Wisc v sample reports

CONFIDENTIAL PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL REPORT

Examinee Name MS Date of Report 22/02/2017

Examinee ID: 001 Grade K

Date of Birth 12/09/2008 Primary Language English

Gender Female Handedness Right

Race/Ethnicity -American Examiner Name xxx xxx

Date of Testing 19/02/2019 Age at Testing 10 years 02 mths Retest? No

TEST ADMINISTERED

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – V (WISC-V)

REASON FOR REFERRAL: Morgan’s parents volunteered her to help with a class project for a cognitive assessment course.

BACKGROUND

Describe age, gender, ethnicity, siblings, parents’ marriage status and education level school, mother’s pregnancy— any complication during pregnancy, delivery, and post natal care. Any developmental delays (such as late in walking, talking, etc), any difficulties in learning, speech, articulation, etc.? Any behavior challenges?

TEST SESSION BEHAVIOR OBSERVATION

Morgan arrived five minutes late for the test session accompanied by her parents. She was appropriately dressed for the weather and her age. She was oriented to person, place, time, and situation. She showed moderate energy level. Additionally, her eye contact was steady. She also was fidgeting with the sleeves on her shirt. These factors may have mildly impacted her ability to show her optimal performance. She did not exhibit difficulties with expressive language during testing.

ABOUT WISC-V SCORES

Morgan was administered 10 subtest 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 subtests scores contribute to the primary indexes, which represent intellectual functioning in five cognitive areas: Verbal Comprehensive 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 primary index scores and the FSIQ, 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 Morgan’s standing relative to other same-age children in the WISC-V normative sample. If the percentile rank for Morgan’s Verbal Comprehension Index is 80, for example, it means Morgan performed as well as or better than approximately80% of children her age. This appears in the report as PR= 80.

The scores obtained on the WISC-V reflect Morgan’s true abilities combined with some degree of measurement error. Her true score is more accurately represented by a confidence interval (CI), which is the range of scores within 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 Morgan, there is a 95% certainty her true score falls within the listed range.

Children exhibit different strengths and weaknesses across areas of performance. When the difference between two scores is statistically significant, it is listed in the report with a base rate to assist in the interpretation. The base rate (BR) provides a basis to estimate 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 Comprehensive Index is 28.80 points lower than the mean primary index score (MIS). This appears in the report as VCI

Intellectual abilities can change over the course of childhood. 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 Morgan were tested on a different day. These test scores are a mere snapshot of her current level of intellectual functioning. When the scores are used in a comprehensive evaluation, they contribute to an understanding of Morgan’s 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. The score is 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. Morgan’s FSIQ is in the high average range when compared to children her age (FSIQ = 112, PR = 79, CI = 106-117). Although the WISC-V measures various aspects of ability, a child’s scores can also be influenced by many other factors not represented in this report. While the FSIQ provides a broad representation of cognitive ability, describing Morgan’s domain-specific performance allows for a thorough understanding of her functioning in distinct areas. Some children perform at the same level in all areas, but most display areas of cognitive strengths and weaknesses.

Verbal Comprehension

The verbal comprehension index (VCI) measured Morgan’s ability to access and apply acquired word knowledge. This score reflects her ability to verbalize meaningful concepts, think about verbal information, and express herself using words. Overall, Morgan’s performance on subtests within the VCI was very high in comparison to most children her age. This was an area of strength in comparison to her overall ability (VCI = 124, PR = 95, Very High, CI=114-130). High scores in this area occur when word knowledge is well developed. Her performance on using logic to solve problems was stronger (VCI>FRI, BR= 11.76%). Additionally her verbal comprehension was stronger than her ability to mentally manipulate information (VCI>WMI, BR = 12.12%). Her performance on verbal comprehension subtests was weaker than her performance on her ability to process and evaluate visual information and to work quickly and efficiently (VCI

With regard to individual subtests within the VCI, similarities (SI) required Morgan to describe similarities between words with common characteristics. Vocabulary (VC) required Morgan to name pictures and/or define words aloud. She performed diversely across both tests suggesting her vocabulary is developed a little more than her ability to describe characteristics (VC = 16, SI = 13).

Visual Spatial

The visual spatial index (VSI) measured Morgan’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 Morgan performed at very high level in comparison to children in her age range (VSI = 126, PR = 95, Very High, CI =116-132). This reflects her ability to understand and apply visual-perception and visual-spatial information. Her performance in this area was particularly strong in relation to her performance when compared to her performance on verbal reasoning (VSI> VCI = BR = 12.47%). Her visual spatial scores were also particularly strong when compared to her performance on working memory tasks (VSI> WMI, Br = 12.12%). It appears she can solve complex visual spatial problems without difficulty, despite working memory weaknesses.

The VSI consists of two tasks, Block Design (BD) and Visual puzzles (VP). Block designs required Morgan to view designs and build blocks to recreate each design. Visual Puzzles required her to view a completed puzzle and select three pieces that together would reconstruct the puzzle. She performed differently across both subtests, suggesting that her ability to analyze and synthesize visual information and her ability to understand part-whole relationships developed diversely (BD = 10, VP = 19). Morgan showed average performance while putting together geometric designs using a model. Visual puzzles, is an exceptional strength.

Fluid Reasoning

The fluid reasoning index measured Morgan’s ability to detect the underlying conceptual relationship among visual objects and use reasoning to identify and apply rules. Identification in FRI requires inductive and quantitative reasoning, broad visual intelligence, simultaneous processing, and abstract thinking. Morgan’s performance on subtests within FRI was diverse, but typical for her age. These subtests were her weak areas of performance during the current assessment (FRI = 85, PR = 16, Low average range, CI=79-93; FRI

The FRI consists of two subtests: Matrix Reasoning (MR) and Figure Weights (FW). Matrix reasoning required Morgan 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. Morgan performed similarly on these two tasks. Her performance on figure weights was weak and could be considered poorly developed, while her performance on matrix reasoning was average (FW =7, MR = 8).

Working Memory

The Working Memory Index (WMI) measured Morgan’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. Morgan’s performance on the WMI was (WMI = 115, PR = 84, High Average range, CI = 106-121). Morgan recalled and sequenced series of pictures and lists of numbers at a higher average level for her age. Her performance on these tasks were relatively strong in comparison to her performance on fluid reasoning tasks (WMI > FRI, BR = 11.38%). This indicates she is able to maintain auditory information very well. Her performance on these tasks was relatively weak when compared to her performance on language based tasks (WMI< VCI, BR = 12.2%). While her performance was a higher average than other children her age, it was somewhat weaker than some of her other cognitive abilities.

Within the WMI, Picture Span (PS) required Morgan to memorize pictures and identify them in order on subsequent pages. On Digit Span (DS), she listened to strings of numbers and read aloud and recalled them in the same order, backward order, and ascending order. She performed similarly across these two subtests, indicating her visual and auditory working memory are similarly developed (PS = 12, DS = 13).

Processing Speed

The Process Speed Index (PSI) measured Morgan’s speed accuracy of visual identification, decision making, and decision implementation. Performance on the PSI is related to visual scanning, visual discrimination, short term visual memory, visual motor 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 at a higher level than children her age and emerged as a personal strength (PSI = 126, PR=96, CI = 79; PSI > WMI, BR 25.8%). Her speed and accuracy on when processing visual information were strengths compared to her performance on verbal comprehension PSI>VCI, BR 47.6%). This pattern suggests she has an easier time evaluating visual information, quicker than she does with complex decision making.

The PSI consists of two timed subtests. Symbol Search (SS) required Morgan to scan a group of symbols and mark the target symbol. On Coding (CD), she copied symbols that were paired with numbers. Morgan performed similarly across the subtests within the (SS= 14, CD = 15).

SUMMARY

Morgan is 6 years old. The WISC-V was used to assess Morgan’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. As measured by the WISC-V, her overall FSIQ fell in the high average range when compared to other children (FSIQ = 112). She performed very high in comparison to other children on the visual spatial tasks (VSI = 126) and the processing speed tasks (PSI = 126). These were her strongest performances and would be considered her strengths. Processing speed was considered strong when comparing to her working memory performance (WM = 115). Her language skills were also in the high average range in comparison to other children (VCI = 124). Her scores on the FRI indicate this is one of her weakest areas of performance (FRI = 85).

RECOMMENDATIONS

In comparison to her performance in in other areas, Morgan’s performance on the FRI indicates an area of need. 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 Morgan engage in activities that help strengthen her fluid reasoning skills. For example, she can look at books that have different designs and patterns to identify which one would come next. Also, she should be encouraged to think of multiple ways to group objects and then explain her rationale to adults and her group members.