Quincy 1

Houston Baptist University EDSP 6344

7015 FondrenHouston, Texas 77040

FULL AND INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION

Demographic Data

Student Name: John Quincy Parents/Guardians: John is an AdultGrade: N/A Address: 265 Timberline Dr, Oaktown, TX

77901Date of Birth: July 5, 1983 Email Address: Quincy_JohnQ@northpole.comAge: 30 Phone Number: 832-277-1234Gender: Male Date of Report: November 10,2013

Reason for Full and Individual Evaluation

This Full and Individual Evaluation (FIE) represents a multidisciplinary evaluation conducted by a team of professionals. The purpose of this FIE is to: (a) describe John’s strengths and weaknesses and present levels of performance/functioning across multiple areas; (b) determine his disability condition(s) and educational needs; and (c) make recommendations regarding educational programming.

Background Information

Throughout John’s school years, he did not experience academic difficulties. John earned all of his high school credits for courses in 2001. He did not attend college. He went directly into the workforce. He worked as a forklift driver for three years. In 2006 he completed welding school and is currently working as a self employed welder. He has been employed as a welder for 7 years. It is reported that his work is commendable. John enjoys playing basketball in his spare time and shooting pool with his friends.

Sources of Evaluation Data

Standardized evaluation procedures were followed. During the testing, John was cooperative throughout the examinations; his activity level seemed typical for hisr age. He seemed attentive to the tasks. John appeared confident and self-assured at times during the examinations; at other times, he appeared at ease and comfortable. He responded promptly, but carefully to test questions. He generally persisted with difficult tasks, but at times he noticeably increased his level of effort for difficult tasks. For the

Quincy 2

timed tests John appeared anxious, as he wanted to be sure not to make any mistakes. The environment was quiet and conducive to an environment appropriate for testing. (see Table 1)

Table 1. Sources of Evaluation Data

Sources of Information Informant/Position Dates

Parent/Student Information John Quincy 09/04/2013

Student Observation/Interview

Sherneice Williams, Educational Diagnostician

09/06/2013

Review of School Records Sherneice Williams, Educational Diagnostician

08/29/2013

Vision/Hearing Screening Sherneice Williams, Educational Diagnostician

08/27/2013

Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities-Third Edition (W-J III Cognitive)

Sherneice Williams, Educational Diagnostician

10/13/2013

Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Third Edition (W-J III Achievement)

Sherneice Williams, Educational Diagnostician

09/08/2013

Review of Educational Records

John completed the The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale- Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV). Her 2013 examination scores were as follows: John obtained a Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) of 112, which ranks his overall ability in the 79th percentile. This means that John performed as well as or better than 79% and lower than the remaining 21% of his peers in the same age group. This score is in the High Average range of intellectual functioning. (see Table 2).

Quincy 3

Table 2. Sources of Previous Evaluation Data

Test Date

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale -Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV)

June 19, 2013

Speech/Language

Evaluation of John’s language consisted of informal and formal assessments of language proficiency in both the receptive and expressive domains. John’s language proficiency on the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement - Third Edition (WJ III ACH) when compared with same age peers may be regarded in the noted domains as:

Listening Comprehension: Average Oral Expression: Average

John expresses himself best in oral speech. Language functioning was observed during the evaluation and it was determined that John expresses himself best in oral speech. It was determined that he easily engages in informal conversation. He has intelligible speech and is able to make his needs known to others. His dominant language is English. He is able to use short sentences, and make attempts to communicate complete thoughts.

John was able to follow instructions for testing and engaged in appropriate conversation. He was able to take turns during conversation and remained on topic. All evaluation instruments and procedures were administered in his dominant language.

Physical Information

Physical conditions that may directly affect John’s ability to profit from the educational process were considered. John’s hearing appeared to be within normal limits without correction. He does not appear to have physical conditions that must be considered in the provision of physical activities, and employment. Analysis of the WJ III COG and ACH evaluations and observations indicate John can function in physical tasks required at his place of employment. His vision screening indicated his vision was 20/20 and he does not require corrective lenses. He did not exhibit any signs of health or medical problems. He does not take any prescription medication.

Sociological

Sociological data concerning John’s family and community environment that may influence learning/behavior patterns were considered. He lives alone and has two adult siblings, one brother and one sister. John appears to have a positive relationship with his family. Based on current data, sociological factors do not appear to adversely affect

Quincy 4

John’s learning and behavior patterns to a degree that would impede his learning and/or work success.

Emotional/Behavioral

The evaluation of the examinee’s emotional and behavioral factors consists of identifying those characteristics of behaviors which may impact John’s learning. During the evaluation, he was friendly, cooperative, polite, respectful, and independent. Based on observations, serious emotional and behavioral factors do not appear to significantly interfere with her ability to learn.

Intellectual

An intelligence test was administered in order to assess John’s general range of intellectual functioning and to determine current cognitive strengths and weaknesses. The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities- Third Edition (WJ III COG) is a battery of carefully engineered tests for measuring cognitive abilities and related aspects of cognitive functioning. In all, 31 tests are contained in the standard battery, an extended battery, and the diagnostic supplement. Some WJ III COG tests are appropriate for individuals as young as 24 months, and all of the tests can be used with individuals from 5 to 95 years of age. Various tests from the WJ II COG are combined into clusters for interpretive purposes. Only the tests in the standard battery were administered to John. Most of the scores generated through the administration of the WJ-III COG reveal that John overall intellectual ability is in the Average range of standard scores.

The WJ III COG provides a General Intellectual Ability score (GIA) and three cognitive performance clusters (Verbal Ability Standard Scale, Thinking Ability Standard Scale and Cognitive Efficiency Standard Scale). The cluster scores are reported as age-correlated standard scores. The cluster scores are scaled to a metric with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.

The General Intellectual Ability Scale (GIA) represents the first principal component, or single g factor, accounting for the most variance in overall performance on the tests that comprise the scale. The score will often be the best single-score predictor of various global criteria such as overall school achievement or other life outcomes that have some relationship to cognitive ability.

The Verbal Ability Scale is a measure of language development that includes the comprehension of individual words and the comprehension of relationships between words.

The Thinking Ability Scale is a sampling of the different thinking processes that may be invoked when information is short-term memory cannot be processed automatically.

Quincy 5

The Cognitive Efficiency Scale is the capacity of the cognitive system to process information automatically.

John obtained a General Intellectual Ability score (GIA) of 90 which is in the Average range of intellectual functioning and falls with the 25 th percentile rank. This means that John performed as well as or better than 25% of the students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 75%. The GIA is derived from the combined sum of cluster scores for the Verbal Ability, Thinking Ability, and Cognitive Efficiency scales, and is considered to be the score that is most representative of general intellectual functioning. His cluster scores for Verbal Ability Scale, Thinking Ability Scale, and Cognitive Efficiency Scale are also in the Average range (see Table 3).

On the Verbal Ability Scale, John obtained a standard score of 91, which is in the Average range and is in the 27th percentile rank. This means that John performed as well as or better than 27% of the students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 73%. The Verbal Ability Scale is made up of Verbal Comprehension. On the Verbal Comprehension test the difference (-2) between John’s actual (91) and predicted (93) scores for this measure is not statistically significant. This means that his standard score for this measure is in the same range as scores for his norm group.

On the Thinking Ability Scale, John obtained a standard score of 92, which is in the Average range and is at the 29th percentile rank. This means that John performed as well as or better than 29% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 31%. The Thinking Ability Scale is made of the Visual-Auditory Learning, Spatial Relations, Sound Blending, and Concept Formation tests. On the Visual-Auditory Learning test, the difference (19) between John’s actual (76) and predicted (95) scores for this measure is statistically significant. This means that his standard score for this measure is in the lower range as scores for his norm group. On the Spatial Relations test, the difference (12) between John’s actual (105) and predicted (93) scores for this measure is not statistically significant. This means that his standard score for this measure is in the same range as scores for her norm group. On the Sound Blending test, the difference (5) between John’s actual (98) and predicted (93) scores for this measure is not statistically significant. This means that his standard score for this measure is in the same range as scores for his norm group. On the Concept Formation test, the difference (-5) between John’s actual (88) and predicted (93) scores for this measure is not statistically significant. This means that his standard score for this measure and his standard score for his norm group is in the same range as scores for his norm group.

Quincy 6

On the Cognitive Efficiency Scale, John obtained a standard score of 93, which is in the Average range and is at the 33rd percentile rank. This means that John performed as well as or better than 33% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 67%.

The Cognitive Efficiency Scale is made up of Visual Matching and Numbers Reversed tests. On the Visual Matching test, there wasn’t a difference between John’s actual (94) and predicted (94) scores. Scores for this measure are not statistically significant. This means that hisr standard score for this measure is in the same range as scores for his norm group. On the Numbers Reversed test, there was not a difference between John’s actual (93) and predicted (93) scores. Scores for this measure are not statistically significant. This means that his standard score for this measure is in the same range as scores for his norm group.

Table 3. Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities- Third Edition Cluster Scores Summary

Cluster StandardScore

PR QualitativeDescription

General Intellectual Ability (GIA) 90 25 Average

Verbal Ability 91 27 Average

Thinking Ability 92 29 Average

Cognitive Efficiency- 93 33 Average

Note: SD= Standard Deviation; PR=Percentile Rank; Sig. =Significant; Diff=Difference

Broad Clusters and Subtest Score Interpretations

 On the WJ III COG, the broad ability clusters were designed to provide breadth among the different narrow abilities within each broad Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities (CHC factor). Each test was designed to contribute a different aspect to the broad ability. The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities- Third Edition contains 20 tests, each measuring a different aspect of cognitive ability.  The tests combine to form clusters for interpretive purposes.  John was administered nine (9) tests which represent seven (7) broad CHC factors (Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc), Long-Term Retrieval (Glr), Visual-Spatial Thinking (Gv), Auditory Processing (Ga), Fluid Reasoning (Gf), Processing Speed (Gs) and Short-Term Memory (Gsm) to obtain his cognitive ability scores. There was a significant strength in the area of Spatial Relations. There was a significant weakness in the area of Visual-Auditory Learning-Delayed.. (See Table 4).

Quincy 7

Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) measures the breadth and depth of a person’s acquired knowledge, the ability to communicate one’s knowledge and ability to reason using previous learned experiences or procedures. The test of Verbal Comprehension measures Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc). Verbal Comprehension includes four subtests (Picture Vocabulary, Synonyms, Antonyms, and Verbal Analogies). Picture Vocabulary measures aspects of lexical knowledge. This subtest requires the examinee to identify pictures of familiar and unfamiliar objects. The examinee is asked to verbally identify the objects. The items become more difficult as the selected pictures appear less frequently in the environment or represent less familiar concepts. Synonyms and Antonyms subtests measure different aspects of vocabulary knowledge. In the Synonyms subtest, the person is given a word and is asked to provide a synonym. In the Antonyms subtest, the person is given a word and is asked to provide an antonym. Verbal Analogies subtest measures the examinee’s ability to reason using lexical knowledge. The examinee hears three words of an analogy and is then asked to complete the analogy with an appropriate fourth word. Each subtest measures a different aspect of language development in spoken English language, such as knowledge of vocabulary or ability to reason.

On the Verbal Comprehension test, John obtained a standard scored of 91 which is in the Average range of intellectual functioning. This score is in the 27th percentile rank. This means that John performed as well as or better than 27% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 73%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 13 years and 7 months. All of the scores obtained for this measure indicate that John’s performance is lower than that of average 30 year olds. Long-term Retrieval (Glr) measures the ability to store information and retrieve it later. The Visual-Auditory Learning and Visual-Auditory Learning-Delayed tests measure Long-Term Retrieval. The Visual-Auditory test measures associative and meaningful memory. The examinee learns and recalls rebuses (pictographic representations of words) that begin as phrases and then sentences that increase in length and complexity. The Visual-Auditory Learning-Delayed test can be used to provide additional information about Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) abilities, specifically aspects of associative and meaningful memory. The Visual-Auditory Learning-Delayed test is presented 30 minutes to 8 days after Visual-Auditory Learning; it is a memory exercise that requires the examinee to recall the symbol/word relationships learned in Visual-Auditory Learning.

On the Visual-Auditory Learning test John obtained a standard scored of 76 which is in the range Low range of intellectual functioning. This score is in the 5th percentile rank. This means that John performed as well as or better than 5% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 95%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 6 years and 0 months. The score obtained for this measure indicates that John’s performance is lower than that of average 30 year olds.

On the Visual-Auditory Learning-Delayed test which was administered 2 hours 14 minutes after the Visual-Auditory Learning test, John obtained a standard scored of 58 which is in the Very Low range of intellectual functioning. This score is in the 0.2 percentile rank. This means that John performed as well as or better than 0.2% of

Quincy 8

students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 0.98%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is <2 years and 0 months. The score obtained for this measure indicates that John’s performance is lower than that of average 30 year olds.

Visual-Spatial Thinking (Gv) measures the ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and think with visual patterns, including the ability to store and recall visual representations. Spatial Relations is a measure of Visual-Spatial Thinking. This cluster includes one subtest: Spatial Relations (the ability to use visualization in thinking) and required him to identify two or three pieces that form a complete targeted shape. John obtained a standard score of 105, which is in the Average range of intellectual functioning. This score is in the 62nd percentile rank. This means that John performed as well as or better than 62% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 38%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is >25 years. The score obtained for this measure indicates that John’s performance is comparable to that of average 30 year olds.

Auditory Processing (Ga) measures the ability to analyze, synthesize, and discriminate auditory stimuli, including the ability to process and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions. Sound Blending and Incomplete Words are tests that measure Auditory Processing. The Sound Blending test measures the ability to produce language sounds. The examinee listens to a series of syllables and phonemes (sounds) and asked to blend the sounds into a word.

For Sound Blending, John’s standard score was 98 which is in the Average range of intellectual functioning. This score is in the 45th percentile rank. This percentile rank means John performed as well as or better than 45% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 55%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 18 years and 0 months.. Incomplete Words test measures auditory analysis and auditory closure and requires the examinee to hear a word from an audio recording that is missing one or more phonemes and identify by completing the word.

For Incomplete Words, John’s standard score was 82 which is in the Low Average range of intellectual functioning. This score is in the 12th percentile rank. This percentile rank means John performed as well as or better than 12% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 88%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 9 years and 4 months. The score obtained for this measure indicates that John’s performance is lower than that of average 30 year olds.

Fluid Reasoning (Gf) measures the ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information or new procedures. Concept Formation is a test that measures Fluid Reasoning. Concept Formation involves categorical reasoning based on principles of inductive logic and an aspect of executive processing – flexibility in thinking when required to shift one’s mental set frequently. This test requires the individual to examine a stimulus set and then formulate a rule that applies to the item(s).

For Concept Formation, John’s standard score was 88 which is in the Low Average range of intellectual functioning. This score is in the 20th percentile rank. This percentile rank

Quincy 9

means John performed as well as or better than 20% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 80%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 9 years and 5 months. The score indicates that John’s performance is lower than that of average 30 year olds.

Processing Speed (Gs) measures the ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, as an aspect of cognitive efficiency. Visual Matching measures Processing Speed. The Visual Matching test measures cognitive efficiency which is the speed at which an individual can make visual symbol discriminations.

For Visual Matching, John’s standard score was 94 which is in the Average range of intellectual functioning. This score is in the 36th percentile rank. This percentile rank means John performed as well as or better than 36% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 64%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 14 years and 9 months. The score obtained for this measure indicates that John’s performance is lower than that of average 30 year olds.

Short-Term Memory (Gsm) measures the ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness and then use it within a few seconds. Numbers Reversed and Auditory Working Memory tests are measurements of Short-Term Memory. The first test administered was Numbers Reversed which measures short-term memory span, and requires the individual to hold a span of numbers in immediate memory while performing a mental operation on it by reciting the numbers in reverse order.

For Numbers Reversed, John’s standard score was 93 which is in the Average range of intellectual functioning. This score is in the 33rd percentile rank. This percentile rank means John performed as well as or better than 33% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 67%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 13years and 2 months. The score obtained for this measure indicates that John’s performance is lower than that of average 30 year olds.

The second test, Auditory Working Memory, measures short-term auditory memory span and working memory or divided attention. The examinee listens to a series of digits and words, attempts to reorder the information repeating the objects first and then the numbers in sequential order.

For Auditory Working Memory, John’s standard score was 97 which is in the Average range of intellectual functioning. This score is in the 43rd percentile rank. This percentile rank means John performed as well as or better than 43% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 57%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 15 years and 4 months. The score obtained for this measure indicates that John’s performance is lower than that of average 30 year olds (see Table 4).

Quincy 10

Table 4. Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities – Third Edition Cluster Subtest Scores

SummaryCluster Standard

ScorePR AE Qualitative

DescriptionVerbal Comprehension 91 27 13-7 Average

Visual-Auditory Learning 76 5 6-0 Low

Spatial Relations 105 62 >25 Average

Sound Blending 98 45 18-0 Average

Concept Formation 88 20 9-5 Low Average

Visual Matching 94 36 14-9 Average

Numbers Reversed 93 33 13-2 Average

Incomplete Words 82 12 9-4 Low Average

Auditory Working Memory

97 43 15-4 Average

Visual-Auditory Learning-Delayed

58 0.2 <2-0 Very Low

Note: STD= Standard Score; PR=Percentile Rank; AE= Age Equivalent

Adaptive Behavior

Adaptive behavior is the effectiveness with which individuals meet the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of individuals of their age and cultural group. Adaptive behavior represents the interaction of personal, cognitive, social, and situational variables.

John’s adaptive behavior was assessed using informal measures. Based on this data, John’s adaptive behavior appears to be within the Average range and consistent with his current intellectual functioning.

Academic/Developmental Performance

Information regarding an individual’s level of work performance may be gathered through data from, but not limited to observations, and the administration of previous

Quincy 11

intelligence tests. A collection of work performance data was used to assess John’s level of acquired knowledge.

Informal and School Based Academic Testing

John graduated high school, attended and completed a welders program. He is currently self employed as a welder. His performance in mathematics was Low Average, however, he shared with me that math was his least favorite subject throughout his academic career.

Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement-Third Edition (WJ III ACH)

The Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement -Third Edition contains 22 tests measuring five curricular areas – reading, mathematics, written language, oral language, and academic knowledge – and two auxiliary writing evaluation procedures. Specific combinations, or groupings, of these 22 tests form clusters for interpretive purposes. The tests in the Standard Battery combine to form 10 cluster scores, including a total achievement score. This test has mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.

In addition, the WJ III ACH contains tests that impact the performance of cognitive abilities according to the CHC Theory of Cognitive Abilities. The Quantitative Knowledge (Gq) factor, measures stored acquired quantitative declarative and procedural knowledge. This factor is represented in the Standard Battery by Test 5: Calculation and Test 10: Applied Problems. The Reading/ Writing Ability (Grw) factor, measures depth of lexical knowledge including spelling, language comprehension, and English language usage. This factor is represented in the Standard battery by Test 1: Letter-Word Identification, Test 7: Spelling, Test 9: Passage Comprehension and Test 11: Writing Samples. The Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) factor, measures breadth and depth of a person’s acquired knowledge of a culture and the effective application of this knowledge. This factor is represented in the Standard Battery by Test 3: Story Recall and Test 4: Understanding Directions. The Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) factor, measures storage of information in long-term memory and fluent retrieval of it later through association. This factor refers to the process of storing and retrieving that information. This factor is represented in the Standard Battery by Test 12: Story Recall-Delayed. John’s performance on the tests that represent the Standard Battery is discussed below.

Letter-Word Identification

Letter-Word Identification measured John’s word identification skills. The initial items required him to identify letters that appear in large type on her side of the Test Book and the remaining items required him to pronounce words correctly. John was not required to know the meaning of any word. The items become increasingly difficult as the selected words appear less and less frequently in written English.

Quincy 12

On the Letter-Word Identification subtest, John obtained a standard score of 94 which is in the Average range of academic functioning. This score is in the 34th percentile rank, which means that John performed as well as or better than 34% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 66%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 15 years, 7 months. John’s RPI of 52/90 on the Letter-Word Identification test indicates that on similar tasks, he would demonstrate 52% proficiency, whereas average age peers would demonstrate 90% proficiency. The score obtained for this measure indicates that John’s performance is typical compared to that of average students 30 years old.

Reading Fluency

Reading Fluency measured John’s ability to quickly read simple sentences in the Subject Response Booklet, decide if the statement is true, and then circle Yes or No. The difficulty level of the sentences gradually increased to a moderate level. John attempted to complete as many items as possible within a 3-minute time limit. John’s RPI of 74/90 on the Reading Fluency test indicates that on similar tasks, he would demonstrate 74% proficiency, whereas average age peers would demonstrate 90% proficiency.

John obtained a standard score of 94 which is in the Average range of academic functioning. This score is in the 34th percentile rank, which means that John performed as well as or better than 34% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 66%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 14 years, 9 months.

The score obtained for this measure indicates that John’s performance is typical compared to that of average students 30 years old.

Story Recall

Story Recall measured aspects of John’s oral language including language development and meaningful memory. The task required him to recall increasingly complex stories that are presented using an audio recording. After listening to a passage, John was asked to recall as many details of the story as he could remember.

John obtained a standard score of 98 which is in the Average range of academic functioning. This score is in the 46th percentile rank, which means that John performed as well as or better than 46% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 54%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 13 years, 2 months. John’s RPI of 89/90 on the Story Recall test indicates that on similar tasks, he would demonstrate 89% proficiency, whereas average age peers would demonstrate 90% proficiency.

The score obtained for this measure indicates that John’s performance is typical of average individuals 30 years old.

Understanding Directions

Quincy 13

Understanding Directions is an oral language measure. The task required John to listen to a sequence of audio-recorded instructions and then follow the directions by pointing to various objects in a colored picture. The items gradually increase in linguistic complexity as the number of tasks to perform increases.

John obtained a standard score of 99 which is in the Average range of academic functioning. This score is in the 46th percentile rank, which means that John performed as well as or better than 46% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 54%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 15 years, 2 months. John’s RPI of 88/90 on the Understanding Directions test indicates that on similar tasks, he would demonstrate 88% proficiency, whereas average age peers would demonstrate 90% proficiency.

Calculation

Calculation is a test of math achievement measuring the ability to perform mathematical computations. The initial items on the Calculation test required John to write single numbers. The remaining items required him to perform addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division combinations of these basic operations, as well as some geometric, trigonometric, logarithmic, and calculus operations. The calculations involve negative numbers, percentages, decimals, fractions, and whole numbers. Because the calculations are presented in a traditional problem format in the Subject Response Booklet, John was not required to make any decisions about what operations to use.

John obtained a standard score of 70 which is in the Low range of academic functioning. This score is in the 2nd percentile rank, which means that Nellie performed as well as or better than 2% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 98%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 9 years, 10 months. John’s RPI of 16/90 on the Calculation test indicates that on similar tasks, he would demonstrate 16% proficiency, whereas average age peers would demonstrate 90% proficiency.

John obtained Low scores in the area of Calculation; however, this is an area of weakness for him. He solved some problems quickly and easily and others with not as much ease. At the start of the test, he stated, “I suck at Math”. He did not look forward to completing this portion of the test. At the end of the test John appeared exhausted.

Math Fluency

Math Fluency measured John’s ability to solve simple addition, subtraction, and multiplication facts quickly. He was presented a series of simple arithmetic problems in the Subject Response Booklet. This test has a 3-minute time limit.

John obtained a standard score of 88 which is in the Low Average range of academic functioning. This score is in the 21st percentile rank, which means that John performed as

Quincy 14

well as or better than 21% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 79%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 13 years, 8 months. John’s RPI of 77/90 on the Math Fluency test indicates that on similar tasks, he would demonstrate 77% proficiency, whereas average age peers would demonstrate 90% proficiency.

During this test John seemed somewhat anxious. He worked cautiously through the problems and would frequently look back at previous answers to check his response regardless of the test being timed. At one point during the test, he made a mistake, although he could not erase the answer, it was evident that it bothered him that his response was incorrect. Instead of moving forward on the test, he struck through his incorrect response and went back to put the correct one.

Spelling

Spelling measured John’s ability to write orally presented words correctly. The items measured John’s ability to spell words correctly. The items became increasingly difficult as the words became more difficult.

John obtained a standard score of 90 which is in the Average range of academic functioning. This score is in the 25th percentile rank, which means that John performed as well as or better than 25% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 25%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 13 years, 4 months. John’s RPI of 56/90 on the Spelling test indicates that on similar tasks, he would demonstrate 56% proficiency, whereas average age peers would demonstrate 90% proficiency.

Writing Fluency

Writing Fluency measured John’s skill in formulating and writing simple sentences quickly. Each sentence must relate to a given stimulus picture in the Subject Response Booklet and include a given set of three words. This test has a 7-minute time limit.

John obtained a standard score of 87 which is in the Low Average range of academic functioning. This score is in the 20th percentile rank, which means that John performed as well as or better than 20% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 80%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 10 years, 8 months. John’s RPI of 50/90 on the Writing Fluency test indicates that on similar tasks, he would demonstrate 50% proficiency, whereas average age peers would demonstrate 90% proficiency.

Passage Comprehension

The initial Passage Comprehension items involve symbolic learning, or the ability to match a rebus (pictographic representation of a word) with an actual picture of the object. The next items were presented in a multiple-choice format and required John to point to the picture represented by a phrase. The remaining items required him to read a short passage and identify a missing key word that makes sense in the context of that passage.

Quincy 15

The items became increasingly difficult by removing pictorial stimuli and by increasing passage length, level of vocabulary and complexity of syntactic and semantic cues.

John obtained a standard score of 95 which is in the Average range of academic functioning. This score is in the 38th percentile rank, which means that John performed as well as or better than 38% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 62%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is 10 years, 8 months. John’s RPI of 76/90 on the Passage Comprehension test indicates that on similar tasks, he would demonstrate 76% proficiency, whereas average age peers would demonstrate 90% proficiency.

Writing Samples

Writing Samples measured John’s skills in writing responses to a variety of demands. He was required produce written sentences that were evaluated with respect to the quality of expression. Item difficulty increased by increasing passage length, level of vocabulary, grammatical complexities, and level of concept abstraction. John was not penalized for errors in basic writing skills, such as spelling or punctuation.

John obtained a standard score of 126 which is in the Superior range of academic functioning. This score is in the 96th percentile rank, which means that John performed as well as or better than 96% of students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 4%. John’s age equivalent for this measure is >30 years. John’s RPI of 99/90 on the Writing Samples test indicates that on similar tasks, she would demonstrate 99% proficiency, whereas average age peers would demonstrate 90% proficiency (see Table 5).

Table 5. Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement Assessment (WJ III ACH) – Third Edition Cluster Subtest Scores

Summary

Quincy 16

Subtest StandardScore

PR RPI AE QualitativeDescription

Letter-Word Identification 94 34 52/90 15-7 Average

Reading Fluency 94 34 74/90 14-9 Average

Story Recall 98 46 89/90 13-2 Average

Understanding Directions 99 46 88/90 15-2 Average

Calculation 70 2 16/90 9-10 Low

Math Fluency 88 21 77/90 13-8 Low Average

Spelling 90 25 56/90 13-4 Average

Writing Fluency 87 20 50/90 10-8 Low Average

Passage Comprehension 95 38 76/90 14-8 Average

Applied Problems 87 19 30/90 12-0 Low Average

Writing Samples 126 96 99/90 >30 Superior

Note: STD= Standard Score; PR=Percentile Rank; AE= Age Equivalent

Quincy 17

Assistive Technology

John can access the work environment without the need for AT services or devices. He communicates clearly and is expressively and receptively independent.

Transition

Transition was addressed at the annual ARD and documented that transition is not applicable to the individual at this is time because he is 30 years old and currently working as a Welder.

Conclusion

During individual achievement testing, John demonstrated the following academic strengths and weaknesses:

Strengths – John performed best in the areas of Working Memory, Oral Language, Writing Samples and Story Recall-Delayed Subtests. Additional Strengths included Auditory Working Memory and Understanding Directions. His scores ranged from Average to Superior.

Weaknesses – Although John’s Math proficiency is Low Average, she scored the lowest in Visual- Auditory Learning- Delayed. He exhibited difficulty when he completed problems with square root and algebraic calculations; those that included several steps. The calculations involved exponents, multiplication and division. As he began to solve the problems he became frustrated. He did note that he had forgotten how to solve some types of problems that he used to know how to do. He skipped over several problems at first glance. Additionally, John’s performance varied on timed tests which included Math Fluency and Reading Fluency. He worked very cautiously and exhibited some anxiety when time demands were required.

John’s overall intellectual ability, as measured by the WJ III GIA (Std), is in the Average range of standard scores.

John’s Verbal Ability (acquired knowledge and language comprehension) is in the Average range of standard scores when compared to others at his age level. His Thinking Ability (intentional cognitive processing) is in the Average range. His cognitive efficiency (automatic cognitive processing) is in the Average range. His fluency with academic tasks is within Average range.

John’s phonemic awareness standard score is in the Average range when compared to others at his age level. His working memory score is in the Average range.

No significant discrepancies were found between John’s overall intellectual ability and his phonemic awareness and working memory.

Quincy 18

John’s oral language skills are Average when compared to the range of scores obtained by others at his age level. John’s overall level of achievement is Average. John’s academic skills and his ability to apply those skills are both within the Average range. His fluency with academic tasks is within the Average range.

When compared to others at his age level, John’s standard scores are Average in Written Expression and Broad Reading, Brief Reading and Brief Writing. Her standard scores are Low to Low Average (compared to age peers) in Broad Mathematics, Math Calculation Skills, and Brief Mathematics.

To help determine if any ability/achievement discrepancies exist, comparisons were made between his cognitive and achievement scores. Specifically, there is a noteworthy difference on her Math Calculation and Math Reasoning subtest scores of 78 and the level of achievement anticipated for a student with her GIA of 90. This significant and highly unusual difference indicates performance lower than expected on tasks that required her to use processing speed skills, problem solving, vocabulary and analysis. John's performance in this area is still in the Average range. Therefore, no significant discrepancies were found between John’s intellectual ability and his measured reading, mathematics, written language, and oral language achievement. Based on a mix of cognitive tasks associated with performance in each area, John is performing below or at predicted levels in reading, mathematics, written language and oral language.

John’s overall scores indicated the he is performing in the Average range of intellectual ability and achievement.

Quincy 19

Table 6. Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement Test-Third Edition and Clusters Measuring the Seven IDEA Areas

Required LD Areas WJ-III ACH Subtests

WJ-III ACH

Subtests/Composites

STD. Scores

GIA GIA/ACHDif.

Sig.Y/N

Oral Expression Story Recall 98 90 -8 N

Listening ComprehensionUnderstanding Directions

99 90 -9 N

Written Expression Writing Sample

Spelling

Writing Fluency

126

90

87

90

90

90

-36

0

3

Y

N

N

Basic Reading Skills Letter-Word Identification

94 90 -4 N

Reading Comprehension Passage Comprehension

95 90 -5 N

Math Calculation Calculation

Math Fluency

70

88

90

90

20

2

Y

N

Math Reasoning Applied Problems 87 90 3 N

Note: STD=Standard Scores; Dif. =Difference; GIA=General Intellectual Ability; Sig. =Significance

Quincy 20

Recommendations

This evaluation is considered a valid representation of John’s current levels of functioning in the areas assessed. The following recommendations are based upon a review of evaluation data to assist John during his professional career.

Provide John with activities designed to increase his rate of production, such as recording the starting and stopping times on an activity or assignment or using a stopwatch or timer to increase response rate.

Provide various times activities, such as having John calculate simple math facts as fast as he can. Chart daily performance.

Have John estimate the amount of time that it will take to complete a task. Have him write down the starting and finishing times.

To help John increase her speed in math operations drill him on math facts using visual stimuli such as computer programs and when he can respond to a math fact within 3 seconds, worksheets. Eventually move to timed tests.

Administer daily timed math tests to see how many facts John can complete within a minute. He should record and monitor his progress.

Have John follow steps to solve algebraic problems: write out the equation, expand the terms, and write out the steps of hisr solution (isolate unknown(s); solved for unknown(s); check answer with the goal; highlight answer).

Assurances

The multidisciplinary team assures that the testing, evaluation materials, and procedures used for the purpose of evaluation were selected and administered so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory.

The multidisciplinary team assures that the tests and other evaluation materials have been validated for the specific purpose for which they were used.

The multidisciplinary team assures that the tests and other evaluation materials were administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producers.

More than one procedure was used for determining whether a student has a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the student.

Technically sound instruments were used to assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.

The evaluation provides relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child and is sufficiently comprehensive to identify the special education needs and related (supportive) services as a required to assist the child to benefit from special education.

Quincy 21

Multidisciplinary Team

Sherneice WilliamsEducational Diagnostician

Signature

___________________________________