Verbal (Expanded
Crystallized)
82
12
th
77-89
Low Average
Expanded Fluid
74
4
th
69-82
Very Low
Quantitative
Reasoning
77
6
th
72-84
Very Low
Auditory
Working Memory
84
14
th
78-92
Low Average
Nonverbal
78
7
th
73-85
Very Low
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 11
General Ability
79
8
th
74-85
Very Low
Cognitive
Proficiency
84
14
th
78-92
Low Average
Verbal (Expanded Crystallized) Index
XXXXX was administered the four subtests comprising the Verbal (Expanded Crystallized) Index (VECI),
an ancillary index score that provides a broad measure of the child's ability to access and apply acquired
word knowledge and general knowledge. The application of this knowledge involves verbal concept
formation and expression; abstract verbal reasoning; and long-term retrieval. The VECI is derived using
the sum of scaled scores for all four subtests from the Verbal Comprehension domain (i.e., Similarities,
Vocabulary, Information, and Comprehension). Overall, this index score was slightly below other children
her age (VECI = 82, PR = 12, Low Average range, CI = 77-89). Low VECI scores may occur for a number
of reasons, including poorly developed word knowledge, factual knowledge, and/or practical knowledge
and judgment; difficulty retrieving acquired information; problems with verbal expression; or general
difficulties with reasoning and problem solving.
Expanded Fluid Index
XXXXX was administered the four subtests comprising the Expanded Fluid Index (EFI), an ancillary index
score that provides a broad measure of the child's ability to detect underlying conceptual relationships,
extract important information, and use reasoning to identify and apply rules. Identification and application
of conceptual relationships in the EFI requires inductive and quantitative fluid reasoning, simultaneous and
sequential processing, and abstract thinking. The EFI is derived using the sum of scaled scores for all four
subtests from the Fluid Reasoning domain (i.e., Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights, Picture Concepts, and
Arithmetic). Overall, this index score was below most other children her age (EFI = 74, PR = 4, Very Low
range, CI = 69-82). Low EFI scores may occur for a number of reasons, including difficulties identifying
important information, difficulties linking information to abstract concepts, difficulties understanding and
applying conceptual or quantitative concepts, or general low reasoning ability.
Quantitative Reasoning Index
Figure Weights and Arithmetic comprise the Quantitative Reasoning Index (QRI), which measures
quantitative reasoning skills. Quantitative reasoning is closely related to general intelligence and can
indicate a child's capacity to perform mental math operations and comprehend abstract relationships.
XXXXX's overall index score was below most other children her age (QRI = 77, PR = 6, Very Low range,
CI = 72-84). Low scores in this area may occur for a number of reasons including difficulties with mental
math operations, comprehension of quantitative relationships, poor working memory ability, or general
problems with abstract conceptual reasoning. Assessment of XXXXX's performance on the QRI may help
to predict her reading and math achievement scores, creative potential, standardized test performance, and
future academic success. XXXXX demonstrated uneven performance on these two tasks. While she showed
age-appropriate performance when balancing scales under a time constraint (FW = 8), she showed greater
difficulty mentally completing math word problems during Arithmetic (AR = 4; FW > AR, BR = 11.0%).
This pattern of scores suggests that XXXXX's quantitative reasoning is facilitated when solving visual,
rather than verbal, problems. She may perform better when working memory demands are reduced on
quantitative reasoning tasks.
Auditory Working Memory Index
The Auditory Working Memory Index (AWMI) is derived from the sum of scaled scores for the Digit Span
and Letter-Number Sequencing subtests. These subtests required XXXXX to listen to numbers and letters
presented verbally, then recall or sequence them aloud. This index score measured her ability to register,
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 12
maintain, and manipulate verbally-presented information. Her overall auditory working memory
performance was slightly low for her age (AWMI = 84, PR = 14, Low Average range, CI = 78-92). Low
scores in this area may occur for a number of reasons including auditory processing difficulties, inattention,
distractibility, low auditory working memory storage or manipulation, or poor working memory ability.
XXXXX performed similarly across the two subtests that contribute to the AWMI, suggesting that her
auditory working memory is similarly developed for tasks having both single- and dual-stimulus demands
(DS = 7; LN = 7).
Nonverbal Index
The Nonverbal Index (NVI) is derived from six subtests that do not require verbal responses. This index
score can provide a measure of general intellectual functioning that minimizes expressive language
demands for children with special circumstances or clinical needs. Subtests that contribute to the NVI are
drawn from four of the five primary cognitive domains (i.e., Visual Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, Working
Memory, and Processing Speed). XXXXX's performance on the NVI fell in the Very Low range when
compared to other children her age (NVI = 78, PR = 7, CI = 73-85). Low scores in this area may occur for
many reasons including slow processing speed, poor working memory, abstract and conceptual reasoning
difficulties, weak spatial reasoning skills, or low general intellectual ability.
General Ability Index
XXXXX was administered the five subtests comprising the General Ability Index (GAI), an ancillary index
score that provides an estimate of general intelligence that is less impacted by working memory and
processing speed, relative to the FSIQ. The GAI consists of subtests from the verbal comprehension, visual
spatial, and fluid reasoning domains. Overall, this index score was below most other children her age (GAI
= 79, PR = 8, Very Low range, CI = 74-85). Low GAI scores may occur for a number of reasons, including
poor reasoning skills, visual spatial processing difficulties, language deficits, or generally low intellectual
ability. The GAI does not replace the FSIQ as the best estimate of overall ability. It should be interpreted
along with the FSIQ and all of the primary index scores. XXXXX's FSIQ and GAI scores were not
significantly different, indicating that reducing the impact of working memory and processing speed
resulted in little or no difference on her overall performance.
Cognitive Proficiency Index
XXXXX was also administered subtests that contribute to the Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI). These
four subtests are drawn from the working memory and processing speed domains. Her index score suggests
that she demonstrates somewhat lower than average efficiency when processing cognitive information in
the service of learning, problem solving, and higher-order reasoning (CPI = 84, PR = 14, Low Average
range, CI = 78-92). Low CPI scores may occur for many reasons, including visual or auditory processing
deficits, inattention, distractibility, visuomotor difficulties, limited working memory storage or mental
manipulation capacity, or generally low cognitive ability. The CPI is most informative when interpreted as
part of a comprehensive evaluation, together with its counterpart, the GAI. The practitioner may consider
evaluating the GAI-CPI pairwise comparison, as this may provide additional interpretive information
regarding the possible impact of cognitive processing on her ability. XXXXX's GAI and CPI scores were
relatively similar, suggesting that general ability is commensurate with cognitive proficiency.
Complementary Index Scores
Composite
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
95% Confidence
Interval
Descriptor
Naming Speed
89
23
rd
82-98
Low Average
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 13
Symbol
Translation
92
30
th
86-99
Average
Storage &
Retrieval
87
19
th
81-95
Low Average
Naming Speed Index
The Naming Speed Index (NSI) is based on the Naming Speed Literacy (NSL) and Naming Speed Quantity
(NSQ) subtest scores. The NSI provides a broad estimate of the automaticity of basic naming ability.
Interpretation of the NSI enhances the assessment of children with suspected learning disabilities but is not
intended to assess intellectual ability. The NSI measured XXXXX's ability to quickly and accurately name
familiar letters and numbers. During the Naming Speed Literacy subtest, XXXXX named elements (e.g.,
objects of various size and color, letters and numbers) as quickly as possible. Compared to other children
her age, XXXXX's score fell in the Very Low range (NSL = 78). On the Naming Speed Quantity subtest,
XXXXX named the quantity of squares inside a series of boxes as quickly as possible. On this subtest, her
score fell in the Average range (NSQ = 104). The NSL-NSQ discrepancy comparison provides information
about XXXXX's performance across a pair of subtests designed to measure naming automaticity. These
tasks involve naming multiple dimensions and alternating stimuli. The NSL subtest is particularly sensitive
to reading and written expression skills, while the NSQ subtest is possibly associated with mathematics
skills. XXXXX's performance suggests that she has greater naming facility on tasks related to mathematical,
rather than literacy, skills (NSL < NSQ, BR = 2.0%). Although there was variability between XXXXX's
NSI subtest scores, her overall performance was slightly below other children her age (NSI = 89, PR = 23,
Low Average range, CI = 82-98). Low NSI scores may occur for many reasons, including visual-processing
deficits, information retrieval difficulties, weak language skills, poor naming skills, or generally slow
cognitive functioning.
Symbol Translation Index
The Symbol Translation Index (STI) provides a broad estimate of visual-verbal associative memory. The
STI is based on the Immediate Symbol Translation (IST), Delayed Symbol Translation (DST), and
Recognition Symbol Translation (RST) subtest scores. She was shown symbols and taught the word that
each symbol represented (i.e., visual-verbal pairs). She was then asked to translate symbol strings into
phrases or sentences immediately (IST), after a 20-30 minute delay (DST), and in a multiple-choice
recognition format (RST). These measures enhance the assessment of children suspected of having learning
problems or declarative memory impairment, rather than the measurement of overall intellectual ability.
When interpreting her Symbol Translation subtest scores, it is important to remember that DST and RST
performance are dependent upon that of IST. XXXXX's overall performance across these three tasks was
evenly developed. She showed age-appropriate memory skills across all three conditions, and her overall
performance was Average compared to same-age peers (STI = 92, PR = 30, CI = 86-99). XXXXX's
performance on the NSI and STI were relatively similar, suggesting that naming facility and associative
memory skills are evenly developed. It is also likely that her storage and retrieval automaticity and retrieval
fluency, relative to acquisition of new information, are commensurate.
Storage & Retrieval Index
The Storage and Retrieval Index (SRI) provides a broad estimate of XXXXX's long-term storage and
retrieval accuracy and fluency. Her ability to store and accurately retrieve information from long-term
memory impacts her reading, writing, and math performance. While her scores on the SRI were diverse,
her overall performance was slightly below other children her age (SRI = 87, PR = 19, Low Average range,
CI = 81-95). The SRI is based on the sum of scores for the Naming Speed Index (NSI) and the Symbol
Translation Index (STI), each measuring unique aspects regarding the storage and retrieval of information
from long-term memory. Low SRI scores can occur for many reasons, including difficulty encoding and/or
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 14
retrieving information from long-term memory, difficulty acquiring new information, slow processing
speed, visual and/or language processing deficits, and/or inattentiveness.
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ASSESSMENT
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III)
The WIAT-III is an individually administered clinical instrument designed to measure the achievement of
students who are in Preschool through Grade 12 (or ages 4 years, 0 months through 19 years, 11 months).
The WIAT-III includes subtests used to evaluate listening, speaking, reading, writing, and mathematics
skills. Subtest performance and Composites are reported in Standard scores, which have an average of
100 points and a standard deviation of 15 points.
Subtest/Component
Description
Standard
Score
Percentile
Rank
95%
Confidence
Interval
Listening
Comprehension
Measures listening vocabulary and the ability to
make inferences about and remember details from
oral sentences and discourse.
73
4
th
61-85
Receptive
Vocabulary
Measures listening vocabulary.
78
7
th
Oral Discourse
Comprehension
Measures ability to make inferences about, and
remember details from, oral sentences and
discourse.
77
6
th
Reading
Comprehension
Measures untimed reading comprehension of
various types of text, including fictional stories,
informational text, advertisements, and how-to
passages.
83
13
th
71-95
Math Problem
Solving
Measures untimed math problem solving skills in
the following domains: Basic concepts, everyday
applications, geometry, and algebra.
82
12
th
74-90
Sentence
Composition
Measures sentence formulation skills and written
syntactic maturity and syntactic ability.
94
34
th
83-105
Sentence
Combining
Measures sentence formulation skills and written
syntactic maturity.
90
25
th
Sentence Building
Measures sentence formulation skills and
syntactic ability.
100
50
th
Word Reading
Measures speed and accuracy of word recognition
without the aid of context.
93
32
nd
88-98
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 15
Essay
Composition
Measures spontaneous, compositional writing
skills within a 10-minute time limit.
88
21
st
78-98
Word Count
Measures of number of words used to create the
essay.
80
9
th
Theme
Development &
Text Organization
Measures organization, development of an
introduction and conclusion, and use of
transitions, reasons, and elaborations.
96
39
th
Pseudoword
Decoding
Measures ability to decode nonsense words.
107
68
th
102-112
Numerical
Operations
Measures untimed, written math calculation skills
in the following domains: Basic skills, basic
operations with integers, geometry, algebra, and
calculus.
94
34
th
88-100
Oral Expression
Measures speaking vocabulary and word retrieval
ability; efficiency of word retrieval; and, oral
syntactic knowledge and short-term memory.
82
12
th
71-93
Expressive
Vocabulary
Measures speaking vocabulary and word retrieval
ability.
80
9
th
Oral Word Fluency
Measures efficiency of word retrieval (how easily
he or she can produce words).
85
16
th
Sentence Repetition
Measures oral syntactic knowledge and short-
term memory.
91
27
th
Oral Reading
Fluency
Measures speed, accuracy, fluency, and prosody
of contextualized oral reading.
83
13
th
76-90
Spelling
Measures written spelling of letter sounds and
single words.
89
23
rd
83-95
Math Fluency –
Addition
Measures the speed and accuracy of a student’s
addition calculations.
88
21
st
77-99
Math Fluency –
Subtraction
Measures the speed and accuracy of a student’s
subtraction calculations.
79
8
th
69-89
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 16
Math Fluency -
Multiplication
Measures the speed and accuracy of a student’s
multiplication calculations.
103
58
th
93-113
Composite
Description
Standard
Score
Percentile
Rank
95%
Confidence
Interval
Oral Language
Provides an estimate of general expressive
(speaking) and receptive (understanding) language
skills.
75
5
th
66-84
Basic Reading
Provides an estimate of basic decoding and word
recognition skills.
99
47
th
95-103
Reading
Comprehension &
Fluency
Provides an estimate of reading comprehension
and fluency skills.
79
8
th
71-87
Written
Expression
Provides an estimate of basic writing skills.
87
19
th
80-94
Mathematics
Provides an estimate of general math skills
including math problem solving and calculation.
87
19
th
81-93
Math Fluency
Provides an estimate of speed and accuracy with
basic math facts.
89
23
rd
79-87
Subtest Standard Scores
The Listening Comprehension subtest score of 73 points is at the 4
th
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX
scored higher than 4% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of
73 points is within the Below Average range. With regard to her performance on the subtest components,
XXXXX obtained a Receptive Vocabulary standard score of 78 points, which is at the 7
th
percentile and in
the Below Average range; and, she obtained an Oral Discourse Comprehension score of 77 points, which
is at the 6
th
percentile and in the Below Average range.
The Reading Comprehension subtest score of 83 points is at the 13
th
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX
scored higher than 13% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of
83 points is within the Below Average range.
The Math Problem Solving subtest score of 82 points is at the 12
th
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX
scored higher than 12% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of
82 points is within the Below Average range.
The Sentence Composition subtest score of 94 points is at the 34
th
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX
scored higher than 34% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of
94 points is within the Average range. With regard to subtest components, she obtained a Sentence
Combining score of 90 points, which is at the 25
th
percentile and within the Average range; and, she
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 17
obtained a Sentence Building score of 100 points, which is at the 50
th
percentile and within the Average
range.
The Word Reading subtest score of 93 points is at the 32
nd
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX scored
higher than 32% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of 93
points is within the Average range. Her word reading speed is at the 50
th
percentile.
The Essay Composition subtest score of 88 points is at the 21
st
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX
scored higher than 21% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of
88 points is within the Average range. With regard to her performance on subtest components, XXXXX
obtained a Word Count score of 80 points, which is at the 9
th
percentile and within the Below Average
range; and, she obtained a Theme Development and Text Organization score of 96 points, which is at the
39
th
percentile and within the Average range.
The Pseudoword Decoding subtest score of 107 points is at the 68
th
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX
scored higher than 68% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of
107 points is within the Average range. Her pseudoword decoding speed is at the 50
th
percentile.
The Numerical Operations subtest score of 94 points is at the 34
th
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX
scored higher than 34% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of
94 points is within the Average range.
The Oral Expression subtest score of 82 points is at the 12
th
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX scored
higher than 12% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of 82
points is within the Below Average range. With regard to her performance on the subtest components,
XXXXX obtained an Expressive Vocabulary score of 80 points, which is at the 9
th
percentile and in the
Below Average range; she obtained an Oral Word Fluency score of 85 points, which is at the 16
th
percentile
and within the Average range; and, she obtained a Sentence Repetition score of 91 points, which is at the
27
th
percentile and in the Average range.
The Oral Reading Fluency subtest score of 83 points is at the 13
th
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX
scored higher than 13% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of
83 points is within the Below Average range.
The Spelling subtest score of 89 points is at the 23
rd
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX scored higher
than 23% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of 89 points is
within the Average range.
The Math Fluency – Addition subtest score of 88 points is at the 21
st
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX
scored higher than 21% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of
88 points is within the Average range.
The Math Fluency – Subtraction subtest score of 79 points is at the 8
th
percentile. This suggests that
XXXXX scored higher than 8% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained
score of 79 points is within the Below Average range.
The Math Fluency – Multiplication subtest score of 103 points is at the 58
th
percentile. This suggests that
XXXXX scored higher than 58% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained
score of 103 points is within the Average range.
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 18
Composite Standard Scores
The Oral Language Composite of 75 points is at the 5
th
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX scored
higher than 5% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of 75
points is within the Below Average range.
The Basic Reading Composite of 99 points is at the 47
th
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX scored
higher than 47% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of 99
points is within the Average range.
The Reading Comprehension and Fluency Composite of 79 points is at the 8
th
percentile. This suggests
that XXXXX scored higher than 8% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The
obtained score of 79 points is within the Below Average range.
The Written Expression Composite of 87 points is at the 19
th
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX scored
higher than 19% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of 87
points is within the Average range.
The Mathematics Composite of 87 points is at the 19
th
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX scored higher
than 19% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of 87 points is
within the Average range.
The Math Fluency Composite of 89 points is at the 23
rd
percentile. This suggests that XXXXX scored
higher than 23% of the individuals her age included in the normative sample. The obtained score of 89
points is within the Average range.
PROCESSING ASSESSMENTS:
Conners Continuous Performance Test, 3
rd
Edition (Conners CPT 3)
The Conners Continuous Performance Test, 3
rd
Edition (Conners CPT 3) assesses attention-related
problems in individuals aged 8 years and older. During the 14-minute, 360-trial administration,
respondents are required to respond when any letter appears, except the non-target letter “X.” By indexing
the respondent’s performance in areas of inattentiveness, impulsivity, sustained attention, and vigilance,
the Conners CPT 3 can be a useful adjunct to the process of diagnosing Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD), as well as other psychological and neurological conditions related to attention. Index
scores on the Conners CPT 3 are reported as T-scores, which have an average of 50 points and a standard
deviation of 10 points.
Variable Type
Measure
T-score
Guideline
Detectability
d’
61
Elevated
Error Type
Omissions
52
Average
Commissions
60
Elevated
Perseverations
70
Very Elevated
Reaction Times
Statistics
HRT
61
Slow
HRT SD
65
Elevated
Variability
60
Elevated
HRT Block Change
63
Elevated
HRT ISI Change
62
Elevated
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 19
Measures of Inattentiveness
Indicators of inattentiveness on the Conners CPT 3 are poor Detectability (d'), a high percentage of
Omissions and Commissions, a slow Hit Reaction Time (HRT), as well as high levels of inconsistency in
response speed (Hit Reaction Time Standard Deviation [HRT SD] and Variability).
Detectability (d’) measures the respondent’s ability to differentiate non-targets (i.e., the letter X) from
targets (i.e., all other letters). XXXXX’s T-score is 61 and is in the Elevated range. This result means that
her ability to discriminate non-targets from targets was poor when compared to the normative group. Poor
ability to differentiate non-targets from targets is an indicator of inattentiveness.
Omissions result from a failure to respond to targets. XXXXX’s T-score is 52 and is in the Average range.
This result means that she missed an average percentage of targets when compared to the normative group.
Commissions are made when responses are given to non-targets. XXXXX’s T-score is 60 and is in the
Elevated range. This result means that she responded to a higher percentage of non-targets when compared
to the normative group. A high level of commission errors may be related to inattentiveness and/or
impulsivity. The combination of XXXXX’s slow response times (see HRT, below) and high commission
errors is an indicator of inattentiveness.
HRT is the mean response speed of correct responses for the whole administration. XXXXX’s T-score is
61 and is in the Slow range. This result means that her response speed was slower than the normative
group’s response speed. This may indicate that XXXXX was not processing targets efficiently.
HRT SD is a measure of response speed consistency during the entire administration. XXXXX’s T-score
is 65 and is in the Elevated range. This result means that her response speed was less consistent than the
normative group. This suggests that XXXXX was more inattentive and processed stimuli less efficiently
during some portions of the administration.
Variability, like HRT SD, is a measure of response speed consistency; however, Variability is a “within
respondent” measure; that is, the amount of variability that XXXXX showed in 18 separate segments of
the administration in relation to her own overall HRT SD. XXXXX’s T-score is 60 and is in the Elevated
range. This result means her response speed variability was higher when compared to the normative group.
High response speed variability indicates that XXXXX’s attention and information processing efficiency
varied throughout the administration.
XXXXX’s scores on these measures strongly suggest that she may have problems with inattentiveness.
Measures of Impulsivity
Indicators of impulsivity on the Conners CPT 3 include a faster than normal Hit Reaction Time (HRT) in
addition to a higher than average rate of Commissions and/or Perseverations.
HRT is the mean response speed of correct responses for the whole administration. XXXXX’s T-score is
61 and is in the Slow range. This result means that her response speed was slower than the normative
group’s response speed. This may indicate that XXXXX was not processing targets efficiently. A slower
than normal HRT is often related to inattentiveness rather than impulsivity. See the Measures of
Inattentiveness section of this report for more interpretative information.
Commissions are made when responses are given to non-targets. XXXXX’s T-score is 60 and is in the
Elevated range. This result means that she responded to a higher percentage of non-targets when compared
to the normative group. Commission errors may be related to impulsivity and/or inattentiveness. The
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 20
combination of XXXXX’s slow response times (see HRT, above) and high commission errors is an
indicator of inattentiveness rather than impulsivity.
Perseverations are random or anticipatory responses. XXXXX’s T-score is 70 and is in the Very Elevated
range. This result means that she made many more perseverative errors when compared to the normative
group. Because XXXXX’s response speed (see HRT, above) was slow, her perseverations are unlikely to
be related to impulsivity.
XXXXX’s scores on these measures do not indicate a problem with impulsivity.
Measures of Sustained Attention
Sustained attention is defined as the respondent’s ability to maintain attention as the administration
progresses. A decrease in sustained attention across time is captured by atypical slowing in the
respondent’s Hit Reaction Times (HRT; as indicated by the variable HRT Block Change), as well as by
increases in Omissions and Commissions in later blocks of the administration.
HRT Block Change indicates the change in mean response speed across blocks. XXXXX’s T-score is 63
and is in the Elevated range. This result means that she had a substantial reduction in response speed in
later blocks. In terms of error rates, XXXXX’s omission errors increased significantly (p < .10) across
blocks, but her commission errors did not significantly increase across multiple adjacent blocks.
XXXXX’s profile of scores on these measures indicates strong support for a problem with sustained
attention.
Measures of Vigilance
Vigilance relates to the respondent’s performance at varying levels of stimulus frequency (inter-stimulus
intervals; ISIs) and is defined by the respondent’s ability to maintain performance level even when the
task rate is slow. This construct is captured by changes in the respondent’s Hit Reaction Times (HRT),
as indicated by the variable HRT ISI Change, as well as the observed pattern of Omissions and
Commissions at various ISIs.
HRT ISI Change indicates the change in mean response speed at various ISIs. XXXXX’s T-score is 62
and is in the Elevated range. This result means that she had a substantial reduction in response speeds at
longer ISIs. There was no statistically significant increase in error rates across all three ISI levels.
XXXXX’s profile of scores on these measures indicates some support for a problem with maintaining
vigilance; that is, she had some problems with performance on trials with longer intervals between
stimuli.
Conners Continuous Auditory Test of Attention (Conners CATA)
The Conners Continuous Auditory Test of Attention (Conners CATA) assesses auditory processing and
attention-related problems in individuals aged 8 years and older. During the 14-minutes, 200-trial
administration, respondents are presented with high-tone sounds that are either preceded by a low-tone
warning sound (warned trials) or played alone (unwarned trials). Respondents are instructed to respond
only to high-tone sounds on warned trials, and to ignore those on unwarned trials. By indexing the
respondent’s performance in areas of inattentiveness, impulsivity, and sustained attention, the Conners
CATA can be a useful adjunct to the process of diagnosing Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 21
(ADHD), as well as other psychological and neurological conditions related to auditory attention. Index
scores on the Conners CATA are reported as T-scores, which have an average of 50 points and a standard
deviation of 10 points.
Variable Type
Measure
T-score
Guideline
Detectability
d’
51
Average
Error Type
Omissions
50
Average
Commissions
47
Average
Perseverative
Commissions
47
Average
Reaction Times
Statistics
HRT
60
Slow
HRT SD
48
Average
HRT Block Change
61
Elevated
Measures of Inattentiveness
Indicators of inattentiveness on the Conners CATA are poor Detectability (d'), a high percentage of
Omissions and Commissions, a slow Hit Reaction Time (HRT), as well high levels of inconsistency in
response speed (Hit Reaction Time Standard Deviation [HRT SD]).
Detectability (d’) measures the respondent’s ability to differentiate non-targets (i.e., the high-tone sound
on unwarned trials) from targets (i.e., the high-tone sound on warned trials). XXXXX’s T-score is 51 and
is in the Average range. This result means that her ability to discriminate non-targets from targets was
average when compared to the normative group.
Omissions result from a failure to respond to targets. XXXXX’s T-score is 50 and is in the Average range.
This result means that she missed an average percentage of targets when compared to the normative group.
Commissions are made when responses are given to non-targets. XXXXX’s T-score is 47 and is in the
Average range. This result means that she responded to an average percentage of non-targets when
compared to the normative group.
HRT is the mean response speed of correct responses for the whole administration. XXXXX’s T-score is
60 and is in the Slow range. This result means that her response speed was slower than the normative
group’s response speed. This may indicate that XXXXX was not processing targets efficiently.
HRT SD is a measure of response speed consistency during the entire administration. XXXXX’s T-score
is 48 and is in the Average range. This result means that her response speed was about as consistent as
the normative group.
XXXXX’s scores on these measures indicate that she may have problems with inattentiveness.
Measures of Impulsivity
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 22
Indicators of impulsivity on the Conners CATA include a faster than normal hit reaction time (HRT) in
addition to a higher than average rate of commissions and/or perseverative commissions.
HRT is the mean response speed of correct responses for the whole administration. XXXXX’s T-score is
60 and is in the Slow range. This result means that her response speed was slower than the normative
group’s response speed. A slower than normal HRT is often related to inattentiveness rather than
impulsivity. See the Measures of Inattentiveness section of this report for more interpretative information.
Commissions are made when responses are given to non-targets. XXXXX’s T-score is 47 and is in the
Average range. This result means that she responded to an average percentage of non-targets when
compared to the normative group.
Perseverative commissions are incorrect responses that were made before the target sound. XXXXX’s T-
score is 47 and is in the Average range. This result means that she made approximately the same number
of perseverative commissions when compared to the normative group.
XXXXX’s scores on these measures do not indicate a problem with impulsivity.
Measures of Sustained Attention
Sustained attention is defined as the respondent’s ability to maintain attention as the administration
progresses. A decrease in sustained attention across time is captured by atypical slowing in the respondent’s
Hit Reaction Times (HRT; as indicated by the variable HRT Block Change, as well as by increases in
Omissions and Commissions in later blocks of the administration.
HRT Block Change indicates the change in mean response speed across blocks. XXXXX’s T-score is 61
and is in the Elevated range. This result means that she had a substantial reduction in response speed in
later blocks. In terms of error rates, XXXXX’s omission and commission errors did not increase
significantly across multiple adjacent blocks.
XXXXX’s profile of scores on these measures indicates some support a problem with sustained attention.
SOCIAL/EMOTIONAL/BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS:
Conners Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales (Conners CBRS)
The Conners CBRS is a comprehensive assessment tool that assesses a wide range of behavioral, emotional,
social, and academic concerns and disorders in children and adolescents ages 6 to 18 years. It is a multi-
informant assessment of youth, applicable across multiple settings. Scale scores are reported as T-Scores,
which have an average of 50 points and a standard deviation of 10 points.
Conners CBRS – Parent Form: Completed by (Mother)
Scale
T-Score
Percentile Rank
Descriptor
Emotional Distress: Total
69
89
th
Elevated Score
Upsetting Thoughts
45
36
th
Average Score
Worrying
54
60
th
Average Score
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 23
Social Problems
90
98
Very Elevated Score
Defiant/Aggressive
Behaviors
58
89
th
Average Score
Academic Difficulties:
Total
90
99
th
Very Elevated Score
Language
90
98
th
Very Elevated Score
Math
54
74
th
Average Score
Hyperactivity/Impulsivity
63
88
th
High Average Score
Separation Fears
70
95
th
Very Elevated Score
Perfectionistic &
Compulsive Behaviors
66
90
th
Elevated Score
Violence Potential
Indicator
58
85
th
Average Score
Physical Symptoms
52
71
st
Average Score
The T-score for Emotional Distress of 69 points is at the 89
th
percentile. This score is within the Elevated
range and suggests that Mrs. Mother expresses more concerns than are typically reported for females
XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area worry a lot (including possible social anxieties),
may show signs of depression; may have physical symptoms (aches, pains, difficulty sleeping); may seem
socially isolated; and, may have rumination.
➢ The T-score for Upsetting Thoughts of 45 points is at the 36
th
percentile. This score is within the
Average range and suggests that Mrs. Mother expresses typical levels of concern in this area.
➢ The T-score for Worrying of 54 points is at the 60
th
percentile. This score is within the Average range
and suggests that Mrs. Mother expresses typical levels of concern in this area.
➢ The T-Score for Social Problems of 90 points is at the 98
th
percentile. This score is within the Very
Elevated range and suggests that Mrs. Mother expresses many more concerns in this area than are
typically reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area appear socially
awkward, may be shy; seem socially isolated; and, may have limited conversational skills.
The T-score for Defiant/Aggressive Behaviors of 58 points is at the 89
th
percentile. This score is within the
Average range and suggests that Mrs. Mother expresses typical levels of concern in this area.
The T-score for Academic Difficulties of 90 points is at the 99
th
percentile. This score is within the Very
Elevated range and suggests that Mrs. Mother expresses many more concerns in this area than are typically
reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area exhibit problems with learning,
understanding, or remembering academic material; show poor academic performance; and, may struggle
with communication skills.
➢ The T-score for Language of 90 points is at the 98
th
percentile. This score is within the Very Elevated
range and suggests that Mrs. Mother expresses many more concerns in this area than are typically
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 24
reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area demonstrate problems
with reading, writing, spelling, and/or communication skills.
➢ The T-score for Math of 54 points is at the 74
th
percentile. This score is within the Average range and
suggests that Mrs. Mother expresses typical levels of concern in this area.
The T-score for Hyperactivity/Impulsivity of 63 points is at the 88
th
percentile. This score is in the High
Average range and suggests that Mrs. Mother expresses slightly more concerns in this area than are typically
reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area may exhibit high activity
levels, may be restless, or may have difficulty being quiet; may have problems with impulse control; and/or,
may interrupt others or having trouble waiting his/her turn.
The T-score for Separation Fears of 70 points is at the 95
th
percentile. This score is in the Very Elevated
range and suggests that Mrs. Mother expresses many more concerns in this area than are typically reported
for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area fear being separated from their parents
or caregivers.
The T-score for Perfectionistic and Compulsive Behaviors of 66 points is at the 90
th
percentile. This score
is in the Elevated range and suggests that Mrs. Mother expresses more concerns in this area than are
typically reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area may appear rigid,
inflexible, and/or perfectionistic; may become “stuck” on a behavior or idea; may be overly concerned with
cleanliness; and, may set unrealistic goals.
The T-score for the Violence Potential Indicator of 58 points is at the 85
th
percentile. This score is in the
Average range and suggests that Mrs. Mother expresses typical levels of concern in this area.
The T-score for Physical Symptoms of 52 points is at the 71
st
percentile. This score is in the Average range
and suggests that Mrs. Mother expresses typical levels of concern in this area.
Conners CBRS – Teacher Form: Completed by Mr. Teacher (ELA/Social Studies Teacher)
Scale
T-Score
Percentile Rank
Descriptor
Emotional Distress: Total
90
99
th
Very Elevated Score
Upsetting Thoughts/
Physical Symptoms
90
99
th
Very Elevated Score
Separation Fears
90
99
th
Very Elevated Score
Social Anxiety
75
96
th
Very Elevated Score
Defiant/Aggressive
Behaviors
54
87
th
Average Score
Academic Difficulties:
Total
83
98
th
Very Elevated Score
Language
90
99
th
Very Elevated Score
Math
55
81
st
Average Score
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 25
Hyperactivity
69
95
th
Elevated Score
Social Problems
90
99
th
Very Elevated Score
Perfectionistic &
Compulsive Behaviors
90
99
th
Very Elevated Score
Violence Potential
Indicator
51
76
th
Average Score
Physical Symptoms
78
96
th
Very Elevated Score
The T-score for Emotional Distress of 90 points is at the 99
th
percentile. This score is within the Very
Elevated range and suggests that Mr. Teacher expresses many more concerns than are typically reported
for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area worry a lot (including possible social
and/or separation anxieties), may show signs of depression or may have physical complaints; and, may
have rumination.
➢ The T-score for Upsetting Thoughts/Physical Symptoms of 90 points is at the 99
th
percentile. This
score is within the Very Elevated range and suggests that Mr. Teacher expresses many more concerns
in this area than are typically reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this
area have upsetting thoughts and/or ruminations; may complains about physical symptoms; and, may
show signs of depression.
➢ The T-score for Separation Fears of 90 points is at the 99
th
percentile. This score is within the Very
Elevated range and suggests that Mr. Teacher expresses many more concerns in this area than are
typically reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area fear being
separated from their parents or caregivers.
➢ The T-score for Social Anxiety of 75 points is at the 96
th
percentile. This score is within the Very
Elevated range and suggests that Mr. Teacher expresses many more concerns in this area than are
typically reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area worry about
social and performance situations; and, worry about what others think.
The T-score for Defiant/Aggressive Behaviors of 54 points is at the 87
th
percentile. This score is within the
Average range and suggests that Mr. Teacher expresses typical levels of concern in this area.
The T-score for Academic Difficulties of 83 points is at the 98
th
percentile. This score is within the Very
Elevated range and suggests that Mr. Teacher expresses many more concerns in this area than are typically
reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area exhibit problems with learning
and/or understanding academic material; and, poor academic performance.
➢ The T-score for Language of 90 points is at the 99
th
percentile. This score is within the Very Elevated
range and suggests that Mr. Teacher expresses many more concerns in this area than are typically
reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area demonstrate problems
with reading, writing, and/or communication skills.
➢ The T-score for Math of 55 points is at the 81
st
percentile. This score is within the Average range and
suggests that Mr. Teacher expresses typical levels of concern in this area.
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 26
The T-score for Hyperactivity of 69 points is at the 95
th
percentile. This score is in the Elevated range and
suggests that Mr. Teacher expresses more concerns in this area than are typically reported for females
XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area exhibit high activity levels, may be restless, and
may have difficulty being quiet.
The T-Score for Social Problems of 90 points is at the 99
th
percentile. This score is within the Very Elevated
range and suggests that Mr. Teacher expresses many more concerns in this area than are typically reported
for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area appear socially awkward, may be shy;
may have difficulty with friendships, poor social connections, and limited conversational skills; and, may
have poor social reciprocity.
The T-score for Perfectionistic and Compulsive Behaviors of 90 points is at the 99
th
percentile. This score
is in the Very Elevated range and suggests that Mr. Teacher expresses many more concerns in this area than
are typically reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area appear rigid
and/or inflexible; have repetitive behaviors; may become “stuck” on a behavior or idea at times; may be
overly concerned with cleanliness.
The T-score for the Violence Potential Indicator of 51 points is at the 76
th
percentile. This score is in the
Average range and suggests that Mr. Teacher expresses typical levels of concern in this area.
The T-score for Physical Symptoms of 78 points is at the 96
th
percentile. This score is in the Very Elevated
range and suggests that Mr. Teacher expresses many more concerns in this area than are typically reported
for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area complain about aches, pains, or feeling
sick; may have sleep or weight/appetite issues.
Conners CBRS – Teacher Form: Completed by Mrs. Teacher (Math/Science Teacher)
Scale
T-Score
Percentile Rank
Descriptor
Emotional Distress: Total
86
98
th
Very Elevated Score
Upsetting Thoughts/
Physical Symptoms
66
95
th
Elevated Score
Separation Fears
90
99
th
Very Elevated Score
Social Anxiety
69
96
th
Elevated Score
Defiant/Aggressive
Behaviors
46
30
th
Average Score
Academic Difficulties:
Total
83
98
th
Very Elevated Score
Language
83
96
th
Very Elevated Score
Math
72
92
nd
Very Elevated Score
Hyperactivity
51
75
th
Average Score
Social Problems
85
99
th
Very Elevated Score
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 27
Perfectionistic &
Compulsive Behaviors
72
94
th
Very Elevated Score
Violence Potential
Indicator
52
79
th
Average Score
Physical Symptoms
46
40
th
Average Score
The T-score for Emotional Distress of 86 points is at the 98
th
percentile. This score is within the Very
Elevated range and suggests that Mrs. Teacher expresses many more concerns than are typically reported
for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area worry a lot (including possible social
and/or separation anxieties), may show signs of depression or may have physical complaints; and, may
have rumination.
➢ The T-score for Upsetting Thoughts/Physical Symptoms of 66 points is at the 95
th
percentile. This
score is within the Elevated range and suggests that Mrs. Teacher expresses more concerns in this area
than are typically reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area have
upsetting thoughts and/or ruminations; may complains about physical symptoms; and, may show signs
of depression.
➢ The T-score for Separation Fears of 90 points is at the 99
th
percentile. This score is within the Very
Elevated range and suggests that Mrs. Teacher expresses many more concerns in this area than are
typically reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area fear being
separated from their parents or caregivers.
➢ The T-score for Social Anxiety of 69 points is at the 96
th
percentile. This score is within the Elevated
range and suggests that Mrs. Teacher expresses more concerns in this area than are typically reported
for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area worry about social and performance
situations; and, worry about what others think.
The T-score for Defiant/Aggressive Behaviors of 46 points is at the 30
th
percentile. This score is within the
Average range and suggests that Mrs. Teacher expresses typical levels of concern in this area.
The T-score for Academic Difficulties of 83 points is at the 98
th
percentile. This score is within the Very
Elevated range and suggests that Mrs. Teacher expresses many more concerns in this area than are typically
reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area exhibit problems with learning
and/or understanding academic material; and, poor academic performance.
➢ The T-score for Language of 83 points is at the 96
th
percentile. This score is within the Very Elevated
range and suggests that Mrs. Teacher expresses many more concerns in this area than are typically
reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area demonstrate problems
with reading, writing, and/or communication skills.
➢ The T-score for Math of 72 points is at the 92
nd
percentile. This score is within the Very Elevated range
and suggests that Mrs. Teacher expresses many more concerns in this area than are typically reported
for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area exhibit problems with math.
The T-score for Hyperactivity of 51 points is at the 75
th
percentile. This score is in the Average range and
suggests that Mrs. Teacher expresses typical levels of concern in this area.
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 28
The T-Score for Social Problems of 85 points is at the 99
th
percentile. This score is within the Very Elevated
range and suggests that Mrs. Teacher expresses many more concerns in this area than are typically reported
for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area appear socially awkward, may be shy;
may have difficulty with friendships, poor social connections, and limited conversational skills; and, may
have poor social reciprocity.
The T-score for Perfectionistic and Compulsive Behaviors of 72 points is at the 94
th
percentile. This score
is in the Very Elevated range and suggests that Mrs. Teacher expresses many more concerns in this area
than are typically reported for females XXXXX’s age. Individuals who score high in this area appear rigid
and/or inflexible; have repetitive behaviors; may become “stuck” on a behavior or idea at times; may be
overly concerned with cleanliness.
The T-score for the Violence Potential Indicator of 52 points is at the 79
th
percentile. This score is in the
Average range and suggests that Mrs. Teacher expresses typical levels of concern in this area.
The T-score for Physical Symptoms of 46 points is at the 40
th
percentile. This score is within the Average
range and suggests that Mrs. Teacher expresses typical levels of concern in this area.
ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENTS:
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition (Vineland-3)
The Vineland-3 is a standardized measure of adaptive behavior – the things that people do to function in
their everyday lives. Whereas ability measures focus on what the examinee can do in a testing situation,
the Vineland-3 focuses on what he or she actually does in daily life. Because it is a norm-based instrument,
the examinee’s adaptive functioning is compared to that of others his or her age. Composite scores are
reported as standard scores, which have an average of 100 points and a standard deviation of 15 points.
Subdomain scores are reported as v-Scale Scores, which have an average of 15 points and a standard
deviation of 3 points.
Vineland-3 Comprehensive Interview Form: Completed by Mother (Mother)
Subdomain
Description
v-Scale Score
Adaptive Level
Communication Domain
Receptive
Assesses attending, understanding, and
responding appropriately to information
from others.
8
Low
Expressive
Assesses the use of words and sentences to
express oneself verbally.
8
Low
Written
Assesses an individual’s use of reading and
writing skills.
9
Low
Daily Living Skills Domain
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 29
Personal
Assesses an individual’s level of self-
sufficiency in such areas as eating, dressing,
washing, hygiene, and health care.
4
Low
Domestic
Assesses the extent to which an individual
performs household tasks such as cleaning
up after oneself, chores, and food prep.
9
Low
Community
Assesses an individual’s functioning in the
world outside the home, including safety,
using money, travel, and rights &
responsibilities.
12
Moderately Low
Socialization Domain
Interpersonal
Relationships
Assesses how an individual responds and
relates to others, including friendships,
caring, social appropriateness, and
conversation.
10
Moderately Low
Play and Leisure
Assesses how an individual engages in play
and fun activities with others.
14
Adequate
Coping Skills
Assesses how well an individual
demonstrates behavioral and emotional
control in different situations involving
others.
6
Low
ABC
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
95% Confidence
Interval
Adaptive Behavior
Composite
68
2
nd
64-72
Domains
Communication
64
1
st
58-70
Daily Living Skills
67
1
st
61-73
Socialization
73
4
th
67-79
Adaptive Behavior Composite
The Adaptive Behavior Composite (ABC) provides an overall summary measure of XXXXX's adaptive
functioning. Her ABC standard score is 68, with a 95% confidence interval of 64 to 72. Her percentile rank
of 2 means that her score was greater than or equal to 2% of individuals in XXXXX's age group in the
Comprehensive Interview Form normative sample. The ABC score of 68 points is within the Low range.
Comparison of the three domain scores revealed relative strength in the area of socialization.
Communication Domain
The Communication domain measures how well XXXXX exchanges information with others. Her
Communication standard score is 64, with a 95% confidence interval of 58 to 70. This corresponds to a
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 30
percentile rank of 1. The Communication domain score of 64 points is within the Low range. Comparison
of the three subdomain v-Scale Scores revealed no relative strengths or weaknesses.
Daily Living Skills Domain
The Daily Living Skills domain assesses XXXXX's performance of the practical, everyday tasks of living
that are appropriate for her age. Her standard score for Daily Living Skills is 67, with a 95% confidence
interval of 61 to 73 and a percentile rank of 1. The Daily Living Skills domain score of 67 points is within
the Low range. Comparison of the three subdomain v-Scale Scores revealed relative strength in the area of
community skills and relative weakness in personal skills.
Socialization Domain
XXXXX's score for the Socialization domain reflects her functioning in social situations. Her Socialization
standard score is 73, with a 95% confidence interval of 67 to 79. The percentile rank is 4. The Socialization
domain score of 73 points is within the Moderately Low range. Comparison of the three subdomain v-
Scale Scores revealed relative strength in the area of play and leisure skills and relative weakness in coping
skills.
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
XXXXX is a 12-year-old female student enrolled in the Sixth grade at ABCDE Elementary school. She
was referred for an Independent Educational Evaluation to assist the IEP Team in determining services and
accommodations necessary for her to gain educational benefit from her IEP. XXXXX has received Special
Education services since May 2010. She currently meets eligibility criteria under the categories of Other
Health Impairment and Orthopedic Impairment. Her current IEP includes Specialized Academic
Instruction provided through the Resource Specialist Program, Adapted Physical Education, Occupational
Therapy, and Specialized Orthopedic services. Mrs. Mother reported that XXXXX has passed previous
formal hearing evaluations. She was recently evaluated by her eye doctor and received a slight change to
her vision prescription. XXXXX has been diagnosed with strabismus (exotropia) and astigmatism, ataxia,
apraxia, speech delays, learning and behavioral difficulties, absence seizures, and episodic muscle
weakness. Through genetic testing, she was also diagnosed with CACNA1A channelopathy, which is a
genetic mutation that can cause a spectrum of neurocognitive impairments including intellectual deficiency,
executive dysfunction, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD), autism, as well as childhood
onset and episodic ataxia. Mrs. Mother reported that XXXXX is scheduled for a neurology appointment
during the last week of June. XXXXX is not currently prescribed any medications.
Current assessment data suggest that XXXXX exhibits some variability in the development of her
intellectual abilities. On the primary composites of the WISC-V, XXXXX obtained standard scores within
the Low Average range on measures of verbal comprehension, visual spatial skills, working memory,
processing speed, and Full Scale IQ; her performance on measures of fluid reasoning is within the Very
Low range. On the ancillary composites of the WISC-V, she obtained standard scores within the Low
Average range on measures of verbal (expanded crystallized) skills, auditory working memory, and
cognitive proficiency; her performance on measures of expanded fluid skills, quantitative reasoning,
nonverbal skills, and general ability is within the Very Low range. On the complementary composite of
the WISC-V, XXXXX obtained a standard score within the Average range on a measure of symbol
translation; and, her performance on measures of naming speed and storage & retrieval is within the Low
Average range.
Academically, when compared to that of other’s her age, XXXXX’s performance on measures of sentence
composition, word reading, essay composition, pseudoword decoding, numerical operations, spelling,
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 31
addition fluency, and multiplication fluency is within the Average range. She obtained standard scores
within the Below Average range on measures of listening comprehension, reading comprehension, math
problem solving, oral expression, oral reading fluency, and subtraction fluency.
Measures of visual attention provided strong indication for difficulties with inattentiveness and sustained
attention, and some indication of difficulties with vigilance. Measures of auditory attention provided some
indication for difficulties with inattentiveness and sustained attention.
With regard to social/emotional and behavioral functioning, parent report suggested Mrs. Mother expressed
significant concerns in the areas of social problems, language skills (including reading, writing, spelling,
and/or communication skills), separation fears, and perfectionistic and compulsive behaviors. Both of
XXXXX’s general education teachers provided reports in this area. Mr. Teacher, XXXXX’s ELA/Social
Studies teacher, expressed significant concerns in the areas of upsetting thoughts/physical symptoms,
separation fears, social anxiety, language skills, hyperactivity, social problems, perfectionistic and
compulsive behaviors, and physical symptoms. Mrs. Teacher, XXXXX’s Math/Science teacher, expressed
significant concerns in the areas of upsetting thoughts/physical symptoms, separation fears, social anxiety,
language skills, math skills, social problems, and perfectionistic and compulsive behaviors.
Parent report was obtained to assess XXXXX’s adaptive skill development. The Adaptive Behavior
Composite is in the Low range with relative strength noted in the area of socialization. The Communication
domain score is within the Low range; no significant strengths or weaknesses are noted. The Daily Living
Skills domain score is within the Low range; relative strength is noted in the area of community skills and
relative weakness is noted in the area of personal skills. The Socialization domain score is within the
Moderately Low range; relative strength is noted in the area of play and leisure skills while relative
weakness is noted in the area of coping skills.
REVIEW OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
ELIGIBILITY CATEGORY:
Other Health Impairment
According to the eligibility criteria specified in Section 3030 (9) of Title 5 of the California Code of
Regulations for the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a student may be eligible
for Special Education services under the disabling condition of Other Health Impairment if he has limited
strength, vitality or alertness, due to chronic or acute health problems, including but not limited to a heart
condition, cancer, leukemia, rheumatic fever, chronic kidney disease, cystic fibrosis, severe asthma,
epilepsy, lead poisoning, diabetes, tuberculosis and other communicable infectious diseases, and
hematological disorders such as sickle cell anemia and hemophilia, which adversely affects a student’s
educational performance. In accordance with Section 56026(e) of the Education Code, such physical
disabilities shall not be temporary in nature as defined by Section 3001(v).
➢ Does XXXXX continue to meet eligibility criteria for Special Education services based on the criteria
for Other Health Impairment? It is the evaluation of this examiner that XXXXX does meet eligibility
criteria under the category of Other Health Impairment. She has been diagnosed with absence seizures
as well as CACNA1A channelopathy, which is a genetic mutation that can cause a spectrum of
neurocognitive impairments including intellectual deficiency, executive dysfunction, Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD), autism, as well as childhood onset and episodic ataxia.
Present measures of continuous visual and auditory attention revealed difficulties with inattention and
sustained attention. The difficulties XXXXX experiences associated with the seizure disorder as well
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 32
as the CACNA1A channelopathy can result in limited strength and alertness which likely interfere with
her ability to access and complete grade level work without support.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for Reading Comprehension Skills
TEXT ENHANCEMENTS. Text enhancements can be used to tag important vocabulary terms, key ideas,
or other reading content. If working with photocopied material, the student can use a highlighter to note
key ideas or vocabulary. Another enhancement strategy is the ‘lasso and rope’ technique—using a pen or
pencil to circle a vocabulary term and then drawing a line that connects that term to its underlined
definition. If working from a textbook, the student can cut sticky notes into strips. These strips can be
inserted in the book as pointers to text of interest. They can also be used as temporary labels—e.g., for
writing a vocabulary term and its definition.
RETAIN STORY DETAILS WITH TEXT PREVIEWING. To help students to better comprehend and
retain details from an assigned story, the teacher prepares a written text preview script to be shared with
students before they read the story. The strategy can be used with an individual or group of students.
SCRIPT: The script opens with several statements and questions chosen to interest students in a discussion
about the story topic or theme (e.g., "Today we are going to read about a boy who gets lost in the
wilderness and must find his way home. Has anyone in this class ever been lost?"). The preview next
includes a plot-summary up to the story climax--but does not give away the ending. As part of the
summary, the preview describes the setting of the narrative and introduces the main characters. The
preview also selects three to four difficult words appearing in the story and defines them.
PRESENTATION: The teacher uses the preview script as a framework for introducing the story.
Optionally, students also receive a handout listing main characters and their descriptions and the difficult
vocabulary terms and definitions.
RETAIN TEXT INFORMATION WITH PARAPHRASING (RAP). Students who fail to retain important
details from their reading can be taught a self-directed paraphrasing strategy. The student is trained to
use a 3-step cognitive strategy when reading each paragraph of an information- text passage: (1) READ
the paragraph; (2) ASK oneself what the main idea of the paragraph is and what two key details support
that main idea; (3) PARAPHRASE the main idea and two supporting details into one's own words. This
3-step strategy is easily memorized using the acronym RAP (read-ask-paraphrase). OPTIONAL BUT
RECOMMENDED: Create an organizer sheet with spaces for the student to record the main idea and
supporting details of multiple paragraphs to be used with the RAP strategy. RAP organizer forms can
provide structure to the student and yield work products that the teacher can collect to verify that the
student is using the strategy.
SUMMARIZE READINGS. The act of summarizing longer readings can promote understanding and
retention of content while the summarized text itself can be a useful study tool. The student is taught to
condense assigned readings into condensed summaries--consisting of main ideas and essential details and
stripped of superfluous content.
Recommendations for Oral Reading Fluency
LISTENING PASSAGE PREVIEW. This intervention targets student reading fluency in sessions of 10-
15 minutes. The teacher selects a passage at the student's instructional level. The student is directed to
follow along silently and track the place in the text with a finger while the teacher reads the passage aloud.
Then the student is prompted to read the passage aloud as the teacher follows along silently. Whenever
the student commits a reading error or hesitates for 3 seconds or longer, the teacher stops the student,
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 33
points to and says the error word, has the student read the word aloud correctly, has the student read the
surrounding phrase that includes the error word, and then directs the student to continue reading.
Optionally, the teacher may then have the student read the passage again (repeated reading) up to two
more times as the teacher continues to silently monitor and correct any errors or hesitations.
REPEATED READING. During 15-20 minute sessions, the student practices difficult words in isolation,
reads the same passage several times to boost fluency, and tries to beat a previous fluency score. (1)
PREPARATION: Before each session, the teacher selects a text within the student's instructional range
long enough occupy the student for more than a minute of reading aloud and makes teacher and student
copies. The teacher locates five challenge words in the passage to practice. (2) GOAL-SETTING: The
teacher shows the student the performance graph with his/her most recent repeated-reading score and
encourages the student to beat that score; (3) PREVIEW CHALLENGING WORDS: The teacher
introduces each of the passage challenge words: "This word is ___. What is this word?"; (4) INITIAL
READ: The student is directed to read the passage aloud, to do his/her best reading, to start at the
beginning of the passage [which the teacher points out] and to read until told to stop. Also, the student is
told that--if stuck on a word--the teacher will supply it. While the student reads aloud, the teacher marks
reading errors. At the end of one minute, the teacher says "Stop", marks the student's end-point in the text
with a bracket, totals the number of words correctly read, plots that score on the student graph, and labels
that graph data-point "1st reading". (5) FEEDBACK AND ERROR CORRECTION: The teacher shows
the student his/her graphed performance. The teacher then reviews student errors. Pointing to each error
word, the teacher says, "This word is ___. What is this word?" and has the student repeat the correct word
three times before moving to the next. (6) MODELING: The teacher directs the student to read aloud in
unison with the teacher while using a finger to track the place in the text. The teacher takes the lead,
reading the entire passage aloud at a pace slightly faster than that of the student. (6) REPEAT STUDENT
READS. The teacher has the student repeat steps 4 and 5 twice more, until the student has read the passage
independently at least 3 times. If the student's fluency score on the final read exceeds that of the previous
session, the teacher provides praise and perhaps incentives (e.g., sticker, points toward rewards).
ASSISTED CLOZE. Fluency is the goal of this reading intervention. Sessions last 10-15 minutes. The
teacher selects a passage at the student's instructional level. The teacher reads aloud from the passage
while the student follows along silently and tracks the place in the text with a finger. Intermittently, the
teacher pauses, and the student is expected to read aloud the next word in passage. Then the teacher
continues reading. The process continues until the entire passage has been read. Then the student is
directed to read the text aloud while the teacher follows along silently. Whenever the student commits a
reading error or hesitates for 3 seconds or longer (whether during the assisted cloze or independent reading
phase), the teacher stops the student, points to and says the error word, has the student read the word aloud
correctly, has the student read the surrounding phrase that includes the error word, and then continues the
current reading activity. Optionally, the teacher may then have the student read the passage again
(repeated reading) up to two more times as the teacher continues to silently monitor and correct any errors
or hesitations.
Recommendations for Math Problem Solving/Word Problems
HIGHLIGHT KEY TERMS. Students who have difficulties with inattention or impulsivity can increase
rates of on-task behavior and accuracy on math word problems through highlighting of key terms. The
teacher prepares the worksheet by using a colored highlighter to highlight a combination of 8-11 key
words and numbers for each math word problem. The student then completes the highlighted worksheet.
STRATEGY: DRAW THE PROBLEM. The student can clarify understanding of a word problem by
making a drawing of it before solving. To teach this strategy: (1) The teacher gives the student a worksheet
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 34
containing at least six word problems. (2) The teacher explains to the student that making a picture of a
word problem can make that problem clearer and easier to solve. (3) The teacher and student
independently create drawings of each of the problems on the worksheet. (4) Next, the student shows his
or her drawings for each problem while explaining each drawing and how it relates to the word problem.
(5) The teacher also participates, explaining his or her drawings to the student. (6) The student is then
directed to 'draw the problem' whenever solving challenging word problems.
ACQUISITION: USE WORKED EXAMPLES. Students acquiring math skills in the form of word-
problems benefit from being given completed problems ('worked examples') to study. Teachers should
observe these recommendations when formatting, teacher, and using worked examples as a student
support: (1) FORMAT PROBLEM-SOLVING STEPS: the solution presented in the worked example
should be broken down into discrete, labeled sub-steps/sub-goals corresponding to the appropriate process
for solving the problem. (2) COMBINE TEXT AND GRAPHICS. If both text and visual elements appear
in the worked example, they should be integrated into a single unitary display, if possible, rather than split
into separate components--so as not to overwhelm the novice learner. (3) PAIR WORKED WITH
UNWORKED EXAMPLES. Whenever the student is given a worked example to study, he or she should
then immediately be presented with 1-2 similar examples to solve.
Recommendations for Inattentive Behavior
PREFERENTIAL SEATING: INCREASING ATTENTION AND REMOVING DISTRACTIONS. The
teacher seats a student who is distracted by peers or other environmental factors in a location where the
student is most likely to stay focused on instructional content. NOTE: The teacher can increase student
motivation by allowing that student to choose from two or more preferential-seating options.
USE ADVANCE ORGANIZERS. One strategy to improve on-task behavior is to give students a quick
overview of the activities planned for the instructional period or day. This 'advance organizer' provides
students with a mental schedule of the learning activities, how those activities interrelate, important
materials needed for specific activities, and the amount of time set aside for each activity. All students
benefit when the teacher uses advance organizers. However inattentive students especially benefit from
this overview of learning activities, as the advance organizer can prompt, mentally prepare, and focus
these students on learning right when they most need it.
CAPTURE STUDENTS' ATTENTION BEFORE GIVING DIRECTIONS. Gain the student's attention
before giving directions and use other strategies to ensure the student's full understanding of them. When
giving directions to an individual student, call the student by name and establish eye contact before
providing the directions. When giving directions to the whole class, use group alerting cues such as 'Eyes
and ears on me!' to gain the class's attention. Wait until all students are looking at you and ready to listen
before giving directions. When you have finished giving directions to the entire class, privately approach
any students who appear to need assistance. Quietly restate the directions to them and have them repeat
the directions back to you as a check for understanding.
SELECT ACTIVITIES THAT REQUIRE ACTIVE STUDENT RESPONDING. When students are
actively engaged in an activity, they are more likely to be on-task. Avoid long stretches of instructional
time in which students sit passively listening to a speaker. Instead, program your instructional activities
so that students must frequently 'show what they know' through some kind of active [visible] response.
For example, you might first demonstrate a learning strategy to students and then divide the class into
pairs and have students demonstrate the strategy to each other while you observe and evaluate.
XXXXX
CONFIDENTIAL Page 35
Recommendations for Adaptive/Independent Functioning
REINFORCING LOWER RATE OF HELP REQUESTS: INCREASE STUDENT INDEPENDENCE.
When a student too frequently seeks teacher help and reassurance, one strategy to fix the problem is to
reinforce lower rates of help-seeking: (1) TRAIN THE STUDENT IN SELF-HELP STRATEGIES. The
teacher meets with the student to generate a checklist of appropriate self-help skills (e.g., consult a
glossary or dictionary, ask a peer) that should be attempted before seeking teacher help. (2) SELECT A
MAXIMUM LIMIT FOR HELP REQUESTS. The teacher decides on a reasonable upper limit of times
that the student can request help during a given period. For example, a teacher may decide that, during a
20-minute independent seatwork period, the student should require no more than 3 opportunities to seek
teacher help. (3) CREATE A REQUEST-MONITORING CARD. The teacher makes a daily monitoring
index-card to be placed on the student's desk. The card contains a series of check-off boxes equivalent to
the acceptable maximum of help requests--plus an 'extra' box. For example, if 3 is the maximum for
allowable help requests during a period, the card contains 4 check-off boxes. (4) IMPLEMENT THE
INTERVENTION. The teacher shows the monitoring card to the student, presents the maximum number
of times the student can request teacher assistance during the defined academic period, and explains that
each time the student requests assistance, the teacher will check off one of the boxes on the monitoring
card. If the student requests help beyond the pre-defined upper limit, the teacher checks off the 'extra' box
on the card--but does not offer assistance. For each period in which the 'extra' box remains unchecked
(i.e., the student did not exceed the limit for teacher help), the student earns a point that can be banked
and later applied to earn privileges or prizes.
Recommendations for Management of Anxiety/Social Difficulties
DIRECT SKILL INSTRUCTION. Provide opportunities in school for direct social skill instruction
focusing on areas such as reading and responding to social cues, making friends, and dealing with
frustration/anger control. Provide training on nonverbal communication skills including tone of voice,
facial expressions, body language, and personal space. Teach student to recognize environmental triggers
and physical symptoms of anxiety in order to manage response.
ANXIETY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES. Allow for modifications to schedule to use stress relieving
strategies. Provide private space to use stress relieving strategies. Provide special pass to see a designated
staff person or go to a designated quiet space. Provide peer or staff mentor student can speak with if
symptoms are escalating. Provide additional time to complete certain tasks or assignments. Remove
environmental triggers. Provide frequent feedback, praise, positive reinforcement, etc.
Thank you very much for the opportunity work with XXXXX. Please feel free to contact me should you
have any questions.
