CONFIDENTIAL PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL REPORT Name: OC DOB: 05/31/XXXX Age: 18 years, 4 months School/Grade: Connections Testing Dates: 10/12/12, 10/19/12

Date of Report: 11/21/12 Evaluator: Shelley Harrison Supervisor: Jon Loveland, Ph.D.

Reason for Referral: O was referred to the Adolescent and Family Treatment program for a comprehensive assessment due to longstanding academic difficulties related to reading comprehension. O is currently studying for the GED through the Connections program in Lyndhurst, NJ. He has failed the test twice, as a result of poor performance on the social studies subject area. Testing results warrant determination of eligibility for accommodations on the GED. Background Information: O is an 18 year-old male of Hispanic descent who resides in Carlstadt with his mother and sister. He speaks English and Spanish in his everyday life, but has always been taught in English for formal schooling. He reports that he speaks English outside of the home and both English and Spanish in the home. He was raised in New Jersey through 8th grade. Following his parents divorce, O moved to Florida with his father. While residing in Florida, O attended a traditional high school where he failed courses and became truant. As a result, O would have been held back, but chose to attend an adult high school. O moved back to New Jersey in August of 2011. O hopes to pass the GED to gain admission into community college. He wishes to earn a career in criminal justice or serve in the air force. Behavioral Observations: O presented as a male adolescent of average height and slender for his age. He appeared adequately groomed and clothing was casual. On both occasions of testing administration, he wore headphones around his neck. O was extremely cooperative throughout the testing administration. He appeared reserved in his willingness to converse outside of the testing procedures, but happily responded to rapport building questions, such as, What do you plan to do after you complete you GED? Overall, O demonstrated good concentration and maintained focus towards the testing procedures. At times, O responded with the simplest answer he could provide and refrained from elaborating on verbal responses. On visual-spatial tasks that required manipulation of blocks, he usually persevered until he produced a well-planned response. On tasks that required a graphomotor response, O typically worked rapidly and efficiently. He maintained focus on all timed activities. Sensory processes appeared intact. Receptive language appeared age appropriate at times. In test items that involved multiple pieces of information, such as arithmetic problems, O asked for clarification, and verbalized pertinent information from the question prior to responding. O maintained motivation throughout most the testing procedures. Towards the end of academic tasks, he appeared displeased that he had to complete another writing task, evidenced by a sigh. Difficulties in expressive language were noted. On an academic task that assessed letter word identification, specifically pronunciation, O seemed unsure of many items, and shook his head

after responding. He stated, I dont know on many items, when prompted to provide a more elaborate response. Based on behavioral observation during the two testing sessions, O was cooperative, and put forth good effort. As a result, current scores appear to be a reliable and valid estimate of Os abilities. Tests Administered and Assessment Procedures: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales, 5th Edition (SB-5) Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update Tests of Achievement (WJ III NU) Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition Self-Report of Personality- Inventory (BASC-2 SRP-I) Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition Teacher Rating Scales - Child (BASC-2 TRS-C)

Cognitive Functioning: WAIS-IV O was administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) in order to obtain estimates about his strengths and weaknesses across cognitive domains. The WAIS-IV groups cognitive ability into four global indices: the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI), the Working Memory Index (WMI), and the Processing Speed Index (PSI). O earned a Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) score of 80, at the 9th percentile, indicating that he performed equal to or higher than 9% of individuals his age included in the standardization sample. This score is indicative of overall cognitive development within the Low Average range. Os Full Scale IQ and subsequent index scores are all interpretable because the difference in scores from highest to lowest is only 12 points, considering his results a unitary construct, meaning that there was not a significant difference between his scores on the various indexes. The Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) is comprised of three core verbal tasks that measure crystallized knowledge, defined as language-based knowledge that is developed through formal schooling and general life experiences as well as exposure to and knowledge of culture. The VCI also measures the ability to reason with previously learned information. He earned a Verbal Comprehension IQ of 78 (7th percentile) which is in the Low range of cognitive functioning. O performed similarly on the three core verbal tasks which required him to express suitable relationships between two word prompts, to provide definitions of words, and to verbalize knowledge acquired from culture. Os similar performance on these tasks reveals that his fund of information, verbal skills, language development and ability to learn from experiences is a normative and relative weakness for him. The Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) is measured by three core tasks that assess a persons ability to process and reason with visual stimuli and to solve visual problems. This index also measures inductive reasoning and the ability to utilize previous observations in order to develop

general conclusions. O obtained a Perceptual Reasoning IQ of 86 (18th percentile) which is in the Low Average range. His visual-spatial processing ability, or his ability to represent and manipulate spatial concepts in his mind, was measured by a timed task which required him to assemble blocks to construct two and three-dimensional designs. His performance on this task indicates that his visual processing ability is in the Average range. He performed in the Average range on another subtest which measured visual spatial processing by asking him to view a completed puzzle and select three elements from 6 stimulus shapes that can be combined in their mind's eye via edge completion to form the puzzle. He performed in the Low range on a task to select a picture to complete a pattern. However, O was inclined to respond quickly and impulsively on this task. Os performance on perceptual tasks was in the Low Average range, reflecting construction skills that are more developed than visual analysis and synthesis of presented items. The Working Memory Index (WMI) measures an individuals ability to capture and hold information in immediate awareness and to retrieve that information for tasks, assessing abilities of short-term memory. Tests within this index assess an individuals skills attending to and recalling ordered items correctly, as well as receiving information temporarily and retrieving it order to respond to an item. Os WMI standard score of 83 (9th percentile) is in the Low Average range of cognitive functioning. He performed similarly on the two tasks. For example, he performed in the Low Average range on the task that required him to mentally repeat a series of numbers forwards and in reverse, and then recall a sequence of numbers. He was able to repeat verbatim up to 6 digits, though he could only reverse a 4 digit sequence. Reversing digits puts greater demands on working memory than does rote recall. Additionally, on a task which required him to perform mental arithmetic problems, his ability to recall the numbers in the problems and correctly perform operations on them was in the Low Average range compared to his same age peers. These tasks indicate that Os working memory and memory span are slightly below normal limits. The Processing Speed Index (PSI) measures ability to perform simple visual processing tasks in a quick and efficient manner. The PSI evaluates test-taking and perceptual speed using paper and pencil tasks. O earned a PSI standard score of 92 which is in the Average range of cognitive functioning, at the 30th percentile. O performed similarly on the two core tasks that required him to copy simple symbols quickly and accurately from a key and to identify rapidly whether target symbols appeared in a group of symbols. It is notable on both of these subtests O correctly answered every item completed. Os performance denotes that he is efficient in his ability to scan and track visual stimuli, especially when it requires a graphomotor response. His adequate visual discrimination skills, is also suggestive of strong self-monitoring, as he was able to correctly discern detailed items. Processing speed is a relative strength for O. Since O presents as a bilingual student, he may have limited language proficiency in English. Through the use of a cultural-language testing classification, Os specific subtest scores were examined. Subtests considered having High degree of Linguistic Demand and High Degree of Cultural Loading include: Similarities (standard score = 6), Vocabulary (6), Information (6), and Comprehension (5). These subtests all measure Os crystallized abilities or his general fund of knowledge acquired over time from school or other life experiences. These scores are low relative to other cognitive abilities assessed during this testing. The results of Os verbal

comprehension abilities may indicate that he has been negatively impacted by bilingualism and/or acculturation. As a result, Os non-verbal cognitive abilities were further assessed through an additional cognitive assessment battery. SB-5 O was administered the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales-Fifth Edition (SB5) in order to measure his nonverbal intellectual ability and functioning in various cognitive areas. This assessment was used to determine if language impacts his cognitive processes. On the SB5, O earned a Nonverbal IQ (NVIQ) of 88, ranked at the 21st percentile, in the upper boundary of the Low Average range. To gain a clearer understanding of Os intellectual functioning, further interpretations are focused on the cognitive abilities assessed by the five factors on the SB5. The Fluid Reasoning Factor on the SB5 is comprised of a subtest, that measures his inductive (specific to general) or deductive reasoning, and ability to reason and solve novel problems visually, with limited dependence on academic or culturally based information. This task required him to identify sequences of pictured objects or complete a missing portion of matrix type patterns. O earned a scaled score of 8 on this factor which is in the Average range, at the 25th percentile, compared to his same-aged peers in the standardization sample. O demonstrated facility with problem-solving tasks that involved novel problem solving tasks, which provided him with visual cues and manipulatives. The Knowledge Factor measures crystallized ability, or the breadth and depth of general information acquired in everyday settings, which draws on an ability to recognize absurd or missing details in a picture. O earned a scaled score of 7 on this factor, which in the Low Average range, at the 16th percentile. The Quantitative Reasoning Factor on the SB5 measures an individuals facility with numbers and numerical problem solving, the understanding and application of quantitative concepts to verbal or visual quantitative problem solving. The subtest requires one to apply knowledge of mathematical concepts to solve problems. O earned a scaled score of 7 on this factor which in the Low Average range, at the 16th percentile. The Visual-Spatial Processing Factor of the SB5 measures the ability to analyze and synthesize visual patterns. This involves an individuals ability to see patterns, relationships, and spatial orientations. He was prompted to construct a whole from its parts (assembling puzzle-like pieces to form patterns that resemble people, animals, or objects). O earned a scaled score of 9 on this factor which in the Average range, at the 37th percentile. The Working Memory Factor of the SB5 measures an individuals ability to hold information in short-term memory and to perform a set of cognitive operations before recalling it. The subtest requires tapping blocks in the sequence in which the examiner tapped them. O earned a scaled score of 10 on this factor, which in the Average range, at the 50th percentile.

Academic Functioning

WJ-III NU ACH O was administered the Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update Tests of Achievement (WJ-III NU ACH) to assess his current levels of academic achievement in the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics. His performance within each domain is discussed below. Reading The Broad Reading Cluster provides an overview of an individuals overall reading ability level. O earned a standard score of 76, in the 3rd percentile, classifying his overall reading achievement in the Low range. Os scores in reading ranged from the 1st percentile to the 20th percentile. He scored the lowest (1st percentile) on the task that measured his ability to identify letters and words by reading words in isolation. Os sight word recognition skills and his ability to decode phonetically spelled words appear negligible. On a task requiring him to read simple sentences quickly and provide a yes/no response to literal questions, O scored at the 20th percentile. Notably, he answered 61 questions correctly and only 3 incorrectly during the timed administration. O demonstrates a more developed ability to read sentences accurately and quickly, and to decipher a correct response, compared to his ability to decode phonetically regular words. O performed at the 13th percentile on a task measuring comprehension of contextual information which required him to read a short passage and supply a missing word. Overall, Os basic reading skills are very limited compared to his same aged peers. His ability to process reading material quickly is a relative strength compared to his specific reading abilities. Processing speed abilities are important for reading, as rapid processing of letters is necessary for reading fluency which facilitates higher-level comprehension of material. Os Average processing speed measured by the Processing Speed Index on the WAIS-IV, demonstrates he has the capacity to read information quickly and accurately. Additionally, the reading fluency achievement task required a graphomotor response, as did the two tasks required on the processing speed index on the WAIS-IV. Thus, O may perform higher on tasks that require him to visually discriminate between responses and tasks that require a graphomotor response. Crystallized abilities are also important for reading, including ones language development, vocabulary knowledge, and listening ability. Os consistent relative and normative weakness in reading evidenced by the Verbal Comprehension Index on the WAIS-IV, the Knowledge Factor on the SB5, Letter Word Identification, and Passage Comprehension on the WJ-III NU ACH, is likely impacted by lack of automaticity in his ability to apply phonetic rules to decode unfamiliar words. Evidence of weak decoding skills relates to Os limited reading comprehension skills, both compromised by his difficulty in processing language. O also demonstrated weakness in his ability to infer information based on the short passage readings. Os lack of exposure to information derived from reading in formal schooling in recent years likely contributes to his weaknesses in reading achievement.

Mathematics The Broad Math Cluster provides a comprehensive overview of an individuals math achievement level. O earned a standard score of 71, at the 2nd percentile. He performed at the

7th percentile on a task requiring him to analyze and solve practical math problems. He performed at the 5th percentile on a task that required him to perform a range of math computations, as well as on a task requiring him to solve simple math problems quickly. Based on Os performance, it appears that he lacks the appropriate skills to deduce correct responses. On tasks that required him to apply math concepts and answer open-ended questions, he was able to answer addition and subtraction questions that require regrouping (ex: 476+61+611), simple multiplication facts (ex: 5 x 3), and simple fractions additions and subtractions (ex: 7/8 2/8). However, O lacked skills to solve high school level math problems, such as algebraic equations (ex: solve for x: x + 2x 3=0), division of fractions, and square root computations. He provided answers to 9 out of 36 questions, most of which he answered correctly. He did not seem to try to answer questions where he was hesitant. His lack of math skills contributed to his overall limited math achievement. Processing speed abilities are related to math achievement within the area of math fluency and automaticity of math facts. Os performance on the math achievement subtests measured by the WJ-III NU ACH is inconsistent from his performance on the processing speed tasks measured on the WAIS-IV. Similar to some other areas of Os intellectual functioning, this may be due to his lack of formal schooling in the past few years, thus causing a slower rate of retrieval of math computations and an inability to solve applied calculations at the high school achievement level. Writing The Broad Writing Cluster provides a comprehensive overview of an individuals writing achievement level. Os scores in this domain range from the Low to the Average range. He scored in the Low range on the subtest that measured Os ability to write words correctly. He scored in the Low Average range on the task that measures the skill in formulating and writing simple sentences quickly. He scored in the Average range on the task that measures his skills in written responses to a variety of demands. Item difficulty on this subtest is increased by increasing passage length, level of vocabulary, grammatical complexities, and level of concept abstraction. Os weak decoding skills, evidenced by the Reading domain on the WJ-III NU ACH are comparable to his encoding skills on the spelling subtest. He struggled to correctly spell words such as, sixteen, adventure, and difference. While his spelling was phonetically close, his spelling skills are far below his age norms. With regard to written expression, on a timed task O correctly formulated sentences, incorporating target words and correct punctuation, such as, The boy is jumping a fence. O demonstrated full attention to the task, without skipping any items. On the more open-ended task requiring O to write sentence, with solely picture clues provided, he was able to accurately express and project his thoughts into writing.

Social-Emotional Functioning BASC-2 The Behavior Assessment System for Children Second Edition (BASC-2) is a measure of behavioral functioning which provides scales for various areas of behavioral and personality

functioning. Teacher rating scales reflect acceptable validity, indicating that responses were generally consistent and not overly negative. Self-report rating scales demonstrate validity as it relates to consistent response patterns, but caution should be warranted when interpreting based on Os response style. Responses require either a True/False, or Never, Sometimes, Often, or Almost Always answer. At-Risk scores should raise some concern and behaviors in these areas should be monitored. Scores in the Clinically Significant range indicate that problems in the specific area are significant and may require intervention. O was given the Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition Self Report of Personality Inventory (BASC-2 SRP:I), a student self-report interview to develop a profile of his behavioral and social-emotional functioning. Notably, O tended to respond definitively on either extreme of the response scale by Never or Almost Always. It is important to interpret Os responses with caution, as the elevated L-scale indicated O had a tendency to fake good when completing this form. While, many of his responses may be true, they were statistically unlikely and should be interpreted with caution. For example, he reported, I like everyone I meet, I tell my parents everything, and he never gets mad at others. Os overall level of Emotional Symptoms fell in the Low range with a T-score of 32. O reported experiencing average levels of Internalizing Problems, such as Somatization, Sense of Inadequacy and Anxiety. Additionally, he revealed a relatively low level of difficulty in establishing and maintaining relationships. He reported adequate attention levels and slightly better self-control than others his age. He also disclosed that he has a positive self-image, is self-reliant, and has a high degree of confidence in his ability to make decisions, solve problems, and be dependable to others. Additional Clinical Scales noted an At-Risk classification range for Sensation Seeking behaviors. O reported a preference for engaging in behaviors that are generally considered by others as risky and potentially hazardous. For example, O almost always likes to be the first to try new things, and almost always likes to ride in a car that is going fast. Os teacher, Ms. Mulligan, completed the Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition Teacher Report, (BASC-2-TRS). Contrary to Os report, Ms. Mulligan reported O exhibits AtRisk ranges for Internalizing Problems. Specifically, Clinically Significant ranges were noted in Somatization. O displayed a high number of health related concerns. A serious health problem not present may be an indication of an underlying emotional problem. Anxiety was marked in the At-Risk range according to Ms. Mulligan. Specifically, O sometimes displays worry, nervousness, and/or fear. Mrs. Mulligans report placed O At-Risk for School Problems, namely Learning Problems. She reported that he has difficulty comprehending and completing schoolwork in a variety of academic areas. He often gets failing school grades and often has reading problems. While O was reported to experience Learning Problems, he generally exhibits adequate organizational and study skills, and completes most homework in a timely fashion. O seemed to internalize underlying stress that may stem from Learning Problems, as O may have uncertainty in his ability to be successful on academic tasks. Teacher Rating Scales, and Self-Report Scales are not indicative of an emotional or behavioral disorder, though Ms. Mulligan did note that O often displays anxiety, somatization, and learning problems. Externalizing problems and behavioral symptoms were not a significant concern according to his teacher. Os self-ratings revealed a proclivity to fake good as he rated himself below average in experiencing anxiety. He also feels he has slightly more control over his life

that is typical of his age, and he self-reported that he is extremely well adjusted. He also denied any school-related problems, despite his poor academic performance. Os responses reveal a preference for being around his peers and parents, rather than engaging in solitary activities. Interpersonal relationships and parental relationships are deemed to be a positive aspect of Os life. SUMMARY: O is an 18-year-old male who was referred by the Connections Program, a GED preparation program, to the Division of Family Guidance - Adolescent and Family Treatment program for psychological assessment to determine eligibility for test accommodations on the GED based on his cognitive and achievement profile. Os two previous testing results on the GED resulted in his failure on the social studies portion of the exam, and consequently, his failure on the exam. His school program, Connections, was concerned that he might exhibit a potential learning disability. Additionally, social-emotional factors were assessed to determine if any potential behavioral or emotional difficulties might impede his performance. Throughout the evaluation period, O was very cooperative. O demonstrated good concentration and maintained focus on the testing procedures. During the first test administration, he seemed to produce the simplest responses or he responded to items quickly. However, he slowed down on the second test administration, taking his time to produce each response. On timed test items, O maintained complete focus on the task, evidencing adequate attention regulation. Additionally, he was meticulous and deliberate on items that related to construction of tangible pieces. On the WAIS-IV, O earned a Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) score of 80, at the 9th percentile, indicating that he performed equal to or higher than 9% of individuals his age included in the standardization sample. This score is indicative of overall cognitive development within the Low Average range. On the SB-5 O earned a Nonverbal IQ (NVIQ) of 88, ranked at the 21st percentile, in the upper boundary of the Low Average range. O performed higher on the IQ test that did not require language, meaning that he performs better on items that do not require verbal output, but the difference between the scores is not significant. The lack of English fully spoken in the home and his lack of formal schooling beyond the 8th grade are likely to have contributed significantly to this difference in scores. O was administered the WJ-III NU ACH to better understand his areas of academic achievement. When compared to others at his age level, Os standard scores are Low Average in broad written language, and written expression. O scored in the Low classification range in broad reading, brief reading, broad mathematics, math calculation skills, brief mathematics, and brief writing. Academic Skills, a combined measure of letter and word reading, math calculation, and spelling skills were in the Very Low range. Academic Applications, a measure of Os ability to apply his skills to solve academic problems was in the Low range. Academic Fluency, a measure of Os ability to quickly read short sentences, complete simple math calculations, and write simple sentences, was in the Low Average range and was the highest of his academic skills. This is consistent with his relatively higher processing speed. He is able to quickly perform academic tasks that have become rote or automatized. Overall, no significant strengths or weakness were found among the scores for the selected set of Os achievement areas.

Os ability to read, perform mathematical calculations, and write lags behind his intellectual capacity. His cognitive and achievement profile indicates that his ability to interpret visualspatial information, non-verbal working memory, and processing speed is more developed than his ability to comprehend language based information. As demonstrated by Os increased performance on the Non Verbal SB5 compared to the WAIS-IV suggests he is notably more proficient in his ability to interpret and reason with non-verbal stimuli. Evidenced by O scoring in the Low classification range of Verbal Comprehension Index on the WAIS-IV, Letter Word Identification, and Passage Comprehension on the WJ-III NU ACH, and Low Average classification score on the Knowledge Factor on the SB5 may relate to his lack of automaticity in his ability to apply phonetic rules to decode unfamiliar words. Additionally, O is likely to struggle with verbal abstractions in comprehending reading material, as evidenced by his cognitive and achievement assessments. Os behavioral, social and emotional functioning was assessed by administering behavior rating scales. Os report indicates strong interpersonal relationships with peers and family, a low risk for depression, and a strong sense of self. Notably, he falls in the Clinically Significant range for risk taking behaviors. His GED teachers report indicates concern regarding a learning disability at the At-Risk classification range and Clinically Significant concerns of Somatization. O reporting he feels sick frequently may be indicative of an underlying health problem or emotional instability. Comparatively, O presents as having a low concern about his ability to be successful academically, while his teacher marks this item to be of importance. Overall, O seems to gravitate to non-academic activities that are social in nature where he is likely to feel most comfortable and successful.

___________________ Shelley Harrison School Psychologist, Ms. Ed, PD, NCSP

____________________ Jon Loveland Clinical Psychologist, Ph.D.

GED Strategies for OC: 1. OC should be praised for his personal strength in his ability to work quickly. However, his quick work pace may not always be beneficial when reading complex passages. OC should be reminded to read each word carefully. 2. His environment should remain structured to keep OC on task. He may benefit from focusing on a topic at a time for an extended period of time (a few hours) to enhance knowledge and comprehension of specific topics. 3. He may benefit from planning which topic(s) he will be studying each day, focusing on content areas of weakness. (See Attached Appendix A) 4. OC should look up vocabulary words that he is unfamiliar with in reading passages on practice tests. (See Attached Appendix B) 5. He should create flashcards for vocabulary words with meanings or ideas that may be difficult to remember, for consistent review before the test. 6. OC should make predictions before looking at answer choices. As he reads, he may benefit from summarizing after every few sentences to help determine appropriate answer choices. 7. It may be helpful to learn general concepts by utilizing videos on topics as appropriate to provide a variety of instructional methods. This presentation can enhance his leaning ability by receiving information concurrently in a visually and auditory modality. This can also reinforce information that OC has previously learned through past studying. 8. OC should be provided with visual supports to facilitate learning of history, such as timelines. This may also reinforce information that OC has previously learned. (See attached Appendix C) 9. OC should be praised for his willingness and persistence in studying for the GED. Boosting his self-esteem will help enable him to believe in his abilities to be successful on the test. 10. If OC believes he will devote 1 minute 1 minute, 20 seconds to each question, he may benefit from answering all questions he is sure of, skip questions that seem difficult, and then go back to the difficult ones. This may help him earn more responses correctly.

Appendix: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) Index/Subtest Standard/Scaled Score 78 6 6 6 5 86 9 6 8 83 7 7 92 9 8 80 [80-93] 95% Confidence Interval [73-85] Percentile Classification

Verbal Comprehension Index Similarities Vocabulary Information (Comprehension)* Perceptual Reasoning Index Block Design Matrix Reasoning Visual Puzzles Working Memory Index Digit Span Arithmetic Processing Speed Index Coding Symbol Search FSIQ

Low 9 9 9 Low Average Low Average Low Average

21 37 9 25 9

Low Average Average Low Average Average Low Average Average

[78-96]

[84-101] 37 25 [76-84] 9

Average Average Average Low Average

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales-Fifth Edition (SB5) Subtest/Factor/IQ Scaled Score/ 90% Confidence Standard Score Interval 8 7 7 Percentile Rank 25 16 16 37 50 83-95 21 Classification

Nonverbal Fluid Reasoning Nonverbal Knowledge Nonverbal Quantitative Reasoning

Average Low Average Low Average Average Average Low Average

Nonverbal Visual-Spatial Processing 9 Nonverbal Working Memory Nonverbal IQ 10 88

Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update Tests of Achievement (WJ-III NU ACH), age norms Subtest/Cluster Standard Score 95% Confidence Interval 69-74 84-91 78-88 74-79 70-80 72-78 75-81 68-73 74-82 82-93 84-95 77-84 64-69 79-85 72-79 Percentile Rank 3 20 13 3 5 5 7 2 7 20 25 9 1 11 5 Classification

Letter-Word Identification Reading Fluency Passage Comprehension Broad Reading Calculation Math Fluency Applied Problems Broad Math Spelling Writing Fluency Writing Samples Broad Written Language Academic Skills Academic Fluency Academic Applications

71 87 83 76 75 75 78 71 78 87 90 80 66 82 76

Low Low Average Low Average Low Low Low Low Very Low Low Low Average Average Low Average Very Low Low Average Low

Behavior Assessment System for Children: Teacher Rating Scales-Children BASC-2 (TRS-C) Reported by: Ms. M Scale/Composite/INDEX Hyperactivity* Aggression* Conduct Problems Externalizing Problems Anxiety Depression* Somatization Internalizing Problems Atypicality* Withdrawal*
BEHAVIORAL SYMPTOMS INDEX (BSI)

T-Score 41 43 49 44 64 54 79 68 44 51 48 56 61 59 55 58 43 43 53 50

Percentile 15 20 62 30 90 78 97 95 28 65 48 72 84 83 67 78 28 27 60 52

Classification Average Average Average Average At-Risk Average Clinically Significant At-Risk Average Average Average Average At-Risk Average Average Average At-Risk Average Average Average

Attention Problems Learning Problems School Problems Adaptability Social Skills Leadership Study Skills Functional Communication Adaptive Skills * Domains included in the BSI

Behavior Assessment System for Children: Self-Report-Children BASC-2 (SRP-I) Reported by: O. Scale/Composite/INDEX Atypicality Locus of Control Social Stress Anxiety Depression Sense of Inadequacy Somatization Internalizing Problems Attention Problems Hyperactivity Inattention/Hyperactivity Emotional Symptoms Index Sensation Seeking Alcohol Abuse School Maladjustment Relation with Parents Interpersonal Relations Self-Esteem Self-Reliance Personal Adjustment * Domains included in the BSI T-Score 41 38 34 37 40 40 41 36 35 33 32 33 69 41 42 64 66 62 70 69 Percentile 11 6 3 9 1 13 16 3 3 1 1 1 98 19 25 96 99 99 99 99 Classification Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average At-Risk Average Average Average Average Average Average Average