CONFIDENTIAL

(Not to be copied or released to anyone without prior parental and psychologist consent)

PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
NAME: J Doe DATE OF BIRTH: March 18, 2001 EXAMINER: P. Veleno GENDER: Male SCHOOL: St. ABC DATE OF ASSESSMENT: Oct.28, 2010 AGE: 9 years, 3 months, 18 days PSYCHOLOGIST: Dr. B. L DATE OF REPORT: January 12, 2011 GRADE: 4

_________________________________________________________________________________ REASON FOR REFERRAL: J was referred for assessment in order to determine his areas of strengths and weaknesses, which will enable the school to provide effective programming and support as needed. BASIS OF ASSESSMENT 1. Tests administered: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children IV (WISC-IV) Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Second Edition (WIAT-II) Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI) Adaptive Behavior Assessment System-Second Edition (ABAS-II) Achenbach Parent Report Form: Child Behaviour Checklist (CBC) Achenbach Teacher Report Form (TRF) 2. Other: Review of OSR, previous assessment reports

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: J is a 9-year old Grade 4 student at St. ABC Catholic Elementary School in St. Catharines, Ontario. The following information was gathered from school personnel as well as a review of the Ontario

J Doe

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page 2

School Record (OSR). J is not presently identified as an exceptional student, but is in need of Special Education programming through an Individual Education Plan (IEP). J receives general program, environmental, technological and assessment accommodations. Based on Js grade 3, term 3 IEP, some but not all, of these include: assign one task at a time, assistive technology, such as text-to-speech software, increased task completion time, reduce new skills into smaller steps, concrete materials, proximity to the instructor, access to computer or word processor (with spell check), alternatives to written output, assistive technology (Kurzweil, Premier, PDF, Word Format), scribe, etc. J receives a modified/accommodated program in language, mathematics and communications. The program goals are taken from curriculum from the primary grade levels. Academic achievement was assessed through the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-II conducted by Ms. N on October 22, 2009. Results indicate Js reading composite and written language composite scores were in the Significantly Below Average range, while his math composite scores were in the Borderline range. Performance on the Listening Comprehension subtest fell within the Average range. His comprehensive achievement composite fell into the Significantly Below Average range. TEST BEHAVIOUR: J was assessed over two half-day sessions. On each occasion, J came readily when withdrawn from class, and presented as a very willing participant, though his attention and focus waned, requiring occasional redirection back to task on the second day of assessment. It was felt that a good rapport was established. Breaks were provided throughout the testing sessions. J rarely self-corrected and made few efforts to demonstrate that he was able to use strategies to solve more complex puzzles. Where allowable, J was provided with repeated instructions and generous time allotments in order to respond to the tasks. J was challenged during several aspects of the assessment, but this did not appear to deter J from completing each task. Rather, J consistently provided responses to most test items, despite the fact that many responses were clearly guesses. When queries were allowed J made attempts to add more to his initial responses, however these were often irrelevant or superficial in nature. The assessment took place in a quiet, empty portable, free of (visual and auditory) distractions. It is felt that the results obtained are an accurate assessment of Js intellectual and functioning level. TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: Intellectual Functioning J was administered the WISC-IV (Canadian Norms), a standardized, individually administered test used to evaluate a child's intellectual functioning. It provides subtest and composite scores that measure intellectual functioning in specific cognitive domains, as well as a score that measures general intellectual ability. Js overall Full Scale I.Q. was in the Significantly Below Average range with a standard score of 65 (average range is 90 to 109) at the 1st percentile which means that J scored higher than approximately 1

J Doe

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page 3

percent of children his age. Js Verbal Comprehension Index was in the Borderline range with a standard score of 71 at the 3rd percentile. Js Perceptual Reasoning Index was in the Significantly Below Average range with a standard score of 64 at the 1st percentile. This 7 point difference between Js verbal and nonverbal reasoning ability is not statistically significantly different (at the .05 level, meaning that there is 5% chance of error). This means that Js verbal and nonverbal skills are evenly developed. Verbal Domain. Within the verbal domain, there was a 6-point non-statistically significant difference at the .05 level (meaning that there is a 5% chance of error) between verbal reasoning and working memory. J did equally well on subtests tapping Verbal Comprehension (Similarities, Vocabulary, and Comprehension) and on subtests tapping Working Memory (Digit Span, Letter-Number Sequencing). As previously stated, Js Verbal Comprehension score was in the Borderline range with a standard score of 71 at the 3rd percentile. These tests measure verbal concept formation, verbal reasoning and knowledge acquired by ones environment. The Verbal Comprehension Index is a measure of language processing requiring verbal reasoning. It is assessed by three measures which require verbal concept formation (i.e. social reasoning/understanding, knowledge of word meanings, and reasoning based on commonalities between objects/concepts. There was no scatter among the subtests nor any relative strengths or weaknesses, indicating consistent skills in these areas. Js scores in Working Memory were in the Borderline range with a standard score of 77 at the 6th percentile. Working Memory is the ability to temporarily hold information in memory, to perform some operation or manipulation with the information and then produce a result. Working memory involves attention, concentration, mental control, and reasoning. There was no scatter among the subtests nor any relative strengths or weaknesses, indicating consistent skills in these areas. Non-verbal Domain. Within the nonverbal reasoning domain, there was an 11-point non-statistically significant difference at the .05 level between perceptual reasoning and processing speed. J did equally well on subtests tapping Perceptual Reasoning (Block Design, Picture Concepts, and Matrix Reasoning) and on subtests measuring Processing Speed (Coding, Symbol Search). As previously indicated, Js Perceptual Reasoning score was in the Significantly Below Average range with a standard score of 64 at the 1st percentile. These subtests measure visual spatial reasoning which includes the ability to manipulate abstract symbols as well as the ability to reason under novel conditions: general reasoning, figural relations, semantic relations, classifications, and concept formation. It is a measure of perceptual and fluid reasoning, spatial processing and visual motor integration. The Perceptual Reasoning Index is a measure of visual processing requiring nonverbal reasoning. It is assessed by three measures which require evaluation of visual information (i.e. visual analogies, visual/spatial visualization and categorical reasoning based on conceptual similarities.

J Doe

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page 4

There was no scatter among the subtests nor any relative strengths or weaknesses, indicating consistent skills in these areas. Js Processing Speed score was in the Borderline range with a standard score of 75 at the 5th percentile. These subtests measure the students ability to quickly and correctly scan, sequence or discriminate simple visual information. They also measure short-term visual memory, attention, and visual-motor coordination. There was no scatter among the subtests nor any relative strengths or weaknesses, indicating consistent skills in these areas. The Full Scale IQ is an accurate reflection of Js intellectual functioning because of the close proximity of scores over all four indices. As such, it is therefore a good indicator of Js cognitive ability at this time. His Full Scale I.Q. is in the Significantly Below Average range with a standard score of 65 at the 1st percentile. Academic Functioning J completed the WIAT-II, an individual achievement test, which assesses a student's level of functioning in specific academic areas. On the WIAT-II J obtained the following scores in Canadian Norms:
SUBTEST DESCRIPTION Assesses ability to decode letters & words. Child must read a printed passage & respond to orally presented questions. Assesses ability to pronounce unfamiliar words correctly while reading from a list of nonsense words that are phonetically correct. Combined achievement across the various reading sub-tests. Assesses ability to write dictated numerals and solve computation problems involving various operations. Visual stimuli & pictures of objects are used to assess ability to reason mathematically. Combined achievement across the various math sub-tests. Assesses the ability to write dictated letters of the alphabet & encode dictated sounds & spell dictated words. Measures written word fluency; the ability to generate sentences in response to verbal and visual cues; the ability to do sentence combining, & the ability to write for 15 min. on a central theme. STANDARD SCORES PERCENTILE RANGE

Word Reading Reading Comprehension Pseudoword Decoding

Composite Reading Score

56 42 62 40 43 52 40 40

0.2 > 0.1 1 > 0.1 > 0.1 0.1 > 0.1 > 0.1

Significantly Below Average Significantly Below Average Significantly Below Average Significantly Below Average Significantly Below Average Significantly Below Average Significantly Below Average Significantly Below Average Borderline

Numerical Operations Math Reasoning

Composite Math Score

Spelling

Written Expression

73

J Doe

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page 5

SUBTEST Composite Writing Score Listening Comprehension

DESCRIPTION Combined achievement across the various writing sub-tests. Measures the ability to listen for details.

STANDARD SCORES

PERCENTILE

RANGE

49 70

> 0.1 2

Significantly Below Average Borderline

Overall, uniformity was found among the composite scores in the areas of reading, writing and mathematics. A more detailed description of achievement on individual subtests follows. Reading In overall reading, J performed in the Significantly Below Average range. J performed comparably on tasks that required him to read a series of printed words and to read paragraphs and answer questions about what was read, as well as, use phonetic knowledge to sound out nonsense words. On the Word Reading task, in the Significantly Below Average range, J was unable to read isolated words at the grade 4 start point. He seldom pronounced simple and more complex words automatically and rarely sounded out more complex words. He frequently lost place while reading words. J made accent errors, added, omitted or transposed syllables when reading words, and did not self-correct errors. He made frequent sound/symbol errors, and was unsure of himself with respect to letter identification or phonetic awareness. J produced random words when asked to read words that he was unsure of. He correctly identified the following words: you, the, up, and school. On the Reading Comprehension task, in the Significantly Below Average range, J was required to read sentences and paragraphs and answer questions about what was read. Js performance was consistent across all comprehension type questions (recognizing stated detail, recognizing implied detail, drawing conclusions, recognizing stated cause and effect, recognizing implied cause and effect, identifying the main idea, using context to determine word meaning and making inferences). J rarely read passages aloud when given a choice. He never referred back to the passage in order to answer questions. He attempted to use contextual clues to decode unknown words, guessing randomly at the presentation of sight words, with little evidence of decoding skills, and did not make self-corrections while reading. If a word read did not fit the context of the sentence, J did not try to correct his error. On the Pseudoword Decoding task, in the Significantly Below Average range, J was required to read nonsense words in isolation. J had significant difficulty relying solely on phonemic awareness and phonics. He demonstrated weakness in long and short vowel sounds, and blends, with evidence of omissions and transposing of syllables. He replaced some nonsense words with words that were familiar to him, and often repeated the same nonsense word for multiple items. J did not correctly decode any of the words presented to him.

Writing In overall writing, J performed in the Significantly Below Average range. Js performance on tasks to spell verbally presented words was comparable to his performance on tasks that required him to

J Doe

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page 6

compose and write a paragraph as well as to combine two or more sentences into one. On the Spelling task, in the Significantly Below Average range, J was required to spell a target word based on its meaning and how it is used in a sentence. He consistently had difficulties with single consonant letter/sound relationships and consonant letter cluster/sound relationships. J showed little evidence of phonetic spelling and never made attempts to self-correct errors. He was able to correctly spell the word we. On the Written Expression task, in the Borderline range, J was required to brainstorm theme words, combine sentences into one and write an essay/paragraph based on a given topic. J was able to generate a limited list of circular objects including single-syllable and multi-syllable words. J was inconsistent in his ability to combine two sentences into one. At points he lacked proper punctuation and demonstrated awkward sentence structure, combined with spelling errors. He was able to combine three sentences into one sentence; however he made punctuation and spelling errors. J was unable to generate a sentence from a visual with specific criteria given. In his paragraph about his favourite game, J wrote one incomprehensible run-on sentence punctuated by spelling and grammatical errors and nonsense words. His printing was untidy and not spaced well. Math In overall mathematics, J performed in the Significantly Below Average range. His performance on tasks that involved numerical operations was comparable to his performance on tasks that involved numerical reasoning. On the Numerical Operations task, in the Significantly Below Average range, J was required to solve written math equations requiring addition, subtraction, multiplication and division using whole numbers, fractions, and decimals. He never used his fingers or other aids to assist with the completion of both addition and subtraction questions. He did not demonstrate automatized math facts when completing computations. Furthermore, J struggled to complete grade entry math equations, and as a result, the reverse rule was implemented, which required him to complete math operations equivalent to lower grade levels. J hit the ceiling very quickly on this subtest and he was unable to demonstrate ability solving multiplication or division facts. On the Math Reasoning task, in the Significantly Below Average range, J was required to solve a word or stated problem that required single or multiple steps related to time, money, measurement, geometry, probability, as well as reading and interpreting graphs. J did not use paper and pencil to solve problems. He did not use concrete aids (fingers) for computation, nor did he employ effective strategies to problem solve. J struggled to break multi steps into smaller units to obtain solutions and disregarded components of word-problems that were not required in the solution. He seldom used correct operations to compute solutions. J had difficulty in solving simple patterns, creating and solving addition and subtraction problems using whole numbers, or solving simple problems using money. He was unable to effectively use grids and graphs to make comparisons, draw conclusions, or answer questions. J did not complete grade entry math reasoning problems, thus prompting the reverse rule. This resulted in him completing math reasoning items equivalent to lower grade levels. He hit the ceiling quickly on this subtest.

J Doe

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page 7

The following table summarizes the results for the Math Reasoning subtest.
Displayed ability to: Use patterns to solve problems Use whole numbers to describe quantities Use time to compare and order events Displayed difficulty with: Solve problems using money Use grids and graphs to make comparisons, draw conclusions, or answer questions Create and solve addition and subtraction problems using whole numbers

Oral Language In overall oral language, J performed in the Significantly Below Average range. Only the Listening Comprehension subtest was administered. This required that he listen to verbal cues and match pictures or elicit a word by matching a definition or phrase. It is noted that J performed well on tasks that required him to listen for details by selecting a picture that matches a word or sentence. He had greater difficulty, however, on tasks that required him to recall words when picture cues were provided. Finally, when given a sentence, J struggled at selecting the picture that matched the sentence exactly. The Oral Expression subtest was not administered. Ability-Achievement Discrepancies: These discrepancies are based on data from the WISC- IV and WIAT-II (Canadian Norms). The best estimate of Js intellectual functioning is his Full Scale I.Q score of 65 in the Significantly Below Average range at the 1st percentile. Based on this estimate, J is achieving within range of expectation in reading, writing and math. Adaptive Behaviour: The Adaptive Behaviour Assessment System (ABAS) is a parent/teacher report measure based on observation of a child in various specific skill domains Communication, Community Use, Functional Academics, Home Living, Health and Safety, Leisure, Self-Care, Self-Direction and Social Skills. Teacher Report: Mr. B completed the teacher form of the Adaptive Behaviour Assessment System. Based on these findings, adaptive behaviours are clearly within range of Js overall cognitive ability as estimated by the WISC-IV.
Composite Composite Score Percentile Rank

Qualitative Range Borderline Significantly Below Average Low Average Significantly Below Average

GAC Conceptual Social Practical

72 70 89 67

3 2 23 1

J Doe

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page 8

The General Adaptive Composite score (GAC) summarizes performance across all skill areas excluding Work. J obtained a GAC score of 72. His true score is likely to fall within the range of 69-75 at a 95% level of confidence. Js current overall level of adaptive behavior is in the Borderline range, as high as or higher than the scores of only 3% of children of the same age. Because the GAC provides the most complete measure of adaptive behavior, it is likely to be the most reliable and accurate estimate of overall adaptive functioning. However, more detailed information about Js unique profile of adaptive functioning may be obtained by reviewing performance within composites and skill areas if significant differences exist between skill area scaled scores. The Conceptual composite score summarizes performance across the Communication, Functional Academics, and Self-Direction skill areas. Js Conceptual composite score of 70 (95% confidence interval of 66-74) is in the Significantly Below Average range, and as high as or higher than the scores of only 2% of his same-age peers. The Social composite score summarizes performance across the Leisure and Social skill areas. Js Social composite score of 89 (95% confidence interval of 84-94) is in the Low Average range, and as high as or higher than the scores of 23% of individuals of the same age. This score is above many of the other composite scores tested, and is therefore considered a relative strength for J. The Practical composite score summarizes performance across the Community Use, School Living, Health and Safety, and Self-Care skill areas. Js Practical composite score of 67 (95% confidence interval of 62-72) is in the Significantly Below Average range, and as high as or higher than the scores of only 1% of his same-age peers.
ADAPTIVE SKILL AREA DESCRIPTION OF SKILLS
Speech, language, listening, vocabulary, conversation skills

PERCENTILE SCORES

RANGE

Communication Community Use Functional Academics School Living Health and Safety Leisure Self-Care Self-Direction

0.1 5 2 0.4 16 9 0.4 16

Significantly Below Average Borderline Borderline Significantly Below Average Low Average Low Average Significantly Below Average Low Average

Shopping, transportation, use of community resources Reading, Math and other academic skills needed for independent living in the community Cleaning, straightening, property maintenance and repairs

Following safety rules, using medicine and showing caution Playing with others. Recreation at home, following rules in games Personal care including eating, dressing, bathing, using the toilet

Independence, responsibility and self-control, scheduling, following directions and making choices

J Doe

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page 9

ADAPTIVE SKILL AREA

DESCRIPTION OF SKILLS
Having friends, showing and Recognizing emotions, assisting others, using manners

PERCENTILE SCORES

RANGE

Social

37

Average

Skill areas within the Conceptual composite provide a more detailed view of Js functioning. Js communication abilities, including speech, vocabulary, listening, conversation and nonverbal communication skills are in the Significantly Below Average range. He functions in the Borderline range when performing basic academic skills such as reading, writing, and mathematics as well as functional skills such as measurement and telling time. His ability to make independent choices, exhibit self-control and take responsibility when appropriate is in the Low Average range. A more in-depth look at Js specific skill sets within the Social composite may be obtained by examining the skill areas. The leisure skills needed for engaging in play and planning recreational activities are in the Low Average range for J. His ability to interact socially, initiate and maintain friendships, express and recognize emotions, and assist others when needed is in the Average range. Skill areas within the Practical composite offer a more specific picture of Js capabilities. His ability to function and get around in the community, including shopping and using community resources is in the Borderline range. Js level of functioning in a classroom setting, including maintenance of school property and taking care of personal possessions is in the Significantly Below Average range. Js ability to protect his physical well-being and prevent and respond to injuries, including following safety rules, showing caution, and using medicine when appropriate is in the Low Average range. His ability to perform self-care activities such as eating, dressing, and taking care of personal hygiene is in the Significantly Below Average range. It is important to look at relative strengths and areas for improvement within an individuals adaptive skills profile for the purposes of assessment, treatment and intervention planning, and progress monitoring. In order to determine the areas of personal strength and weakness within Js profile, each skill area scaled score was compared to his average scaled score across all skill areas to look for differences at the .05 level of significance. Js Health and Safety skill area, Self-Direction skill area, and Social skill area scaled scores were significantly higher than his average across all skill areas, representing relative strengths within his profile. His Communication skill area, School Living skill area, Self-Care skill scaled scores were significantly lower than his average across all skill areas, representing relative weaknesses within his profile. Js overall adaptive behavior can be characterized as lower functioning than that of most other children his age. His conceptual adaptive, social adaptive, and practical adaptive behavior can be characterized as lower functioning than that of almost all children his age.

J Doe 10

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page

The Adaptive Behavior Assessment System (Parent Form) was not returned for assessment, and therefore was not included in this report. Social/Emotional Teacher Report. Js teacher, Mr. B, completed the Achenbach Behavior Checklist Teacher Report Form (TRF), a standardized 113-item behavioral checklist. The TRF is used as a screen for social, emotional and behavioral problems. It contains a list of behavioural problems and competencies, which are rated by teachers on a three-point scale. Separate scales are used within each age group and have been developed to assess such factors as: Anxious/Depressed Behaviour, Withdrawn/Depressed Behaviour and Somatic Complaints (Internalizing Scale), Rule-Breaking Behaviour and Aggressive Behaviour (Externalizing Scale) as well as the individual scales of Social Problems, Thought Problems and Attention Problems. Thought Problems measures odd behaviours and ideas, as well as unusual perceptions and repetitive behaviours. J's Academic Performance score was in the clinical range below the 10th percentile for teachers' ratings on boys aged 6 to 11. J's Total Adaptive Functioning score was in the Borderline clinical range (10th to 16th percentiles). On the TRF problem scales, J's Total Problems and Externalizing scores were both in the Borderline clinical range (84th to 90th percentiles) for boys aged 6 to 11. His Internalizing score was in the Normal range. His scores on the Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Social Problems, Rule-Breaking Behavior, and Aggressive Behavior syndromes were in the Normal range. His scores on the Thought Problems and Attention Problems syndromes were in the Borderline clinical range (93rd to 97th percentiles). On the Attention Problems subscales, J's scores for both Inattention and Hyperactivity-Impulsivity were in the Normal range. These results indicate that J's classroom teacher reported more problems than are typically reported by teachers of boys aged 6 to 11, particularly thought problems and attention problems. On the DSM-oriented scales, J's scores on the Affective Problems, Anxiety Problems, Somatic Problems, Oppositional Defiant Problems, and Conduct Problems scales were in the Normal range. His score on the Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems scale was in the Borderline clinical range (93rd to 97th percentiles). J's score in the Borderline clinical range suggests that the DSM should be consulted to determine whether J might meet diagnostic criteria for disorders characterized by problems included on that scale. On the Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity subscales, J's score for Inattention was in the Normal range while his score for Hyperactivity-Impulsivity was high enough to warrant concern. The areas where Js performance fell within the Borderline range should continue to be monitored to determine whether further intervention may be warranted. Parent Report. Ms. Doe, Js mother, completed the Achenbach Parent Rating Form, Child Behaviour Checklist (CBC). Anecdotally, Ms. Doe reported that J participates in three sports, including hockey, football and bike riding, and that he has interests in three hobbies, including drawing, singing and reading. He belongs to no social organizations, teams or clubs. Ms. Doe reported that J has three household chores: cleaning

J Doe 11

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page

his room, making his bed, and putting away his laundry. She reported that J has one close friend but that he sees friends less than once a week outside of regular school hours. Ms. Doe rated J's school performance as failing in language arts, social studies, math, and science. Because some competency items were not rated, a Total Competence score was not calculated for J. His score on the Activities scale was in the Normal range, and his score on the Social scale was in the Clinical range below the 3rd percentile. On the CBCL problem scales, J's Total Problems and Externalizing scores were both in the Clinical range above the 90th percentile for boys aged 6 to 11. His Internalizing score was in the Normal range. His scores on the Anxious/Depressed, Somatic Complaints, and Thought Problems syndromes were in the Normal range. His score on the Attention Problems syndrome was in the Clinical range above the 97th percentile. His scores on the Withdrawn/Depressed, Social Problems, Rule-Breaking Behavior, and Aggressive Behavior syndromes were in the Borderline clinical range (93rd to 97th percentiles). These results indicate that Ms. Doe reported more problems than are typically reported by parents of boys aged 6 to 11, particularly withdrawn or depressed behavior, problems in social relationships, attention problems, rule-breaking behavior, and problems of an aggressive nature. On the DSM-oriented scales, J's scores on the Affective Problems, Anxiety Problems, Somatic Problems, and Oppositional Defiant Problems scales were in the Normal range. His score on the Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems scale was in the Clinical range (above the 97th percentile). His score on the Conduct Problems scale was in the Borderline clinical range (93rd to 97th percentiles). These results suggest that a psychological consult by a clinical psychologist should be pursued to determine whether J meets diagnostic criteria for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Special attention should be given to J's performance scores that fell within the Borderline clinical range to determine whether further intervention is required. Visual-Motor Integration J completed the Beery VMI. This untimed test requires the student to copy increasingly difficult geometric designs from a drawn sample. It measures the childs visual motor development, both assessing fine motor control as well as visual perception. J completed the assessment by holding the pencil about half way up the shaft with his left hand. The average range for standard scores is 90 to 109. Js results on the visual-motor integration test were at a standard score of 77 at the 6th percentile in the Borderline range. It should be noted, however, that obtained results should be interpreted with caution given test administration error which prompted the premature discontinuation of assessment. As a result, these results may underestimate Js abilities in this regard. SUMMARY J is a nine-year old, grade 4 student at St. ABC School with a history of academic difficulties. A summary of his school records indicates that his academic results are at a C/D level in all subject areas, with consistent learning skills comments including: good participation, social interaction, conflict resolution, good co-operation, fine motor and gross motor skill deficits, lack of initiative, basic life skills, expressive and receptive language skill deficits, literacy and numeracy skill deficits, and reduced

J Doe 12

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page

attention. General cognitive ability, as determined by the Wechsler scales, indicates significantly below average ability. He is currently cognitively functioning in the Significantly Below Average range based on the Full Scale score of 65 at the 1st percentile. There were no strengths or weaknesses noted within the individual subtests, indicating even performance across all subject areas. In the verbal domain, there was no significant difference between the index scores. Verbal comprehension was in the Borderline range with no identified strengths or weaknesses. Working memory was in the Borderline range as well. In the nonverbal domain, there was no significant difference between the index scores. Academically he is achieving within range of expectation in Reading, Mathematics and Writing. A test of visual motor integration indicated Borderline abilities generally commensurate with Js verbal and nonverbal scores in his intellectual profile. Js overall adaptive behavior can be characterized as lower functioning than that of most other children his age. His conceptual adaptive behavior and practical adaptive behavior can be characterized as lower functioning than that of almost all children his age. Js social adaptive behavior can be characterized as somewhat lower functioning than is typical for his age. Behaviourally elevated scores emerged in Externalizing Problems and Total Problems (Attention Problems, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems) behaviour on the parent checklist. On the teacher checklist, no problems emerged within the clinical range; however Js teacher did rate his Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems scale, Thought Problems scale and Attention Problems scales in the Borderline range, respectively, thereby warranting further monitoring.

CLASSROOM IMPLICATIONS: Strengths: Responds well to positive reinforcement Enjoys being helpful with classroom chores Works well on incentive programs Enjoys physical activities Gets along well with others Needs support due to Significantly Below Average cognitive abilities Needs support in the development of focusing skills Needs to develop basic literacy and numeracy skills Needs to expand oral expressive vocabulary Needs to develop fine motor skills Needs to develop organization skills Social-emotional support with respect to learning needs

Needs:

J Doe 13

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page

Needs to develop positive social interaction skills RECOMMENDATIONS: Note: The following recommendations are based on information gained from this assessment regarding Js approach to learning, his response to tasks and his present level of achievement. They are neither exhaustive nor mandatory, but are provided to the school as suggestions, to assist programming with the intent of increasing student success. 1. In totality, given the results of this assessment, in conjunction with teacher and parent input, and a review of Js academic history, it appears that J would be a good candidate for a review by an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) for possible identification as an exceptional student. Significant verbal and nonverbal processing deficits were noted in conjunction with general low intellectual functioning. 2. J appears to acquire academic skills at a much slower pace than his peers and his cognitive abilities may limit his ability to keep pace with his age appropriate peers. Presentation of curriculum and teaching strategies should be consistent with his learning profile with programming supports at his level of functioning. 3. J will require information to be presented in a variety of ways since it will provide more opportunities for learning as well as adequate redundancy. Concrete materials and manipulatives would help his rationalization of abstract concepts. He would benefit from more time on task than his peers. Generous allowances for task analysis and remedial work are recommended with programming supports for J at his level of functioning. Language weaknesses will limit his ability to benefit from verbal instruction. Instructions and directions should be checked to ensure that all basic concepts are within Js working vocabulary. Maintaining eye contact with J will be important to address attention difficulties as well as to monitor comprehension. Using gestures and nonverbal communication will increase the likelihood that J is actively processing the information presented. It may be helpful to slow the pace of conversation to decrease the chances of J being overwhelmed by the tempo of the information being presented. Given Js weaknesses in verbal comprehension he may also require paraphrasing of instructions to assist in establishing the accuracy of his interpretation of verbal information.
4.

5. To assist J with attention difficulties a number of strategies should be considered. Provide him with shorter tasks which do not require extended attention in order to be successful. Be clear, direct and brief when giving instructions and repeat instructions. It is important to use eye contact and maintain close physical proximity to ensure that he is attending to the task or request. Further, support staff should ask for an interpretation of instructions to ascertain comprehension. Offer frequent and immediate rewards for concerted effort, i.e., specific verbal praise, social reinforcement, including high fives, props, etc., and additional incentives, such as free time on the computer.

J Doe 14

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page

6. At the secondary level J must be taught and encouraged to use memory and organizational aids, such as a personal agenda, or calendar to assist with his organization skills. He will also benefit from additional supports with regard to planning and organizing written work, particularly by providing visual clues such as colour coding, numbering lines, arrows, and boxes in which to work. There was no significant discrepancy between Js verbal and nonverbal abilities. In the verbal domain, verbal comprehension was in the Borderline range, with a consistent performance reflecting no relative strength or weakness. Working memory was in the Borderline range. In the nonverbal domain, perceptual reasoning was in the Significantly Below Average range while processing speed was in the Borderline range. No significant strengths or weaknesses were noted. As such, he may be more apt to learn using a multi-modal format. J will require information to be presented in a variety of ways since it will provide more opportunities for learning. The use of concrete materials, visuals and manipulatives would help his rationalization of abstract concepts. J would benefit from more time on task than his peers. Generous allowances for task analysis and remedial work are recommended with programming supports for J at his level of functioning. J may need help in interpreting graphs, diagrams, maps and other such materials by discussing their meaning and providing practical experience in using them. The use of computer word processing programs may also assist in reducing the demands on written output and facilitate the editing process. J may benefit from reading comprehension strategies which place an emphasis on imagery and visualizing details. Also, the use of pre-reading strategies to give clues about the most important information that will be needed for comprehension e.g. by introducing key terms, new vocabulary and important concepts before reading may facilitate comprehension. Advance organizers and various mapping techniques may be beneficial, such as diagrams or charts to preview difficult vocabulary or concepts in a visual web. Furthermore, J should continue to engage in a personal reading program for pleasure of at least one-half hour a day with age appropriate but high interest/low vocabulary novels. An interactive approach with an adult would be beneficial. Materials should be at an easy readability level for him/her (early primary) and should be enhanced with pictorial clues wherever possible. These should be in an area of interest such as sports, computer or videogame related subjects, or animals wherever possible. The use of taped books/CDs may also be of benefit and should be explored fully.
7.

J will benefit from increased opportunities to use assistive technology, including computer software programs to support the development of written language skills. Further to this, alternatives to written exercises could include the use of fill-in-the-blanks or cloze activities, multiple choice answers, exemplars, written tasks that focus on one component at a time, visual or graphic organizers and/or a rubric for task completion that clearly outlines the essential components needed.
8.

9. While writing instruction is important, J may continue to benefit from scribing assistance when the demands on his writing may inhibit his ability to display his acquisition of knowledge and skills. As he gets older, J should also be gently encouraged to develop keyboarding skills so that using the computer becomes an automatic skill for him as he moves through the grades and written work becomes increasingly important to measuring his acquired knowledge and skills.

J Doe 15

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page

Given his weak visual-motor integration skills and their impact on Js ability to produce neat looking work, the use of word processing programs will add to the quality and overall presentation of his work. Learning to type programs can either be purchased or downloaded from the internet that makes the learning of keyboarding a more fun and less tedious process for children. Basic Math facts may be improved by continued review. To assist J with math activities, it is important to illustrate and give simple clear examples of each mathematical concept that can be collected in a binder for later reference. A personal dictionary of mathematical terms could be compiled to further assist in this regard. Strong consideration should be given to breaking up instructional time to incorporate time for review and reinforcement of concepts. Further to this, allowing the use of a calculator would be appropriate for him. J may also benefit from computer software in a game format which may assist in building his computation skills with whole numbers, fractions and decimals. He may further benefit from the use of manipulatives and tactile programs such as Touch Math in building these computation skills. Finally, internet websites such as www.funbrain.com and www.aaamath.com may also be accessed for practice of math facts in a fun format.
10.

11. Js adaptive skills are behind those of his peers. Therefore, he may benefit from continued practice with these skills and encouragement to complete them more independently. If J struggles with a new skill, parents may want to demonstrate how to go about it and have him imitate. It will also be useful to break tasks down into small chunks and allow him to master them in a step-bystep fashion. J may also benefit from games incorporating daily living themes and from frequent praise of his efforts. It will continue to be important to ensure consistency in expectations and ensure that avoidance strategies are not rewarded while compliance and effort are. Consistency at home and school is essential for success. Based upon teacher and parent ratings, J exhibits difficulties with inattention and hyperactivity. It is suggested that these behaviours be reviewed by his pediatrician. Js parents may wish to share this report with the physician who cares for him. Discussion of the clinically elevated scores on the social-emotional checklists may be warranted to investigate the need and/or appropriateness of medication to assist J to optimize his opportunities for learning. His struggles to sustain attention may be impacting on many facets of his daily interactions, both academically and socially.
12.

13. Js progress should be monitored with the additional strategies and supports recommended. If there are no significant improvements a reassessment at a later date may be a consideration. 14. Academic support will be needed in reading and written language, and mathematics. These will need to be provided at his current level of functioning (kindergarten/early primary). 15. Js Individual Education Plan (IEP) should continue to allow for accommodations and modifications to address concerns with overall language development, difficulties with perceptual organization as well as reading decoding skills, reading and written language/mathematics/verbal comprehension and attention difficulties. These will need to be at his level of functioning.

J Doe 16

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page

16. J continues to require intense intervention and individualized programming in order to meet his needs. He is at risk of poor academic performance due to Significantly Below Average intellectual skills, problems with sustaining attention, and language, math, and communications problems. 17. Given the nature of his individual needs, it is important to provide J with opportunities to build and maintain his self-esteem by placing emphasis on his capabilities and fostering his desire to participate in lifelong learning.

______________________ _____ Pasquale Veleno, M.Ed. (candidate) Examiner

___________________________ B.L, Ph.D. Registered Psychologist

___________________________ C.A Special Education Coordinator Area North

The test battery administered is only one element of a multi-assessment process. The results of the present assessment should not be perceived as the only basis to form a judgment about this student's capabilities.

WISC IV SCORE SUMMARY

Canadian Norms COMPOSITE SCORES SUMMARY: Scale Index Score Percentile Range

J Doe 17

Psycho-Educational Evaluation Report

Page

Verbal Comprehension Perceptual Reasoning Working Memory Processing Speed Full Scale I.Q. SUBTEST SCORE SUMMARY

71 64 77 75 65

3 1 6 5 1

66-80 59-76 71-87 69-86 61-72

Verbal Comprehension Scaled Score Similarities 4 Vocabulary 4 Comprehension 7 Perceptual Reasoning Block Design Picture Concepts Matrix Reasoning Working Memory Digit Span Processing Speed Coding Symbol Search Scaled Score 2 7 4

Percentile 2 2 16 Percentile 0.1 16 2 Percentile 16 5 Percentile 5 9

Range Significantly Below Average Significantly Below Average Low Average Range Significantly Below Average Low Average Significantly Below Average Range Low Average Borderline Range Borderline Low Average

Scaled Score 7 Letter-Number Sequencing 5 Scaled Score 5 6