You are on page 1of 4

CSU Chico graduate school

PPS program/ psychology department

400 West 1st street, Chico, Ca 95929-0005


Name: Rose Johnson
Date of birth: 02/17/2010
Grade in school: kindergarten
Parent name: Brooke Johnson
Date of evaluation: 11/08/2015
Date of report: 11/16/2015
Examiner: Sarah Lipman: PPS graduate student

PLEASE NOTE: The Summary section of this report uses few technical terms. The goal of the
summary section is to highlight information and to clarify any important points. The purpose of
this report is for graduate training in report writing, and therefore should not be viewed as a
professional referral source.

This report is confidential. It should be kept in a locked file and made available only to those professional personnel
directly concerned with this student. This report must not be copied or duplicated.

Reason for Referral

This child and her family volunteered to help the examiner practice administering
cognitive tests. Neither the family nor the child has any academic concerns at this time.
Testing Observations
The test was administered in a family home familiar to the child. In the home, the family
primarily spoke to one another in the Hmong language. Rose spoke and responded to the
examiner in English. Rose willingly followed an uncle to the testing area. The testing area was a
quiet, cleared space in the garage with a table in the center of the room. Rose was neatly and
appropriately dressed considering her age and the weather that day. Rose presented herself as a
curious but shy child. She approached the examiner slowly, choosing at first to hang back and
watch. However, after a few minutes she came over and initiated conversation, asking the
examiner questions about the materials.
Roses mood was stable and positive. Rapport was initially established slowly, but once
established, was maintained throughout the evaluation process. Testing did not start until a
sufficient amount of rapport was built. During the structured one-on-one test setting, Rose
answered the examiners questions mostly with non-verbals, (nodding, pointing, etc.). She had no
difficulty staying on task, or persevering through the more difficult test items. She appeared
sufficiently motivated to try her best and even when offered a break, requested to end the break
early so she could get back to the games with the examiner. Rose appeared to enjoy the
activities. The only time her focus was broken, was during the last subtest, object assembly.
During this last test, the childs mother, Ms. Johnson got into a car to go somewhere,
without communicating to the child. Rose could see this through the window and became
notably fidgety and focused on the window. Noticing this, the examiner paused administration to
talk with the child about her thoughts. After the child was reassured that her mother was going to
come back for her, and her mood had returned to a positive state, testing continued. Based upon
these observations, the object completion subtest should be interpreted with this interruption in
mind. Outside of that, all other test results appear to be a valid and reliable estimate of Roses
current functioning.
Cognitive Measures
Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence- fourth Edition (WPPSI-IV)
The WPPSI-IV is an individually administered clinical instrument designed to measure
the cognitive ability of children aged 2 years 6 months through 7 years 7 months. It provides
subtests and index scores that represent intellectual functioning in specific cognitive domains,
(e.g. verbal comprehension, working memory), as well a full scale score that represent general
intellectual ability. The WPPSI-IV can be used to obtain a comprehensive assessment of general
functioning. The WPPSI-IV provides information about school readiness or pre-literacy
concerns, and as such, the results can serve as a guide for placement decisions in clinical and/or
school related programs.
The WPPSI-IV is composed of 15 subtests that measure a variety of different areas of
cognitive functioning. These subtests report scores as scaled scores, which are scaled to a
Lipman, Sarah page 2

standardized metric with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. These subtest scores are
organized into broader domains of cognitive functioning, which convert the scores into standard
IQ scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. These domains or indices include
Verbal Comprehension, Visual Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing
Speed. The following is a description of what each index measures:

The Verbal Comprehension index measures: The ability to reason verbally.

The Visual Spatial index measures: The childs ability to evaluate visual details
and to understand visual spatial relationships.
The Fluid Reasoning measures: The childs ability to detect the underlying
relationships among visual objects. and the ability to use reasoning to identify and
apply rules.
The Working Memory index measures: The childs ability to maintain and
manipulate visual and auditory information in conscious awareness.
The Processing Speed Index measures: the childs speed and accuracy.

WPPSI-IV also provides a full scale IQ score, which is an overall measure of intellectual
ability. Full scale IQ and Index scores are reported as standard scores with a mean of a 100 and a
standard deviation of 15. Sixty-eight percent of the population would be expected to earn scores
that fall within the average range of scores (85-115).
Full scale IQ and subtests
Verbal Comprehension
Visual Spatial Index
Block Design
Object Assembly
Fluid Reasoning Index
Matrix reasoning
Picture concepts
Working Memory Index
Picture Memory
Zoo Locations
Processing Speed Index
Bug search
Full Scale IQ

Standard Score
(Range) for index
71 (66-80)

Scaled Score for


Percentile Rank


106 (97-114)

77 (71-86)


116 (107-123)


103 (93-112)
80 (75- 86)

Roses observed Full Scale IQ score of 80 is at the 9th percentile and falls in a range that
is one standard deviation below an average score. There is approximately a 95% chance that
Roses true score falls in the range of scores from 75 to 86. Looking at Roses abilities more
narrowly, her observed verbal comprehension score (71) and her Fluid reasoning score (77) are
Lipman, Sarah page 3

both more than one standard deviation below the average score. For both of those Indices, the
subtest scores did not have a significant difference between them, and therefore were consistent.
Roses visual Spatial observed score (106) and observed processing speed score (103) both fell
within the average range of performance. There was a statistically significant and unusual
difference among the subtests for both these indices. Roses observed score for working memory
(116) falls one standard deviation above the normal range of scores.
SUMMARY and Recommendations
Rose was 5 years old and 8 months when this report was written. She was in
kindergarten. She received testing because the family was volunteering to help the examiner
practice administering tests.
Rose took a test to see how she thinks. This type of testing is called cognitive testing.
Roses overall thinking abilities are below average for her age. The overall ability score is
created by her combined specific abilities to think relative to other children. Rose showed above
average abilities in Working Memory. Rose showed average abilities in Visual Spatial and
Processing Speed. Moreover, she showed difficulties in Verbal Comprehension and Fluid
Reasoning. This subsequently means that Rose had difficulty in the area of understanding and
processing the English language.
This is the case for most children whose first language is anything other than English.
Children who have difficulty in this area may also experience difficulty with group discussions,
reading, writing, expressing their ideas to others, or following multi-step directions (all of which
are important aspects of the learning process for U.S. schools). Roses strong ability in memory,
processing speed, and visual spatial skills will help her navigate her difficulty with verbal
comprehension. Ideas to help grow this skill to an average level for her age group include:

Encourage the student to repeat important parts of directions

Teach with visuals, demonstrations, videos etc. instead of
learning solely through verbal information
Drill (repeat) to master high frequency words & phrase lists
Relate new information to acquired knowledge.
Use vocabulary that is understood by the student
Comic Life allows the student to create a visual representation
of a story as they have difficulty expressing themselves verbally. Accompanied
with an oral component, this could be used as an alternative assignment.

The family or school may desire to use some or all of the above mentioned components as
a plan to help Rose succeed in school. The choice to use a strategy or intervention is a team
decision. The strategies listed in this report are not required unless the school chooses to use
them. I enjoyed the opportunity to work with Rose. If I can be of any further assistance, please
contact me at (000) 000-0000 or via email at
____Sarah Lipman________________________
PPS Graduate Student
Lipman, Sarah page 4