Microsoft Word - WISC-V Interpretive Report Sample

Pearson, the PSI logo, PsychCorp, Wechsler, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, and WISC are trademarks in the U.S. and/or

other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s).

[ 1.2 / RE1 / QG1 ]

WISC-V Interpretive Considerations for Laurie Jones (6/1/2015)

Interpretive considerations provide additional information to assist you, the examiner, in interpreting

Laurie's performance. This section should not be provided to the parent or recipient of the report.

Please review these interpretive considerations before reading the report, as they may suggest that you

make changes to the report settings in Q-global. If you make changes to the report settings, you can re-

run the report without being charged.

This file contains two full reports: first, the interpretive report, and second, the parent report. Be sure to

separate these reports before providing them to the appropriate recipients.

Test Behavior Considerations

Expressive language difficulties were identified that may significantly impact verbal comprehension and

auditory memory performance, depending upon the nature and severity of the impairment. You have

indicated that Laurie exhibited speech-related or expressive language difficulties. Her scores on verbal

measures may underestimate her actual ability.

Laurie displayed notable difficulties with affect and motivation during the test session. In particular, she

exhibited a low energy level and poor eye contact. The degree to which these behaviors may have

impacted test performance will need to be evaluated within the context of her background, presenting

problems, referral reason, and chronicity of the observed difficulties.

Score Interpretation Considerations

Performance was somewhat low on Similarities, a Verbal Comprehension subtest that required Laurie to

describe how two words are similar. Difficulties with this subtest may be related to poor abstract

reasoning ability, low verbal concept formation, or difficulties with verbal expression. Her performance

should be interpreted in light of her performance on other Verbal Comprehension subtests.

Performance was somewhat low on Vocabulary, a Verbal Comprehension subtest that required Laurie to

define words. Difficulties with this subtest may be related to poor word knowledge, low verbal concept

formation, or difficulties with verbal expression. Her performance should be interpreted in light of her

performance on other Verbal Comprehension subtests. If picture items were administered, a comparison

of her performance across picture and verbal items might be informative.

Performance was somewhat low on Information, a Verbal Comprehension subtest that required Laurie to

answer questions about general-knowledge topics. Difficulties with this subtest may be related to

Pearson, the PSI logo, PsychCorp, Wechsler, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, and WISC are trademarks in the U.S. and/or

other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s).

[ 1.2 / RE1 / QG1 ]

difficulty acquiring, retaining, and/or retrieving general factual knowledge. Her performance should be

interpreted in light of her performance on other Verbal Comprehension subtests.

Performance was somewhat low on Comprehension, a Verbal Comprehension subtest that required

Laurie to answer questions based on her understanding of general principles and social situations. Her

performance on this subtest should be interpreted in light of her performance on other Verbal

Comprehension subtests. Difficulties with this subtest may be related to low verbal reasoning and

expression or poor practical knowledge and judgment. If she appears to have specific difficulties in the

area of social pragmatics, interventions should be considered. She may benefit from directed social skills

training, role play activities, and social thinking interventions.

Recommendation Considerations

Items listed in the 'Recommendations' section at the end of the report are meant to be an aid to you as a

clinician, not a substitute for individualized recommendations that should be provided by a professional

who is familiar with the examinee. Please read through the automatically generated recommendations

carefully and edit them according to the examinee's individual strengths and needs.

The recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for General Cognitive Functioning' was

included in the report because the examinee's FSIQ fell below a standard score of 90.

The recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Verbal Skills' was included in the report

because the examinee's VCI fell below a standard score of 90.

The recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Visual Spatial Skills' was included in the

report because the examinee's visual spatial skills were an area of strength relative to other areas of

cognitive functioning.

The recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Fluid Reasoning Skills' was included in the

report because fluid reasoning skills were an area of strength relative to her overall ability level.

The recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Working Memory Skills' was included in

the report because the examinee's working memory skills were an area of weakness relative to other

areas of cognitive functioning.

The recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Processing Speed' was included in the

report because the examinee's processing speed skills were an area of strength.

End of Interpretive Considerations

Pearson, the PSI logo, PsychCorp, Wechsler, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, and WISC are trademarks in the U.S. and/or

other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s).

[ 1.2 / RE1 / QG1 ]

WISC

-V

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

-Fifth Edition

Interpretive Report

Examinee Name Laurie Jones Date of Report 06/03/2015

Examinee ID Grade 4

Date of Birth 4/01/2007 Primary Language English

Gender Female Handedness Right

Race/Ethnicity Multiracial Examiner Name John Smith

Date of Testing 6/01/2015 Age at Testing 8 years 2 months Retest? No

Comments:

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 2 Laurie Jones

TEST SESSION BEHAVIOR

Laurie arrived on time for the test session accompanied by her parent. She was appropriately dressed

and groomed. She was oriented to person, place, time, and situation. She showed a low energy level.

Additionally, her eye contact was poor. These factors may have mildly impacted her ability to show her

optimal performance. She exhibited notable difficulties with expressive language during testing. In

particular, occasional difficulties were seen in the areas of word finding, vocabulary, syntax, and

pragmatics and frequent difficulties were seen in the area of morphology. Her expressive language

difficulties may have had a moderate effect on her performance on tasks requiring oral responses.

ABOUT WISC-V SCORES

Laurie was administered 16 subtests from the 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 6:0-16:11. The primary and secondary subtests are on a scaled

score metric with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation (SD) of 3. These subtest scores range from 1 to

19, with scores between 8 and 12 typically considered average. The primary subtest scores contribute to

the primary indexes, which represent intellectual functioning in five cognitive areas: Verbal

Comprehension Index (VCI), Visual Spatial Index (VSI), Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI), Working

Memory Index (WMI), and the Processing Speed Index (PSI). This assessment also produces a Full

Scale IQ (FSIQ) composite score that represents general intellectual ability. The primary index scores

and the FSIQ are on a standard score metric with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15. The primary index

scores range from 45 to 155; the FSIQ ranges from 40 to 160. For both the primary index scores and the

FSIQ, scores ranging from 90 to 109 are typically considered average.

Ancillary index scores are also provided for Laurie. The ancillary index scores represent her cognitive

abilities using different primary and secondary subtest groupings than do the primary index scales. The

ancillary index scores are on a standard score metric with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15. The

Quantitative Reasoning Index (QRI) and Auditory Working Memory Index (AWMI) have a range of 45-

155. The remaining three ancillary index scores have a range of 40-160: Nonverbal Index (NVI),

General Ability Index (GAI), and the Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI). Scores ranging from 90 to 109

are typically considered average. Further, the WISC-V provides complementary index scores that

measure additional cognitive abilities related to academic achievement and learning-related issues. The

complementary index scores include the Naming Speed Index (NSI), Symbol Translation Index (STI),

and the Storage and Retrieval Index (SRI). Both the complementary subtests and index scores are on a

standard score metric with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15, with a range of 45-155. Scores ranging from

90 to 109 are typically considered average.

A percentile rank (PR) is provided for each reported index and subtest score to show Laurie's standing

relative to other same-age children in the WISC-V normative sample. If the percentile rank for Laurie's

Verbal Comprehension Index score is 1, for example, it means that Laurie performed as well as or better

than approximately 1% of children her age. This appears in the report as PR = 1.

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 3 Laurie Jones

The scores obtained on the WISC-V reflect Laurie's true abilities combined with some degree of

measurement error. Her true score is more accurately represented by a confidence interval (CI), which is

a range of scores within which her true score is likely to fall. Composite scores are reported with 95%

confidence intervals to ensure greater accuracy when interpreting test scores. For each composite score

reported for Laurie, there is a 95% certainty that her true score falls within the listed range.

It is common for children to exhibit different strengths and weaknesses across areas of performance. If

the difference between two scores is statistically significant, it is listed in the report with a base rate to

aid in interpretation. The base rate (BR) provides a basis for estimating how rare a particular score

difference was among other children of similar ability in the WISC-V normative sample. For example, a

base rate of <=2% is reported if the composite score for the Verbal Comprehension Index is 28.80 points

lower than the mean primary index score (MIS). This appears on the report as VCI < MIS, BR = <=2%.

This means that <=2% of children of similar ability level in the WISC-V normative sample obtained a

difference of this magnitude or greater between those two scores.

It is possible for intellectual abilities to change over the course of childhood. Additionally, a child's

scores on the WISC-V can be influenced by motivation, attention, interests, and opportunities for

learning. All scores may be slightly higher or lower if Laurie were tested again on a different day. It is

therefore important to view these test scores as a snapshot of Laurie's current level of intellectual

functioning. When these scores are used as part of a comprehensive evaluation, they contribute to an

understanding of her current strengths and any needs that can be addressed.

INTERPRETATION OF WISC-V RESULTS

FSIQ

The FSIQ composite score is derived from seven subtests and summarizes ability across a diverse set of

cognitive functions. This score is considered the most representative indicator of general intellectual

functioning. Subtests are drawn from five areas of cognitive ability: verbal comprehension, visual-

spatial ability, fluid reasoning, working memory, and processing speed. Laurie's FSIQ is in the Low

Average range when compared to other children her age (FSIQ = 85, PR = 16, CI = 80-91). Although

the WISC-V measures various aspects of ability, a child's scores on this test can also be influenced by

many factors that are not captured in this report. When interpreting this report, consider additional

sources of information that may not be reflected in the scores on this assessment. While the FSIQ

provides a broad representation of cognitive ability, describing Laurie’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 most children display areas of cognitive strengths

and weaknesses.

Verbal Comprehension

The Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) measured Laurie'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. Overall, Laurie's performance on subtests within

the VCI was much lower than most children her age and was an area of personal weakness compared to

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 4 Laurie Jones

her overall ability (VCI = 65, PR = 1, Extremely Low range, CI = 60-75; VCI < MIS, BR = <=2%). 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. Her scores on verbal comprehension tasks were weaker than her

performance on tasks that required her to process and evaluate visual information and use logic to solve

problems (VCI < VSI, BR = 0.5%; VCI < FRI, BR = 0.8%). Additionally, her Verbal Comprehension

performance was somewhat weaker than scores obtained on tasks requiring her to mentally manipulate

information and work quickly and efficiently (VCI < WMI, BR = 3.2%; VCI < PSI, BR = 0.8%).

Laurie's verbal comprehension ability is the weakest of her skill set.

With regard to individual subtests within the VCI, Similarities (SI) required Laurie to describe

similarities between words with common characteristics and Vocabulary (VC) required her to name

pictures and/or define words aloud. She performed comparably across both subtests, suggesting that her

abstract reasoning skills and word knowledge are similarly developed at this time (SI = 4; VC = 3). In

addition to the two subtests in the VCI, two other verbal comprehension subtests were administered to

gain a more comprehensive understanding of Laurie's language skills. For Information (IN), she

answered general knowledge questions. Her performance was extremely low for her age, suggesting

very weak ability to acquire, remember, and retrieve knowledge about the world around her (IN = 3). On

Comprehension (CO), a subtest requiring her to answer questions about general principles and social

situations, Laurie's performance was very low for her age. This suggests weak understanding of practical

knowledge and ability to verbalize meaningful concepts (CO = 5).

Extremely Low verbal skills are consistent with her reported difficulties with expressive language.

Visual Spatial

The Visual Spatial Index (VSI) measured Laurie'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, Laurie exhibited performance that was similar to other children her

age (VSI = 102, PR = 55, Average range, CI = 94-109). Laurie showed average performance when

putting together geometric designs using a model. This reflects her ability to understand and apply

visual-perceptual and visual-spatial information. Her performance in this area was particularly strong in

relation to her performance on verbal reasoning tasks (VSI > VCI, BR = 0.5%). Her visual spatial scores

were also particularly strong when compared to her performance on working memory tasks (VSI >

WMI, BR = 22.4%). It appears that she can solve complex visual-spatial problems without difficulty,

despite working memory weaknesses.

The VSI consists of two tasks. During Block Design (BD), Laurie viewed designs and used blocks to re-

create each design. Visual Puzzles (VP) required her to view a completed puzzle and select three pieces

that together would reconstruct the puzzle. She performed comparably across both subtests, suggesting

that her ability to analyze and synthesize visual information and her ability to understand part-whole

relationships are similarly developed (BD = 10; VP = 11). Her score on Visual Puzzles was similar to

other children her age and was one of her strongest areas of performance (VP = 11; VP > MSS-F, BR =

<=10%). This suggests that her mental rotation skills and ability to understand part-whole relationships

may be particularly strong when compared to her other abilities. This represents a strength that can be

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 5 Laurie Jones

built upon in her further development. In addition to the BD score, the Block Design No Time Bonus

score (BDn) was calculated. BDn is based on the child's performance on Block Design (BD) without

including bonus points for rapid completion of items. The score's reduced emphasis on speed may be

useful when a child's limitations, problem-solving strategies, or personality characteristics are believed

to affect performance on timed tasks, as this score does not award extra points for working quickly.

Laurie's BDn score (BDn = 10) is not significantly different than her BD score, suggesting that both

accuracy and speed equally contributed to her performance on this visual-spatial task. The Block Design

Partial score (BDp) was also calculated, which awards points for the number of blocks correctly placed

when the time runs out, even if the child has not finished the entire design. This score reduces the

emphasis on speed and attention to detail, providing an estimate of performance in children who are

impulsive or who misperceive the design. Laurie's BDp score (BDp = 9) is similar to her BD score. This

suggests that during visual-spatial tasks, her performance is similar regardless of speed, motor, or

attention demands.

Fluid Reasoning

The Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI) measured Laurie'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. Laurie's performance on subtests

within the FRI was diverse, but overall was typical for her age. These subtests emerged as one of

Laurie's strongest areas of performance during the current assessment (FRI = 103, PR = 58, Average

range, CI = 96-110; FRI > MIS, BR = <=10%). Additionally, her performance on fluid reasoning tasks

was particularly strong when compared to her performance on tasks that involved language-based skills

(FRI > VCI, BR = 0.8%). Laurie's relatively strong fluid abilities might be further examined to

determine if the difference between her fluid and crystallized abilities is primarily related to a preference

for visual rather than verbal stimuli. Moreover, her overall performance on the FRI was stronger than

performance on tasks that measured working memory (FRI > WMI, BR = 17.8%). It appears that she is

well able to solve complex problems despite having difficulty on other tasks.

The FRI consists of two subtests: Matrix Reasoning (MR) and Figure Weights (FW). Matrix Reasoning

required Laurie to select the missing piece to complete a pattern. On Figure Weights, she looked at a

scale with a missing weight and identified the weight that would keep the scale balanced. Laurie

demonstrated diverse performance on these two tasks. Identifying the missing piece in patterns on

Matrix Reasoning was a strength for Laurie (MR = 12; MR > MSS-F, BR = <=5%); however, she

showed greater difficulty balancing scales under a time constraint during Figure Weights (FW = 9; MR

> FW, BR = 20.7%). This pattern of scores implies a relative strength in inductive reasoning compared

to quantitative reasoning. It is possible that her understanding of part-whole relationships may currently

be better developed than her mathematical reasoning skills. When Laurie solves novel problems, she

may have difficulty applying quantitative concepts. In addition to the two subtests in the FRI, two other

fluid reasoning subtests were administered to gain a more comprehensive understanding of Laurie's fluid

reasoning skills. For Picture Concepts (PC), she was asked to choose pictures from two or three rows to

form a group with a common trait. Her performance was similar to other children her age, suggesting

age-appropriate categorical reasoning skills (PC = 9). On Arithmetic (AR), a timed subtest requiring her

to solve math word problems in her head, Laurie's performance was similar to other children her age.

This suggests age-appropriate numerical reasoning ability and concentration skills (AR = 8).

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 6 Laurie Jones

Working Memory

The Working Memory Index (WMI) measured Laurie'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. Laurie's performance on the WMI was similar to other

children her age (WMI = 91, PR = 27, Average range, CI = 84-99). Laurie recalled and sequenced series

of pictures and lists of numbers at a level that was average for her age. Her performance on these tasks

was relatively strong compared to her performance on language-based tasks (WMI > VCI, BR = 3.2%).

Laurie's ability to mentally manipulate information is more developed than her ability to solve complex

problems. While performance on working memory tasks was stronger than some cognitive abilities and

average compared to peers, it was also somewhat weaker than other cognitive skills. Working memory

performance was relatively low compared to her performance on visual spatial tasks (WMI < VSI, BR =

22.4%). Her working memory performance was also relatively weak when compared to her performance

on logical reasoning and processing speed tasks (WMI < FRI, BR = 17.8%; WMI < PSI, BR = 18.9%).

Within the WMI, Picture Span (PS) required Laurie to memorize pictures and identify them in order on

subsequent pages. On Digit Span (DS), she listened to strings of numbers read aloud and recalled them

in the same order, backward 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 = 9). The Digit Span Forward

(DSf) scaled process score is derived from the total raw score for the Digit Span Forward task. On this

task, Laurie was required to repeat numbers verbatim, with the number of digits in each sequence

increasing as the task progressed. This task required working memory when the number of digits

exceeded her ability to repeat the digits without the aid of rehearsal. This task represents basic capacity

in the phonological loop. Her performance on DSf was typical compared to other children her age (DSf

= 8). On the Digit Span Forward task, Laurie's Longest Digit Span Forward score was (LDSf = 5). This

raw score reflects the number of digits recalled on the last correct trial in the Digit Span Forward task

and offers insight regarding his ability to focus. The Digit Span Backward (DSb) scaled process score is

derived from the total raw score for the Digit Span Backward task. This task invoked working memory

because Laurie was required to repeat the digits in a reverse sequence than was originally presented,

requiring her to mentally manipulate the information before responding. Her performance on DSb was

typical compared to other children her age (DSb = 10). On the Digit Span Backward task, Laurie's

Longest Digit Span Backward score was (LDSb = 3). The Digit Span Sequencing (DSs) scaled process

score is derived from the total raw score for the Digit Span Sequencing task. This task required Laurie to

sequence digits according to value, invoking quantitative knowledge in addition to working memory.

The increased demands for mental manipulation of information on the Digit Span Sequencing task

places additional demands on working memory, as well as attention. Her performance on DSs was

typical compared to other children her age (DSs = 8). On the Digit Span Sequencing task, Laurie's

Longest Digit Span Sequence score was (LDSs = 4). The Longest Picture Span Stimulus (LPSs) and

Longest Picture Span Response (LPSr) raw process scores may help to further evaluate performance on

the Picture Span subtest. These scores reflect the number of stimulus and response pictures, respectively,

that appear on the last item with a perfect score. Given the variation in the length of response choices

across items (i.e., number of responses may decrease when the stimulus span increases), LPSr should be

interpreted in relation to LPSs. Laurie's performance pattern on LPSs and LPSr are worth noting. Her

Longest Picture Span Stimulus score was (LPSs = 4) and her Longest Picture Span Response score was

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 7 Laurie Jones

(LPSr = 6). In addition to the two subtests in the WMI, Letter-Number Sequencing (LN) was

administered to gain a more comprehensive understanding of Laurie's working memory proficiency. On

this subtest, she was read sequences of numbers and letters, then recalled the numbers from lowest to

highest and the letters in alphabetical order. Her performance was similar to other children her age,

suggesting age-appropriate sequential processing, mental manipulation, and attention (LN = 9). Laurie's

Longest Letter-Number Sequence score was (LLNs = 3).

Processing Speed

The Processing Speed Index (PSI) measured Laurie'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

performance across subtests in the PSI was diverse but overall was typical for her age and emerged as a

personal strength (PSI = 108, PR = 70, Average range, CI = 98-116; PSI > MIS, BR = <=25%).

Additionally, her speed and accuracy when processing visual information were strengths compared to

her performance on tasks that involved language-based reasoning (PSI > VCI, BR = 0.8%). This pattern

of performance suggests that her ability to quickly evaluate visual information and make simple

decisions is a strength relative to her complex problem solving ability. Processing speed is not limiting

her performance on tasks involving reasoning. Moreover, her processing speed performance was

stronger than performance on tasks requiring her to utilize working memory (PSI > WMI, BR = 18.9%).

This pattern of performance suggests that Laurie may be more proficient at rapid decision making with

information registered in short-term memory than at manipulating that information. Laurie may work at

an average speed and have difficulty holding and manipulating information in her mind.

The PSI consists of two timed subtests. Symbol Search (SS) required Laurie to scan a group of symbols

and mark the target symbol. On Coding (CD), she copied symbols that were paired with numbers.

Laurie demonstrated uneven performance across subtests within the PSI. Symbol Search was one of her

strongest areas of performance (SS = 14; SS > MSS-F, BR = <=2%). However, she showed greater

difficulty on Coding (CD = 9; SS > CD, BR = 4.6%). Her performance suggests that accurate visual

scanning is a strength relative to associative memory and/or graphomotor speed. In addition to the

subtests in the PSI, Laurie was administered Cancellation (CA), another Processing Speed subtest, to

gain a more comprehensive understanding of her processing speed ability. On this timed subtest she

scanned arrangements of objects and marked target objects. Her performance was typical compared to

other children her age (CA = 8). Cancellation measures speed, scanning ability, and visual

discrimination. Within Cancellation, Laurie worked more efficiently when faced with a structured,

rather than unstructured, presentation format (CA Structured > CA Random; BR = 4.8%). Together,

these patterns of performance suggest she currently processes visual information more easily when it is

arranged in structured rows that are easy to navigate. She may become overwhelmed by a complex array

of unstructured visual information. Children with very low reasoning abilities often tend to do somewhat

better on processing speed tasks. This may have practical implications for educational programs in

which success depends upon quick and relatively error-free performance of simple tasks.

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 8 Laurie Jones

ANCILLARY INDEXES

In addition to the indexes described above, Laurie was administered subtests contributing to several

ancillary indexes. Ancillary indexes do not replace the FSIQ and primary index scores, but are meant to

provide additional information about Laurie's cognitive profile.

Quantitative Reasoning

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.

Laurie's overall performance on this index was similar to other children her age (QRI = 91, PR = 27,

Average range, CI = 85-98). Assessment of Laurie's performance on the QRI may help to predict her

reading and math achievement scores, creative potential, standardized test performance, and future

academic success.

Auditory Working Memory

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 Laurie to listen to numbers and

letters presented verbally, then recall or sequence them aloud. This index measured her ability to

memory performance was typical for her age (AWMI = 94, PR = 34, Average range, CI = 87-102).

Laurie performed similarly across the two subtests in the AWMI, suggesting that her auditory working

memory is similarly developed for tasks having both single- and dual-stimulus demands (DS = 9; LN =

9).

Nonverbal

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, especially those having speech and

language difficulties. Subtests in the NVI are drawn from four of the five primary cognitive domains

(i.e., Visual Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed). Laurie's performance

on the NVI fell in the Average range when compared to other children her age (NVI = 98, PR = 45, CI =

92-104). Assessment of Laurie's performance on the NVI may help to estimate her overall nonverbal

cognitive ability.

General Ability

Laurie was administered the five subtests comprising the General Ability Index (GAI), an ancillary

index 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. Her overall performance on this index was slightly below

other children her age (GAI = 83, PR = 13, Low Average range, CI = 78-89). Low GAI scores may

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 9 Laurie Jones

occur for a number of reasons, including poor reasoning skills, visual-spatial processing difficulties,

language deficits, or general 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. Laurie'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

Laurie was also administered the Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI), which consists of four subtests

drawn from the working memory and processing speed domains. Her performance on this index

suggests that she demonstrates average efficiency when processing cognitive information in the service

of learning, problem solving, and higher-order reasoning (CPI = 100, PR = 50, Average range, CI = 93-

107). 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. Laurie's performance on subtests contributing to the GAI was significantly

weaker than her overall level of cognitive proficiency (GAI < CPI, BR = 25.2%). The significant

difference between her GAI and CPI scores suggests that higher-order cognitive abilities may be a

weakness compared to abilities that facilitate cognitive processing efficiency. This result indicates that

the effects of cognitive proficiency, as measured by working memory and processing speed, may have

led to a lower general ability score. Thus, lowered reasoning skills are not due to limitations in cognitive

efficiency.

COMPLEMENTARY INDEXES

Storage and Retrieval

The Storage and Retrieval Index (SRI) provides a broad estimate of Laurie'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 similar to other children her age (SRI = 97, PR = 42, Average range, CI =

90-104). 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.

Naming Speed

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 Laurie's ability to quickly

and accurately name familiar objects, colors, letters, and numbers. During the Naming Speed Literacy

subtest, Laurie named elements (e.g., objects of various size and color, letters and numbers) as quickly

as possible. Compared to other children her age, Laurie's score fell in the Very Low range (NSL = 76).

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 10 Laurie Jones

On the Naming Speed Quantity subtest, Laurie 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 Laurie'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. Laurie's performance suggests that

she has greater naming facility on tasks related to mathematical, rather than literacy, skills (NSL < NSQ,

BR = 2.2%). Although there was variability between Laurie's NSI subtest scores, her overall

performance was slightly below other children her age (NSI = 88, PR = 21, Low Average range, CI =

81-98). 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.

The Naming Speed process scores correspond to the NSL items. Laurie's Naming Speed Size-Color-

Object (NSsco) process score reflects her ability to identify elements by their size, color and object

attributes, while her Naming Speed Letter-Number (NSln) process score reflects her ability to name

letters and numbers, as quickly as possible. When asked to quickly say the name, color, and size of

common objects, her rate was slow compared to others her age (NSsco = 73). However, when she was

also required to name letters and numbers, her speed became significantly faster, and was compared to

her same-age peers (NSln = 121). A discrepancy comparison between NSsco and NSln provides

additional insight regarding how Laurie's performance on the NSL subtest varied when letters and

numbers were added to the naming task. Laurie's performance may suggest a lapse in attention or

motivation during the Naming Speed Size-Color-Object task. It is also possible that she more easily

employs successful strategies while progressing across tasks or she more readily improves with

experience and practice, relative to her same-age peers (NSln > NSsco; BR = 0.0%). Observational data

about her behavior, attention, concentration, and motivation during this subtest should also be

considered.

Symbol Translation

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. She was then asked to recall these associations 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 overall intellectual ability. When interpreting her STI subtest scores, it is important to remember

that DST and RST performance are dependent upon that of IST. Laurie'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 = 108, PR = 70,

CI = 101-114). An NSI vs. STI discrepancy comparison offers insight regarding her relative strengths

and weaknesses within the storage and retrieval domain. Her STI score was significantly stronger than

her performance on the NSI (STI > NSI; BR = 10.0%). This suggests that learning and memory for

recently acquired visual-verbal associations is a strength relative to rapid access of previously acquired

visual-verbal associations. Laurie's ability to store and accurately retrieve information is stronger than

her naming fluency and automaticity.

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 11 Laurie Jones

SUMMARY

Laurie is an 8-year-old girl. The WISC-V was used to assess Laurie's performance across five areas of

cognitive ability. When interpreting her scores, it is important to view the results as a snapshot of her

current intellectual functioning. Challenges with motivation and effort may have impeded her

performance. As measured by the WISC-V, her overall FSIQ fell in the Low Average range when

compared to other children her age (FSIQ = 85). She performed variably across fluid reasoning tasks

during this evaluation. Her scores on the FRI demonstrate that overall this was one of her strongest areas

of performance (FRI = 103). Performance on fluid reasoning tasks was an area of particular strength

when compared to her performance on working memory (WMI = 91) tasks. Performance on the PSI was

variable, but overall she worked at an average speed on the processing speed tasks, which was also one

of her strongest performance areas during this assessment (PSI = 108). Processing speed was

particularly strong when compared to her working memory (WMI = 91) skills. The language skills

assessed appear to be one of Laurie's lowest areas of functioning. She showed very weak performance

on the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI = 65). Verbal scores emerged as an area of need when

compared to her performance on visual spatial (VSI = 102) and working memory (WMI = 91) tasks.

Performance on visual spatial tasks was similar to other children her age (VSI = 102), and was relatively

strong compared to working memory (WMI = 91) skills. Ancillary Index scores revealed additional

information about Laurie's cognitive abilities using unique subtest groupings to better interpret clinical

needs. Her capacity to perform mental math operations and understand quantitative relationships, as

measured by the Quantitative Reasoning Index (QRI), fell in the Average range (QRI = 91). The

Auditory Working Memory Index (AWMI) measured her ability to register, maintain, and manipulate

information that was presented orally. Her score on this index was Average for her age (AWMI = 94).

On the Nonverbal Index (NVI), a measure of general intellectual ability that minimizes expressive

language demands, her performance was Average for her age (NVI = 98). She scored in the Low

Average range on the General Ability Index (GAI), which provides an estimate of general intellectual

ability that is less reliant on working memory and processing speed relative to the FSIQ (GAI = 83).

Performance on the Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI), which captures the efficiency with which she

processes information, was comparatively strong, falling in the Average range (CPI = 100).

Complementary Index scores measured Laurie's abilities as they relate to academic achievement and

learning-related issues. The Storage and Retrieval Index (SRI) provides a broad estimate of long-term

storage and retrieval accuracy and fluency. This score is derived from tasks on the Naming Speed Index

(NSI) and Symbol Translation Index (STI). The NSI measures basic naming automaticity. Laurie's NSI

score was in the Low Average range (NSI = 88). The STI measures visual-verbal associative memory.

Her score on the STI fell in the Average range (STI = 108). It is important to compare her performance

across the three STI subtests, when interpreting her associative memory ability. Her performance on the

SRI was diverse, but overall was Average for her age (SRI = 97; STI > NSI, BR = 10.0%). When

evaluating her performance across the subtests in the NSI (i.e., NSL and NSQ), it appears that she has

greater naming facility on tasks related to mathematical, rather than reading, skills (NSL < NSQ, BR =

2.2%). Potential areas for intervention are described in the following section.

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 12 Laurie Jones

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for General Cognitive Functioning

Laurie's FSIQ was measured in the Low Average range, which means that her overall level of cognitive

ability is greater than 16% of children her age. Although this ability level is considered average, children

with this level of functioning may experience academic difficulty when compared to same-age peers.

Laurie may learn new information at a rate that is somewhat slower than other children her age, and may

have particular difficulty with abstract thinking. It is therefore recommended that adults support her

academic progress using multiple interventions. Pre-teaching and re-teaching lessons learned in school

will give her additional exposure to new concepts and may facilitate her comprehension and recall of

information. It may be helpful to present new content material in multiple modalities, using relatively

simple vocabulary and sentence structure. Focusing on literacy goals is encouraged, as strong reading

skills can build a foundation for academic success. It is also recommended that adults involve Laurie in

enjoyable hobbies and extracurricular activities, in order to build her competency in a variety of arenas.

Recommendations for Verbal Skills

Laurie's overall performance on the VCI was very weak compared to other children her age. Verbal

skills were also weak compared to her other areas of cognitive functioning. Relatively weak verbal skills

place the child at risk for reading comprehension problems and may make it difficult to keep up with

peers in the classroom. Classroom activities often involve listening comprehension, verbal reasoning,

and oral communication. It is therefore recommended that interventions are provided in this area. Verbal

interventions include shared reading activities, such as dialogic reading. This strategy allows adults to

ask the child specific questions that encourage interest, comprehension, and critical thinking.

Vocabulary can be enriched by exposing Laurie to novel situations and encouraging her to ask the

names of unknown objects. Adults can keep a list of words that Laurie learns and periodically review it

with her. Discovering and investigating new concepts can help her to remember vocabulary words.

Adults may wish to challenge Laurie to engage in conversation by creating an open, positive

environment for communication. For example, adults can ask open-ended questions and allow her

sufficient time to respond, without interruption. Family members can also encourage Laurie to engage in

supervised age-appropriate conversation in the community. For example, she can be encouraged to order

her own food at a restaurant or ask a store clerk questions. Further, adults may wish to give her positive

feedback when she engages in conversation. Positive feedback can include reciprocal conversation,

asking Laurie to elaborate on her thoughts, and complementing her contributions to the conversation.

Recommendations for Visual Spatial Skills

Laurie's visual spatial skills fell in the Average range and were an area of personal strength. Visual

spatial ability involves skills such as understanding things by looking at them and picturing how details

fit together to create a bigger picture. These skills are important to academic success because they may

help the child understand how individual parts are related to complex 'whole'. They may also assist in

the acquisition of early reading skills. As such, it is important to support Laurie's visual spatial strengths

by providing activities that reinforce these skills. For example, she can be encouraged to engage in

visual spatial tasks that she enjoys, such as putting together puzzles, creating maps, drawing, or playing

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 13 Laurie Jones

with construction-type toys. Activities that allow her to build creative structures might be especially

enjoyable. Many educational digital games are available that may also enrich her visual spatial abilities.

When new information is presented in the classroom, Laurie may benefit if visual aids supplement

verbally presented content. For example, she will learn best if teachers present lessons using the

chalkboard, overhead projector, and/or computer screen. Providing opportunities for visually based

learning may help Laurie understand and remember new ideas. As strategies are used to augment

Laurie's learning, it is important that they are monitored for effectiveness and are modified according to

her needs.

Additionally, Laurie's visual skills are particularly strong when compared to her verbal skills. Children

with this particular performance pattern may sometimes experience difficulty putting their ideas into

words. If this is the case, it may be helpful to reduce language demands when appropriate. For example,

if Laurie experiences difficulty explaining her emotions, it may be helpful to show her a series of

pictures depicting emotions, and ask her to select the picture that shows how she feels. In school, if

Laurie has a difficult time generating verbal responses, it may be helpful to provide her with several

possible responses and ask her to choose the appropriate response. When possible, it may be helpful to

ask Laurie to elaborate her words using pictures. As Laurie develops her reading skills, she might

choose books that are rich in visual imagery in order to enhance her enjoyment of reading.

Recommendations for Fluid Reasoning Skills

Laurie exhibited Average performance on the FRI. This is one of her stronger areas of performance.

Fluid reasoning includes using logic to solve problems and identifying connections between abstract

concepts. Because these skills can be an important component in future academic success, it is

recommended that Laurie engage in activities that continue to strengthen her fluid reasoning skills. For

example, she can look at increasingly challenging patterns or series to identify what comes next.

Encourage her to think of multiple ways to group objects and then explain her rationale to adults.

Performing age-appropriate science experiments may also be helpful in strengthening logical thinking

skills. For example, adults can help her form a hypothesis and then perform a simple experiment, using

measurement techniques to determine whether or not her hypothesis was correct. When creating

opportunities for Laurie to further build her fluid reasoning skills, it is important to provide activities

that are challenging, but within her skill level.

Laurie's fluid reasoning skills appear strong compared to her working memory skills. Children with this

pattern of performance may find it easy to understand information while they are looking at it, but then

later have difficulty recalling it. Because Laurie has fluid reasoning strengths, it may be helpful to teach

her to remember visual information by encoding it into words. For example, rather than simply looking

at a picture, she might name different objects in the picture, so that she remembers them better later. It

may also be helpful for her to learn to visualize new information in her mind as she is learning it.

Recommendations for Working Memory Skills

Laurie's working memory scores fell in the Average range. Working memory skills are an area of

weakness compared to other areas of cognitive functioning, which may make it difficult for her to

concentrate and retain large amounts of information presented to her. This may impact her school

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 14 Laurie Jones

performance. Relatively weak working memory skills can lead to reading comprehension problems as

text becomes more complex in future grades. Several recommendations are made based upon her

performance pattern. Digital interventions may be helpful in building her capacity to exert mental

control, ignore distraction, and manipulate information in her mind. Other strategies that may be useful

in increasing working memory include teaching Laurie to chunk information and connect new

information to concepts that she already knows. As part of a comprehensive intervention plan, literacy

goals such as identifying the main idea of stories can be identified. It is important to reinforce Laurie's

progress during these interventions. Goals should be small and measurable, and should steadily increase

in complexity as her skills grow stronger.

Recommendations for Processing Speed

Overall, Laurie's processing speed performance was relatively strong compared to her other cognitive

skills. The ability to quickly scan and discriminate visual information is an important component of

academic success. It is important to reinforce Laurie's strengths in this area by continuing to build her

speed and accuracy through practice. Speeded flash card drills, such as those that ask the student to

quickly solve simple math problems, may help develop automaticity that can free up cognitive resources

in the service of more complex academic tasks. Digital interventions may also be helpful in building her

speed on simple tasks. It is important to note, however, that some children who work relatively quickly

can be reluctant to slow down when tasks require deeper thought. This may result in careless errors. In

addition to building speed, it is important to provide other activities in which Laurie is rewarded for

accuracy rather than quick completion of tasks.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for School Difficulties

Laurie should be encouraged to ask frequent questions to ensure her understanding of task requirements

or academic material.

Laurie's family is encouraged to support her efforts in completing homework while avoiding an

overemphasis on high grades. Her family may wish to focus upon the quality of work and timely

completion of assignments. When Laurie completes assignments successfully, her family should

consider displaying her work at home.

Laurie's family, teachers, therapists, school counselor, and/or school psychologist are encouraged to

maintain regular communication to ensure that they use consistent approaches throughout Laurie's day.

Homework should reflect concepts learned in class and should include information to parents that

indicate how tasks should be completed.

Laurie would benefit from positive reinforcement throughout her day. Teachers and parents should make

an effort to identify positive behaviors and point them out to Laurie. For example, they might say "I like

the way you are completing that assignment," or "I like the way you are drawing that picture."

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 15 Laurie Jones

While creating an intervention plan for Laurie, it is important to consider the learning environment. It is

recommended that an assessment of the learning environment is conducted to identify aspects that could

be changed to allow Laurie to better access the curriculum.

Recommendations for Speech and Language Difficulties

Build schema by capitalizing on Laurie's past experiences or popular concepts. Connecting new

information to previous knowledge may help her to remember new information.

Read complete and incomplete sentences (fragments) to Laurie and ask her to identify each.

Read sentences to Laurie and ask her to identify nouns, verbs, adjectives, or adverbs.

Model declarative, interrogative, compound, and negative sentences and have Laurie identify each type.

Read sentences to Laurie that contain correct and incorrect grammatical forms (e.g., runned; mouses).

Ask her to identify the incorrect instances. (Note that dialectal rules allow different options.)

Give Laurie two simple sentences and a conjunction (e.g., and, but, or), and have her combine them into

a compound sentence to increase complexity of language use.

Give Laurie two simple sentences and a transitional word such as a relative pronoun (e.g., who) or an

adverb (e.g., when), and have her combine them into a complex sentence.

Prepare Laurie for transitions by writing and posting the steps that will be required.

Create and review scripts with Laurie for conversations via telephone, texting, email, or social media.

Minimize interruptions created by students in the class by providing separate areas for group interaction

and quiet activities.

Minimize any echoing effect or reverberation of sounds in the classroom by strategically placing

dividers or mobile bulletin boards to separate noisy areas.

Minimize the amount of competing noise from adjoining classrooms and hallways by closing the door or

by placing group interaction areas as far from the doorway as possible.

To compensate for Laurie's hearing difficulties, the teacher should adjust the volume and intonation of

his/her voice based on background noise and the size of the classroom. An FM system may be an

appropriate accommodation.

Decrease overall complexity of classroom discourse and discussions by controlling vocabulary level,

reducing multistep commands, controlling sentence length and grammatical complexity, and providing

written support.

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 16 Laurie Jones

Students form teams. One partner builds a block tower out of sight of her partner, and must only use her

language skills to give instructions to her partner who must build the exact same structure.

Recommendations to Build Social Skills

Laurie's family is encouraged to engage in activities that promote communication and enrich Laurie's

verbal environment. For example, family members could take turns recounting the day's events, asking

questions, and telling stories.

Laurie may be encouraged to maintain appropriate eye contact with adults and peers. If eye contact is

uncomfortable for her, she can be encouraged to employ compensatory strategies such as looking

between or slightly above peers' eyes when speaking.

Teachers, other adults, and family are encouraged to engage Laurie in social communication as often as

possible.

Recommendations for Further Evaluation

Given Laurie's challenges in the verbal domain, it is recommended that she receive a comprehensive

speech and language evaluation. This type of evaluation will identify specific areas of weakness and

lead to specific interventions.

Thank you for the opportunity to assess Laurie. Please contact me with any questions you have about

these results.

This report is only valid if signed by a qualified professional:

John Smith Date

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 17 Laurie Jones

PRIMARY SUMMARY

Subtest Score Summary

Scale Subtest Name

Total

Raw Score

Scaled

Score

Percentile

Rank

Age

Equivalent SEM

Verbal

Similarities

SI 8 4 2 <6:2 1.16

Comprehension

Vocabulary

VC 6 3 1 <6:2 1.24

(Information) IN 7 3 1 <6:2 1.31

(Comprehension) CO 7 5 5 <6:2 1.34

Visual Spatial

Block Design

BD 22 10 50 8:6 1.04

Visual Puzzles VP 13 11 63 8:10 1.08

Fluid Reasoning

Matrix Reasoning

MR 18 12 75 9:10 0.99

Figure Weights

FW 14 9 37 7:2 0.73

(Picture Concepts) PC 10 9 37 7:2 1.24

(Arithmetic) AR 12 8 25 7:2 1.04

Working Memory

Digit Span

DS 19 9 37 7:2 0.95

Picture Span PS 19 8 25 6:10 1.08

(Letter-Number Seq.) LN 12 9 37 7:2 1.24

Processing Speed

Coding

CD 27 9 37 <8:2 1.37

Symbol Search SS 25 14 91 10:10 1.34

(Cancellation) CA 39 8 25 6:2 1.24

Subtests used to derive the FSIQ are bolded. Secondary subtests are in parentheses.

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 18 Laurie Jones

PRIMARY SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

Composite Score Summary

Composite

Sum of

Scaled Scores

Composite

Score

Percentile

Rank

95%

Confidence

Interval

Qualitative

Description SEM

Verbal Comprehension VCI 7 65 1 60-75 Extremely Low 4.74

Visual Spatial VSI 21 102 55 94-109 Average 4.24

Fluid Reasoning FRI 21 103 58 96-110 Average 3.67

Working Memory WMI 17 91 27 84-99 Average 4.24

Processing Speed PSI 23 108 70 98-116 Average 5.61

Full Scale IQ FSIQ 56 85 16 80-91 Low Average 3.00

Confidence intervals are calculated using the Standard Error of Estimation.

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 19 Laurie Jones

PRIMARY ANALYSIS

Index Level Strengths and Weaknesses

Index Score

Comparison

Score Difference Critical Value

Strength or

Weakness Base Rate

VCI 65 93.8 -28.8 9.07 W <=2%

VSI 102 93.8 8.2 8.34 <=25%

FRI 103 93.8 9.2 7.55 S <=10%

WMI 91 93.8 -2.8 8.34 >25%

PSI 108 93.8 14.2 10.36 S <=25%

Comparison score mean derived from the five index scores (MIS).

Statistical significance (critical values) at the .15 level.

Base rates are reported by ability level.

Index Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons

Index Comparison Score 1 Score 2 Difference Critical Value

Significant

Difference Base Rate

VCI - VSI 65 102 -37 9.16 Y 0.5%

VCI - FRI 65 103 -38 8.63 Y 0.8%

VCI - WMI 65 91 -26 9.16 Y 3.2%

VCI - PSI 65 108 -43 10.58 Y 0.8%

VSI - FRI 102 103 -1 8.08 N 43.5%

VSI - WMI 102 91 11 8.63 Y 22.4%

VSI - PSI 102 108 -6 10.13 N 47.3%

FRI - WMI 103 91 12 8.08 Y 17.8%

FRI - PSI 103 108 -5 9.65 N 50.3%

WMI - PSI 91 108 -17 10.13 Y 18.9%

Statistical significance (critical values) at the .15 level.

Base rates are reported by ability level.

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 20 Laurie Jones

PRIMARY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)

Subtest Level Strengths and Weaknesses

Subtest Score

Comparison

Score Difference Critical Value

Strength or

Weakness Base Rate

SI 4 8.0 -4.0 2.57 W <=2%

VC 3 8.0 -5.0 2.72 W <=2%

BD 10 8.0 2.0 2.35 <=25%

VP 11 8.0 3.0 2.80 S <=10%

MR 12 8.0 4.0 2.26 S <=5%

FW 9 8.0 1.0 1.79 >25%

DS 9 8.0 1.0 2.18 >25%

PS 8 8.0 0.0 2.80

CD 9 8.0 1.0 2.97 >25%

SS 14 8.0 6.0 3.39 S <=2%

Comparison score is the Mean Scaled Score for FSIQ subtests (MSS-F).

Statistical significance (critical values) at the .15 level.

Subtest Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons

Subtest Comparison Score 1 Score 2 Difference Critical Value

Significant

Difference Base Rate

SI - VC 4 3 1 2.22 N 40.7%

BD - VP 10 11 -1 2.23 N 42.4%

MR - FW 12 9 3 1.91 Y 20.7%

DS - PS 9 8 1 2.12 N 41.6%

CD - SS 9 14 -5 2.67 Y 4.6%

Statistical significance (critical values) at the .15 level.

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 21 Laurie Jones

ANCILLARY & COMPLEMENTARY SUMMARY

Index Score Summary

Composite

Sum of Scaled/

Standard Scores

Index

Score

Percentile

Rank

95%

Confidence

Interval

Qualitative

Description SEM

Ancillary

Quantitative Reasoning QRI 17 91 27 85-98 Average 3.67

Auditory Working Memory AWMI 18 94 34 87-102 Average 4.24

onverbal

VI 59 98 45 92-104 Average 3.35

General Ability GAI 38 83 13 78-89 Low Average 3.00

Cognitive Proficiency CPI 40 100 50 93-107 Average 4.24

Complementary

aming Spee

SI 180 88 21 81-98 Low Average 5.61

Symbol Translation STI 322 108 70 101-114 Average 3.67

Storage & Retrieval SRI 196 97 42 90-104 Average 4.24

Ancillary index scores are reported using scaled scores and complementary index scores are reported using standard scores.

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 22 Laurie Jones

ANCILLARY & COMPLEMENTARY SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

Subtest Score Summary

Scale Subtest/Process Score

Total

Raw Score

Standard

Score

Percentile

Rank

Age

Equivalent SEM

aming Spee

aming Speed Literacy

SL 326 76 5 <7:2 6.87

aming Speed Quantity

SQ 31 104 61 8:10 6.54

Symbol Translation Immediate Symbol Translation IST 62 99 47 7:10 5.81

Delayed Symbol Translation DST 55 112 79 11:2 5.81

Recognition Symbol Translation RST 29 111 77 11:6 6.71

ANCILLARY & COMPLEMENTARY ANALYSIS

Index Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons

Index Comparison Score 1 Score 2 Difference Critical Value

Significant

Difference Base Rate

Ancillary

GAI - FSIQ 83 85 -2 3.58 N 50.4%

GAI - CPI 83 100 -17 10.18 Y 25.2%

WMI - AWMI 91 94 -3 6.85 N 35.1%

Complementary

SI - STI 88 108 -20 13.14 Y 10.0%

Statistical significance (critical values) at the .05 level.

For comparisons between GAI and other indexes, base rates are reported by GAI ability level. For remaining comparisons,

base rates are reported by FSIQ ability level.

Subtest Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons

Subtest Comparison Score 1 Score 2 Difference Critical Value

Significant

Difference Base Rate

Ancillary

FW - AR 9 8 1 2.33 N 45.4%

DS - LN 9 9 0 2.81 N

Complementary

SL - NSQ 76 104 -28 18.59 Y 2.2%

IST - DST 99 112 -13 16.10 N 2.4%

IST - RST 99 111 -12 17.40 N 11.4%

DST - RST 112 111 1 17.40 N 50.3%

Statistical significance (critical values) at the .05 level.

Base rates are reported by overall sample for ancillary subtests and by ability level for complementary subtests.

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 23 Laurie Jones

PROCESS ANALYSIS

Total Raw Score to Standard Score Conversion

Process Score Raw Score Standard Score

aming Speed Size-Color-Object

Ssco 284 73

aming Speed Lette

-Number

Sln 42 121

Process Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons (Standard Scores)

Process Score Comparison Score 1 Score 2 Difference Critical Value

Significant

Difference Base Rate

Ssco - NSln 73 121 -48 13.66 Y 0.0%

Statistical significance (critical values) at the .15 level.

Base rates are reported by ability level.

Total Raw Score to Scaled Score Conversion

Process Score Raw Score Scaled Score

Block Design No Time Bonus BDn 22 10

Block Design Partial Score BDp 26 9

Digit Span Forward DSf 7 8

Digit Span Backward DSb 7 10

Digit Span Sequencing DSs 5 8

Cancellation Random CAr 14 6

Cancellation Structured CAs 25 10

Process Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons (Scaled Scores)

Process Score Comparison Score 1 Score 2 Difference Critical Value

Significant

Difference Base Rate

BD - BDn 10 10 0 2.50 N

BD - BDp 10 9 1 2.29 N 40.1%

DSf - DSb 8 10 -2 2.71 N 32.5%

DSf - DSs 8 8 0 2.67 N

DSb - DSs 10 8 2 2.69 N 32.3%

LN - DSs 9 8 1 2.48 N 42.5%

CAr - CAs 6 10 -4 2.64 Y 4.8%

Statistical significance (critical values) at the .15 level.

WISC

-V Interpretive Report

6/1/2015, Page 24 Laurie Jones

PROCESS ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)

Total Raw Score to Base Rate Conversion

Process Score Raw Score Base Rate

Longest Digit Span Forward LDSf 5 88.1%

Longest Digit Span Backward LDSb 3 91.5%

Longest Digit Span Sequence LDSs 4 84.5%

Longest Picture Span Stimulus LPSs 4 81.6%

Longest Picture Span Response LPSr 6 96.2%

Longest Letter-Number Sequence LLNs 3 95.1%

Block Design Dimension Errors BDde 0 >25%

Block Design Rotation Errors BDre 1 <=5%

Coding Rotation Errors CDre - -

Symbol Search Set Errors SSse 0 <=10%

Symbol Search Rotation Errors SSre 0 <=10%

aming Speed Literacy Errors

SLe 3 <=25%

aming Speed Size-Color-Object Errors

Sscoe 0 >25%

aming Speed Lette

-Number Errors

Slne 3 <=5%

aming Speed Quantity Errors

SQe 1 <=10%

Base rates are reported by overall sample for the span and sequence scores and by age group for the error scores.

Process Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons (Raw Scores)

Process Score Comparison Raw Score 1 Raw Score 2 Difference Base Rate

LDSf - LDSb 5 3 2 62.7%

LDSf - LDSs 5 4 1 63.9%

LDSb - LDSs 3 4 -1 68.7%

Base rates are reported by overall sample.

End of Report

Pearson, the PSI logo, PsychCorp, Wechsler, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, and WISC are trademarks in the U.S. and/or

other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s).

[ 1.2 / RE1 / QG1 ]

WISC

-V

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

-Fifth Edition

Parent Summary Report

Examinee Name Laurie Jones Date of Report 06/03/2015

Examinee ID Grade 4

Date of Birth 4/01/2007 Primary Language English

Gender Female Handedness Right

Race/Ethnicity Multiracial Examiner Name John Smith

Date of Testing 6/01/2015 Age at Testing 8 years 2 months Retest? No

WISC

-V Parent Summary Report

12/26/2013, Page 2 Laurie Jones

TEST SESSION BEHAVIOR

Laurie arrived on time for the test session accompanied by her parent. She was appropriately dressed

and groomed. She was oriented to person, place, time, and situation. She showed a low energy level.

Additionally, her eye contact was poor. These factors may have mildly impacted her ability to show her

optimal performance. She exhibited notable difficulties with expressive language during testing. In

particular, occasional difficulties were seen in the areas of word finding, vocabulary, syntax, and

pragmatics and frequent difficulties were seen in the area of morphology. Her expressive language

difficulties may have had a moderate effect on her performance on tasks requiring oral responses.

ABOUT THE WISC-V

The WISC-V is used to measure the general thinking and reasoning skills of children aged 6 to 16 years.

This assessment provides a composite score that represents Laurie's overall intellectual ability (FSIQ),

as well as index scores that measure the following areas of cognitive functioning: verbal comprehension,

visual spatial processing, fluid reasoning, working memory, and processing speed. Laurie was also

administered subtests from five ancillary indexes that provide additional information about her cognitive

skills. In addition, she was administered subtests from three complementary indexes. These subtests

provide additional information about her learning styles.

WISC-V scores show how well Laurie performed compared to a group of children her age from the

United States. A primary index score can range from 45 to 155, while the FSIQ ranges from 40 to 160.

For both the primary index scores and the FSIQ, scores ranging from 90 to 109 are typically considered

average. It is common for examinees to exhibit strengths and weaknesses across index scores.

It is possible for intellectual abilities to change over the course of childhood. Additionally, scores on the

WISC-V can be influenced by motivation, attention, interests, and opportunities for learning. All scores

might be slightly higher or lower if Laurie were tested again on a different day. It is therefore important

to view these test scores as a snapshot of Laurie's current level of intellectual functioning. When these

scores are used as part of a comprehensive evaluation, they contribute to an understanding of her current

strengths and any needs that can be addressed.

WISC-V SCORE INTERPRETATION

Primary Indexes

Laurie's FSIQ score, a measure of overall intellectual ability, was in the Low Average range compared

to other children who are 8 years and 2 months old (FSIQ = 85). Overall, her performance on these tasks

was better than approximately 16 out of 100 examinees in her age group.

WISC

-V Parent Summary Report

12/26/2013, Page 3 Laurie Jones

The Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) measured Laurie's ability to use word knowledge, verbalize

meaningful concepts, and reason with language-based information. Her overall score on the VCI fell in

the Extremely Low range (VCI = 65). This means that she performed better than approximately 1 out of

100 examinees in the same age group. During this evaluation, verbal skills emerged as one of her

weakest areas of performance and may be an area for continued development. Examinees with verbal

scores in this range may benefit from practice on verbally based tasks and interventions aimed at

strengthening verbal skills.

On the Visual Spatial Index (VSI), which measures the ability to evaluate visual details and understand

part-whole relationships, Laurie's overall score was in the Average range (VSI = 102). Tasks in this

index involve constructing designs and puzzles under a time constraint. Her performance was better than

approximately 55 out of 100 examinees her age.

The Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI) measured Laurie's logical thinking skills and her ability to use

reasoning to apply rules. Her overall score on the FRI fell in the Average range (FRI = 103). This means

that she performed better than approximately 58 out of 100 examinees in the same age group. Laurie's

fluid reasoning skills were one of her strongest areas of performance and may be an area for continued

growth.

The Working Memory Index (WMI) measured Laurie's attention, concentration, and mental control. Her

overall score on the WMI fell in the Average range (WMI = 91). This means that she performed better

than approximately 27 out of 100 examinees in the same age group.

On the Processing Speed Index (PSI), which measures the ability to quickly and correctly scan visual

information, Laurie's overall score was in the Average range (PSI = 108). Her performance was better

than approximately 70 out of 100 examinees her age. During this assessment, Laurie's processing speed

performance was relatively strong compared to her overall level of ability. This may be an area that can

be built upon in the future.

Ancillary Indexes

The Quantitative Reasoning Index (QRI) measured Laurie's ability to perform mental math operations.

On this ancillary index, her overall score fell in the Average range, and was higher than approximately

27 out of 100 examinees her age (QRI = 91).

On the Auditory Working Memory Index (AWMI), which measures the ability to remember information

presented verbally, Laurie's overall score was in the Average range (AWMI = 94). Her performance was

better than approximately 34 out of 100 examinees her age.

The Nonverbal Index (NVI) is a measure of general ability that minimizes verbal expression. On this

ancillary index, Laurie's overall score fell in the Average range, and was higher than approximately 45

out of 100 examinees her age (NVI = 98).

WISC

-V Parent Summary Report

12/26/2013, Page 4 Laurie Jones

The General Ability Index (GAI) provides an estimate of general intelligence that is less reliant on

working memory and processing speed ability, relative to the FSIQ. Her overall score on the GAI fell in

the Low Average range. She performed better than approximately 13 out of 100 examinees her age (GAI

= 83).

The Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI) provides a summary score of Laurie's working memory and

processing speed performance. On this ancillary index, her overall score fell in the Average range, and

was higher than approximately 50 out of 100 examinees her age (CPI = 100).

Complementary Indexes

The Naming Speed Index (NSI) measured Laurie's basic naming ability. On this complementary index,

Laurie's overall score fell in the Low Average range, and was higher than approximately 21 out of 100

examinees her age (NSI = 88).

On the Symbol Translation Index (STI), which measures visual-verbal associative memory, Laurie's

overall score was in the Average range, and was better than approximately 70 out of 100 examinees her

age (STI = 108).

The Storage and Retrieval Index (SRI) provides an estimate of Laurie's ability to store and retrieve

information. On this complementary index, her overall score fell in the Average range, and was higher

than approximately 42 out of 100 examinees her age (SRI = 97).

Thank you for the opportunity to assess Laurie. Please contact me with any questions you have about

these results.

This report is only valid if signed by a qualified professional:

John Smith Date

WISC

-V Parent Summary Report

12/26/2013, Page 5 Laurie Jones

WISC-V TEST SCORES

Score Summary

Composite

Score Percentile Rank Qualitative Description

Verbal Comprehension VCI 65 1 Extremely Low

Visual Spatial VSI 102 55 Average

Fluid Reasoning FRI 103 58 Average

Working Memory WMI 91 27 Average

Processing Speed PSI 108 70 Average

Full Scale IQ FSIQ 85 16 Low Average

WISC

-V Parent Summary Report

12/26/2013, Page 6 Laurie Jones

Ancillary/Complementary Score Summary

Composite

Score Percentile Rank Qualitative Description

Ancillary

Quantitative Reasoning QRI 91 27 Average

Auditory Working Memory AWMI 94 34 Average

onverbal

VI 98 45 Average

General Ability GAI 83 13 Low Average

Cognitive Proficiency CPI 100 50 Average

Complementary

aming Spee

SI 88 21 Low Average

Symbol Translation STI 108 70 Average

Storage & Retrieval SRI 97 42 Average