WISC V Case Reports X 2

Appendix C
CASE REPORTS
COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION
Name: Tucker Gates Gender: Male

Date of Birth: 02/04/06 Grade: Ending 3rd
Age: 9 year 6 months Date of Report: 06/05/15
Reason for Referral
Tucker was referred for a comprehensive evaluation primarily because of difficul-

ties with math. Tucker has struggled with math since kindergarten and has been
involved in various supplemental interventions to address his difficulties. He
received failing grades in math throughout his third-grade year and has not made
progress commensurate with age and grade-level expectations. He did not meet
the criterion level of performance on the third-grade state assessment.
The purposes of this evaluation are to identify Tucker’s strengths and weak-
nesses, determine whether there are any disability conditions, and recommend
strategies that will aid in his progress and assist in his educational programming.
Procedures and Tests Administered
Procedures/Tests Administered Date
Behavior Assessment System for Children–Second Edition

Parent Interview: Structured Developmental History 5/5/15
Review of Records 4/28–6/2/15
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition 5/5/15
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition 5/12/15
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing–Second Edition 5/12/15
Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities
Picture Recognition Subtest 5/12/15
AIMS Web Reading Curriculum-Based Measure 5/12/15
Classroom Observations 5/5 & 5/6/15
Teacher Interview 5/6/15
(continued )
49
50 APPENDIX C: CASE REPORTS
(Continued)
Procedures/Tests Administered Date
Behavior Assessment System for Children–Second Edition

Parent Rating Scales 5/5/15
Teacher Rating Scales 5/8/15
Self-Report of Personality 5/19/15
Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning
Parent Rating Scale 5/12/15
Teacher Rating Scale 5/14/15
Student Interview 5/5 & 5/19/15
Background Information
Tucker is a 9-year-old third-grade student who attends Gregory Elementary

School in Houston, Texas. He lives with his biological mother, father, and 7-year-
old brother. Tucker is close to his younger brother, but they do exhibit typical
sibling rivalry. His father is an accountant, and his mother is a technical writing
consultant. Tucker participates in family activities such as attending church, tak-
ing trips, and playing games. Mr. and Mrs. Gates share discipline responsibilities,
and the discipline procedures include timeout and grounding.
Mrs. Gates experienced two miscarriages prior to conceiving Tucker. He was a
planned pregnancy, and Mrs. Gates did not report any complications during her
pregnancy. Tucker was born at 37 weeks gestation weighing 5 pounds, 9½ ounces.
He had difficulty breathing after birth and was placed in the neonatal intensive
care unit (NICU) for one week. While in the NICU, he was given supplemental
oxygen. After one week, Tucker was released from the hospital; however, he con-
tinued to have apnea of infancy for the first 12 months (i.e., he frequently stopped
breathing in his sleep, and his parents startled him to resume breathing).
Tucker reached language and motor developmental milestones within chrono-
logical age expectations. He had colic from 6 weeks to 12 weeks and frequent
high fevers until tubes were put into his ears at 10 months. His hearing and
vision are within normal limits. Family history is positive for reading difficulties
in school (father) and affective conditions (depression and anxiety: mother).
Tucker had difficulty separating from his parents in kindergarten and first
grade. He had crying spells daily when being dropped off at school, but when
at school he did not cry. Tucker was seen by Dr. Gray, a counseling psycholo-
gist, when he was 6 years old (began therapy in March of kindergarten year). At
that time, he was characterized as a child with separation anxiety. The focus of
Dr. Gray’s therapy was to reduce anxiety as well as to improve his overall ability
APPENDIX C: CASE REPORTS 51
to manage his emotional reactions. At the recommendation of the psychologist,

Tucker underwent a psychiatric evaluation at the beginning of first grade.
Dr. Rigaud diagnosed Generalized Anxiety Disorder and prescribed Zoloft.
Tucker continued to see Dr. Gray during first grade, and he saw the psychiatrist
approximately every 3 months for medication management. His separation
anxiety significantly reduced over time. His mother reported that he had estab-
lished several good friendships at school and wanted to attend so he could “hang
out” with his friends. Therapy was discontinued during the spring of his first-
grade year (March), and medication was discontinued in September of that year
because Tucker had successfully begun second grade without significant anxiety
symptoms. The psychiatrist indicated that Tucker no longer met the criteria for
an anxiety disorder. When he was 7 years old (second grade), Tucker began to
bite his nails daily and continues to do so periodically. Currently, Tucker does
not receive therapeutic or psychiatric services. He is not taking any medications.
Tucker has no difficulty getting along with other children his age. He prefers
to be the leader and determine the rules of the game. Mrs. Gates indicated that
Tucker seems uncomfortable meeting new people and overreacts when faced with
a problem. When he is tired, he starts crying easily. Tucker has fears such as sleep-
ing alone and being in new situations, but once he is familiar with the situation/
location/people, his behavior and demeanor are age appropriate.
Tucker has attended kindergarten, first, second, and third grades at Gregory
Elementary School. He is currently enrolled as a third-grade student. Tucker has
struggled with math since kindergarten. A review of his benchmark assessments
indicates that he had difficulty coordinating number sense and counting and did
not fully grasp certain concepts (e.g., more than, less than). In first grade, he was
noted to be “behind” in understanding basic addition and subtraction (“especially
subtracting”) and did not fully understand place value. Tucker did not pass the
End-of-Year first-grade benchmark for simple addition and subtraction problems
and for problems where he had to solve for a missing number (e.g., 3 + ___ = 7).
In second grade, he exhibited difficulty recalling basic facts and solving problems
with multiple steps. This year as a third-grade student, Tucker did not meet
expectations on items involving fractions, multiplication, and division. He did
not meet the criterion performance on the third-grade STAAR test (STAAR =
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness).
At a meeting held in mid-April, school personnel recommended retention,
but Mr. and Mrs. Gates did not agree with this recommendation because Tucker
was doing well in other academic subjects and had friends in his grade. This situ-
ation became quite contentious, and the parents consulted Tucker’s previous
psychologist. Based on her recommendation, the parents sought a comprehensive
evaluation for Tucker at a local university clinic. The school was aware of and
cooperative with the evaluation conducted.
Tucker enjoys playing baseball and riding his bike. He likes to watch movies
and then act them out. His parents indicated that he is very expressive, can be
dramatic, and has a well-developed vocabulary. He does not exhibit any signifi-
cant behavior problems at home (“nothing more than typical”), and the parents
are very thankful that he is polite and exhibits manners at school. They are very
concerned about his school performance, and doing homework is challenging,
especially if it has to do with math or math-related activities. Mr. and Mrs. Gates
would like Tucker to attend college and believe that he could be an attorney
“given his verbal ability and propensity for drama.” He has an uncle who is an
attorney and is always interested in talking with him about cases.
Behavior Observations
Tucker was evaluated at the UHCL Psychological Services Clinic across

three sessions.
During the first testing session, Tucker was quiet and cooperative throughout
testing; he responded well to the examiner’s questions and directions. He easily
separated from his mother and interacted appropriately with the examiners. A
few times Tucker looked down and needed to be redirected and asked whether he
was still thinking about the answer. These reflected response latencies. During
timed subtests, he stopped, looked up as if he were thinking, and then resumed
the task. He did not display a sense of urgency, and this behavior affected his
score on these subtests.
During the second and third testing sessions, Tucker came in ready to work.
He was familiar with the examiners and testing location and engaged in appropri-
ate conversation about school and baseball. He easily transitioned from one task
to the other. As these sessions progressed, he became tired and asked how many
more tests he had to do after each subtest. However, he remained focused on
what was asked of him and attempted all tasks given to him. Tucker did express
some degree of frustration with the achievement testing in math and specifically
commented, “I’m not good at this stuff. You can ask my teacher.” At one point he
asked the examiner, “Why do you have to test me, can’t you just ask me?” He was
reassured that these tests would provide information on how he learns in order to
assist him in school, and this seemed to reduce his concerns. Tucker was observed
biting his fingernails during the third session, but this was not observed in the
previous sessions.
Overall, Tucker was attentive, cooperative, and put forth effort on the tasks
presented. The results are considered valid estimates of his functioning in the
areas assessed.
Evaluation Results
This section summarizes the results of Tucker’s performance on cognitive tests.

Specifically, his unique pattern of strengths and weaknesses is described.
Intellectual/Cognitive
Several measures were administered to Tucker to assess his cognitive abilities and
processes. The primary cognitive measure used in this evaluation was the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition (WISC-V). The WISC-V is an indi-
vidually administered comprehensive measure of intellectual functioning
designed to measure important aspects of cognitive abilities and processes that
are related to academic learning and daily functioning.
Based on the data generated from the WISC-V, Tucker’s overall level of intel-
lectual functioning based on the Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) falls within the upper
limits of the Very Low range [FSIQ = 78, Percentile Rank (percentile) = 7,
Confidence Interval at 95 % (CI) = 73–85]. The General Ability Index or GAI,
which also provides an estimate of general intellectual ability, indicates function-
ing in the Low Average range (GAI = 85, 16th percentile, CI = 75–90). The GAI
reflects overall ability when the effects of working memory (Digit Span Subtest)
and processing speed (Coding Subtest) are eliminated. The difference between
the GAI and FSIQ is significant and occurs in less than 6% of the population;
thus, these processes have an impact on Tucker’s overall ability and contribute to
his learning difficulties. However, Tucker also has a weakness in fluid reasoning,
and his FSIQ is not only affected by working memory and processing speed. In
general, Tucker’s WISC-V profile shows much variability within and between the
various Indexes.
In order to understand better Tucker’s profile pattern, his performance is
interpreted using a Cross-Battery Assessment (XBA) approach. In order to apply
the WISC-V data to an XBA approach, one additional subtest from the Woodcock-
Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ IV COG) was administered in the
domain of visual processing. In addition, the WISC-V does not assess phonologi-
cal processing; thus, the phonological awareness subtests of the Comprehensive
Test of Phonological Processing–Second Edition (CTOPP-2) were administered.
The XBA approach provides guidelines so that assessments can use multiple
tests to measure a broader range of abilities than might be available on only one
battery. It also allows for the calculation of broad and narrow ability clusters,
which is particularly applicable when the instrument itself does not generate a
broad ability cluster, or the cluster generated is not cohesive or interpretable. This
approach is based on current research evidence regarding the structure of human
cognitive abilities and their interactions with academic abilities and provides for
an analysis of cognitive strengths and weaknesses that results in more focused
interventions and accommodations. The tests administered and results are pre-
sented below and interpreted based on each cognitive processing domain. In each
table, scores have been converted to a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15
to allow for consistency across instruments.
Gc/Crystallized Intelligence
Gc is a measure of language development, vocabulary, and information/knowl-
edge gained through educational and cultural contexts.
Gc/Crystallized Intelligence
Subtest and Index/Composite Narrow Ability Scaled/Standard Score
Similarities VL: Lexical Knowledge 10/100

Vocabulary VL: Lexical Knowledge 12/110
Verbal Comprehension Index 106
Information KO: General Verbal
11/105
Information
XBA Gc Composite 106
On the Similarities (SI) Subtest, Tucker was read two words that represent
objects or concepts, and he had to indicate verbally how they were similar. On
the Vocabulary (VC) Subtest, Tucker was read words, and he had to provide defi-
nitions for each word presented. These subtests measure vocabulary and knowl-
edge of verbal concepts, and Tucker adequately expressed categorical relationships
and meanings of words; this is consistent with his well-developed vocabulary as
reported by his parents and teachers. Together the SI and VC Subtests yield the
Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) on the WISC-V (VCI = 106, 66th percen-
tile, CI = 98–113). Because these subtests measure the same narrow ability, an
additional subtest was administered to yield a broad Gc cluster. On the
Information (IN) Subtest, Tucker answered questions about a broad range of
general knowledge topics. When all three subtests are combined, Tucker’s perfor-
mance on the general cognitive factor of Crystallized Intelligence (Gc) fell within
the Average range (106).
Gv/Visual Processing
Gv reflects the ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, manipulate and think with
visual patterns and stimuli. Appreciation of spatial characteristics and spatial ori-
entation of objects, recalling visual information, and attending to visual detail are
associated with this process.
Gv/Visual Processing
Block Design Vz: Visualization 6/80 (divergent)

Visual Puzzles Vz: Visualization 8/90*
Visual Spatial Index 84
Picture Recognition (WJ IV COG) MV: Visual Memory 97*
XBA Gv Composite 92*
On the Block Design (BD) Subtest, Tucker was presented with a stimulus
picture and had to construct the design within a specified time limit using a
certain number of colored blocks. The major factor leading to his low aver-
age score was time. He completed three designs correctly, but over the time
limit allotted. As he put the blocks together to construct the designs, he
disassembled the construction when it was incorrect and started over. On the
Visual Puzzles (VP) Subtest, Tucker viewed a whole stimulus figure and then
had to select three items from an array that if put together formed the whole.
His score on this task fell in the Average range. The BD and VP Subtests
generate the Visual Spatial Index (VSI) on the WISC-V (VSI = 84, 14th
percentile, CI = 78–93). The BD and VP Subtests measure the same narrow
ability; therefore an additional subtest was administered to form the broad
Gv cluster. On the WJ IV COG Picture Recognition (PR) test, Tucker was
shown one or more pictures for 5 seconds and then asked to identify the
picture(s) on another page that included an array of similar pictures. He
scored within the Average range. In this cross-battery analysis, VP and PR are
combined to create the broad Gv score, and Tucker’s overall visual processing
skills fall in the Average range. The BD score is divergent and as noted ear-
lier, was because of a slower speed of response and an inefficient problem-
solving strategy.
Gf/Fluid Reasoning
Gf reflects the ability to apply inductive and deductive logic in problem solving.
Tasks require the student to determine rules that govern patterns and deduce
relationships among items to solve for a missing element.
Gf/Fluid Reasoning
Subtest and Index Narrow Ability Scaled/Standard Score
Matrix Reasoning I: Induction [6/80]

Figure Weights RG: General Sequential Reasoning 5/75
Fluid Reasoning Index 74
Within the general cognitive factor of Fluid Reasoning (Gf ), Tucker’s skills in
each of the narrow abilities were consistent and yielded a broad ability score that
fell in the Very Low range (Fluid Reasoning Index [FRI] = 74, 4th percentile,
CI = 69–83). On the Matrix Reasoning (MR) Subtest, Tucker viewed an incom-
plete matrix or series and had to select a response option that completed the
matrix or series. He had to determine an underlying rule that governed the pat-
tern in order to select the correct response. This inductive thinking process is
difficult for Tucker, and he had difficulty on items that involved multiple proper-
ties (e.g., size and shape, shape and orientation). On the Figure Weights (FW)
Subtest, Tucker had to use deductive/general sequential logic. He viewed a scale
with a missing weight and had to select a response option to keep the scale bal-
anced. In order to solve this type of problem, he had to apply the concept of
equality (e.g., two triangles weigh the same as one square). Gf is an area of weak-
ness for Tucker; he exhibited weaknesses on both subtests within this index indic-
ative of a general deficit in analogic and serial reasoning.
Gsm/Short-Term Memory
Gsm is the ability to attend to, recall, hold information in immediate awareness,
and engage in manipulation of that information.
Gsm/Short-Term Memory
Subtest and Index Narrow Ability Scaled/Standard Score
Digit Span MW: Working Memory 5/75

Picture Span MW: Working Memory 9/95
Working Memory Index 82
Letter-Number Sequencing MW: Working Memory 4/70
Auditory Working Memory Index 70
Tucker was administered three subtests to measure various aspects of working

memory and memory span. For Digit Span, Tucker was read a sequence of num-
bers and had to recall the numbers in order (Digit Span Forward [DSF]; e.g.,
6-4-8 = 648), reverse order (Digit Span Backward [DSB]; e.g., 5-8-2 = 258) and
ascending order (Digit Span Sequencing; [DSS]; e.g., 2-9-4 = 249). Overall,
Tucker scored in the Very Low range on Digit Span, but he exhibited differential
performance across the three tasks. The WISC-V allows for the calculation of
scaled scores for each component of Digit Span. On DSF, Tucker’s score was
Average (scaled score = 8). This task measures memory span or rote memory. He
scored Very Low on the DSB (scaled score = 5) and DSS (scaled score = 5) tasks
experiencing difficulty in reorganizing the digits presented. These are measures of
working memory in that Tucker had to retain the sequence and then mentally
transform/resequence the input to produce a response. Tucker performed within
the Average range on Picture Span. On this task, he viewed a stimulus page with
one or more pictures and then had to select the pictures in the order seen from
an array of pictures on a response page. Picture Span is a measure of memory
span, and it should be noted that Tucker had several partial-credit responses
because he recalled the pictures, but not necessarily in the order presented. DS
and PS generate the Working Memory Index (WMI) which fell in the Low
Average range (WMI = 82, 12th percentile, CI = 76–91), but this Index was not
cohesive.
Therefore, Tucker was also administered the Letter-Number Sequencing
Subtest. On this task, he was read a series of numbers and letters and had to
reorganize this series saying the numbers first in numerical order and then the
letters in alphabetical order (e.g., 2-C-3 = 23C). Tucker expressed frustration on
this task, saying it was “too hard.” After a few items, he responded by simply
repeating the series. The DS and LNS Subtests form the Auditory Working
Memory Index (AWMI) on the WISC-V, and this index was cohesive and fell in
the Very Low range (AWMI = 70, 2nd percentile, CI = 65–79). [The AWMI is
used in the PSW-A analysis because it is cohesive, and although DSF>DSB and
DSS, the difference between these components was not statistically significant.]
Given Tucker’s differential performance within this domain, additional com-
posites were generated to investigate the difference between memory span and
working memory using the XBA approach. A Memory Span composite was cal-
culated from DSF (scaled score = 8) and Picture Span (scaled score = 9). This
composite score was 91 (Average). In addition, a Working Memory composite
(DSB, DSS, and LNS) was calculated and yielded a standard score of 66. Within
the broad ability of short-term memory, it is clear that Tucker’s weakness is in
working memory and that his memory span is intact.
The Arithmetic (A) Subtest was also administered and combines with FW to
generate the Quantitative Reasoning Index (QRI). Tucker’s performance on this
index was Extremely Low (QRI = 69, 2nd percentile, CI = 64–77). The A Subtest
requires working memory and arithmetic reasoning, processes that are very
difficult for Tucker. The QRI is not used for analysis in the XBA system, but does
further confirm Tucker’s difficulties in MW and Gf, and the scores in FRI and
QRI are consistent with his academic struggles in math.
Gs/Processing Speed
Gs is the ability to perform cognitive tasks fluently and automatically; it involves
the speed at which a student can perform a relatively easy or overlearned cogni-
tive task.
Gs/Processing Speed
Coding R9: Rate of Test-taking 5/75

Symbol Search P: Perceptual Speed 10/100
Processing Speed Index 86
Cancellation P: Perceptual Speed 12/70
Naming Speed Quantity N: Number Facility 78
XBA Narrow Composite: P SS & CA 106
XBA Gs Composite CD & NSQ 72
Tucker was administered several subtests to measure various aspects of pro-

cessing speed, and all of these subtests were timed. On the Coding (CD)
Subtest, Tucker had to copy symbols associated with numbers. On this sub-
test, he looked up at the key provided and then had a brief latency of about
1 second before copying the symbol. All of the symbols were correct, but his
response speed was slow and the association between symbol and number did
not become automatic as he progressed through the subtest. On Symbol
Search (SS), Tucker had to scan a search group of symbols and indicate whether
a target symbol was present. Tucker was much more successful on this task,
scoring in the average range. Although the Processing Speed Index (PSI) on
the WISC-V was 86 (18th percentile, CI = 79–97), this score does not repre-
sent a cohesive cluster, and additional subtests were administered. On the
Cancellation (CA) Subtest, Tucker scanned a page of various objects and had
to mark target objects. He commented that he liked this task. When CA and
SS were used to create the narrow ability composite of Perceptual Speed, the
standard score was 106. Thus, Tucker’s skills in visual scanning and visual
selective attention, especially for abstract geometric stimuli and pictured
objects was Average. On the Naming Speed Quantity (NSQ) Subtest, Tucker
had to name the quantity of squares inside a series of boxes as quickly as
possible. He scored in the Very Low range on this task and moved his fingers
in the air as he counted the squares inside the box. He did not have automatic-
ity in his ability to recognize immediately a single-digit number of squares.
When CD and NSQ were used to create the Processing Speed composite, the
standard score was 72. Thus, Tucker’s processing speed for numerical and
number-symbol associations is impaired. (The narrow and broad composites
are used in the PSW-A.)
Glr/Long-Term Storage and Retrieval

Glr reflects the ability to store information (e.g., concepts, ideas, items, names)
in long-term memory and to retrieve it fluently later through association. This
process relates to the efficiency of storage and retrieval.
Glr/Long-Term Storage and Retrieval
Subtest and Composite Narrow Ability Scaled/Standard Score
Naming Speed Literacy NA: Naming Facility 97

Immediate Symbol Translation MA: Associative Memory 89
XBA Glr Composite 92
Within the general cognitive factor of Long-Term Retrieval (Glr), Tucker’s

performance was Average. Glr measures two abilities: efficiency of learning and
retrieval of previously learned information. Efficiency was measured by the
Immediate Symbol Translation (IST) Subtest. Tucker learned words associated
with visual symbols and then had to recall the words when presented with the
symbols (i.e., had to read the phrase or sentence represented by the symbols in a
series). On the Naming Speed Literacy (NSL) Subtest, Tucker had to name alter-
nating letters and numbers as quickly as possible. Tucker performed adequately
on these tasks, and the XBA composite score yielded a Glr standard score of 92.
It is important to note the difference between NSL (97) and NSQ (78) as this
shows that naming facility is stronger for tasks that use stimuli associated with
literacy skills (e.g., reading and written expression) versus those associated with
math skills.
Ga/Auditory Processing
Ga is the ability to perceive, analyze, and synthesize patterns among auditory
stimuli, especially the processing of individual sounds (phonemes). The WISC-V
does not assess auditory processing; therefore, the phonological awareness sub-
tests of the CTOPP-2 were administered.
Ga/Auditory Processing
Subtest and Composite Narrow Ability Scaled/Standard Score
Blending Words PC: Phonetic Coding 10

Elision PC: Phonetic Coding 10
Phoneme Isolation PC: Phonetic Coding 9
Phonological Awareness Composite 97
Tucker’s performance on the cognitive factor of Auditory Processing (Ga),

specifically the narrow ability of Phonetic Coding, fell in the Average range.
Tucker synthesized sounds to form words (e.g., /t/ /oi/ = toy), removed phono-
logical segments from spoken words to form a new word (e.g., bold, now say it
without the /b/ sound = old), and isolated individual sounds within words (e.g.,
what is the third sound in maker = /k/). Tucker’s average skills in phonetic coding
are consistent with his reading skills.
Summary
Given Tucker’s performance across the various cognitive processing domains, his
verbal, language-related abilities, visual processing, auditory processing, and
long-term storage and retrieval skills fall within the Average range. He has pro-
cessing deficits in fluid reasoning, working memory, and processing speed.
Tucker’s difficulties in these areas serve to attenuate his FSIQ, and these are the
areas that contribute to his learning impairment in math. In the XBA system, the
attenuating effects of these deficits are eliminated to determine overall cognitive
functioning. When Tucker’s processing strengths/intact abilities are considered,
the overall aggregate of strengths yields a standard score of 98 indicating Average
cognitive ability.
Academic Achievement
Tucker’s performance on achievement subtests is presented next.
Teacher Interview
Tucker has two core teachers, one for Reading/Language Arts (Mrs. Dufrene) and
another for Math, Science, and Social Studies (Mrs. LeBlanc). Each teacher was
interviewed separately. They indicated that Tucker does put forth effort in his
classes and does not exhibit any behavior problems. Mrs. Dufrene stated that
Tucker is a great reader and engages in class discussions. He can become a bit
“overstimulated” (e.g., waves his arms, uses exaggerated voice inflection) when try-
ing to make a point, but has good vocabulary and good ideas. His writing is
“average,” but “it could be so much better since he has great thoughts and is very
verbal.” Mrs. Dufrene had no concerns about his academic skills in reading or
language arts, but she would like to see him “write more” and indicated that this
will be emphasized more next year as the students prepare for the fourth-grade
STAAR Writing assessment. Mrs. LeBlanc indicated that she had no concerns
about Tucker’s ability in Social Studies, but that he does have more difficulty in
Science, “especially if it involves calculating anything.” She believes he likes these
academic classes and added that Tucker is good at memorizing facts in Social Studies.
In Math, Tucker engages in much “avoidance behavior,” such as roaming
around the classroom to interact with friends, asking to get a drink of water,
drawing when he is supposed to be completing an assignment, and volunteering
to help the teacher with tasks. Mrs. LeBlanc indicated that his behavior is not
disruptive to the class, but does “take him away from his work.” During math
class, she has noticed that he twists his hands in his hair and chews on his hands
or bites his fingernails. She has brought this to his parents’ attention, and they
said it is an anxiety issue related to math. However, she noted that he does not
seem anxious during math class in that he will volunteer to go up to the board to
solve a problem. She is very concerned about his “basic math skills and ability
to fully understand math concepts.” Mrs. LeBlanc explained that Tucker came to
her class already behind in math and still uses his fingers to count simple prob-
lems. She has been at Gregory Elementary for several years and knows of his
educational difficulties in this subject matter. She described Tucker as having
trouble “not only with the basics, but also figuring things out.” For example, he
was given a simple word problem “which he can definitely read,” but he could
not figure out what operation to perform (“He was supposed to multiply”). She
did help him to understand that the three boys in the problem each had 16 dol-
lars and that he was supposed to tell her how much they had altogether, but
instead of multiplying (a lesson they had been over several times), he added 16
three times. While this was an appropriate problem-solving alternative, he calcu-
lated it incorrectly and gave the answer of 318. Mrs. LeBlanc stated that Tucker
“really does not understand regrouping and place value” and counts on his fingers
or draws tally marks or circles beside the numbers to count. She stated his math
skills are “definitely immature.” This year he has been receiving “extra math help
to help him pass the STAAR because he failed all benchmarks.” According to
Mrs. LeBlanc, Tucker did make some progress but did not pass the STAAR.
Grades
Tucker has passed all academic subjects, but clearly has a pattern of performing
poorly in math compared to the other subjects. At the end of first grade, he was
rated as Steadily Developing, which means he had not mastered all academic
skills by the end of the year. This year in third grade, he received an overall failing
grade in math.
Grades
Subject 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade
Reading AI* 94 96
Writing SD/AI 85 84
Mathematics SD 78 64
Science AI 92 91
Social Studies AI 91 91
* Reading level was at expectation (Level 18).

1st-Grade Ratings: AI: Applies Learning Independently SD: Steadily Developing.
STAAR
Tucker met the criterion performance in reading on the STAAR. He did not
meet the criterion in math and was well below expected levels (approximately
44% correct). An analysis of Tucker’s STAAR report indicated he had difficulty
on the following types of items: identification of number sentences to represent
a word problem, patterns where he had to figure out a missing number in a series,
multiplication, and estimation. He used a ruler for measurement and identi-
fied shapes.
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3)
Tucker was administered the KTEA-3 to measure his academic skills in reading,
math, and written language. The results obtained are presented below.
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3)
Percentile Confidence
Subtest/Composite Standard Score* Rank Interval** Range
Letter & Word Recognition 112

Reading Comprehension 99
Reading Composite 106 66 101–111 Average
Written Expression 94
Spelling 104
Percentile Confidence
Subtest/Composite Standard Score* Rank Interval** Range
Written Language Composite 98 45 92–104 Average

Math Concepts and
74
Applications
Math Computation 79
Math Composite 75 5 70–80
Math Fluency 81
*Mean = 100, Standard Deviation = 15

**95% level
Reading
The Reading composite is comprised of the Letter & Word Recognition (LWR)
and Reading Comprehension (RC) Subtests. The LWR Subtest presented regular
and irregular words, and Tucker had to read these words aloud. On the Reading
Comprehension Subtest, Tucker had to read passages and answer questions about
the passages. The passages included expository and narrative texts, and the ques-
tions are designed to measure literal and inferential comprehension. Tucker
scored in the Above Average range on the LWR Subtest and read words such as
reservation and pigeon. His comprehension was Average, and he answered literal
(What does a ___ eat?) and inferential questions (What mistake did ___ make?).
Consistent with teacher information, grades and criterion-referenced assessment,
Tucker’s overall reading skills are within age and grade expectations, and he has
no difficulties in this core academic area.
In order to measure reading fluency, three AIMSWeb third-grade reading pas-
sages were administered. Tucker read each passage aloud, and the correct words
per minute (cwpm) was recorded along with any errors made. The cwpm per
passage was 120, 132, and 128. These scores were compared to the criterion
performance range for ending third grade (25th percentile to 50th percentile
range for spring third grade is 98–127 cwpm). His accuracy was 100%, 97%,
and 98%, respectively. Tucker’s reading fluency is on grade level.
Writing
The Written Language composite is made up of the Spelling and Written
Expression Subtests. Tucker had to spell words from dictation and scored in the
Average range on this subtest. This subtest included words with predictable and
unpredictable letter patterns. On the Written Expression Subtest, Tucker was
presented with a booklet that related to a story and had to perform various writ-
ing tasks within this context. These tasks included writing sentences, editing
sentences by adding capitalization and punctuation, combining single sentences

to form more complex sentences, and writing a brief essay. Tucker demonstrated
skills such as writing a complex sentence, using correct subject-verb agreement,
applying correct spelling and punctuation, and using appropriate grammar and
syntax. His performance in this academic area is consistent with teacher report.
Math
The Math Concepts and Applications Subtest focuses on reasoning and the
application of mathematical principles to real-life situations. Tucker was read
word problems which were accompanied by a visual stimulus, and he had to
respond orally to the items. He read a simple graph depicting concepts of most
and least, told time, identified operational symbols, and used a calendar. He
experienced difficulty solving problems with missing data that required him to
understand patterns (e.g., given a number line with certain dots representing
numbers such as 40 45 . . . 65 70 . . . , Tucker had to answers questions such as
which dot represents 50 and what number should go on the final dot?). In gen-
eral, he had difficulty solving for missing information where he had to apply an
operation (e.g., there are 5 pigs, some pigs come to join them and now there are
12, how many pigs joined them?).
The Math Computation Subtest included a worksheet with various types of
math problems on it, and Tucker had to calculate the items and write the answers
to the problems. An analysis of his performance indicates that he solved simple
addition and subtraction items, but made errors in regrouping (e.g., 57 + 36 =
813) and did not correctly solve multiplication items (e.g., 7 × 3 = 24). Tucker
did make some comments while completing the sheet saying that he “really” did
not know how to do these problems and that he gets “help from my teacher”
when doing math.
On the Math Fluency Subtest, Tucker had to write answers to as many addi-
tion, subtraction, multiplication, and division problems as possible in a 1-minute
time period. The first four rows contain only addition and subtraction problems,
and the problems in the first two rows are all single digits with no sums greater
than 10. Tucker completed only items in the first two rows within the designated
time limit. All answers were correct, but he worked slowly and finger counted
through much of the test.
Tucker does not have automaticity of math facts, which is consistent with his
teacher’s description of his skills in this area. He does understand and solve basic
addition and subtraction problems as evidenced on the Computation and
Fluency Subtests, but uses a very immature approach. His skills in computation
are approximately at beginning second grade level.
Classroom Observations
Tucker was observed in his math class for approximately 45 minutes. There was
one teacher in the room and 19 students. Tucker came into math class and sat at
the front and center of the room. The teacher started class by giving the students
a bar graph warm-up activity to work on independently. Tucker began working
quietly while twisting his hair with one hand. He then raised his hand to ask the
teacher whether he could do the problem on the board. She told him that he
could do part of it, and he said he wanted to do the Saturday portion of the bar
graph. Tucker continued working for about 30 seconds and then raised his hand
again to ask whether he could get a drink of water. The teacher told him to take
the pass. When Tucker returned to his seat, he began twisting his hair again and
started biting his fingernails. When it was time to fill in the Saturday portion of
the bar graph, Tucker went to the board, fidgeted with a marker and said, “This
Smart Board is making me mad!” When he finished filling in the correct number
of squares, he began drawing buck teeth and a moustache on a snowman. The
teacher told him to stop; he complied and returned to his seat. The teacher then
asked Tucker if he would pick up the worksheets and he did so with no disrup-
tions. Tucker returned to his seat, and the students then were placed in pairs to
complete a worksheet on estimation. Tucker read the problem aloud and his
partner answered the items, explaining why the answer was correct. [Mrs. LeBlanc
explained later that she pairs Tucker with this student often because the student
excels in math and hopes that Tucker can learn from this peer.] Tucker and his
partner finished their worksheet first and while they were waiting for the other
groups to finish, they began sharpening pencils.
Tucker was also observed in his reading/language arts class for approximately
45 minutes. There was one teacher in the room and 16 students. Tucker entered
the classroom and sat in the back row. The students took out the reading book,
and the teacher reviewed the previous short story they had read over the past two
days. She focused on the setting, plot, characteristics of the characters, the problem
in the story, and how the problem was resolved. She did this by asking questions
to the group, and Tucker raised his hand and answered the questions correctly.
Mrs. Dufrene then handed out a worksheet with questions on it, and the students
had to complete it for a grade. Tucker began working immediately and remained
on task. Tucker was not the first to finish, but did finish when most students did.
A review of the worksheet after the observation indicated that he had answered the
questions correctly and also drew illustrations near some of the answers.
These observations indicate that Tucker is engaged in classroom activities,
compliant, and completes his work. No disruptive behaviors were evidenced. In
math, he was more avoidant and displayed fidgeting, twisting his hair, and biting
his fingernails.
Parent and Teacher Rating Scales
Ratings of Tucker’s behavior were provided by his mother and teachers and are
presented next.
Behavior Assessment System for Children–Second Edition: Parent and
Teacher Rating Scales
The Behavior Assessment System for Children–Second Edition (BASC-2) measures
clinical and adaptive characteristics in the home and school setting. The BASC-2
was completed by Mrs. Gates, and Tucker’s two core teachers. The scores are
reported below.
Behavior Assessment System for Children–Second Edition (BASC-2)
Mother (Standard Math Teacher Reading/LA Teacher

Scale/Composite t-Score) (Standard t-Score) (Standard t-Score)
Hyperactivity 52 46 44
Aggression 53 46 43
Conduct Problems 43 45 42
Externalizing Problems
49 45 43
Composite
Anxiety 60* 62* 48
Depression 47 48 42
Somatization 36 43 43
Internalizing Problems
47 51 43
Composite
Attention Problems 53 57 57
Learning Problems — 65* 56
School Problems
— 62* 57
Composite
Atypicality 44 53 50
Withdrawal 49 55 47
Behavioral Symptoms
50 51 46
Index
Adaptability 35* 52 64
Social Skills 37* 54 67
Leadership 46 44 61
Study Skills — 49 57
Activities of Daily Living 42 — —
Mother (Standard Math Teacher Reading/LA Teacher

Scale/Composite t-Score) (Standard t-Score) (Standard t-Score)
Functional 47 49 62
Communication
Adaptive Skills 40* 50 64
Composite
Mean = 50, Standard Deviation = 10; Clinical Scales: 60–69 = * At-Risk; 70+ = ** Clinically
Significant; Adaptive Scales: 31–40 = * At Risk; ≤ 30 = ** Clinically Significant
As noted in the table above, scores on the clinical scales are elevated if they are
≥ 60T and reach a level of clinical significance at ≥ 70T (such scores represent the
presence of problematic behaviors because they occur more frequently than in
typical samples). On the adaptive scales, scores are significant if they are ≤ 40T
and reach clinical significance at ≤ 30T (such scores represent the presence of
problems/difficulties because the behaviors do not occur as frequently as expected
based on comparisons to typical samples).
The Externalizing Problems composite includes the Hyperactivity, Aggression,
and Conduct Problems scales. These scales measure acting out, disruptive behav-
iors, and self-control. Tucker does not have any significant difficulties with
Externalizing Problems. His mother and teachers indicated that he follows rules,
interacts appropriately with peers and adults, and is respectful.
The Internalizing Problems composite is comprised of the Anxiety, Depression,
and Somatization scales and corresponds with behaviors indicating internal dis-
tress. Mrs. Gates and the math teacher reported some symptoms of anxiety (e.g.,
worries, is nervous). This does not rise to a clinically significant level, but Tucker
does exhibit behaviors associated with anxiety. As noted in the parent interview,
he did have a diagnosis of anxiety disorder in first grade, and as observed in the
classroom, he does engage in hair twisting and fingernail biting in math.
The School Problems composite is made up of the Attention Problems and
Learning Problems scales. This composite measures levels of motivation, atten-
tion, and learning. There were no significant ratings in Attention Problems. Mrs.
Gates and Mrs. Dufrene did not indicate any difficulties with Learning Problems.
Mrs. LeBlanc did indicate difficulties with learning, and an item analysis reveals
that Tucker has difficulty with math and keeping up with the pace of instruction
in her class.
There are no significant elevations on the Atypicality and Withdrawal scales.
In general, Tucker exhibits no significant emotional or behavioral difficulties,
and this is consistent with parent and teacher interview data.
The Adaptive Skills composite is made up of Adaptability, Social Skills,

Leadership, Activities of Daily Living, Study Skills, and Functional Communication.
These scales measure communication ability, organization, social skills, and overall
daily living skills. Tucker’s teachers did not indicate any significant impairment in
Adaptive Skills. His mother noted that he is stubborn (Adaptability) and only
sometimes offers to help/congratulate/compliment others (Social Skills).
Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function
The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) was completed
by Mrs. Gates and Tucker’s math teacher. Executive functions are a collection of
processes that are responsible for guiding, directing, and managing cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral functions, particularly during active, novel problem
solving. The results obtained from Tucker’s mother and math teacher are pre-
sented below.
Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF): Parent and

Teacher Form
Scale/Index/Composite Standard t-Score* Scale/Index Standard t-Score*
P T P T
Inhibit 42 55 Initiate 44 63
Shift 57 85 Working Memory 63 71
Emotional Control 58 60 Plan/Organize 61 66
Behavioral Regulation 52 68 Organization of Materials 64 64
Index
Monitor 53 78
Metacognition Index 59 71
Global Executive Composite = 57 Global Executive Composite = 69
(Parent) (Teacher)
P = parent; T = teacher; Mean = 50, Standard Deviation = 10;

Clinical Scales: ≥ 65 = clinically significant
Tucker’s mother did not rate him in the significant range on any of the scales.
His difficulties in executive functions are most evident in the school setting.
The Behavior Regulation Index measures the ability to shift cognitive set and
modulate emotions and behavior via appropriate inhibitory control. Within the
Behavior Regulation Index, Tucker’s most prominent area of difficulty within the
school setting was Shift. He has difficulty in adjusting to changes in task demands.
Difficulty in shifting serves to interfere with the ability to problem-solve effec-
tively, and in the interview with Mrs. LeBlanc she explained that Tucker does not
change his approach when doing problems in math. He tends to apply the same
methods, which are not efficient or effective, and she cannot get him “to switch
and see that it could be done a different way.”
The Metacognition Index reflects the ability to initiate, plan, organize, self-
monitor, and sustain working memory. Within this Index, Tucker’s most promi-
nent area of difficulty was Monitor. The Monitor scale assessed two types of
behaviors: task-oriented monitoring/work-checking habits and self-monitoring/
interpersonal awareness. An analysis of the ratings indicated that Tucker’s diffi-
culty is in task-oriented monitoring; he tends to be less aware of mistakes as he
performs a task and does not self-correct. Mrs. LeBlanc explained that when
Tucker turns in a worksheet, she looks it over and then has him return to his
desk to check the problems she has noted for his review; however, when he
returns the sheet to her he “did not fix the answers, or if he changed the answer
it is still wrong about half the time.” Tucker is slow in his work habits so she is
sure he is not “just rushing through,” but he does need “my help every step.”
Tucker also exhibits significant difficulty in working memory (e.g., working on
multistep tasks), which is consistent with the data generated from the WISC-V.
In the classroom, he forgets the steps to a problem and needs reminders from
the teacher.
Self-Report
Tucker’s self-report of personality is discussed next.

Behavior Assessment System for Children–Second Edition (BASC-2):
Self Report of Personality (SRP)
Tucker completed the BASC-2 SRP, which is a broad-band instrument that
involves self-perception across several domains. The results are presented below.
Behavior Assessment System for Children–Second Edition: Self-Report of

Personality (BASC-2: SRP)
Standard Standard
Scale/Index T-Score Scale T-Score
Attitude to School 47 Attention Problems 46

Attitude to Teachers 40 Hyperactivity 49
School Problems 43 Inattention/Hyperactivity 47
Atypicality 38 Relations with Parents 62
Locus of Control 37 Interpersonal Relations 59
Social Stress 39 Self-Esteem 58
(continued )
(Continued)
Standard Standard
Scale/Index T-Score Scale T-Score
Anxiety 36 Self-Reliance 67
Depression 40 Personal Adjustment 65
Sense of Inadequacy 41
Internalizing Problems 36 Emotional Symptoms Index 35
M = 50, SD = 10; Clinical Scales: 60–69 = *At Risk; ≥70 = **Clinically Significant;
Personal Adjustment Scale: 31–40 = *At Risk; ≤30 = **Clinically Significant
The School Problems composite includes the Attitude to School and Attitude
to Teachers scales. This composite reflects the degree of satisfaction the student
has with school and school personnel and the student’s general adaptation to the
school setting. Tucker rated himself in the Average range. He reported that his
teachers understand him and are proud of him.
The Internalizing Problems composite includes several scales (Atypicality, Locus
of Control, Social Stress, Anxiety, Depression, Sense of Inadequacy, and Somatization)
that correspond to behaviors indicating inward directed distress. Tucker rated him-
self in the Average range on all scales. He reported that when he tries hard things go
well, he is not lonely, he does not feel out of place around people, and he does not
fail at things. When completing the BASC-2 he made comments and after endors-
ing he does not fail, he said “except in math, but I’m not good at that subject.”
The Inattention/Hyperactivity composite includes Attention Problems and
Hyperactivity scales. This composite measures behaviors that are associated with
the ability to maintain focused attention and inhibit behavior. On this composite
and both scales, Tucker rated himself in the average range. He reported that he
often has trouble paying attention to the teacher, but again commented that this
is “mostly in math”; he does not think that he has a short attention span. He
reported that he does not interrupt others and people never tell him to be still.
The Personal Adjustment composite includes the Relations with Parents,
Interpersonal Relations, Self-Esteem, and Self-Reliance scales. This composite
reflects the presence of positive interpersonal relationships, self-acceptance, and
effective coping strategies. Tucker’s scores on this composite and all scales within
it fall in the Average range. Tucker reported that he likes going places with his
parents, is well liked by his peers, thinks he is a good person, and considers him-
self to be good at making decisions.
The Emotional Symptoms Index is a global indicator of serious emotional
distress. It is composed of four scales from the Internalizing Problems composite
(Social Stress, Anxiety, Depression, Sense of Inadequacy) and two scales from the
Personal Adjustment composite (Self-Esteem and Self-Reliance). Tucker’s score
on this index fell in the Average range.
Tucker did not endorse any clinically significant problems in any area, which
is consistent with parent and teacher reports.
Student Interview
Throughout the evaluation process, Tucker was asked questions about his feel-
ings and interests. Tucker told the examiners he is in third grade and has two
“main” teachers. His favorite teacher is Mrs. Dufrene, the reading teacher. When
asked about his favorite subject, he responded reading. Tucker’s least favorite
subject is math. He does not dislike Mrs. LeBlanc and stated that she “helps me,
but sometimes I don’t get it.” He is not involved in any activities at school but
stated he has a lot of friends. When asked about his home and who lives with
him, Tucker stated that he lives with his mom, dad, and younger brother. He gets
along well with his parents and does not like when they ground him. Tucker gets
along well with his brother and reported that he enjoys playing sports with him.
When asked what makes him happiest, Tucker stated he is happy when there is
no school. School and homework make him feel sad. When asked what he wants
to be when he grows up, he first stated he did not know, but then added that his
parents tell him he could be a lawyer. He said he would “think about that” but
might want to be an “actor in movies.”
Conclusions
Tucker has average skills in many areas, including various cognitive processes,
behavioral characteristics, social interactions with peers and adults, and academic
ability in reading and writing. He does exhibit some characteristics of anxiety, but
not to the degree that is clinically significant, and the anxiety at this time seems
more related to math. He exhibits several cognitive processing deficits, including
deficits in executive functioning related to shifting cognitive set, working mem-
ory, and self-monitoring. He has weaknesses in math calculation and math prob-
lem solving.
In order to determine whether Tucker meets the criteria for a Specific
Learning Disability (LD), the Dual Discrepancy/Consistency (DD/C) Model of
LD was applied to his data. The DD/C Model is a scientific, research-based
approach to the determination of LD based on a pattern of strengths and weak-
nesses (PSW) approach. The following six markers for the presence of an LD
were applied.
1. Presence of a normative academic deficit: Tucker has academic deficits in

math calculation and math problem solving. This is supported by
various converging data sources. Teacher reports and classroom grades
indicate that Tucker does not perform adequately in the academic area
of math. He has had supplemental intervention to address his difficul-
ties, but he continues to show slow and inconsistent progress. Tucker
has not been able to pass benchmark assessments in math, and he did
not pass the STAAR. Thus, he has not made progress commensurate
with age and grade-level expectations despite adequate instruction and
supplemental intervention. His math skills in computation and
problem solving are at a beginning second grade level, and Tucker has
just recently completed third grade. Norm-referenced data indicate a
standard score of 79 in math calculation and 74 in math prob-
lem solving.
2. Presence of a cognitive processing deficit: Tucker has three cognitive
processing deficits: working memory, processing speed, and fluid
reasoning. These deficits are combined to create the Inhibitory
Cognitive Composite (ICC), which yields a standard score of 64 and is
an aggregate of the cognitive weaknesses in the profile. All of these
deficit areas are related to deficits in math; thus, the ICC is a good
representation of the underlying causes of Tucker’s LD in math.
Although the ICC relates to calculation and problem solving, fluid
reasoning (Gf ) is more directly related to math problem solving and
that score (standard score = 74) is used for the analysis in math
problem solving.
3. An empirical relationship between the academic and processing deficits:
Tucker’s weakness in fluid reasoning is directly related to his inability
to understand patterns and number sentences and equations. He is not
likely to discern rules that govern quantitative and numerical relation-
ships. He has not internalized procedures and processes to apply in
problem solving and does not reason well with quantitative informa-
tion. In addition, his difficulties in executive functioning also contrib-
ute to the recall of sequences of operations, the ability to prioritize
what is important in a word problem, and shift easily between opera-
tions. He also does not self-monitor in an effective manner. The
working memory deficit affects his ability to retain information in a
short-term memory process and actively manipulate or transform that
information. Thus, he has difficulty with multistep problem solving,
remembering procedures, and memorizing math facts, and this leads to

difficulties in procedural competence regarding math calculation.
Tucker’s deficit in processing speed is specifically related to fluency
with numerical stimuli. He has not achieved automaticity with facts or
the ability to quickly and efficiently perceive quantity in small sets. All
of these factors contribute to his math weakness and make the weak-
ness more pervasive across calculation and reasoning.
4. Overall cognitive functioning within normal limits: Crystallized
Knowledge, Visual Processing, Long-Term Storage and Retrieval, and
Phonological Awareness skills fall within the average range and are
intact abilities that assist Tucker in learning. These skills are related to
his average academic achievement in reading and writing. These
processing abilities are used to generate the Facilitating Cognitive
Composite (FCC; an aggregate calculated based on intact abilities).
The FCC is an indicator of general ability without the attenuation of
cognitive deficits. For Tucker, the FCC is 98; thus his overall cognitive
functioning is Average.
5. A domain-specific cognitive deficit: Based on Tucker’s overall level of
cognitive functioning, the combined processing deficits (working
memory, processing speed, fluid reasoning) are significantly below
what would be predicted (ICC), and so is the Gf score. Thus, these
represent domain-specific cognitive deficits.
6. An unexpected academic deficit: The deficits in calculation and problem
solving are significantly below what would be expected based on
Tucker’s overall level of cognitive functioning.
The PSW-A illustrating the DD/C Model for calculation and problem solving
are presented in the Figure that follows.
Given the data presented, Tucker meets the criteria for the educational disabil-
ity condition of LD in Math Calculation and Math Problem Solving.
Recommendations
The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk Mathematics Institute for
Learning Disabilities and Difficulties has numerous resources to address the
development of competencies in math for calculation and problem solving. This
center is at the University of Texas-Austin, and Tucker’s school team is encour-
aged to consult with the center and to access materials for instruction that are
provided by the center.
74
Tucker’s PSW-A Illustrating the DD/C Model for Calculation and Problem Solving
(continued )
75
Tucker has cognitive deficits in fluid reasoning, working memory, executive

functioning, and processing speed that directly affect his math calculation and
math problem-solving skills. The effects of these deficits, although most promi-
nent in causing a math disability, will not only be manifested in math but in
other subject matter areas as Tucker progresses through school. Therefore, the
following recommendations are presented to address these difficulties:
1. Tucker will benefit from the use of demonstrations and modeling to
show the reasoning process (e.g., verbalize steps, use guided practice by
asking questions to promote the internalization of a procedure
or process).
2. The use of diagrams that depict steps in problem solving (e.g., proce-
dure chart, problem-solving chart) as well as graphic organizers should
facilitate understanding of logical relationships.
3. Tucker will benefit from pictorial representations, procedural guides,
flash cards, and other such materials appropriate to the subject matter.
4. Tucker will continue to need concrete materials and manipulatives as
he learns to internalize mathematical principles.
5. Repetition of information and visual supports to supplement oral
instruction will assist in accommodating for deficits in work-
ing memory.
6. Tucker may need extra time as an accommodation to complete math
assignments, but repeated practice and timed drills should be a part of
his daily instruction in order to build fluency.
7. In general, Tucker will benefit from math tutoring because he is not
likely to be able to keep up with the pace of instruction in the general
classroom without supports. This tutoring should focus on instruc-
tional remediation of skills in addition to assisting him in accessing the
general fourth-grade curriculum.
8. Self-monitoring of math skills will be an important component of
Tucker’s educational program. He can chart his progress on the
computer/iPad to show numbers of problems solved correctly for
computation and word problems.
9. In order to facilitate multistep problem solving, the use of mnemonics
for steps would be helpful.
10. Tucker would benefit from using a calculator to check his work. This can
be built into a monitoring system in that after finishing a certain number
of problems, he does the problems on a calculator to check his work. This
allows for repeated practice in addition to facilitating self-monitoring.
Math Calculation
Tucker needs to become fluent with math facts. Specific programs and interven-
tions that address this should focus on accuracy, reinforcing accuracy, and imme-
diate and corrective feedback.
The following is a brief list of resources that the teachers may wish to review
for types of interventions that include materials and lessons that would be appli-
cable for Tucker.
a. http://www.heinemann.com: Mastering the basic math facts in
addition and subtraction: strategies, activities, and interventions to
move students beyond memorization
b. http://interventioncentral.org: Math-Fact Self-Administered
Folding-In Intervention (Math-Fact SAFI)
c. http://Adapted Mind.com: Math worksheets and lessons
d. http://ebi.missouri.edu has a list of Evidence-Based
Interventions in Math
Computer-based intervention programs that may be helpful include:
a. FASTT Math: A research-based fluency program
b. Arcademics: Games to build skills in math
Two specific strategies that can be implemented with Tucker at home and
school involve:
a. Taped problems: Self-monitored, audio-recording procedure in which
students follow along with automated recordings of math facts and
their solutions.
b. Cover, copy, and compare: The student is given a sheet of paper with
math problems on the right side of the paper and the correct answer
on the left. He is instructed to cover the correct answer on the left side
of the page with an index card and to copy the problem and compute
the correct answer in the middle of the sheet. The student then
uncovers the correct answer on the left and checks his own work.
Math Problem Solving
The following is a brief list of resources that the teachers may wish to review for
types of interventions that include materials/lessons that would be applicable
for Tucker.
a. http://www.Curriculum Associates.com: Step-by-Step Math: Strategies
for Solving Word Problems
b. http://Interventioncentral.org: Math Problem-Solving strategies and

activities
c. floridarti.usf.edu: Classroom Cognitive and Meta-Cognitive Strategies
for Teachers; Research-Based Strategies for Problem-Solving in
Mathematics K-12 (Florida Department of Education, Bureau of
Exceptional Education and Student Services)
Computer-based intervention programs:
a. Mathplayground.com
b. Mathstories.com
Specific strategies that can be implemented at home and school include:
a. Solution strategy: Begin with worked examples that illustrate the
solution rules, then move to a partially worked problem with one step
missing. Tucker has to fill in the step, then move toward completing
more and more of the solutions to sample problems.
b. Have Tucker highlight key terms in the word problem and use guided
practice to teach the common four-step problem-solving strategy:
Comprehension of the Problem (e.g., what is known-unknown, restate
the problem, are all words understood); Making a Plan (e.g., draw a
picture or diagram, make a list, look for a pattern, what operations
need to be applied); Carrying Out the Plan (e.g., compute); and
Reviewing/Looking Back (e.g., check your work, does the answer seem
reasonable).
Evaluator: Gail Cheramie, Ph.D.
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL REPORT
Identifying Information
Name: Parker W.
Date of Birth: 07/12/2006
Sex: Male
School: Carlina Elementary
Teacher: Ms. Cassa
Age: 9 years 11 months
Grade: 4
Parents: Mr. and Mrs. Brian W.
Evaluator: Jamie Chaffin, Ph.D.
Dates of Testing: 05/25/2015, 05/28/2015, 06/01/2015
Date of Report: 06/10/2015
Reason for Referral
Parker was referred for a psychoeducational evaluation by his teacher, Ms. Cassa,
because of continued concerns regarding his academic progress in math calcula-
tion and math reasoning skills. Ms. Cassa reported that Parker explains grade-
level multistep math problem-solving strategies when prompted to do so, but
does not derive the correct answers on his mathematics assignments, even when
given extra help and appropriate in-class accommodations. The building Student
Study Team (SST) would like to determine whether there is a pattern of strengths
and weaknesses that is impeding Parker’s progress in math.
Parker resides with his biological parents and two younger sisters. His grandfa-
ther and grandmother live in the area, as do several other family members whom
he sees often. Mrs. W. reported that there is no family history of learning prob-
lems; Parker’s parents have graduate degrees and are strong supporters of his aca-
demic progress at home. Mrs. W. stated that there is a designated area where
Parker completes his homework upon returning home from school each day and
that he is supervised and assisted as needed. She reported that he often redoes his
math homework several times with help to achieve the correct answers, although
his process appears correct most of the time. There is no history of behavioral
concerns of which Mrs. W is aware. Neither of Parker’s sisters has experienced
any academic struggles to date. Parker participates in group activities outside of
school including baseball and karate. Mr. W. stated that Parker is tall for his age
and described him as a “budding athlete.”
Parker was the product of a normal, healthy pregnancy and was born two days
before his due date without complications. He had jaundice as a baby. Parker
experienced several ear infections as an infant and had ear tubes placed at age 2.
His ear tubes have been replaced once in each ear, but he has not experienced any
hearing loss and has not had hearing difficulties to date. Current vision and hear-
ing screenings from the school nurse and his ear specialist indicate Parker’s vision
and hearing are within normal limits. No other medical concerns were reported
or indicated at this time.
Parker attended a private Christian preschool prior to enrolling in kindergar-
ten at Carlina Elementary, where he has been since that time. He is an advanced
reader and enjoys reading for fun. Parker has never had an office or discipline
referral; there are no behavioral concerns. Attendance records show two absences
this school year because of illness; there is no history of significant absences since
kindergarten. Ms. Cassa describes Parker’s social growth as typical for his age
and grade. He has a group of friends he plays with at lunch and recess time, and
other than normal student-to-student conflicts, he has not experienced any con-
cerns socially. Emotionally, he is sensitive and can be hard on himself when he
doesn’t perform as he expects he should, especially in the area of math. With
reading and writing skills that are advanced, math has become a source of frus-
tration for him.
Previous Evaluation(s) and Pre-Referral Data
According to the evaluation team, Parker has never been formally evaluated by an
outside agency or a school-based team. Prior to this referral, Parker’s achievement
was initially discussed by the building SST on February 15, 2015. Parker’s score
on the building-wide fall universal math screener was three points away from the
at-risk range. His winter universal math screener score fell below the 10th percen-
tile, bringing him to the attention of the SST. Review of Parker’s current univer-
sal screener scores in reading and written expression indicates he is in the advanced
range. There were no concerns indicated around his attentional abilities or ability
to initiate and remain on task. Parker is a motivated student who works hard on
his assignments.
In the fall, Parker’s performance on the Aimsweb Math Concepts and
Applications (M-CAP) and Math Computation (MCOMP) universal screeners
was at the 15th percentile for his grade level. He was provided with differentiated
instruction in the classroom and worked with a math tutor. In the winter, Parker’s
M-CAP score was below the 10th percentile for fourth grade, and his grade-level
data team decided to provide him with supplemental intervention to develop
math problem-solving and computation skills. For math problem solving, the
team set a goal of 11 correct problems on M-CAP by May 11, 2015, based on
1.5 × the 50th percentile Rate of Improvement (ROI) for students in the
AIMS Web Growth Norms Table whose scores were below the 10th percentile
level. For math computation, the team set a goal of 21 correct digits on MCOMP
by May 11, 2015, based on 1.5 × the 50th percentile ROI for students whose
scores were below the 10th percentile level. Parker participated in supplemental
small group instruction four times per week for 30 minutes for five weeks.
Because he demonstrated scores below his goal line for more than 4 weeks, the
data team decided to intensify his intervention. Parker participated in smaller
group instruction for longer sessions, 45 minutes per week for 10 weeks. Though
other students in the Tier II and Tier III groups demonstrated significant pro-
gress, Parker’s scores remained significantly below his goal lines (see the two
Figures that follow). The team decided that Parker should be referred for evalu-
ation to consider the possible underlying factors that might contribute to his
difficulties with math.
Parker’s Math Concepts and Applications

Parker’s Math Computation
Evaluation Procedures and Tests Administered
Review of educational records

Test session and classroom observations
Parent interview
Teacher interview
Student interview
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition (WISC-V)
Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language (WJ IV OL), selected subtest
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3), Form B
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition (WIAT-III), selected subtest
Age-based norms were used within the context of a theory-based, cross-bat-
tery assessment (XBA) method for the purpose of this evaluation. Employing
this method provides practitioners with the means to make systematic, reliable,
and theory-based interpretations of any ability battery and to augment that bat-
tery with cognitive, achievement, and neuropsychological subtests from other
batteries to gain a more psychometrically defensible and complete understanding
of an individual’s pattern of strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, the XBA
Software System (X-BASS) was utilized to assist in interpreting and analyzing
Parker’s results.
The following table indicates the standard score ranges and classifications of
ability used throughout this report. Because there is error in any measurement,
standard scores are typically reported with confidence intervals of several points.
The 90% standard score confidence interval was used.
Standard Score Ranges and Classifications of Ability
Standard Score Range Percentile Rank Range Classification
130 and above 98 to 99.99 Extremely High

120 to 129 91 to 97 Very High
110 to 119 75 to 90 High Average
90 to 109 25 to 73 Average
80 to 89 9 to 23 Low Average
70 to 79 2 to 8 Very Low
69 and below .01 to 2 Extremely Low
Test Session Observations
Parker appeared as a tall, quiet student upon entering the evaluator’s office to
complete the necessary tests. He was attentive, introduced himself when
prompted, and appeared interested in the test materials. Parker became more
comfortable and easily engaged in conversation as rapport was developed. His
expressive communication skills were sufficient for his age and he did not hesi-
tate to ask questions. He smiled often and laughed easily. Parker’s activity level
was typical for a student his age and he attended to tasks when prompted as was
expected of him. Parker took his time with questions that required more effort
and asked whether he was being timed when he was unsure. When he was
uncertain of an answer, he asked whether the evaluator could share the answer
with him but did not appear upset or set back when he encountered difficult
problems. Frustration was evident with math-based questions. Parker sustained
motivation throughout the testing activities across multiple days. He stated
that he wanted the testing to be over, but that he enjoyed working with the
evaluator.
The evaluation team evaluated Parker on three different days over a 1-week
period. Observations were completed beforehand to reduce observer effects.
Testing was completed in a quiet environment without distractions. With
adequate student effort and standardization procedures followed, results of
these tests are considered reliable and valid estimates of Parker’s current
functioning.
Classroom Observations
Parker was observed in his general education classroom on two days, May 19,
2015, and May 22, 2015.
Observation 1 (May 19, 2015) 9:05–9:40 a.m. (35 minutes)

During this observation, Ms. Cassa, an instructional aide, and 24 students,
including Parker, were in the classroom. The class was engaged in a vocabulary
activity. The teacher wrote each word on a paper that was projected onto the
whiteboard in front of the classroom. Parker sat in a seat at the front of the class-
room, closest in proximity to the teacher’s desk. Parker was actively engaged and
wrote down each word and its related definition. The teacher asked for examples
or definitions for each word. Parker did not raise his hand, though he listened
and remained on task. Parker had some pens and highlighters in the front area of
his desk that he played with while he listened to the teacher explain each defini-
tion, but he was not disruptive and he was attentive to task during writing time.
When one student was prompted to read a passage, Parker rose and went to the
water fountain on the other side of the room. He got a drink and returned to his
chair. He followed along while another student read the next passage. The teacher
then played an audio of the passage for the student. When the audio turned on,
there was a musical section of tape. Some of the students, including Parker, began
to dance in their chairs. When the text began to be read, Parker followed along in
his text. He continued to play with the pens until a verbal prompt from the
teacher instructed students to read along with their fingers. Parker immediately
complied. Overall, no disruptive behavior was observed and no individual atten-
tion from the teacher or aide was required. Parker was actively engaged and par-
ticipated in learning activities for the entire 35-minute observation period.
Observation 2 (May 22, 2015) 2:15–2:45 p.m. (30 minutes)

During this observation, the teacher, instructional aide, and 23 students were pre-
sent. This observation took place during math instructional time. Students moved
their desks into pods of four and faced the board. The class began with instruction,
moved to guided practice in groups, and then were given an independent assign-
ment. While the teacher was providing instruction on fraction equivalence and the
addition of fractions with like denominators, she utilized a document camera and
manipulatives that each group also had in front of them. Each group was then
instructed to work a specific set of problems and to share with the class how they
reached their answers. Parker participated with his group; though he was not one
of the students who handled the manipulatives, he did document the group’s
answers on the assigned sheet. His team checked his work and made corrections to
one problem. He was not selected to report to the class how his group reached
their answers. Students moved their desks back to the normal classroom arrange-
ment and were given their independent practice sheets. Parker worked diligently
on his paper and was assisted by the aide on her rounds. She helped him correct
several problems by asking him to work his thought process out loud. This
appeared to help him self-correct. He then requested assistance from his teacher,
who helped him use manipulatives to determine the correct calculations.
Evaluation Results
Results from this evaluation were interpreted and integrated utilizing an XBA
approach founded in the Cattel-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theoretical and research-
based methodology. Data are integrated across and within tests. Standardization
procedures were followed for all test administration.
Cognitive Performance
In order to measure Parker’s cognitive functioning, the WISC-V was used as the
core cognitive battery and supplemented with selected subtests from the WJ IV
OL and KTEA-3. Collectively, these three batteries allowed for a comprehensive
XBA of seven CHC cognitive ability domains: Crystallized Intelligence (Gc),
Fluid Reasoning (Gf ), Visual Processing (Gv), Short-Term Memory (Gsm),
Processing Speed (Gs), Long-Term Storage and Retrieval (Glr), and Auditory
Processing (Ga).
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition (WISC-V) is an indi-
vidually administered test designed to measure the cognitive abilities and pro-
cesses of individuals ages 6 through 16 years 11 months. The complete
administration of the WISC-V is made up of 10 primary subtests and 11 second-
ary and complementary Subtests. Most subtests yield a scaled score with a mean
of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. Some subtests, the Full Scale Intelligence
Quotient (FSIQ), and all Indexes yield a standard score with a mean of 100 and
a standard deviation of 15. The confidence interval for this individual testing was
90%. The WISC-V groups the 10 primary Subtests into five Indexes: Verbal
Comprehension Index (VCI), which measures the individual’s ability to access
and apply word knowledge; Visual Spatial Index (VSI), which measures the indi-
vidual’s ability to evaluate visual details and to understand visual spatial relation-
ships; the Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI), which measures the individual’s ability
to detect the underlying conceptual relationship among visual objects and to use
reasoning to identify and apply rules; the Working Memory Index (WMI), which
measures the individual’s ability to register, maintain, and manipulate visual and
auditory information in conscious awareness; and the Processing Speed Index
(PSI), which measures the individual’s speed and accuracy of visual identifica-
tion, simple decision making, and decision implementation. These indexes pro-
vide estimates of the CHC domains of Gc, Gv, Gf, Gsm, and Gs, respectively.
The FSIQ is an aggregate of 7 of the 10 primary subtest scaled scores from the
five primary indexes. The FSIQ is usually considered the score that is most rep-
resentative of general intellectual functioning.
Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language

The Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language (WJ IV OL) is an individually
administered battery of tests for measuring oral language abilities and related
aspects of cognitive functioning of individuals ages 2 through 80+ years. The WJ
IV OL provides standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of
15. A select subtest from this battery, Sound Awareness, was chosen to evaluate
Parker’s auditory processing (Ga).
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition

The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3) is an
individually administered measure of academic achievement for grades pre-kin-
dergarten through 12 or ages 4 through 25 years. The KTEA-3 provides standard
scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. A select subtest from
this battery, Phonological Processing, was chosen to evaluate Parker’s auditory
processing (Ga).
Crystallized Intelligence (Gc)

Crystalized intelligence is defined as a person’s acquired knowledge, the ability to
communicate one’s knowledge, and the ability to reason using previously learned
experiences or procedures. The WISC-V measures crystalized knowledge through
the subtests that make up the VCI that is composed of two subtests; namely,
Similarities and Vocabulary. Similarities measures an individual’s verbal reasoning
ability, word knowledge acquisition, and information retrieval. In addition, it is a
measure of the extent of vocabulary that can be understood in terms of correct
word meanings and one’s ability to observe a phenomenon and discover the under-
lying principals or rules that determine its behavior. Vocabulary measures lexical
knowledge, learning ability, long-term memory, and level of communication of
knowledge. Parker’s VCI of 89 (83–96) is ranked at the 23rd percentile and falls in
the Low Average range.
Given that the difference between Parker’s scaled scores on the Vocabulary
and Similarities Subtests occurs in less than 10% of individuals Parker’s age, the
Information and Comprehension Subtests were administered to gain more
information regarding his various Gc abilities. The Information Subtest meas-
ures an individual’s ability to acquire, retain, and retrieve general factual knowl-
edge. The Comprehension Subtest measures an individual’s verbal reasoning
and conceptualization, verbal comprehension and expression, the ability to
evaluate and use past experience, and the ability to demonstrate practical knowl-
edge and judgement. Parker’s standard score on these subtests was 110 (75th
percentile).
Parker’s Gc XBA composite standard score of 108 was derived based on
the Vocabulary, Information, and Comprehension Subtests. An examination
of Parker’s performance on these subtests indicated that Parker’s lexical
knowledge and general information abilities range from Average to High
Average. His verbal reasoning ability or inductive reasoning as measured by
the Similarities Subtest is Low Average and, therefore, may be related to his
difficulties in math.
Gc XBA Composite Standard Score and Subtests
Converted Percentile
Instrument Subtest Standard Score Rank Classification
WISC-V Similarities 80 9 Low Average

WISC-V Vocabulary 100 50 Average
WISC-V Information 110 75 High Average
WISC-V Comprehension 110 75 High Average
Gc XBA Composite Standard Score 108 70 Average
Visual Processing (Gv)

Visual processing is defined as an individual’s ability to perceive, analyze, synthe-
size, and think with visual patterns, including the ability to store and recall visual
representations. The WISC-V measures visual processing through the Block
Design and Visual Puzzles Subtests that make up the VSI. The Block Design
Subtest requires the individual to view a model design and recreate the design
using two-color blocks. This subtest measures the ability to perceive complex
patterns and mentally simulate how they might look when transformed. Block
Design also involves nonverbal concept formation and reasoning, broad visual
intelligence, and visual-motor coordination. Visual Puzzles requires the individ-
ual to view a completed puzzle and select three response options that, when
combined, reconstruct the puzzle. This subtest measures mental, non–motor

construction ability, visual and spatial reasoning, mental rotation, and visual
working memory. (See Table below) Parker’s VSI of 102 (95–108) is ranked at
the 55th percentile and falls in the Average range. Parker’s visual processing is
considered a relative strength and an accurate assessment of Parker’s true Gv
abilities.
VSI and Subtests
WISC-V Block Design 100 50 Average

WISC-V Visual Puzzles 105 63 Average
VSI 102 55 Average
Fluid Reasoning (Gf )

Fluid reasoning is defined as an individual’s ability to reason, form concepts,
and solve problems using unfamiliar information or novel procedures. The
WISC-V measures fluid reasoning via the Matrix Reasoning and Figure
Weights Subtests that compose the FRI. Matrix Reasoning requires the indi-
vidual to view an incomplete series of items and select an option that best
completes the series. Figure Weights requires the individual to view a scale
with missing weights and select the response that keeps the scale balanced.
This subtest measures reasoning processes that can be expressed mathemati-
cally, emphasizing deductive logic. Parker’s FRI of 74 (70–82) is ranked at the
4th percentile and falls in the Very Low range. Fluid Reasoning is clearly an
intrapersonal and normative weakness for Parker. His ability to control his
attention to solve novel problems that cannot be performed by relying on
previously learned habits, schemas, and scripts is compromised. Fluid
Reasoning abilities are critical for quantitative reasoning and basic math skill
application.
FRI and Subtests
WISC-V Matrix Reasoning 80 9 Low Average

WISC-V Figure Weights 75 5 Very Low
FRI 74 4 Very Low
Short-Term Memory (Gsm)

Short-term memory refers to an individual’s ability to apprehend and hold infor-
mation in immediate awareness and then use it within a few seconds. The
WISC-V WMI measures short-term memory through the Digit Span and Picture
Span Subtests. Digit Span requires the individual to listen to sequences of num-
bers and recall the numbers in the same order, reverse order, or ascending order.
This subtest requires cognitive flexibility, mental alertness, brief focused atten-
tion, and auditory rehearsal. Temporary storage capacity in working memory is
measured as well. Picture Span requires the individual to view a stimulus page
with one or more pictures and then select the pictures from options on a response
page. This subtest measures memory span and involves attention, visual process-
ing, visual immediate memory, and response inhibition. Parker’s WMI of 100
(94–106) is ranked at the 50th percentile and falls in the Average range.
Given Parker’s difficulties in math, the examiner decided to administer the
Arithmetic Subtest that measures a student’s ability to mentally solve arithmetic
problems within a specified time limit. It requires mental manipulation, concen-
tration, brief focused attention, numerical reasoning, and mental alertness.
Parker earned a scaled score of 5 (converted standard score = 75) which is at the
5th percentile and in the Very Low range. His performance on the Arithmetic
Subtest is consistent with reported difficulties in math and his performance on
math achievement subtests discussed later in this report.
WMI and Subtests
WISC-V Digit Span 95 37 Average

WISC-V Picture Span 105 63 Average
WISC-V Arithmetic 75 5 Very Low
WMI 100 50 Average
Processing Speed (Gs)

Processing speed refers to an individual’s ability to perform automatic cognitive
tasks, particularly when measured under pressure to maintain focused attention.
The PSI from the WISC-V measures the individual’s speed and accuracy of visual
identification, decision making, and decision implementation. The PSI is com-
posed of the Coding and Symbol Search Subtests. Coding requires the individual
to work within a specified time limit and use a key to copy symbols that corre-
spond with simple geometric shapes or numbers. This subtest measures
processing speed, short-term visual memory, visual perception, visual-motor

coordination, cognitive flexibility, attention, concentration, and motivation.
Symbol Search is timed as well, requires the individual to scan search groups and
indicate whether target symbols are present, and measures visual-perceptual
(identification and matching) and decision-making speed, short-term visual
memory, visual-motor coordination, inhibitory control, visual discrimination,
attention, and concentration. Parker’s PSI of 75 (68–83) is ranked at the 5th
percentile and falls in the Very Low range.
This deficit will likely affect Parker’s ability to meet fluency benchmarks for
his age and grade. His Symbol Search scaled score indicates a weakness in Parker’s
ability to discern visual stimuli for similarities and/or differences, a skill that is
necessary in mathematical processes. This skill is also related to age-appropriate
executive functioning. Collectively, these processing speed results indicate that
Gs is a normative weakness for Parker, with each subtest falling between the 5th
and 9th percentiles. Processing Speed and Perceptual Speed in particular are
related to basic math skills and math reasoning achievement.
PSI and Subtests
WISC-V Coding 75 5 Very Low

WISC-V Symbol Search 80 9 Low Average
PSI 75 5 Very Low
Long-Term Storage and Retrieval (Glr)

Long-term storage and retrieval is defined as an individual’s ability to store infor-
mation and fluently retrieve it later in the process of thinking. Long-term storage
and retrieval can be measured with the WISC-V through the Naming Speed
Literacy and Immediate Symbol Translation Subtests. Naming Speed Literacy
measures the automaticity of visual-verbal associations. The Immediate Symbol
Translation Subtest requires individuals to learn visual-verbal pairings and then
translate symbol strings into phrases or sentences. It also requires the individual
to memorize information related to a given visual cue.
The Naming Speed Literacy and Immediate Symbol Translation Subtests were
entered into the X-BASS to derive a composite score. Parker’s Glr XBA compos-
ite standard score of 90 falls at the 24th percentile, indicating that his Glr is most
likely not related to his difficulties in math.
Glr XBA Composite Standard Score and Subtests
WISC-V Naming Speed Literacy 94 34 Average

Immediate Symbol
WISC-V 88 21 Low Average
Translation
Glr XBA Composite Standard Score 90 24 Average
Auditory Processing (Ga)

Auditory processing refers to an individual’s ability to analyze, synthesize, and dis-
criminate auditory stimuli, including the ability to process and discriminate
speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions. The KTEA-3
and the WJ IV OL were used to assess Parker’s auditory processing.
The KTEA-3 Phonological Processing Subtest measures a student’s skills with
rhyming, matching, blending, segmenting, and deleting sounds in spoken words.
Parker earned a standard of 101 (94–108), which is at the 53rd percentile, and in
the Average range of functioning. The WJ IV OL Sound Awareness Subtest
measures a student’s ability to understand and utilize the sounds within words.
Parker earned a standard score of 109 (102–117), which is at the 73rd percentile,
and in the Average range of performance. Parker’s Auditory Processing is consid-
ered a relative cognitive strength given his Ga XBA composite standard
score of 106.
Ga XBA Composite Standard Score and Subtests
KTEA-3 Phonological Processing 101 53 Average

WJ IV OL Sound Awareness 109 73 Average
Ga XBA Composite Standard Score: 106 65 Average
Executive Function (EF)

An additional measure that was derived from the combination of specific sub-
tests administered during this evaluation was an Executive Function (EF) XBA
composite standard score. Executive function is broadly understood to include
two components: cognitive control and behavioral/emotional control. Many of
the CHC domains are components of EF in terms of cognitive control, includ-
ing concept generation, problem solving, attentional shifting (attention),
planning, organizing, working memory, and retrieval fluency. Behavioral/emo-

tional components involve the ability to regulate emotions and behavior. Given
Parker’s struggles in many of the abilities involved in EF, several WISC-V sub-
tests were entered into X-BASS, namely, Picture Concepts, Figures Weights,
and Similarities.
The Picture Concepts Subtest is a measure of fluid and inductive reasoning,
visual-perceptual recognition and processing, and conceptual thinking. Figure
Weights measures reasoning processes that can be expressed mathematically,
emphasizing deductive logic. Similarities is a measure of the extent of vocabulary
that can be understood in terms of correct word meanings and one’s ability to
observe a phenomenon and discover the underlying principles or rules that deter-
mine its behavior.
Parker’s converted standard scores ranged between 75 and 80. His EF XBA
composite standard score of 72 is at the 3rd percentile. Students who struggle with
EF skills often have a difficult time with sequencing, order of operations, deter-
mining what is important in word problems, and attending to signs on mathemat-
ical problems. A deficit in EF can be related to difficulties with math achievement.
EF XBA Composite Standard Score and Subtests
Converted
Standard Percentile
Instrument Subtest Score Rank Classification
WISC-V Figure Weights 75 5 Very Low

WISC-V Picture Concepts 80 9 Low Average
WISC-V Similarities 80 9 Very Low
EF XBA Composite Standard Score 72 3 Very Low
FSIQ
The WISC-V FSIQ is an aggregate of seven primary subtest scaled scores
from the five primary indexes. These subtests consist of Block Design,
Similarities, Matrix Reasoning, Digit Span, Coding, Vocabulary, and Figure
Weights. The FSIQ is usually considered the score that is most representative
of general intellectual functioning. Parker’s FSIQ of 80 (76–86) is ranked at
the 9th percentile and falls in the Low Average range of overall intellectual
functioning. This score obscures important information about Parker’s
strengths and weaknesses and is not a good summary of his range & cognitive
capabilities.
WISC-V Results
Standard Percentile 90% Confidence

Index/Scale Score Rank Interval Classification
Verbal Comprehension 89 23 83–96 Low Average

Visual Spatial 102 55 95–108 Average
Fluid Reasoning 74 4 70–82 Very Low
Working Memory 100 50 94–106 Average
Processing Speed 72 3 68–83 Very Low
FSIQ 80 9 76–86 Low Average
Academic Performance
In order to measure Parker’s academic functioning, specifically in the area of

mathematics, the KTEA-3 and WIAT-III were administered. These two batteries
allowed for a comprehensive XBA of Parker’s math calculation and math prob-
lem-solving skills as well as a single subtest evaluation of his math fluency. It
should be noted that Parker’s demeanor and disposition toward testing were
noticeably affected when math subtests were administered. He appeared uncom-
fortable and stated, “I don’t do well on math problems. How many of these tests
will ask math problems?”
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition
The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3) is an
individually administered measure of academic achievement for grades pre-kin-
dergarten through 12 or ages 4 through 25 years. For the purposes of this assess-
ment, the math composite subtests and other selected subtests were administered.
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition
The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition (WIAT-III) is an indi-
vidually administered test designed to measure the academic achievement of
individuals ages 4 through 50 years 11 months. The Math Problem Solving
Subtest was administered to Parker to gain additional information regarding his
various math skills.
Quantitative Knowledge (Gq)
Quantitative knowledge is the broad ability domain that involves the depth and
breadth of knowledge related to mathematics. The Math Composite on the
KTEA-3 comprises the Math Concepts & Applications and Math Computation
Subtests. On the Math Concepts & Applications Subtest the student listens to
math “word problems” that are accompanied by illustrations or a printed copy of
the problem and solves the problems using paper and pencil. On the Math
Computation Subtest the student is required to solve a variety of math calcula-
tion questions that are printed on paper. Parker’s Math Composite standard score
of 75 (71–79) is ranked at the 5th percentile and falls in the Very Low range.
In order to understand more clearly Parker’s various math abilities, the exam-
iner decided to group them according to math calculation skills (MC) and math
problem-solving skills (MPS). MC skills include understanding of numeration,
basic mathematical operation, computations, fractions, decimals, algebra, roots
and exponents, signed numbers, binomials, and factorial expansion. Parker’s MC
skills were evaluated with the KTEA-3 Math Fluency and Math Computation
Subtests. The Math Fluency Subtest required Parker to solve as many written
addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division problems as he could in
60 seconds. It is a measure of Parker’s speed and accuracy performing simple
math calculations. Parker earned a standard score of 81, which is at the 10th
percentile. The Math Computation Subtest required Parker to demonstrate
whether he has mastered math calculation problems when presented to him in
paper-and-pencil format (not verbally). It is a measure of his ability to compute
mathematical problems. Parker earned a standard score of 74, which is at the 4th
percentile. On this subtest Parker added single-digit numbers, subtracted single-
digit numbers, and multiplied some single-digit numbers with accuracy. He did
not divide and multiply multiple digits with accuracy. Parker solved problems
with negative numerals and understood the order of operations. He did not cor-
rectly solve simple algebraic problems, simple fractions, or algebraic problems
with multiple variables. Parker’s MC XBA composite standard score (a combina-
tion of the Math Computation and Math Fluency Subtests) of 76 is at the 6th
percentile.
MC XBA Composite Standard Score and Subtests
KTEA-3 Math Fluency 81 10 Low Average

KTEA-3 Math Computation 74 4 Very Low
MC XBA Composite Standard Score 76 6 Very Low
The MPS skills subtests measure a student’s ability to reason through mathe-
matical concepts and apply that reasoning to meaningful problem solving. The
MPS evaluation required Parker to complete the Math Concepts & Applications
Subtest from the KTEA-3 and the Math Problem Solving Subtest from the
WIAT-III. The KTEA-3 Math Concepts & Applications Subtest requires the
student to listen to math “word problems” that are accompanied by illustrations
or a printed copy of the problem and solves the problems using paper and pencil.
The WIAT-III Math Problem Solving Subtest measures the ability to problem
solve mathematically using verbal and visual prompts. Parker earned a standard
score of 75 on this subtest, which falls at the 5th percentile.
Parker demonstrated that he tells time on an analog clock, interprets charts
and graphs with statistical data, and that he can calculate monetary values cor-
rectly. Parker did not answer some geometrically based questions, calculate the
passage of time, convert decimals to fractions, or find an average. Parker’s math
problem-solving skills are in the Very Low range with percentile ranks between
the 5th and 7th percentile. Parker’s MPS XBA composite standard score (a com-
bination of the Math Concepts & Applications and Math Problem Solving
Subtests) of 74 is at the 4th percentile.
MPS XBA Composite Standard Score and Subtests
Math Concepts &

KTEA-3 78 7 Very Low
Applications
WIAT-III Math Problem Solving 75 5 Very Low
MPS XBA Composite Standard Score 74 4 Very Low
Summary and Conclusions
Following a lack of expected response to increasingly intense interventions

through a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS), Parker W. was referred for a
psychoeducational evaluation. The referral was made by his teacher because of
continued concerns regarding his academic progress in math. The MTSS team
wanted to determine whether there is a pattern of strengths and weaknesses that
explains Parker’s progress in math. A psychoeducational evaluation revealed that
Parker exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses that is affecting his educa-
tional achievement in math.
Behavioral observations indicated that Parker is a hard-working student who
exhibits age-appropriate attentional skills and acceptable peer/social relation-
ships. He attends to task on most assignments, though it is visually evident that
he struggles with math. This was confirmed by a teacher interview and Parker’s
own comments during the assessments.
The combination of cognitive ability and processes and achievement results
indicates that Parker has strengths in the broad areas of crystalized intelligence,
long-term storage and retrieval, short-term memory, visual processing, and audi-
tory processing. However, particular skill sets within the crystalized intelligence
and short-term memory domains were of some concern. Specifically, Parker’s ver-
bal reasoning ability was a weakness. Research indicates a consistent relationship
between this type of weakness and mathematics disabilities for elementary-age
children. Parker’s working memory abilities, within the broad domain of short-
term memory were also found to be lower than other short-term memory abilities
(e.g., memory span), indicating a mild weakness in working memory which is also
consistently identified as a weakness in students with a math disability.
Parker’s skills in the broad domains of fluid reasoning and processing speed
were his most marked cognitive weaknesses. His ability to control his attention to
solve novel problems that cannot be performed by relying on previously learned
habits, schemas, and scripts is compromised. This ability is critical for success in
quantitative reasoning and basic math skill application. Additionally, with the
exception of one subtest, Parker’s processing speed scores indicate an additional
weakness in his ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when
measured under pressure to maintain focused attention. This weakness may affect
his ability to discern quickly visual stimuli for similarities and/or differences, a
skill that is necessary in performing math problems. Perceptual speed is also
related to age-appropriate executive functioning. Research shows processing speed
and specifically the speed at which visual stimuli can be compared for similarity or
difference has consistent links to basic math skills and math reasoning achievement.
Additionally, Parker’s executive function skills were found to be in the Very
Low range and at the 4th percentile. Students who struggle with executive func-
tion skills often have a difficult time with sequencing, order of operations, deter-
mining what is important in word problems, and attending to signs on
mathematical problems. A deficit in executive functioning can be related to dif-
ficulties with math achievement.
The cognitive ability, processing and achievement scores were entered into the
X-BASS Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Analyzer (PSW-A) to determine
whether there was a domain-specific weakness as well as unexpected undera-
chievement. The results indicated a pattern of strengths and weaknesses that is
consistent with a specific learning disability in math (see Figure below). It is rec-
ommended that the evaluation team consider these results in determining Parker’s
eligibility for special education services.
97
Parker’s PSW-A Illustrating a Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses That Is Consistent With a Specific Learning
Disability in Math
Recommendations
This evaluation determined that Parker has a severe deficit in the areas of math
calculations and math problem solving. His results indicated marked weaknesses
in the CHC broad domains of fluid reasoning and processing speed with some
mild weaknesses within the crystalized intelligence and short-term working
memory domains. The following recommendations are offered to assist Parker,
his teacher(s), and his parents:
1. Fluid reasoning (Gf ): Interventions for Gf should support the teaching
of reasoning skills while reducing the complexity of a given task. It is
recommended that teachers include step-by-step instructions, visualize
and verbalize problem solving strategies, and teach sequencing skills
development. Explicit and systematic teaching should be used. For
example, teachers should demonstrate with think-aloud procedures
followed by guided practice with immediate and direct feedback, thus
externalizing the reasoning process. Teaching categorization skills by
providing opportunities to sort, classify, and compare. Teaching to and
using graphic organizers as well as the use of cooperative groups and
reciprocal teaching are also recommended.
2. Processing speed (Gs): To accommodate for Parker’s weakness in
processing speed it is recommended that Parker is allowed more time
for homework, tests, and processing of information during instruction.
In addition, it is suggested that his teachers focus on quality and
accuracy while reducing quantity, that he be allowed note-taking
assistance, and that copying activities be limited. Increased “wait” time
should be allowed after questions are asked.
3. Crystalized intelligence (Gc): To address the development of vocabulary
that can be understood in terms of correct word meanings, Parker’s
team should continue to provide an environment rich in language and
experiences where he is expected to practice and be exposed to new
vocabulary and he can further develop word consciousness. He should
be asked to relate new information to prior knowledge and “experi-
ence” vocabulary as much as possible though hands-on activities and
visualization strategies. Direct teaching of new vocabulary followed by
simplified explanations and the use of many examples with which he is
already familiar may help with this goal. This could also include the
use of math manipulatives. Scaffolding instruction while providing
sufficient time to review and practice is also recommended.
4. Short-term memory (Gsm)–Working memory: Interventions to attend to

Parker’s mild weakness in working memory should include the use of
chunking, short and simple instructions, and frequent review of
learned material. Teachers should continually reinforce previously
learned facts and continue the use of fact practice. The use of memory
strategies such as mnemonics is encouraged. Supplementing visual
instruction with oral instruction and the breaking down of multistep
processes can be helpful as well as the purposeful highlighting of the
most important information followed by checking for understanding.
Parker should write down all steps when completing his math prob-
lems and be asked to explain his process.
5. The eligibility team should consider eligibility for special services to
deliver and monitor specially designed instruction that will meet
Parker’s individual needs.
6. The team should consider further evaluation of executive functioning
skills because results may yield important information that could assist
in designing additional interventions.
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Student’s Name: Ruth M. Grade: 6

School: Madison School Age: 12 years 2 months
Dates Assessed: 5/1/2016, 5/4/2016 Date of Birth: 2/14/2004
Reason for Referral
Ruth was assessed as part of a 3-year special education re-evaluation. She has
received special education services since preschool, when she was first identified
as a child with speech and language impairment. Her parents recently expressed
concern that she is falling further behind academically and may need more inten-
sive support services.
Assessment Procedures
Review of records
Teacher, parent, and student interviews
Classroom observation
Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test–Second Edition

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition–selected subtests
Assessment Findings
Ruth’s assessment findings are presented in the sections that follow.
School records provided information about Ruth’s educational history. She is a
12-year-old sixth grader who has attended Madison School since kindergarten.
She was referred for special education evaluation as a preschool child because of
suspected language delays. As a result, she was found eligible for special education
services as a child with speech and language impairment. The year prior to kin-
dergarten, she received direct services from a speech and language pathologist
who also consulted with the preschool teachers. Since entering kindergarten,
Ruth has been in regular education classes while receiving individual (pull-out)
language therapy and consultation to teachers. Added to this, from fourth grade
to the present she has received accommodations in her general education classes
(e.g., extra time to complete assignments, use of grammar-checking and thesau-
rus software) and approximately 1 hour per day of special education (resource
room) classroom instruction.
The added services were the result of a psychoeducational assessment con-
ducted in the spring of 2013, when Ruth was in third grade. She earned Well
Below Average scores (approximately 5th percentile) on achievement measures of
reading (word identification and comprehension) and writing. Her overall cogni-
tive functioning as measured by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth
Edition (WISC-IV) was in the Low Average range, with lowest scores on the
Verbal Comprehension scale (approximately 5th percentile) and Working
Memory scale (approximately 10th percentile).
To this point in school, Ruth has done relatively well in math, earning mostly
Bs and an occasional A. Reading and writing have posed difficulty for her, with
grades typically ranging from D+ to C+. In comments that accompany grade
reports, her teachers have noted that her written work tends to be very brief and
marked by basic vocabulary, simple sentence structure, and errors in grammar
and spelling. She is often confused when assignments or classroom expectations
are conveyed orally. Still, teachers have been impressed by her positive attitude,
describing her as sociable, cheerful, and hard working. Her school attendance has
been excellent.
Parent Interview
A brief phone interview was conducted with Ruth’s mother. Mrs. M. indicated
that Ruth was born prematurely, but reached most developmental milestones at
typical ages. Her medical history was unremarkable except for ear infections as a
preschool child. Ruth has friends her age in the neighborhood, and enjoys active
pastimes (e.g., jump rope, tumbling, soccer) and creative activities (e.g., art pro-
jects and putting on plays). Ruth spends long hours doing her homework, with
little prompting. She often looks to her mother and older sister for help with
schoolwork. Mrs. M. is concerned that keeping up with schoolwork has taken a
toll on Ruth, leaving less time for friends and recreation. She reported that Ruth
declines invitations to play with friends when she is working on a major school
assignment or preparing for a test.
Teacher Interviews
Ruth’s English and language arts (ELA) teacher, Mrs. Coppola, reported that
Ruth tries hard and is an active participant in class. Her difficulties in receptive
language (i.e., understanding what is said) and expressive language (i.e., putting
her thoughts and ideas into words, either spoken or written) make it difficult for
her to contribute to class discussions, but she is quick to volunteer answers to easy
questions. Ms. Hitchcock noted that the advance preparation for class readings
and lessons that Ruth receives in the resource room has helped her keep up with
the rest of the class.
Ruth’s math and science teacher, Mr. McDonald, reported that Ruth clearly
enjoys math but struggles with science. He praised her attitude and has been very
willing to provide extra help after school when Ruth requests it. Mr. McDonald
noted that Ruth takes longer than classmates to complete assignments, in part
because she checks her work carefully.
Mrs. Bigelow, the special education teacher, reported that Ruth is very coop-
erative and always tries her best. Ruth has good social skills and a good sense of
humor. She has been excited to learn mnemonic devices and other memory aids,
and uses them to prepare for classroom tests and lessons.
Student Interview
Ruth is well aware that she must work harder than classmates to keep up with her
schoolwork, but she is motivated in large part by wanting to be in a regular class-
room with her friends. She noted that she “is not good at explaining things” and
that she does not learn so easily as classmates. She feels that she is “not that far
behind” and that she is doing the best she can. Ruth spoke positively about the
help she receives from her special education teacher and speech/language pathol-
ogist. Ruth says she likes school, especially the non-academic subjects (art and
music). She is excited about joining the school chorus next year. She has many
friends at school, and socializes with them outside of school “as much as I can.”
Behavioral Observations
Observations of Ruth’s behavior in the classroom and during test sessions are
discussed next.
Classroom
Ruth was observed briefly on two separate occasions, once in ELA and once in
science class. During whole class instruction, she looked intently at the teacher
whenever she or he was speaking. While doing seat work, Ruth worked steadily
with occasional brief interruptions, either to chat with a classmate or to raise her
hand to request help from the teacher. She sought the teacher’s help about once
every 5 to 10 minutes.
Testing Sessions
Ruth was evaluated in two sessions, each approximately 90 minutes long. She was
friendly, cooperative, and cheerful from the start. She expressed concern at first
about being out of the classroom for a long time, but did not seem worried about
it as the session progressed. She smiled easily, and seemed to do so largely in
response to the examiner’s facial expression or tone of voice (i.e., a smile or light-
hearted remark). Ruth willingly responded to questions, sometimes asking for
them to be repeated. She made comments about the activities at hand without
hesitation, typically in brief sentences.
Ruth appeared to try her best throughout each testing session, but seemed
tired and less focused after an hour or so. She never requested a break, but
welcomed the opportunity when it was offered and appeared more relaxed and
engaged afterward. Early on during testing, she asked to have instructions clar-
ified a couple of times and was disappointed when assistance could not be
provided because of test procedures. She did not continue to make such
requests, relying instead on a puzzled look and an expectant pause when she
sought help.
Test Results
A complete list of test scores is provided in the Data Summary at the end of this
report. Key findings are discussed next.
General Cognitive Functioning
Ruth was administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition
(WISC-V) to assess her general cognitive functioning. The variability in her
performance across the different areas assessed by the WISC-V was so large that
her overall cognitive ability cannot be meaningfully summarized in a single score.
Her scores on most composite scales, or “indexes” (which are composed of two or
more related subtests) fell within the Low Average or Average range—approxi-
mately 20th to 60th percentile—but there were notable exceptions. She displayed
a general pattern of lower performance on tasks that placed great demands on
language skills and of average to high average performance on tasks involving
nonverbal and visual-spatial skills.
Language and Verbal Comprehension

Ruth exhibited Low Average verbal abilities for her age, scoring at approximately
the 15th percentile on the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) of the WISC-V.
Her difficulties with language were especially noticeable on tasks that placed high
demands on expressive language, such as when asked to provide definitions on
the WISC-V Vocabulary Subtest. Even when she knew what a word meant, she
often struggled to provide a clear, well-worded definition that earned her full
credit. For example, she defined pilot saying, “A guy is the person who tells other
people what to do and they make it go the right way.” Her expressive language
difficulties were also apparent on the WISC-V Similarities Subtest, as she tried to
explain how two words were alike. In several cases, she was unable to come up
with the single word for a category (for example, “transportation” to describe how
truck and train are alike), and tried to convey the idea with common words in
poorly constructed sentences (“both things that move and get people to a place”).
Similarly, on the WISC-V Comprehension Subtest, she showed good under-
standing of social and practical situations but had difficulty expressing herself.
For example, in explaining why it is problematic to brag, she replied, “If you’re
good at something, you get people mad when you say it.”
Nonverbal Reasoning and Problem Solving

Ruth demonstrated typical performance for her age on measures involving non-
verbal reasoning, problem solving, and pattern recognition, obtaining a solidly
Average score (50th percentile) on the WISC-V Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI).
She showed mental flexibility (i.e., coming up with, and trying out, multiple
solutions) and persistence in solving puzzle-like tasks. She was pleased with her-
self and eager to continue after each success.
Visual Perception and Spatial Abilities

Ruth demonstrated clear strength in tasks involving visual and spatial abilities,
such as perceiving how visual elements are organized into a picture or pattern.
Her performance on the WISC-V Visual Spatial Index (VSI) was at
approximately the 80th percentile for children her age. Similarly, she earned
Above Average scores on the Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test (Bender Gestalt
II), which involved copying complex figures and reproducing them from memory.
Processing Efficiency
Academic performance requires a student to take in, remember, and produce
information quickly and efficiently. Learning occurs more easily when a student
is able to pay attention to details, shift attention easily, and recall and organize
what has been seen or heard—skills that are assessed by the WISC-V Cognitive
Proficiency and Naming Speed Subtests. Ruth earned scores in the low average to
average range on these subtests. On timed tasks that require rapid visual scanning
and processing (Symbol Search: finding similarities and differences among sets of
simple designs, and Coding: matching symbols to numbers according to a key),
she worked slowly and carefully, and made no errors. She was able to repeat and
reorder sets of orally presented digits at a level typical for children her age.
She earned an Average range score on the Naming Speed Quantity Subtest,
where she identified the number of squares (from 1 to 5) in each of 40 different
sets with relative ease. She was similarly accurate but proceeded more slowly
when naming rows of letters and numbers (Naming Speed Literacy). The Symbol
Search and Naming Speed Subtests came near the end of a testing session when
Ruth was visibly tired, so these scores may underestimate her abilities.
Academic Functioning
The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition (WIAT-III) was admin-

istered to assess current levels of academic achievement in reading, math, and
writing. Ruth performed below, but close to, average for her age on subtests
involving reading at the individual word level. These involved reading individual
sight words (Word Reading) and sounding out “non-words” by applying regular
word attack rules (Pseudoword Decoding). However, she struggled on subtests
that required her to quickly and accurately read words in text (Oral Reading
Fluency) and to answer questions about passages that she read (Reading
Comprehension), on which she earned scores in the Below Average range. When
given the choice, she opted to read out loud rather than silently. She read slowly,
often pausing at longer or unfamiliar words, but generally with good accuracy.
She answered most questions about facts from the passages she read, but often
made mistakes in explaining what occurred or why.
Ruth had considerable difficulty with writing tasks, both in composing single
sentences with correct grammar and word usage (Sentence Composition) and in
writing an essay on a given subject (Essay Composition). She was able to con-
struct short sentences with simple structure (e.g., “I like soccer”). However, she
struggled to produce complex sentences (e.g., “Soccer is my favorite that I am
really good at”) and did not attempt them for the most part. She used capitaliza-
tion and punctuation correctly. In her written essay, she made more spelling
errors than would be expected given her near-average performance (approxi-
mately 25th percentile) when spelling single words on the Spelling Subtest.
Ruth demonstrated relative strength in math skills. Her knowledge of math
facts and arithmetic operations (Numerical Operations) and her ability to apply
these operations to math problems (Math Problem Solving) were at, or just above,
average for her age. She has a good understanding of how to work with fractions.
She solved problems involving time, spatial relations, and geometry with ease.
Clinical Impressions
Ruth continues to show the signs of significant language impairment that inter-
feres with reading and writing and limits her ability to understand and produce
the kind of oral language that takes place in academic classes. This was seen in her
performance on cognitive and academic tests, and was consistent with teacher
reports. She is functioning at below average levels in reading rate, reading com-
prehension, and oral and written expression—areas that will likely continue to
challenge her. Ruth tries to make her language problems less obvious and trou-
blesome by using short, simple sentences when she speaks and writes.
Cognitive test results suggest that inefficient processing may also contribute to
her learning difficulties. If so, the impact of such inefficiencies on her academic
achievement has been reduced by the additional practice and the use of strategies
and accommodations that have been provided through special education services.
In spite of her language difficulties, Ruth has made fairly good progress in
academic subjects—enough to allow her to participate in and benefit from
regular classroom instruction. Her performance on academic tests indicated
that she has made good gains since third grade in certain reading and writing
skills; specifically, recognizing familiar words, decoding and spelling words
that follow regular pattern, and using correct capitalization and punctuation.
These are the kind of skills that benefit from remedial instruction and practice.
However, these skills are not at an automatic level—that is, applied with little
effort. When she needs to apply these skills to carry out more complex lan-
guage-based tasks, she is more prone to make errors. For example, her spelling
suffers when she is writing an essay and must devote her attention to what she
is trying to express.
Math is an area is which Ruth is doing well. She knows her math facts and
understands how to carry out numerical operations. This is consistent with her
adequate grades in math over the years.
Ruth’s solid cognitive skills in areas other than language have helped her make
progress and compensate for language difficulties. Her performance on nonver-
bal reasoning and memory tasks was at expected levels for her age. She also dis-
played average ability on cognitive tasks requiring logical, mathematical, and
social reasoning. Her visual-spatial skills are clear strengths. These relative
strengths are consistent with her artistic and social interests.
Ruth is a hard worker and is not easily discouraged. Her progress on basic
academic skills suggest that she has made good use of the supports available to
her, such as teacher assistance and accommodations in the regular classroom,
advance practice and previewing of class assignments in the resource room, and
strategies learned in remedial instruction.
Ruth’s pleasant and engaging manner, social skills, and social interests have
also served her well. Her upbeat attitude was apparent during testing, and con-
sistent with teacher reports and classroom observations. She is receptive to adult
help, and does not hesitate to seek it out. Her polite and appreciative response to
assistance from adults encourages them to provide more of the same. Her wish to
be like other children her age has motivated her to work hard and to make good
use of individualized learning opportunities. Keeping up in regular education
classes has made her feel that she is a “capable enough” learner, which is extremely
important in sustaining her motivation and positive attitude toward school.
Summary and Recommendations
Ruther has continued to need and make good use of individualized academic sup-
ports to address deficits in reading, writing, and oral language. Despite her signifi-
cant language impairment, Ruth displays some personal strengths that have helped
her to make modest but steady academic progress and maintain a positive attitude
about school. She works hard, is not easily discouraged, and participates in classroom
activities to the best of her ability. She interacts positively and easily with classmates
and adults. She is motivated by the desire to be included in regular classroom settings
as much as possible. Her relative strengths in math and in visually based activities
help her to feel competent. Given these findings, recommendations are as follows:
1. Ruth has benefitted from accommodations in the classroom. These will
become even more important in the future as she takes subjects with
high language demands, such as social studies and English. It will help
for service providers (e.g., speech and language pathologist, special
education teacher) to review the value of and provide input about
accommodations.
2. Ruth will need extra time to complete writing assignments of any
length or complexity. Similarly, she should be given extra time to
complete tests that place moderate to high demands on language.
3. Ruth may need additional or simplified directions about what is
expected of classroom assignments or homework. In preparing for
reading assignments, she will benefit from previewing vocabulary and
key words.
4. Graphic organizers will help Ruth to organize and remember
information from assigned readings, and to facilitate her organiza-
tion and use of new and challenging vocabulary words on writing
assignments.
5. Ruth should be encouraged to read at home. She should be helped to
select reading material that is of high interest to her and at an appro-
priate level of difficulty (i.e., no more than one or two unfamiliar
words per paragraph). It may be particularly helpful for her to read
aloud to a parent or other individual who can correct errors and engage
her in discussion about what she reads.
6. Ruth may find that her efficiency wanes as she works on assignments
or homework for an extended period of time. Teachers and parents
might encourage her to take breaks as needed and to reflect on whether
this improves her performance.
7. Teachers should be alert to opportunities for Ruth to excel at activities
that tap into her strong visual-spatial and artistic abilities.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Lichtenstein, PhD, NCSP
Licensed Psychologist
DATA SUMMARY
Test scores on the WISC-V, the WIAT-III, and the Bender Gestalt II are
reported next. The descriptors are generally applicable interpretations of
standard scores (scores based on a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15)
and of subtest scaled scores (scores based on a mean of 10 and a standard
deviation of 3).
Standard and Subtest Scaled Score Descriptors
Standard Score Descriptors Subtest Scaled Score Descriptors
Above 130 Extremely high 16 and above Far above average

116–130 Above average 13–15 Above average
110–115 High average 8–12 Average
90–109 Average 5–7 Below average
85–89 Low average 4 and below Far below average
70–84 Below average
Below 70 Extremely low
Full Scale and Primary Index Scales
Confidence Percentile
Composite Scale Standard Score Interval (95%) Rank
Full Scale IQ 97 91–103 42nd

Verbal Comprehension Index 84 78–93 14th
Visual Spatial Index 114 105–121 82nd
Fluid Reasoning Index 100 93–107 50th
Working Memory Index 91 84–99 27th
Processing Speed Index 89 81–99 23rd
Primary Index Subtest Scores
Subtest Scaled Score
Verbal Comprehension Subtests

Similarities 8
Vocabulary 6
Comprehension (9)
Visual Spatial Subtests
Block Design 14
Visual Puzzles 11
Fluid Reasoning Subtests
Matrix Reasoning 11
Figure Weights 9
Arithmetic (9)
Working Memory Subtests

Digit Span 9
Picture Span 8
Letter-Number Sequencing (7)
Processing Speed Subtests
Coding 10
Symbol Search 6
Note: Scores in parentheses do not contribute to Primary Index Scales.
Ancillary Index and Complementary Index Scales
Standard Confidence Percentile

Composite Scale Score Interval (95%) Rank
Ancillary Index Scale

Quantitative Reasoning Index 94 88–101 34th
Auditory Working Memory Index 89 83–97 23rd
Nonverbal Index 103 97–109 58th
General Ability Index 98 92–104 45th
Cognitive Proficiency Index 87 81–95 19th
Complementary Index Scale
Naming Speed Index 89 82–98 23rd
Symbol Translation Index 98 91–105 45th
Storage and Retrieval Index 91 85–98 27th
Ancillary Index Subtest Scores
Quantitative Reasoning Index Subtests

Figure Weights 9
Arithmetic 9
Auditory Working Memory Index Subtests
Digit Span 9
Letter-Number Sequencing 7
Nonverbal Index Subtests
Block Design 14
Visual Puzzles 11
(continued )
(Continued)
Matrix Reasoning 11
Figure Weights 9
Picture Span 8
Coding 10
General Ability Index Subtests
Similarities 8
Vocabulary 6
Block Design 14
Matrix Reasoning 11
Figure Weights 9
Cognitive Proficiency Index Subtests
Digit Span 9
Picture Span 8
Coding 10
Symbol Search 6
Complementary Index Subtest Scores
Subtest Standard Score
Naming Speed Index Subtests

Naming Speed Literacy 87
Naming Speed Quantity 96
Symbol Translation Index Subtests
Immediate Symbol Translation 95
Delayed Symbol Translation 99
Recognition Symbol Translation 102
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition (age-based norms)
Composite Scale and Subtest Standard Scores, Confidence Intervals, and

Percentile Ranks
Confidence Percentile
Standard Score Interval (95%) Rank
Composite Scale
A. Total Reading 86 81–91 18th
B. Basic Reading 94 90–98 34th
C. Reading Comprehension and
80 72–88 9th
Fluency
D. Written Expression 79 72–86 8th
E. Mathematics 103 97–109 58th
Subtest*
Word Reading (A, B) 92 87–97 30th
Pseudoword Decoding (A, B) 97 92–102 42nd
Oral Reading Fluency (A, C) 82 75–89 12th
Reading Comprehension (A, C) 86 74–98 18th
Sentence Composition (D) 77 66–88 6th
Essay Composition (D) 81 71–91 10th
Spelling (D) 91 85–97 27th
Math Problem Solving (E) 99 91–107 47th
Numerical Operations (E) 107 101–113 68th
*Letters indicate composite scales to which subtests contribute.
Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test–Second Edition
Standard Scores, Confidence Intervals, and Percentile Ranks
Phase Standard Score Confidence Interval (95%) Percentile Rank
Copy 125 115–131 95th

Recall 116 107–123 86th

WISC V Case Reports X 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WISC V Case Reports X 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix C

Name: Tucker Gates Gender: Male

Reason for Referral

Tucker was referred for a comprehensive evaluation primarily because of difficul-

Procedures and Tests Administered

Procedures/Tests Administered Date

Behavior Assessment System for Children–Second Edition

Procedures/Tests Administered Date

Behavior Assessment System for Children–Second Edition

Tucker is a 9-year-old third-grade student who attends Gregory Elementary

to manage his emotional reactions. At the recommendation of the psychologist,

Tucker was evaluated at the UHCL Psychological Services Clinic across

This section summarizes the results of Tucker’s performance on cognitive tests.

Subtest and Index/Composite Narrow Ability Scaled/Standard Score

Similarities VL: Lexical Knowledge 10/100

Subtest and Index/Composite Narrow Ability Scaled/Standard Score

Block Design Vz: Visualization 6/80 (divergent)

Subtest and Index Narrow Ability Scaled/Standard Score

Matrix Reasoning I: Induction [6/80]

Subtest and Index Narrow Ability Scaled/Standard Score

Digit Span MW: Working Memory 5/75

Tucker was administered three subtests to measure various aspects of working

Subtest and Index/Composite Narrow Ability Scaled/Standard Score

Coding R9: Rate of Test-taking 5/75

Tucker was administered several subtests to measure various aspects of pro-

Glr/Long-Term Storage and Retrieval

Glr/Long-Term Storage and Retrieval

Subtest and Composite Narrow Ability Scaled/Standard Score

Naming Speed Literacy NA: Naming Facility 97

Within the general cognitive factor of Long-Term Retrieval (Glr), Tucker’s

Subtest and Composite Narrow Ability Scaled/Standard Score

Blending Words PC: Phonetic Coding 10

Tucker’s performance on the cognitive factor of Auditory Processing (Ga),

Tucker’s performance on achievement subtests is presented next.

Subject 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade

* Reading level was at expectation (Level 18).

Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3)

Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3)

Letter & Word Recognition 112

Written Language Composite 98 45 92–104 Average

*Mean = 100, Standard Deviation = 15

sentences by adding capitalization and punctuation, combining single sentences

Parent and Teacher Rating Scales

Behavior Assessment System for Children–Second Edition (BASC-2)

Mother (Standard Math Teacher Reading/LA Teacher

Mother (Standard Math Teacher Reading/LA Teacher

The Adaptive Skills composite is made up of Adaptability, Social Skills,

Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF): Parent and

Scale/Index/Composite Standard t-Score* Scale/Index Standard t-Score*

P = parent; T = teacher; Mean = 50, Standard Deviation = 10;

Tucker’s self-report of personality is discussed next.

Behavior Assessment System for Children–Second Edition: Self-Report of

Attitude to School 47 Attention Problems 46

1. Presence of a normative academic deficit: Tucker has academic deficits in

remembering procedures, and memorizing math facts, and this leads to

Tucker has cognitive deficits in fluid reasoning, working memory, executive

b. http://Interventioncentral.org: Math Problem-Solving strategies and

Reason for Referral

Previous Evaluation(s) and Pre-Referral Data

Parker’s Math Concepts and Applications

Parker’s Math Computation

Evaluation Procedures and Tests Administered

Review of educational records