1. Summary statement of what the index is and measures.

2. How she performed/give the scores

3. Are they similarly developed
4. One sentence that states the subtest, what it measures, and how she performed (give score).
5. Summary sentence

defining the test, reporting results, interpreting it and summarizing

REPORTS
Students will be provided Background Data, Behavioral Observations, WAIS-IV/or WISC-V and
WIAT-III data for interpretation and development of a report.
• When electronically submitting a report, include your name and the name of the
case and in the title of the document. Please send a clean copy (one without track
changes markings).
Report Format

• Identifying Information (Disguised)

Name: PB
DOB: 02/15/1963
AGE: 50 years, 7 months
DOT: 09/15/2013

• Referral Question
PB was self referred due to x cognitive functions. Cognitive testing is needed to help
differentiate diagnostic criteria related to ADHD.

o History of Presenting Problem

PB was self-reffered a psychological evaluation due to persistent issues with attention,
concentration, and memory recall. She states that these issues were present at least since
grade school. Currently, these issues are interfering with her college coursework.

• Evaluation Procedures
The WAIS-IV was administered on 9/15/2013.

o (List of test administered)

HOWS IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM EVAL PROCEDURES? SHOULDN”T IT COME
FIRST?
The subtests administered were block design, similarities, digit span, matrix reasoning,
vocabulary, arithmetic, symbol search, visual puzzles, information, coding, letter number
sequencing, cancellation, digit span forward, and digit span backward.

• Relevant Biopsychosocial History

Home/living situation
PB is twice divorced, with no biological children. She currently lives along
Developmental History
PB reports that her developmental history was unremarkable.
Career/Educational history
PB reports the she has found school at all levels to be challenging. She received special
education help in 7th grade for reading and math. Her high school average was 2.0. Her
university average is 1.75. She has not been employed in 5 years.
Medical History
She reports no major medical problems. She has been diagnosed with Bipolar Affective
Disorder II, and is currently medicating with Prozak (40mg/day) and Depakote (amount
unspecified).

o See format
• Behavioral Observations

• Test Results
The WAIS-IV is a measure of cognitive ability in adults. It examines the relationship
between intellectual functioning and memory.
Her Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) is 85, which is in the 16th percentile, with a
confidence bands of 82-89, categorized as ‘low average to average.’ This is the sum of all the
scaled scores (perceptual reasoning, verbal comprehension, working memory, and processing
speed). This estimate is unitary and cohesive, meaning the client’s overall cognitive ability can
be interpreted meaningfully because of the lack of variability in her performance on the WAIS-IV
subtests.
PB earned the following results.
Her Verbal Comprehension score is 100, which is in the 50th percentile, with confidence
bands of 95-105, categorized as ‘average to average.’
Her Perceptual Reasoning score is 86, which is in the 18th percentile, with confidence
bands of 81-92, categorized as ‘low average to average’.
Her Working Memory score is 74, which is in the 4th percentile, with confidence bands of
70-81, categorized as ‘extremely low to low average.’
Her Processing Speed score is 86, which is in the 18th percentile, with confidence bands
of 80-94, categorized as ‘low average to average.’

• Interpretation and Impressions MAIN PART

Measures of working memory (digit span forward and backward, arithmetic, and letter
number sequencing) are below average.
• Diagnostic Impressions

o Concise summary of findings supporting the Diagnosis

• DSM V Diagnosis

• Summary and Recommendations

o Bullet format, addresses weaknesses from interpretation
Group 1
The client earned a Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) of 105, which is the sum of all the scaled scores
(perceptual reasoning, verbal comprehension, working memory, and processing speed), but this
estimate of the client’s overall cognitive ability cannot be interpreted meaningfully because of
the variability in his performance on the WAIS-IV subtests.

Group 2
The Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) is a measure of verbal reasoning and problem solving.
A score of 125 is within the 95th percentile demonstrating superior intellectual abilities in verbal
reasoning, comprehension, and expressive language. As the score is above 115, the results from
this index indicates this is a normative strength for the examinee.

Group 3
The subtests in the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) measure how well the subject can
examine and consider objects like designs, pictures, and blocks and use them to problem solve.
The PRI score of 110 is solidly within the normal range.

Group 4
The subtest in PSI measures the speed the student can mental processing, processing visual
stimuli, and other cognitive abilities. This person demonstrated a weak PSI. FSIQ isn’t unitary.
PSI impacted the overall score of the test because it was substantially lower.

Group 5
The working memory measures the ability to attend to verbally presented information. It
measures both attention and concentration. This person's score was 100 which falls in the
average range. So this person will be able to attend to information with an expected average
ability.

Group 6
Tom completed the WAIS-IV an individually administered intelligence test, to obtain an
assessment of her overall intellectual functioning and measure specific cognitive abilities. The
test is divided into four indexes. The first is Verbal Comprehension, which measures verbal
reasoning ability, comprehension, and expressive language. Perceptual Reasoning is made up of
tasks that measure language-reduced reasoning, visual-motor ability, and spatial skills. The test
also assesses auditory Working Memory and Processing Speed. The Full-Scale IQ score (FSIQ)
is made up of the four indexes described above. Tom’s FSIQ score was in the average range.
However, this score may not be a good measure of Tom’s ability because he showed a wide
range of ability across indices. There was significant variance between Tom’s verbal
comprehension index (above normal range) and the processing speed index (below normal
range). Tom’s abilities may be better understood analyzing the individual index and subtest
scores
FSIQ is usually a score used to measure someones overall intellectual functioning, but ddue to
pd’s pattern of cognitive performance, it is not a good representation. The GAI, however,
We will have to look at each index individually.

VCI is an index that measures an individual’s verbal abilities.

Similarities is a measure an individuals ability reason with words. This is an area of normative
strength. Her ability reason abstractly with words is strong.
Information-Her understanding of cultural information is average

The PRI is designed to measure fluid reasoning in the perceptual domain with tasks that assess
nonverbal concept formation, visual perception and organization, visual-motor coordination,
learning, and the ability to separate figure and ground in visual stimuli.

.
LAST SENTENCE-This person can reason well with words. They have learned things from
school and culture and retained it. This person will perform just as well as her peers when it
comes to utilizing verbal information.

WORKING MEMORY-The WMI is a measure of short-term memory, which is the ability to

remember information for a few seconds, and working memory, which is the ability to hold and
mentally manipulate auditory information.
The WMI is a measure of short-term memory, which is the ability to remember information for a
few seconds, and working memory, which is the ability to hold and mentally manipulate auditory
information. Overall, Tina's ability to sustain attention, concentrate, and exert mental control is in
the borderline range. She performed better than approximately 4% of her peers in this area The
WMI is a measure of short-term memory, which is the ability to remember information for a few
seconds, and working memory, which is the ability to hold and mentally manipulate auditory
information. Tina’s WMI abilities were assessed by two tasks that required recalling numbers
that were read out loud and repeating the numbers back to the examiner in the same order,
reverse order, and ascending order, and to mentally solve a series of oral arithmetic problems
within a specified amount of time. The spread between the subtests in the WMI index indicate
that it is unitary, signifying that this index is a good representation of her skills in working
memory (consistent). Overall, Tina's ability to sustain attention, concentrate, and exert mental
control is in the borderline range. She performed better than approximately 4% of her peers in
this area (WMI=74, 4%).
PB performed equally when assessed on mental tasks which required the ability to hold
information, manipulate, and recall visual information (AR=5, 5%), as well as when assessing
for verbal short-term memory and attention (DS=6, 9%). It was easier for her to repeat numbers
backwards than forward. Comparatively, although she still scored in the borderline range,
holding verbal information in her memory and manipulating it was easierr for her (LNS=7, 16%).
Because she has trouble holding things in memory, this probably makes her performance in
academica more challenging. She may have more difficulty remembering information
immediately.
On a more robust measure of working memory where she was required to repeat both numbers
and letters in ascending order, she performed in the low average range.

The PSI measures cognitive processing efficiency. PSI represents PB’s ability to visually scan,
perceive, organize, utilize hand-eye coordination in an efficient manner, and to perform simple,
clerical-type tasks quickly. She should not have any problems doing tasks quickly.
PSI is a measure of the ability to process information quickly and efficiently. Across all
measures, her abilities are similarly developed.

PRI-
Overall, pb demonstrated deficiencies on tasks that required basic auditory comprehension, but
when complexity increased, so did her performance.

Summary - Tie in background and referral question.

REFERRAL QUESTION
HOW DO I KNOW IF SHE HAS ADHD
WHAT TREATMENT RECCOMENDATIONS?