Client JK 1

Houston Baptist University

EDSP 6344
Camille Jones, Educational Diagnostician Trainee
CONFIDENTIAL
INDIVIDUAL ACADEMIC EVALUATION REPORT (IAER)
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Name: Client JK
Grade: Sophomore, College
Date of Birth: October 4, 1995
Age: 19 years, 7 months
Gender: Female
Date of Report: July 2, 2015

Parents/Guardians: Mr. F. K.
Address: 7490 Beechnut St
Phone Number: (917) 674-8856
Email Address: jonescl2@hbu.edu

REASON FOR FULL AND INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION

This Full and Individual Evaluation (FIE) represents academic and intellectual evaluations
conducted by Camille Jones, Educational Diagnostician Trainee. The purpose of this FIE is to: (a)
describe Client JKs strengths and weaknesses and present levels of performance across multiple
academic areas; (b) provide information that will assist personnel at her current college campus in
determining her current educational needs; and (c) make recommendations regarding transition and
educational programming.
Throughout her school years, Client JK experienced more academic successes than challenges. Her
school success was supported by her efforts to consciously seek assistance from tutors and teachers
in public, private and homeschooling settings. Client JKs prior academic successes continue to
impact her academic success at HBU. Currently, Client JK wants to more fully understand how
her cognitive abilities function and learn more effective ways to compensate for self-reported
deficits in focus that may adversely impact her college and career performance--particularly in
cases where she considers aspects of college (or transition) either to be boring or devoid of personal
interest.

Client JK 2

SOURCES OF ASSESSMENT DATA

Standardized evaluation procedures were followed. Client JK was tested on the campus of Houston
Baptist University both in a campus library room and in a residential office study room near where
she lives. Both rooms were quiet and conducive to an environment appropriate for testing.
Sources of Information

Person (s) Responsible

Dates

Parent/Client Information

Mr. J. Kelley (Father)

June 1, 2015

Client Interviews/SelfReported Inventories

Camille Jones, Educational

Diagnostician Trainee

June 14 & 25, 2014

Discussion of Educational
Records

Camille Jones, Educational

Diagnostician Trainee

June 14, 2015

Camille Jones, Educational

Diagnostician Trainee

June 14, 2015

Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Camille Jones, Educational
Achievement-Fourth Edition (W- Diagnostician Trainee
J IV Achievement)

June 14, 2015

Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Camille Jones, Educational
Achievement-Fourth Edition (W- Diagnostician Trainee
J-IV Oral Language)

June 25, 2015

Wechsler Adult Intelligence

Scale Fourth Edition (WAISIV)
Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test Third
Edition (WIAT-III)

February 8, 2015

Tests Administered
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Cognitive Abilities-Fourth
Edition (WJ IV Cognitive)

Camille Jones, Educational

Diagnostician Trainee
Camille Jones, Educational
Diagnostician Trainee

March 29, 2015

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Client JK currently is a sophomore at Houston Baptist University (HBU) in Houston, Texas.
Client JK was born in the United Kingdom to parents dually enlisted in the military, serving on
long assignment in the United Kingdom. When Client JK was formally evaluated for her
academic abilities some ten years ago in Georgia, she was determined to be eligible for gifted
education services. Client JK reports that she attended gifted classes throughout her years of
schooling in Georgia. Client JK reports that she also was homeschooled. Upon moving to Texas,
Client JK could not access gifted services but continued her learning through Advanced
Placement classes. In 2014-15, during her freshman year at HBU, Client JK completed additional

Client JK 3

coursework and credits beyond traditional freshmen semester hours. By the end of the summer
2015, Client JK should have sufficient additional credits to be classified as an HBU junior in
2015-16. Currently a political science major, Client JK shared that one of her favorite subjects is
World History while her least favorite subject is Mathematics.
SPEECH/LANGUAGE
Client JK speaks both British English and American Englishsince she was raised and schooled
in both places. Evaluation of Client JKs language proficiency consisted of informal and formal
language proficiency assessments in both the receptive and expressive domains, using the
Woodcock-Johnson-IV Tests of Oral Language, as Table 6 sets forth in detail and as summarized
more briefly below. Throughout oral language testing, Client JK presented an advanced level of
oral language overall and a Very Advanced level of oral expression and conversational proficiency.
When compared with same age peers (RPI), Client JK evidenced multiple strengths throughout the
WJ-IV OL test domains: (add more)
Listening Comprehension:
Oral Comprehension
Understanding Directions
Oral Expression:
Picture Vocabulary
Sentence Repetition

Advanced (99/90)

Very Advanced (100/90)

Oral Language: Advanced (99/90)

Picture Vocabulary
Oral Comprehension
Broad Oral Language: Advanced (99/90)
Picture Vocabulary
Oral Comprehension
Understanding Directions

Client JK expresses herself fluently in English oral speech. Her speech cadence is quick and tinged
with a British English accent. She has fully intelligible speech and is able to make her needs known
to others. During testing, she easily engaged in informal conversation and frequently connected
new input with her prior knowledge and/or made other personally relevant associations. Her RPI
score of 99/90 indicates that the given English oral language tasks were easy for her. Her
proficiency level is in the Advanced range and her level of functioning is in the Advanced range as
well. Client JK had more challenge on the Understanding Directions subtestwhich required
Client JK first to listen to a sequence of increasingly complex instructions and then follow the
directions.
Nonetheless, Client JK was able to follow testing instructions well. Instructions for testing were
given in a one-to-one setting and no more than three instructions were provided on average at a
time. Client JK engaged in appropriate, good-natured conversation throughout. She was able to
take turns during conversation and remained on-topic. All evaluation instruments and procedures
were administered in English--her dominant language.
PHYSICAL INFORMATION
Physical conditions that may directly affect Client JKs ability to profit from the educational
process were considered. Her vision and hearing appeared to be within normal limits with
correction; Client JK wore prescription glasses throughout testing but qualified their use as mostly
for distance. While she does take medication, Client JK exhibited no signs of health or medical
problems. She does not appear to have physical conditions that must be considered in the provision
of an appropriate education.

Client JK 4

SOCIOLOGICAL
Sociological data concerning Client JKs family and community environment that may influence
learning/behavior patterns were considered. Client JK is a well-mannered, 19-year old young
woman. Client JK lives with her biological father in Dickinson, Texas when not residing on HBUs
campus. She has an 11-year old younger brother who also lives with her father.
While her parents are now separated, Client JK and her family maintain positive relations. Both are
supportive of her educational success and Client JK self-reports that her father gives her the
autonomy she seeks. Her extended family appears to have supported her educational success
throughout her school years in the UK, as Client JK reports that extended family helped her obtain
tutors during homeschooling to continue her studies. Based on current data, sociological factors

at present do not appear to adversely affect Client JK to a degree that would impede her
learning.
EMOTIONAL/BEHAVIORAL
The evaluation of a students emotional and behavioral factors consists of identifying those
characteristics of behaviors which may adversely impact Client JKs learning. On campus, Client
JK has been observed over several months spending lunchtime in the Student Center multiple times
weekly with a fellow group of HBU peers who love gaming. She also spends time on weekends
with a group of older college students active in a local church. Client JK engages with numerous
acquaintances on campus and interacts appropriately.
Through a behavioral self-report scale, Client JK indicated the frequency to which she has
experienced difficulty with 18 specific behaviors (scaled from never to very often). Client JK
reported that she often has difficulties with: 1) wrapping up final project details, once the challenges
parts are completed, 2) leaving her seat in meetings or other situations in which she was expected
to remain seated, and 3) interrupting others when they are busy. Client JK further reported very
often having difficulties with: 1) remembering appointments or obligations; 2) squirming and
fidgeting; 3) feeling overactive and compelled to do things (like a motor was on); 4) making
careless mistakes when she had to work on a boring or difficult project; 5) keeping her attention
when she had to complete boring or repetitive work; 6) misplacing or being unable to find things
at home or at work; 7) getting distracted by noise or activity around her; 8) feeling restless or
fidgety; and with 9) unwinding and relaxing when she has time to herself.
During a recent on-campus observation, Client JK exhibited attentive yet structured warmth
towards the children with whom she works at her church, as they engaged outside in an exploratory
activity. As a Resident Advisor, Client JK presents as attentive and positive while interacting with
new HBU students. Based on observations made by Client JKs peers and co-advisors, serious
emotional and behavioral factors do not currently appear to significantly interfere with her ability
to learn and work in cooperative settings.
TEST BEHAVIORS
During the evaluation, Client JK was friendly, cooperative, polite, respectful, and independent.
Rapport was established quickly with Client JK and she appeared interested and motivated.
Client JK was systematic and methodical in her problem-solving behavior as well as alert and
persistent in her work style. During WJ IV Cognitive, Achievement and Oral Language testing,
Client JK exhibited Very Advanced conversational proficiency. Client JK remained

Client JK 5

exceptionally cooperative during testing, acted appropriately and remained attentive to all tasks.
She appeared at ease and comfortable, and in most cases she also responded with care and
displayed increased levels of effort for more difficult tasks.
As such, the results for all three WJ IV tests appear to be reliable and valid estimations of her
current level of functioning.

INTELLECTUAL PERFORMANCE
An intelligence test was individually administered in order to assess Client JKs general range of
intellectual functioning and to determine current cognitive strengths and weaknesses. The
Woodcock Johnson IV is composed of three instruments: The Woodcock-Johnson IV Test of
Cognitive Abilities (WJ IV COG), The Woodcock-Johnson IV Test of Achievement (WJ IV ACH)
and The Woodcock-Johnson IV Test of Oral Language (WJ IV OL). The triad of tests provide a
comprehensive set of individually-administered, norm-referenced tests for measuring intellectual
abilities, academic achievement and oral language abilities.
Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests are based on current theory and research on the structure of human
cognitive abilities. The theoretical foundation is derived from the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of
cognitive abilities (CHC theory). CHC theory combines two theories that focus on multiple broad
abilities, each of which subsumes several narrow cognitive abilities. The WJ IV Tests measure
seven broad abilities (through the Cognitive Test) yet nine broad abilities in total: 1)
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc); 2) Fluid Reasoning (Gf); 3) Visual Processing (Gv), 4) ShortTerm Working Memory (Gwm), 5) Long-Term Retrieval (Glr), 6) Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs),
7) Auditory Processing (Ga), 8) Reading and Writing (Grw) and 9) Quantitative Knowledge (Qv).
While CHC theory is commonly related to WJ IV Cognitive testing it is also applied to
Achievement and Oral Language testing as well to create a common framework for describing,
measuring and interpreting Client JKs performance.
The Woodcock-Johnson IV Test of Cognitive Abilities (WJ-IV COG) contains 18 tests for measuring
cognitive abilities and related aspects of cognitive functioning. Of its 18 tests, 10 are in the standard
battery and 8 in the extended battery. WJ IV COG tests can be used with individuals from 2 to
over 90 years of age. Various tests from the WJ IV COG are combined into clusters for interpretive
purposes. Cluster scores are reported as age-correlated standard scores. Cluster scores are scaled
to a standard score metric with a mean (M) of 100 and a standard deviation (SD) of 15.
The WJ IV COG provides four different types of ability scores to accommodate a wide array of
predictive (and diagnostic) purposes: General Intellectual Ability (GIA), the Gf-Gc Composite,
Brief Intellectual Ability (BIA), and the Scholastic Aptitudes.

The WJ IV COG provides a General Intellectual Ability score (GIA). A core set of
Cognitive Abilities tests (Tests 1 through 7) are used for calculating the GIA and
provides the basis for an intra-cognitive variation procedure. GIA scores represent the
first principal component, or single g factor, accounting for the most variance in overall
performance on the tests that comprise the scale. Based on Cognitive Tests 1 through
7 data, the GIA score often serves as the best single-score predictor of various global
criteria such as Client JKs overall school achievement or other life outcomes that have
some relationship to cognitive ability.

Client JK 6

The Gf-Gc Composite is comprised of 4 tests: Test 1: Oral Vocabulary, Test 2:

Number Series, Test 8: General Information and Test 9: Concept Formation. The GfGc cluster is designed to be an estimate of intellectual ability--based on the two
highest order (g-loaded) factors: Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) and Fluid
Reasoning (Gf). The Gf-Gc score can provide important diagnostic information
concerning Client JK. For example, the Gf-Gc composite may be useful in
identifying individuals for gifted and talented programs. Additionally, the Composite
can be used as an estimate of potential and/or for ability-achievement discrepancy
analysis to determine the presence of a learning difference.

Brief Intellectual Ability (BIA) scores can be generated once WJ IV COG Tests 1
through 3 are administered: Oral Vocabulary, Number Series and Verbal Attention.
BIA scores have varied uses such as for screenings and re-evaluations. BIA
information is reported herein in the Appendix, however GIA rather BIA is discussed
in greater detail.

Scholastic Aptitude scores are used to predict achievement in specific curricular areas
(e.g. reading, writing and mathematics). Each Scholastic Aptitude score is based on a
combination of four tests that produced the best prediction for the selected achievement
area. Scholastic aptitude clusters differ for each academic area in order to provide the
best prediction of skills.

Client JK obtained a General Intellectual Ability (GIA) Standard Score of 144 which is in the
Superior range of intellectual ability and falls within the 99.8th percentile rank. This percentile rank
means that Client JK performed as well as or better than 99.8% of students in her norm group and
not as well as the remaining .2%. This GIA score falls within the range of scores from 140-148,
which means that on any given day Client JK could obtain a score up to 148. Client JKs GIA
score is considered to be the score most representative of her general intellectual functioning.

Client JK 7

Table A. WJ IV Cognitive Results: Client JK

Table A Woodcock-Johnson IV Test of Cognitive Abilities (WJ-IV)

Cluster/Test
Standard Scores)
(Scaled Scores)

50 55 60 65 70

75
4

80
85
5
6
Low Average

General Intellectual Ability (GIA)

90
7

95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135

8
9
10
11 12
13
14
15
Average
High Average
Superior
144
147

Oral Vocabulary (Test 1)

Number Series (Test 2)

127

Verbal Attention (Test 3)

117

Letter-Pattern Matching (Test 4)

119

Phonological Processing (Test 5)

135

Story Recall (Test 6)

146

Visualization (Test 7)
Gf-Gc Composite (Gc)

141
142
140

Comprehension- Knowledge (Gc)

Oral Vocabulary (Test 1)
General Information (Test 8)
Fluid Reasoning (Gf)
Number Series (Test 2)
Concept Formation (Test 9)
Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm)(Ext)
Verbal Attention (Test 3)
Numbers Reversed (Test 10)
Object-Number Sequencing (Test 16)
Visual Spatial (Gv)
Visualization (Test 7)
Picture Recognition (Test 14)
Auditory Processing (Ga)
Phonological Processing (Test 5)
Nonword Repetition (Test 12)
Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs)
Letter-Pattern Matching (Test 4)
Pair Cancellation (Test 17)
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)
Story Recall (Test 6)
Visual-Auditory Learning (Test 13)
(Standard Scores)
50 55 60 65 70
75
(Scaled Scores)
4
5
Low Average

147
132
127
127
127
126
117
127
117
147
141
137
131
135

121
120
119
117
150
146
140
80 85
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
6
7
8
9
10
11 12
13
14
15
Average
High Average
Superior

Client JK 8

This section discusses the function of the variety of scores obtained from WJ IV Tests and
interpreted in general and in Tables 1-12 hereafter more specifically.
Table 1 charts Client JK scores from the WJ IV Cognitive Abilities Batteries. Table 1 also
introduces 8 categories of data to interpret when evaluating Client JKs cognitive, achievement
and oral language abilities: 1) Relative Proficiency Index, 2) Age Equivalent Scores, 3) W
Difference, 4) Standard Scores, 5) Standard Score Qualitative Descriptors, 6) Percentile Bands,
7) Proficiency Levels (in relation to RPI) and 8) Instructional Implications arising from task
demands.

1. Relative Proficiency Index (RPI)

The Relative Proficiency Index (RPI) is an intragroup measure that measures an
examinees performance in relation to his or her normed group and the difficulty of the
tasks performed. RPIs are based on the distance along the W scale that an examinees
score falls above or below the average score for their reference group. This distance,
referred to as the W Difference (W Diff), reflects the absolute distance of Client JKs
results from the average performance on the same task for those examinees also aged 19
years, 8 months. As an index, RPI is expressed as a fraction. The index denominator is a
constant of 90. The index numerator ranges from 0 to 100 and reflects both Client JKs
proficiency on the given tasks and the predicted level of performance on similar tasks. The
RPI allows statements to be generated about an examinees quality of performance on tasks
similar to the ones tested.
Client JLs Oral Vocabulary RPI score of 100/90 in Table 1 would thus be interpreted to
mean that when her age mates show 90% success at tasks in Oral Vocabulary, Client JKs
shows 100% success. Her Oral Vocabulary W Difference was 38, with W differences for
all of her cognitive scores ranging from 16 to 38. Table 1 also represents Client JKs
proficiency level per test (as measured intra-group) as Advanced to Very Advanced. The
instructional implications from this are that similar Oral Vocabulary task demands would
be very easy for Client JK. Table 1 charts the instructional implications arising from
relative proficiency levels and linked to Client JKs RPI data for each WJ IV Cognitive
test.
2. Age Equivalent Scores
An age equivalent (AE) score measures performance in terms of the age group in the
norming sample at which the average score is the same as Client JKs score. Age
equivalents may be more useful than grade equivalents when evaluating the abilities of

Client JK 9

college-level adults like Client JK. At the age scale ends, less than (<) signs indicate
performance levels that fall below the median of a specified age. Greater than (>) signs
indicate performance levels above the median of the specified age. Since age equivalents
are approximated, age equivalents referenced in the Tables below also are estimates (Est).
Table 1 shows Client JKs age equivalent score for Picture Vocabulary, for example, as
estimated to exceed > 30 years.
3. W Scores and W Difference Scores: WJ IV test data are measured, converted
and interpreted at multiple levels.
Client JKs raw scores on each test are converted into derived scores customized by the
Woodcock Johnson tests as W scores. These W score conversions involve equal-interval
measurements which builds their reliability. The W Scale for each test centers on a value
of 500 which has been set to approximate the average performance of specific aged group.
Any cluster score from the WJ IV ACH (as featured in the Appendix Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5)
is the average (arithmetic mean) W score of the tests included in that cluster. For example,
for Broad Reading in WJ IV ACH, the average cluster would be based on the average W
score of each of the three tests (i.e. Letter-Word Identification, Passage Comprehension
and Sentence Reading Fluency) included in that cluster. The W scores provide an
important reference point along with Client JKs normed group averages and its Relative
Proficiency Index.
The W difference, therefore, measures in relation to the distance from the W score. The W
Difference value is derived from the W score which provides a common scale of equal
interval measurement that represents both a persons ability and the task difficulty. The W
Difference value represents the difference between a persons ability and the task difficulty.
W Difference values between -7 and -51 and below indicate that tasks in specific areas will
be difficult to impossible for individuals that obtain these scores. It is useful for the
measurement of growth.
Level 3 scores (RPIs) and level 4 scores (Standard scores, percentile ranks etc.) are based
on test or cluster W difference scores. The W Difference scores are the difference between
an examinees test or cluster W score and the average test or cluster W score for the
reference group in the norming sample (same age or same grade) with which the
comparison is being made. Both are referenced throughout in data analysis.
4. Standard Scores
Standard Scores used in the WJ-IV COG are based on a mean (M) of 100 and a standard deviation
(SD) of 15. This scale is the same as most deviation-IQ scales and may be used to relate standard
scores from the WJ-IV to other test scores based on the same mean and standard deviation. Since
Client JK recently was evaluated on two Wechsler diagnostics (WAIS-IV and WISC-V) also based
on a mean of (M) of 100 and standard deviation of 15, cross-battery analysis will also be reported.
Standard score analyses and comparison is beneficial for purposes of further interpreting datadriven patterns in Client JKs strengths and weaknesses.
5. Standard Scores Qualitative Descriptors

Client JK 10

Verbal qualitative descriptors for WJ-IV COG standard scores can aid interpretation, particularly
when also associated with a percentile range. WJ IV COG verbally describes its standard score
classifications with percentile measures as follows: 131 and above (Very Superior, 98 to 99.9%);
121 to 130 (Superior, 92 to 97%), 111 to 120 (High Average, 76 to 91%), 90 to 110 (Average, 25
to 75%), 80 to 89 (Low Average, 9 to 24%), 70 to 79 (Low, 3 to 8%), and 69 and below (Very
Low, 0.1 to 2%). Tables A, B, and C represent qualitative descriptors for Client JKs standard score
classifications.
6. Percentiles, WJ IV Percentile Rank Ranges (Bands) and Qualitative Descriptors in relation
to Standard Scores
A percentile rank describes performance on a scale from 1 to 99 relative to the performance of
some segment of a given norming sample at a specific age or grade level. Client JKs percentile
rank indicates the percentage of individuals in the selected segment of the norming sample who
had scores the same as or lower than Client JKs score. Percentile ranks are particularly useful for
describing a persons relative standing in the population. A determination that Client JKs
percentile rank was at 98% would indicate that Client JKs performance is as good or better than
98 people out of 100 (98%) in her reference group and that only 2 out of 100 people in her reference
group would have scored as high or higher.

7. Proficiency Level Qualitative Descriptors

Verbal Labels are also beneficial for understanding Client JKs proficiency at tasks in relation to
task difficulty and her norm group. Table A.2 offers 5 qualitative descriptors for understanding
instructionally the Client JK levels of achievement as they impact recommendations.
Table A.1 Verbal Labels for RPI Scores - Client JK
W DIFF
Proficiency Developmental
RPI
Label
Label
100/90

+31 and above

Very
Advanced
(VADV

98/90 to
100/90

+14 to +30

Advanced
(ADV)

Advanced
(ADV)

Advanced (ADV)

95/90 to
98/90

+7 to +13

Average
to
Advanced
(A/ADV)

Age
appropriate
to
Advanced
(Ag-ADV)

Within normal limits to

Advanced

82/90 to
95/90

-6 to +6

Average
(AVG)

Age
appropriate

Within normal limits

67/90 to
82/90

-13 to -7

Limited to
Average
(AVG)

Mildly impaired to within normal

limits

-30 to -14

Limited
Very
Limited

Mildly
delayed to
Age
appropriate
Mildly
delayed
Moderately
delayed

24/90 to
67/90
3/90 to
24/90

-50 to -31

Very
Advanced
(VADV)

Functional
Level
Very advanced (VADV)

Mildly impaired

Moderately impaired

Client JK 11

0/90 to
3/90

-51 and below

Extremely
Limited

Severely
delayed

Severely impaired

Interpretations of standard scores and RPI are not interchangeable. These two score communicate
different information. Peer comparison scores (e.g., standard scores, percentile ranks) represent a
rank ordering, indicating the position in which a students score falls within the distribution of
scores obtained by age-or grade-peers in the norming sample. It is important to consider proficiency
scores as well as peer-comparison to determine a students educational placement and need for
additional educational services.

8. Instructional Implications: Instructional Zones and Proficiency Levels per

Recommendations The instructional zone (called developmental zone in the WJ IV COG and the
WJ IV OL) is a special application of the RPI. For example, Client JK will perceive tasks that fall
at an RPI of 96/90 as easy, whereas she will perceive tasks that fall at an RPI of 75/90 as difficult.
Thus, the instructional zone identifies a range along a developmental scale that encompasses Client
JKs present level of functioning from easy (the independent level) to difficult (the frustration
level). Lower and higher points of this zone are labeled easy and diff in the Tables of Scores
generated following WJ IV test administration (see Tables 1-12 in Appendix).

CHC Broad and Narrow Ability Factors

On the WJ IV COG, the broad ability clusters describing overall ability (g) were designed to
provide breadth among the different narrow abilities within each broad CHC factor. Each
component test was designed to contribute a different aspect to the broad ability. The tests combine
to form clusters for interpretive purposes. Client JK was administered all eighteen (18) WJ IV
Cognitive 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) forming the bases for her
cognitive ability scores.
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) measures the breadth and depth of Client JKs acquired
knowledge, the ability to communicate her knowledge and ability to reason using previous learned
experiences or procedures. With a Standard Score of 143 (137-148), her ComprehensionKnowledge (Gc) ability falls within a Superior range. Her Oral Vocabulary standard score of 147
also falls within a Superior range. Both Client JKs level of development and her level of
functioning on these tasks can be described as Very Advanced. The Relative Proficiency Index
(RPI) for this measure is 100/90. Client JK will find age level requirements for these types of tasks
to be very easy.
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) measures the ability to store information and retrieve it later in the
process of thinking. Visual-Auditory Learning measures Long-Term Retrieval (Glr). With a
Standard Score of 150, Client JKs Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) ability falls within a Superior
range. With a Relative Proficiency Index (RPI) of 99/90, Client JKs level of proficient functioning
on these tasks can be described as Very Advanced (W Difference measure of 28). Her level of

Client JK 12

development on these tasks also is Very Advanced to Advanced. Client JK will find like tasks for
her normed group to be extremely easy. Client JKs Long-term Retrieval scores indicate strength
in this area.
Visual-Processing (Gv) measures the ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and think with visual
patterns, including the ability to store and recall visual representations. Client JKs Visual
Processing (Gv) standard score of 147 falls within a Superior range. Her level of functioning on
these tasks can be described as Advanced. Her level of development on Visualization tasks is Very
Advanced. The W Difference value for this measure is 31. The Relative Proficiency Index (RPI)
for Visualization is 100/90. These scores indicate a strength in this area for Client JK.
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, Incomplete Words, and Auditory Attention are tests that
measures Auditory Processing (Ga). Client JKs Auditory Processing (Ga) standard score falls
within a Superior range, as does her Phonological Processing standard score (135) (125-146). Her
level of proficiency on these tasks can be described overall as Advanced. Since the W Difference
value for Phonological Processing is 24, Client JK will find normed requirements for similar
auditory tasks to be easy. The Relative Proficiency Indexes (RPI) for both subtests are 99/90. These
scores indicate strength in this area.
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) measures the ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using
unfamiliar information or new procedures. The Concept Formation and Number Series tests
measure Fluid Reasoning (Gf). Client JKs Fluid Reasoning (Gf) standard score falls within a
Superior range (Standard Score=133). Her level of functioning on these tasks can be described as
Advanced. With an RPI measure of 100/90 and a W Difference for this measure of 30, her level of
development on these tasks is Advanced. Client JK will find normed requirements for these tasks
to be easy.
Processing Speed (Gs) measures the ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, as an aspect of
cognitive efficiency. The Letter-Pattern Matching test measures Processing Speed (Gs). Client
JKs Processing Speed (Gs) standard score of 120 is High Average. With an RPI of 99/0 and W
difference of 26, her level of functioning on these tasks can be described as Advanced. Client JK
will find normed group-appropriate requirements for these tasks to be easy.
Short-Term Memory (Gwm) measures the ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate
awareness and then use it within a few seconds. The Numbers Reversed and Verbal Attention tests
measure Short-Term Memory (Gwm). With a standard score of 126, Client JKs Short-Term
Memory (Gwm) abilities fall with a High Average range. With a W Difference measure of 24 and
an RPI of 99/90, her level of functioning on these tasks can be described as Advanced
The difference between the highest and lowest scores that comprise the composite score for ShortTerm Memory is less than one standard deviation and, therefore the composite can be considered
cohesive. This also would indicate that the composite based on these scores is likely to provide a
good summary of the ability it is intended to represent.

WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities Results and Interpretation

Client JK 13

Test 1: Oral Vocabulary is a measure of Client JKs comprehension of words. This test had two
parts, requiring JK to listen to a word and provide an accurate antonym and then listen to a word
and provide an accurate synonym. Client JKs Oral Vocabulary standard score falls within the
Superior range ((SS = 147 (141-154); percentile rank = >99 (>99->99)). For this test, her RPI
was 100/90 and her W difference was 38, which means that, on this test and for these tasks, her
proficiency at demonstrating her knowledge of words and their meanings is Very Advanced.
Test 2: Number Series is a test of quantitative, deductive, and inductive reasoning. This test
required Client JK to supply the missing number from a sequence of numbers following a
mathematical pattern. Client JKs standard score on Number Series is in the High Average range
range ((SS = 127 (121-133); percentile rank = 96 (92-99)). For this test, her RPI was 100/90 and
her W difference was 30, which means that, on this test and for these tasks, her proficiency at
reasoning with number patterns is Advanced. Client JK would probably find it easy to succeed on
norm-grouped appropriate number sequencing and pattern recognition tasks.
Test 3: Verbal Attention is a test of short term working memory that required Client JK to
listen to a list of animals and numbers and then answer a question based on the sequence of
information. Client JKs Verbal Attention standard score falls within the High Average range
((SS = 127 (121-133); percentile rank = 96 (92-99)). For this test, her RPI was 98/90 and her W
difference was 16, which means that, on this test and for these tasks, her proficiency at retaining
information in working memory and then answer questions based on the information is Advanced.
Client JK will probably find it easy to succeed on normed group-appropriate verbal working
memory tasks.
Test 4: Letter-Pattern Matching measured the speed at which Client JK was able to make
visual symbol discriminations among a series of letter patterns. Client JKs Letter-Pattern
Matching standard score falls within the Average to High Average range ((SS = 119 (111-127);
percentile rank = 90 (77-96)). For this test, her RPI was 99/90 and her W difference was 24,
which means that, on this test and for these tasks, her proficiency at working with speed in
orthographic processing is Advanced. Client JK will probably find it easy to succeed on normed
group-appropriate tasks requiring discrimination amongst letter patterns.
Test 5: Phonological Processing assessed Client JKs word retrieval abilities using
phonological cues. Client JKs Phonological Processing standard score falls within in the
Superior range ((SS = 135 (125-146); percentile rank = 99 (95-99)). For this test, her RPI was
99/90 and her W difference was 24, which means that, on this test and for these tasks, her
proficiency at accessing words based on phonology is Advanced, causing her few difficulties with
norm appropriate, regular phonologically-mediated word access tasks.
Test 6: Story Recall measured Client JKs listening ability and reconstructive memory. The task
required him to recall details of increasingly complex stories. Client JKs Story Recall standard
score is in the Superior range ((SS = 146 (138-154); percentile rank = 99 (95-99)). For this test,
her RPI was 99/90 and her W difference was 24, which means that, on this test and for these
tasks, her proficiency at recalling details of complex stories is Advanced and likely easy for her to
listen and retell.

Client JK 14

Test 7: Visualization measured two aspects of visual-spatial processing involving visual feature
detection and mental rotation of objects. One part of the test required Client JK to identify the two
or three pieces that form a completed target shape. The other part required him to identify rotated
block configurations that correspond to a target configuration. Client JKs Visualization standard
score is in the Superior range (SS = 141 (128-153); percentile rank = >99 (97->99)). For this
test, her RPI was 100/90 and her W difference was 31, which means that, for these tasks, her
proficiency at employing visual-spatial manipulation in working memory is Very Advanced.
Test 8: General Information measured Client JKs general verbal knowledge. The test
required Client JK to tell where specific objects might be found, and to tell what might be the
purpose of other specific objects. Client JKs General Information standard score is near the
higher end of the Superior range ((SS = 132 (124-140); percentile rank = 98 (97->99)). For this
test, her RPI was 100/90 and her W difference was 33, which means that, for these tasks, her
proficiency at general verbal knowledge is Very Advanced. She will probably find it very easy to
succeed on tasks requiring verbal expression of general knowledge.
Test 9: Concept Formation is a test of fluid reasoning. This test required Client JK to use
inductive reasoning in categorical thinking. Client JKs Concept Formation standard score is in
the High Average range ((SS = 127 (114-141); percentile rank = 97 (83->99)). For this test, her
RPI was 100/90 and her W difference was 30, which means that, for these tasks, her proficiency
at inductive reasoning is Advanced.
Test 10: Numbers Reversed is a test of working memory capacity. This test required Client JK
to hold a sequence of numbers in immediate awareness and then reverse the sequence. Client JKs
Numbers Reversed standard score is near the lower end of the average ((SS = 127 (122-131);
percentile rank = 96 (93->98)). For this test, her RPI was 100/90 and her W difference was 31,
which means that, for these tasks, her proficiency with span of apprehension and recoding in
working memory is Very Advanced. She will probably find it very easy to succeed on working
memory capacity tasks.
Test 11: Number-Pattern Matching is a test of perceptual speed. This test measured the speed
at which Client JK was able to make visual discriminations among groups of numbers. Client
JKs Number-Pattern Matching standard score is in the High Average range ((SS = 119 (112126); percentile rank = 97 (83->99)). For this test, her RPI was 99/90 and her W difference was
23, which means that, for these tasks, her proficiency at perceptual speed with number patterns is
Advanced. She will probably find it easy to succeed on tasks requiring discrimination among
number patterns.
Test 12: Nonword Repetition measured Client JKs phonological short-term memory. Client
JKs Nonword Repetition standard score is near the High Average range ((SS = 121 (114-141);
percentile rank = 92 (84->97)). For this test, her RPI was 99/90 and her W difference was 21,
which means that, for these tasks, her proficiency at remembering and repeating increasingly
complex nonwords is Advanced, making phonological short-term storage tasks relatively easy.
Test 13: Visual-Auditory Learning is a measure of the ability to learn, store, and retrieve a
series of visual-auditory associations. In this test, Client JK was required to learn and recall the

Client JK 15
names of rebuses (pictographic representations of words). Client JKs Visual-Auditory Learning
standard score is in the Superior range ((SS = 140 (124-157); percentile rank = 99 (94->99)).
For this test, her RPI was 100/90 and her W difference was 32, which means that, for these tasks,
her proficiency at visual-auditory learning and retrieval ability is Very Advanced.
Test 14: Picture Recognition is a test of visual memory. This test required Client JK to
recognize a subset of previously presented pictures within a field of distracting pictures. Client
JKs Picture Recognition standard score is in the Superior range ((SS = 137 (124-150);
percentile rank = >99 (83->99)). For this test, her RPI was 99/90 and her W difference was 28,
which means that, for these tasks, her proficiency at visual memory is Advanced.
Test 15: Analysis-Synthesis: Analysis-Synthesis is a test of fluid reasoning (Gf). Specifically
the test primarily measures general sequential deductive reasoning. Client JK is given
instructions on how to perform an increasingly complex procedure. Client JKs AnalysisSynthesis standard score is in the Average range ((SS = 115 (109-121); percentile rank = 84 (73>92)). For this test, her RPI was 98/90 and her W difference was 17, which means that, for these
tasks, her proficiency at analysis-synthesis-type reasoning is Advanced.
Test 16: Object Number-Sequencing: is a test that measures short-term auditory working
memory (Gwm). It can also be classified as a measure of working memory capacity. Client JK is
asked to listen to a series of digits and words on the audio recording, such as dog, shoe 8, 2. She
then attempts to reorder the information, repeating the object first in sequential order and the
digits in sequential order. She must hold information in immediate awareness, divide the
information into groups and shift attentional resources. Client JKs standard score falls within
the Average range ((SS = 117 (112-123); percentile rank = 87 (78->94)). For this test, her RPI
was 99/90 and her W difference was 18, which means that, for these tasks, her proficiency at
working memory sequencing is Advanced.
Test 17: Pair Cancellation: is a test that measures executive processing, attention/concentration
and processing speeds (Gs). The test requires Client JK to stay on task in a vigilant manner by
locating and marking repeatedly the same types of items for several pages in a timed setting.
Client JKs Pair Cancellation standard score is in the Average range ((SS = 117 (113-122);
percentile rank = 88 (80->93)). For this test, her RPI was 98/90 and her W difference was 28,
which means that, for these tasks, her proficiency at cancelling and marking patterns of items
quickly is Advanced.
Test 18: Memory for Words: is a test that measures short-term auditory working memory span
(Gwm MS). Client JK is asked to repeat lists of unrelated words in the correct sequence. Client
JKs Memory for Words standard score fell within the Average range ((SS = 117 (111-124);
percentile rank = 88 (77->94)). For this test, her RPI was 99/90 and her W difference was 24,
which means that, for these tasks, her proficiency at recalling unrelated spoken lists of words is
advanced.

Client JK 16

Cohesive Composite
While Gf-Gc composite and other comparisons yield several cognitive strengths discuss below,
none of the differences between the highest and lowest scores comprising Client JKs scores on the
WJ-IV Cognitive Tests exceed one (1) standard deviation in a way that yields below average results
or statistically significant divergent weaknesses. Therefore, the composite scores for Client JKs
WJ-IV Cognitive battery is cohesive. As such, WJ IV cognitive test results for Client JK are likely
to be a good summary of the theoretically related abilities they are intended to represent.

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.
Client JKs adaptive behavior was assessed using informal measures (i.e.: student information and
observation of behavior during the individual evaluation, and parent/grandparent information).
Completing an adaptive behavior checklist, Client JK self-reported the extent of her 1) conceptual,
2) social and 3) practical skills. In terms of conceptual skills, Client JK that she can: 1) comprehend
requests, 2) use the Internet to find information, 3) spell, 4) write a letter; 5) read, 6) answer
questions about a story; 7) know basic math, 8) identify coins, 9) make change and 10) tell time.
In terms of social skills, Client JK indicated that she: 1) has friends; 2) takes turn in interactions;
3) demonstrates honest, trustworthiness and appropriate play; 4) shows sympathy for others when
appropriate; 5) shows interest in the ideas of others; 6) follows rules; 7) obeys laws; 8) avoids being
a victim of fraud; 9) demonstrates assertiveness and self-advocacy and 10) assumes responsibility.
In terms of practical skills, Client JK reported that she can 1) dress herself; 2) use utensils properly;
3) use the toilet appropriately; 4) use the telephone; 5) prepare meals ; 6) use money correctly, 7)
show caution around dangerous activities; 8) use public transportation, 9) take medicine by herself
and 10) show appropriate work skills.
Based on this data, Client JKs adaptive behavior appears to be within the age appropriate and/or
average range and consistent with her current intellectual functioning.
ACADEMIC/DEVELOPMENTAL PERFORMANCE
Information regarding a students level of academic and/or developmental performance may be
gathered through data from, but not limited to report cards, state developed assessments, district
assessments, teacher reports, information obtained from parents, observations, and the
administration of standardized achievement tests. Client JKs level of acquired knowledge is
measured by the administration of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement- Fourth Edition
Form A.

WJ IV TESTS OF ACHIEVEMENT
Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement- Fourth Edition Form A

Client JK 17

The Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement Fourth Edition (WJ IV ACH) 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 22 tests are subdivided
into two batteries: the Standard Battery (Tests 1 through 12) and the Extended Battery (Tests 13
through 22). The Tests in the Standard/Extended Battery combine to form 19 cluster scores,
including a Total Achievement score. This test has mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.
WJ IV Achievement Tests
All 20 Tests were administered to Client JK. The WJ Achievement tests include: Test 1: LetterWord Identification, Test 2: Reading Fluency, Test 3: Story Recall, Test 4: Understanding
Directions, Test 5: Calculation, Test 6: Math Fluency, Test 7: Spelling, Test 8: Writing Fluency,
Test 9: Passage Comprehension, Test 10: Applied Problems, and Test 11: Writing Samples; Test
12: Reading Recall, Test 13: Number Matrices, Test 14: Editing, Test 15: Word Reading Fluency,
Test 16: Spelling of Sounds, Test 17: Reading Vocabulary, Test 18: Science, Test 19: Social
Studies and Test 20: Humanities. The scores for Client JK are qualitatively distilled in Tables B.1
and B2 and additional data is explained more fully in Tables 4, 5 and 6 in the Appendix.
Table B.1
WJ IV Achievement Test Results - Client JK - Qualitative Descriptors
Client JK Data
Data
Test
Test
Qualitative
Descriptors
SS/RPI
AVG
/AVG-ADV

11. SWF

Qualitative
Descriptors
SS/RPI
118 (112-123)/(97/90) AVG/AVG

SUP
/VA

12.RR

127 (121-133)/(98/90) HAVG/ADV

HAVG
/ADV

13.NM

138 (129-147)/(100/90) SUP/VA

SUP
/VA

14.ED

131 (125-137)/(100/90) SUP/VA

117 (114-121)/(99/90)

AVG
/ADV

15. WRF 117 (112-123)/(100/90)

6. WS

157 (142-172)/(100/90

SUP/VA

16. SPoS 111 (104-118)/(96/90)

7. WA

121 (110-131)/(99/90)

HAVG/AD
V

17. RV

139 (133-145)/(100/90) SUP/VA

8. OR

121 (112-130)/(99/90)

HAVG/AD
V

18. SCI

115 (110-120)/(98/90) AVG/ADV

124 (120-128)/(100/90)

HAVG/VA

19.SS

130 (124-135)/(100/90) SUP/VA

106 (102-109)/(96/90)

AVG/ADV

20.HUM

132 (125-138)/(100/90) SUP/VA

1. LWI

105 (101-109)/(95/90)

2. AP

132 (127-138)/(100/90)

3. SP

122 (118-127)/(100/90)

4.PC

134 (123-146)/(100/90)

5.CAL

9.SRF
10.MFF

AVG/VA
AVG/AVG

Notes. Achievement Tests. See Tables 4 and 5 Appendix

.
W Differences, RPI and Achievement Scores
Client JKs performance on these achievement test scores are interpreted by the W Difference value
and the Relative Proficiency Index (RPI). The W Difference value is derived from the W score

Client JK 18
which provides a common scale of equal interval measurement that represents both a persons
ability and the task difficulty. The Relative Proficiency Index (RPI) predicts an individuals level
of proficiency on tasks that typical age- or grade-peers would perform with 90% proficiency.

Client JK 19

Table B.2 - WJ IV Achievement Results: Client JK

Table B.2 - Woodcock Johnson IV Test of Achievement Results (WJ-IV) Standard Scores
Standard Scores)
(Scaled Scores)
Cluster/Test
BROAD ACHIEVEMENT

50

55

60 65 70
4
5

Letter-Word Identification
Applied Problems

75 80
85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
6
7
8
9
10 11 12
13
14
15
Low Average
Average
High Average
Superior
136
105
132

Spelling
Passage Comprehension
Calculation
Writing Samples
Sentence Reading Fluency
Math Facts Fluency
Sentence Writing Fluency

122
134
117
157
124
106
118

Reading
Letter-Word Identification
Passage Comprehension

105
134

Broad Reading
Letter-Word Identification

105

Passage Comprehension

134

Sentence Reading Fluency

124

Basic Reading Skills

Letter-Word Identification
Word Attack

105
121
137
134

Reading Comprehension
Passage Comprehension
Sentence Reading Fluency

124
126
121
124
123
124

Reading Fluency
Oral Reading
Sentence Reading Fluency

Reading Rate
Sentence Reading Fluency
Word Reading Fluency

117
121

Broad Mathematics
Applied Problems
Calculation
Math Facts Fluency

132
117
106
113
117
106

Math Calculation Skills

Calculation
Math Facts Fluency

Math Problem Solving

Applied Problems
Number Matrices

(Standard Scores)
(Scaled Scores)

50

55

60

65

70
75
4
5
Low Average

80
6

85

90 95
7
8
Average

100
9

105 110 115

10
11 12
High Average

137
132
138
120 125 130 135
13
14
15
Superior

Client JK 20
Brief Achievement Ability data measure a sample of Client JKs academic skills in reading,
writing, and math through four tests (Test 1: Letter-Word Identification, Test 2: Applied
Problems, and Test 3: Spelling). Although Client JKs Brief Achievement standard score is
within the High Average range overall (122) (119-125), her performance on Test 1 fell within the
Average range [on tasks for Test 1: Letter-Word Identification (Standard Score 105 (101-109),
64% (53-73)] on some and within High Average range on others [on tasks for Test 7: Word
Attack (Standard Score 121, 92% percentile (75-98)]. Her proficiency level was Advanced on the
given Spelling tasks in Test 7 (93%).

Achievement Clusters
Reading measured Client JKs reading decoding skills and her ability to comprehend text while
reading. Client JKs Reading standard score is in the High Average range (percentile rank of 92
(83-96); standard score of 121 (114-127)). Her Letter-Word Identification scores of 105 place her
proficiency level at Average to Advanced (RPI 95/90) with a W Difference of 7, while her
proficiency at Passage Comprehension is Very Advanced (RPI of 100/90) with W difference of
+40. Reading tasks overall will be easy for Client JK, notwithstanding variation.
Broad Reading is a combined measure of reading decoding, reading speed, and the ability to
comprehend connected text while reading. Client JKs overall reading ability is Very Advanced.
Her Reading standard score is in the High Average range (percentile rank of 96 (92-98); standard
score of 126 (121-130)) with a W Difference of 33. Her proficiency at Sentence Reading Fluency
and Passage Comprehension overall is Very Advanced (RPI of 100/90); these Reading tasks
overall will be easy for Client JK.
Basic Reading Skills measured Client JKs word reading and phonics skills. Client JKs Basic
reading skills standard score fell within the Average range (standard score of 105). Her sight
word reading ability and skill in applying phonic and structural analysis skills in reading are
Advanced (RPI of 100/90) but issues persist. Tasks requiring reading skills are easy for her but
unexpected weakness appears in this cluster.
Reading Comprehension is a measure of the ability to comprehend connected text while reading
(Passage Comprehension) and the ability to retell story details from memory immediately after
reading (Reading Recall). Client JKs reading comprehension is Very Advanced. Her reading
comprehension standard score is in the Superior range (percentile rank > 99; standard score of
137, 128-146). Her reading comprehension and recall are Advanced (RPI of 100/90). Overall,
Reading Comprehension tasks will be quite easy for her.
Reading Fluency assessed how quickly, accurately, and expressively Client JK reads. Client
JKs Reading Fluency standard score is in the High Average range (percentile rank of 96;
standard score of 126, 122-131). Her oral and silent sentence reading fluency are Advanced (RPI
of 100/90). Tasks associated with reading fluency will be easy for her.
Reading Rate is a measure of Client JKs reading automaticity and comprehension at the single
word (Word Reading Fluency) and sentence levels (Sentence Reading Fluency). Client JKs

Client JK 21

Reading Rate standard score is in the High Average range (percentile rank of 94 (90-97),
standard score of 123 (120-127). Her reading automaticity and comprehension at the word and
sentence levels are Very Advanced (RPI of 100/90). Speeded reading tasks will be quite easy for
her.
Mathematics is a measure of Client JKs calculation skills (Calculation) and math problem
solving ability (Applied Problems). Client JKs Mathematics standard score falls within the High
Average range (percentile rank of 96 (93-97); standard score of 126 (122-129) with W Difference
of 33. Since both her calculation skills and ability to solve practical problems in mathematics are
Very Advanced (RPI of 100/90), Mathematics tasks overall should be quite easy for her.
Broad Mathematics is a measure of Client JKs calculation skills (Calculation), mathematics
problem solving ability (Applied Problems) and fluency with math facts (Math Facts Fluency).
Client JKs Mathematics standard score is in the high average range (standard score of 121(118124) with a W Difference of 25. Her calculation skills, math facts fluency, and ability to solve
practical problems in mathematics are advanced (RPI of 99/90). Math tasks of this type will be
quite easy for her.
Math Calculation Skills measured Client JKs computational skills and automaticity with basic
math facts. Client JKs mathematics calculation skills standard score is in the Average range
(percentile rank of 81; standard score of 113--with an RPI of 98/90 and a W Difference of 17).
Her computational skills and automaticity with basic math facts are Advanced.
Math Problem Solving measured Client JKs ability to recognize number patterns, reason with
numbers, and solve practical problems in mathematics (Applied Problems, Number Matrices).
Client JKs math problem solving standard score of 137 falls within the Superior range. With a
W difference of 42, her mathematical knowledge and reasoning are Very Advanced (RPI of
100/90). She will probably find it easy to succeed on normed-level tasks requiring application of
mathematical relationships and knowledge to solve problems.
Written Language measured Client JKs spelling and quality of written expression (Spelling and
Writing Samples). Client JKs ability to spell words and express himself in writing in the Very
Advanced range (percentile rank greater than 99; Superior standard score of 145; W Difference
of 43). Her spelling ability and quality of expression in written sentence construction are Very
Advanced (RPI of 100/90); writing tasks will be quite easy for her.
Broad Written Language assessed Client JKs production of written text, including her spelling
ability, writing fluency, and quality of written expression. Client JKs overall written language
standard score is in the Superior range (percentile rank greater than 99 (99->99); standard score
of 140 (134-147)). Her spelling ability (particularly with consonant and regular vowels), quality
of written sentences, and fluency in writing sentences are Very Advanced (RPI of 100/90).
Writing tasks will be quite easy for her.
Basic Writing Skills includes Client JKs spelling skills and knowledge of English language
usage (Spelling and Editing). Client JKs basic writing skills standard scores fall in the High
Average range (percentile rank of 97 (95-98); standard score of 128 (124-132)), while her task

Client JK 22

proficiency (RPI 100/90) falls in the Advanced range. Basic writing skills tasks should be easy
to complete for Client JK.

TEST-BY-TEST INTERPRETATION OF WJ IV ACHIEVEMENT DATA

Test 1: Letter-Word Identification, measured Client JKs word identification skills.
While items required her to pronounce each word correctly, she was not required to know the
meanings. Client JK obtained a standard score of 105 which falls within in the Average range of
academic functioning and within the 64th percentile rank of her normed group. This percentile rank
means that Client JK performed as well as 64% of the students in her norm group and not as well
as the remaining 36%. Client JKs proficiency at Letter-Word Identification relative to her normed
group is Average (RPI 95/90). The W Difference value for this measure is 7. As such, her level of
functioning on these tasks can be described as within normal limits. Her level of development on
these tasks is Advanced. Client JK will find age level requirements for these tasks to be easy. These
scores indicate that Client JK demonstrates age appropriate skills on this assessment but showed a
relative weakness in relation to her scores on other Academic/Achievement clusters.

Test 2: Applied Problems required Client JK to analyze and solve math problems. To solve the
problems, she had to listen to the problem, recognize the procedure to be followed, and then
perform relatively simple calculations. Because many of the problems include extraneous
information, Client JK had to decide not only the appropriate mathematical operations to use but
also which numbers to include in the calculation.
Client JK obtained a standard score of 132 which falls in the Superior range of academic
functioning and falls within 98th percentile rank. This percentile rank means that Client JK
performed as well as or better than 98% of the students in her norm group and not as well as the
remaining 2%. Item difficulty increased with complex calculations. With an RPI of 100/90 and a
W Difference of 41, Client JKs level of proficiency on skills in Applied Problems is Very
Advanced.
Test 3: Spelling measured Client JKs ability to write orally-presented words correctly. Client
JKs Spelling standard score is in the High Average range (percentile rank of 93 (88-96));
standard score of 122 (118-127) and her task proficiency at Spelling is Advanced (RPI of
100/90). Most similar Spelling tasks (involving similar phonics and morphological patterns) will
be easy for her.
Test 4: Passage Comprehension measured Client JKs ability to understand written discourse.
The items required Client JK to read a short passage and identify a missing key word that made
sense in the context of the passage. Client JKs Passage Comprehension standard score of 134 is
in the Superior range (percentile rank greater than 99 (94->99); standard score of 134 (123146)). With a W Difference of 40, her proficiency at understanding written discourse is Very
Advanced (RPI of 100/90). As such, tasks requiring good comprehension while reading will be
very easy for Client JK.

Client JK 23
Test 5: Calculation measured Client JKs ability to perform mathematical computations. Client
JKs performance on Calculation standard score falls within the High Average range (percentile
rank of 88 (82-92); standard score of 117 (114-121)). --with a W difference of 26. Since her
overall computational skill is Advanced (RPI of 99/90), math calculation tasks will be easy for
her.
Test 6: Writing Samples provided a rating of Client JKs quality of written expression in
sentence construction. Client JKs Writing Samples standard score is in the Superior range
(percentile rank of >99 (>99->99); standard score of 157 (142-172). Her ability to write
meaningful sentences is Very Advanced (RPI of 100/90); tasks requiring putting her ideas into
writing will be quite easy for her.
Test 7: Word Attack measured Client JKs skill in applying phonic and structural analysis skills
to the pronunciation of unfamiliar nonwords. Client JKs Word Attack standard score is in the
High Average range (percentile rank of 92 (75-98); standard score of 121 (110-131)). Her
proficiency at reading phonically regular nonwords is Advanced (RPI of 99/90). As such, tasks
requiring accurate pronunciation of phonically regular unknown words will be relatively easy for
her.
Test 8: Oral Reading is a measure of Client JKs oral sentence reading fluency. Client JKs
Oral Reading standard score is in the High Average range (percentile rank of 92 (80-98); standard
score of 121 (112-130). Her ability to read connected text orally is Advanced (RPI of 99/90).
Tasks requiring reading connected text aloud will be easy for her.
Test 9: Sentence Reading Fluency measured Client JKs ability to quickly read and comprehend
sentences. In this timed test, Client JK was required to indicate whether each sentence was true or
false. Client JKs Sentence Reading Fluency standard score is in the High Average range
(percentile rank of 95 (91-97); standard score of 124 (120-128)). Given that her ability to quickly
read and comprehend sentences is Very Advanced (RPI of 100/90), similar tasks requiring
sentence reading speed and comprehension will be very easy for her.
Test 10: Math Facts Fluency measured Client JKs ability to quickly solve simple addition,
subtraction, and multiplication problems. Client JKs Math Facts Fluency standard score is in the
Average range (percentile rank of 65 (56-74)); standard score of 106 (102-109)). Given that her
ability to quickly solve basic math facts is advanced (RPI of 96/90), speeded math facts tasks will
be relatively easy for her.
Test 11: Sentence Writing Fluency measured Client JKs fluency for quickly formulating and
writing simple sentences. Client JKs Sentence Writing Fluency standard score is in the Average
range, (percentile rank of 88 (80-94); standard score of 118 (112-123)). With a W difference of
13, her task proficiency at sentence construction falls within the Average to Advanced range (RPI
of 97/90). Speeded writing tasks will be relatively easy for her.
Test 12: Reading Recall measured Client JKs ability to read a short story silently and then
reconstruct the story from memory. Client JKs Reading Recall standard score is in the High
Average range (percentile rank of 96 (92-99); standard score of 127 (121-133). Client JKs

Client JK 24

ability to read a passage, form a mental representation of the story, and reconstruct the story
elements is Advanced (RPI of 98/90). As such, tasks requiring reading comprehension and
retelling will be easy for her.
Test 13: Number Matrices is a test of mathematics problem solving. This test required Client
JK to supply the missing number that simultaneously completed two or more sequences of
numbers. Client JKs Number Matrices standard score is in the Superior range (percentile rank >
99 (97->99); standard score of 138 (129-147)). With a W difference of 43, her proficiency at
analyzing complex relationships among numbers is Very Advanced (RPI of 100/90). Number
matrix and Pattern Recognition tasks will be quite easy for her.
Test 14: Editing measured Client JKs skill in identifying and correcting errors in written
passages, such as incorrect punctuation or capitalization, inappropriate word usage, or
misspellings. Client JKs Editing standard score is in the Superior range (percentile rank of 98
(95->99); standard score of 131 (125-137)). Client JKs proficiency at identifying and correcting
errors in written passages is Very Advanced (RPI of 100/90). Editing tasks should be quite easy
for her.
Test 15: Word Reading Fluency measured Client JKs reading vocabulary knowledge and
fluency with word comparisons. Client JKs Word Reading Fluency standard score is in the High
Average range (percentile rank of 88 (78-94); standard score of 117 (112-123)). With a W
difference of 34, her ability to quickly identify words that belong to the same semantic category is
Very Advanced (RPI of 100/90); tasks requiring rapid comparisons among words will be quite
easy for her.
Test 16: Spelling of Sounds is a measure of Client JKs spelling ability, particularly
phonological and orthographical coding skills. This test required her to spell letter combinations
that are regularly used in English. Client JKs performance on Spelling of Sounds standard score
is in the Average range (percentile rank of 77 (61-88); standard score of 111 (104-118)). With a
W difference of 9, her ability to spell non-words is Average to Advanced (RPI of 96/90); tasks
requiring the ability to spell unknown words will be relatively easy for her.
Test 17: Reading Vocabulary measures Client JKs ability to listen and understand the meaning
of words. With a W difference of 36, and a Superior standard score of 139
(133-145), her proficiency in working with reading vocabulary should be Very Advanced.
Test 18: Science measured Client JKs knowledge of a broad array of the natural sciences, such
as human anatomy, biology, chemistry, geology, medicine, and physics. Client JKs Science
standard score is in the Advanced range (percentile rank of 84 (74-90); standard score of 115
(110-120)). Her basic science knowledge is Advanced (RPI of 98/90).
Test 19: Social Studies measured Client JKs knowledge of the social sciences, such as history,
economics, geography, government, and psychology. Client JKs Social Studies standard score is
in the Superior range (percentile rank of 98 (95->99); standard score of 130 (124-135)). Her
fundamental social science proficiency is Very Advanced (RPI of 100/90).

Client JK 25
Test 20: Humanities measured Client JKs knowledge of art, music, and literature. Client JKs
Humanities standard score is in the Superior range (percentile rank of 98 (95->99); standard
score of 132 (125-138)). With a W difference of 34, her knowledge of art, music, and literature is
Very Advanced (RPI of 100/90).

INTERPRETATION OF WJ IV ACHIEVEMENT CLUSTER DATA

Interpretation of Achievement Clusters
WJ IV offers twenty-two (22) different clusters to interpret: (7) for Reading, (4) for
Mathematics, (4) for Written Language and (7) with Cross-Domain representations.
WJ IV sets forth an 8-step plan for analyzing Client JKs WJ IV Achievement Test performance
that goes beyond simple evaluation of Client JKs standard scores: 1) interpret the clusters; 2)
interpret the variations and the demographics; 3) interpret instructional ranges; 4) interpret
Standard Scores and/or PR Confidence Bands; 5) interpret WJ IV Achievement Individual Tests
(20); 6) complete an error analysis; and 7) review and summarize behavioral observations from
testing and then 8) integrate all information (into recommendations).
CROSS DOMAIN ACHIEVEMENT CLUSTERS
Cluster Achievement Analysis: Basic Reading Skills, Academic Skills - Client JK
1. Cluster Interpretation:
When comparing Client JKs Basic Reading Skills and Academic Skills clusters data to
Broad Achievement data and data other academic clusters, test results in nearly confirm
all Client JKs Advanced to Superior cognitive abilities as intact and confirm and her
Advanced proficiency level at academic tasks. Overall, few statistically significant
discrepancies exist. When her Basic Reading Skills scores (SS ) are compared to her
scores for Reading Comprehension (SS ()), Client JKs performance in Reading
Comprehension is conspicuously more Advanced than in Basic Reading Skills and
Academic Skills. Examining the Reading Cross domain clusters: Reading, Broad
reading, Reading comprehension, Reading Comprehension-Extended, Reading Fluency
and Reading Rate), all clusters evidence scores that are at least average and most are
Advanced in skills level; likewise fluency and application of academic clusters pose no
problems; These likewise show comparatively Advanced results.
2. Variations and Discrepancies Interpretations (Basic Reading Skills):
Significant intra-ability variations exist when Client JKs Academic Skills scores are
compared in relation to her scores in Academic Fluency and Academic Applications.
3. Instructional Ranges for Basic Reading Skills and Academic Skills Interpretations:
An examination of Client JKs scores in Letter Word Identification and Basic Reading
Skills evidence an average functioning and proficiency level which contrasts with the
very easy, and easy functioning and proficiency levels Client JK generally obtains
throughout the achievement clusters.

Client JK 26

4. Standard Scores (SS) and PR Confidence Bands Interpretation (Basic Reading

Skills and Academic Skills): Significant differences exist amongst Client JKs Basic
Reading Skill cluster scores, as revealed by the data in Table .
5. Individual Test Results Interpretation: Letter-Word Identification results differ
significantly from the others in that the W difference is - 25 and the SD is -2.82; and the
percentile discrepancy is 1%, all pointing relatively to unexpected underachievement.
6. Patterns in Error Analysis Interpretation (Client JK): Letter-Word Identification
errors evidence problems with phonics, syllable phonics, multisyllabic, diphthongs,
vowel blends and other aspects of phonology that may involve the teaching of explicit
transfer practices to master switching between British and American vowel sounds and
blends.
7. Client JK Test Behaviors: Hesitant Pronunciation during Letter Word
Identification, Word Attack, Spelling Testing, she periodically rehearsed aloud the
vowel sound pairs and patterns, inquiring hypothetically as to the sound and/or as to the
word structureas if talking aloud to herself. Significant hesitations did not occur but
the error analysis reveals patterns in the vowel blends and syllable structures in the words
she missed either in oral feedback or when handwriting.
8. Data and Observations Integration into Recommendations.

WJ IV ACHIEVEMENT CLUSTER ANALYSIS

(ALIGNED WITH TABLES)

The Basic Reading Skills cluster is a combination of Letter-Word Identification (reading

a list of words aloud) and Word Attack (reading nonsense letter combinations that are
phonically consistent or regular patterns in orthography). These tests measure sight word
vocabulary, the application of phonics and structural analysis skills. Specifically, Client
JK was able to rapidly recognize most of the sounds and letters. However, Client JK had
difficulty with Letter-Word Identification in this cluster. Nonetheless, her standard score
of 105 fell within normal limits.
The Reading Comprehension cluster is a combination of Passage Comprehension
(using syntactic and semantic cues to identify the missing words in a text) and Reading
Recall (reading a short story silently and then retelling as much of the story as can be
recalled). It is a measure of comprehension and reasoning. Her actual standard score fell
within the Superior range (SS=139) although her predicted score was High Average (SS
124). Specifically, Client JK evidenced Superior standard scores in this cluster, making
these her reading comprehension skills and her reading vocabulary skills relative
strengths.
Math Calculation Skills cluster is a measure of computational skills and automaticity.
This cluster is composed of combination of Calculation (completing math computations
on a worksheet) and Math Fact Fluency (completing simple addition, subtraction, and
multiplication facts within a 3-minute time limit). Client JKs actual standard score of
113 fell within the Average range and showed a difference of -13 in relation to her
predicted standard score of 126 (High Average). Nonetheless, her standard score of 113
fell within normal limits.

Client JK 27

Writing Related Tests

Spelling measures the ability to write orally presented words correctly. Client JKs score
on this test of 122 was High Average; her RPI 100/90 and her W score of 28 suggested
that her abilities to write orally presented words were Advanced.
Spelling of Sounds measures phonological and orthographic coding skills by requiring the
spelling of non-sense words. Client JKs standard score of 111 was Average; her RPI of
96/90 and her W Difference score 9 mean that her proficiency fell within normal limits
(which for Client JK evidenced relative weakness as well).
Editing measures skills in identifying and correcting errors in a written passage. The error
in the passage may be incorrect punctuation or capitalization, inappropriate word usage,
or a misspelled word. Client JKs standard score of 131 was Superior; her RPI of 100/90
and her W Difference score 33 mean that her proficiency was Very Advanced
representing a relative strength for her Achievement results.

Additional Clusters
Academic Knowledge measures a broad sample of scientific and social studies
knowledge. This cluster is composed of Science (responding to scientific questions
including anatomy, biology, chemistry, geology, medicine, and physics), Social Studies
(responding to questions regarding history, economics, geography, government, and
psychology), and Humanities (responding to questions related to art, music, and
literature. Specifically, Client JK was able to demonstrate Very Advanced Social Studies
and Humanities knowledge. Client JK had more difficulty with the Science section. Her
years in homeschooling in two different countries may have impacted the scope and
sequence of her science learning. Notwithstanding, Client JKs score on this cluster
(128) was within normal limits.
Phoneme-Grapheme Knowledge measures phonetic generalizations and knowledge of
common orthographic patterns in both decoding and encoding. This cluster is composed
of Word Attack (reading nonsense letter combinations that are phonically consistent or
regular patterns in orthography) and Spelling of Sounds (spelling of non-sense words).
Specifically, Client JKs standard scored of 117 fell within the Average range on this
cluster. However, her actual score differed by -10 from her predicted standard score of
127 (High Average). She was able to work well with regular patterns but had more
trouble when diphthongs were introduced. Notwithstanding, Client JKs score on this
cluster (117) was within normal limits.

Client JK 28

WJ IV Tests of Oral Language

Oral Language Clusters
Results for Oral Language Tests and Clusters are represented in Table C.1 as well as in Tables
located in the Appendix.
The Oral Language Cluster measures Client JKs English language development and
comprehension, including lexical (word knowledge) and listening ability. Client JKs Oral
Language standard score is in the Superior range which differed by +9 from her predicted score
of 125.). Her oral ability is Very Advanced.
The Broad Oral Language cluster measures Client JKs receptive and expressive oral language
abilities in English, including listening ability, verbal comprehension, verbal working memory
capacity, and lexical (word) knowledge. Client JKs oral language standard score Client JKs
Broad Oral Language standard score of 132 fell within the Superior range which differed by +5
from her predicted score of 127). Her broad verbal proficiency is Very Advanced.
The Oral Expression cluster measured Client JKs expressive English language competency,
including lexical (word) knowledge and sentence repetition ability. Client JKs ability to express
himself orally is comparable to that of the average individual at age 9-8. Her oral expression
standard score of 139 fell within the Superior range which differed by +5 from her predicted
score of 122). Her ability to express verbal information is Very Advanced.
The Listening Comprehension cluster measures Client JKs receptive language competency in
English, including listening ability, verbal comprehension, and verbal working memory capacity.
Client JKs listening comprehension standard score of 130 fell within the Superior range which
differed by +4 from her predicted score of 126). Her listening and oral comprehension abilities
are Very Advanced.
The Phonetic Coding clusters measure of phonology, including the ability to blend speech
sounds into words and break words into component segments. Client JKs word segmentation and
sound blending phonetic coding standard score of 138 fell within the Superior range which
differed by +24 from her predicted score of 114) with SD of +1.82. Her ability to blend and
segment sounds in words is Very Advanced and represents a relative strength.
The Speed of Lexical Access cluster measures Client JKs speed and fluency in retrieving words
and names from semantic memory. Client JKs speed of lexical access standard score of 122 fell
within the High Average range which differed by +11 from her predicted score of 111). Her
efficiency and quickness of word retrieval are Advanced and she works well with speeded word
retrieval tasks.
The Vocabulary cluster measures Client JKs lexical (word) knowledge, including picture
naming vocabulary and knowledge of words and their meanings. Client JKs Vocabulary standard
score of 141 fell within the Superior range which differed by +20 from her predicted score of
121). Her lexical knowledge is Very Advanced and represents a relative strength.

Client JK 29

Table C. WJ IV Oral Language Results: Client JK

Table C - Woodcock Johnson IV Test of Oral Language (WJ-IV)
Standard Scores)
(Scaled Scores)
Cluster/Subtest
ORAL LANGUAGE

50

55

60

65 70
75
80
85
4
5
6
7
Low Average

Picture Vocabulary (Test 1)

Oral Comprehension (Test 2)

90
8

95 100 105 110

115
120 125 130 135
9
10
11 12
13
14
15
Average
High Average
Superior
134
130
131
132
130
131

BROAD ORAL LANGUAGE

Picture Vocabulary (Test 1)
Oral Comprehension (Test 2)
Understanding Directions (Test 6)
ORAL EXPRESSION
Picture Vocabulary (Test 1)
Sentence Repetition (Test 5)
LISTENING COMPREHENSION
Oral Comprehension (Test 2)
Understanding Directions (Test 6)

116
130
136
130

138

PHONETIC CODING
Segmentation (Test 3)

121

Sound Blending (Test 7)

150
122

SPEED OF LEXICAL ACCESS

Rapid Picture Naming (Test 4)

119

Retrieval Fluency (Test 8)

VOCABULARY
Picture Vocabulary (Test 1)
Oral Vocabulary (COG-Test 1)

121
130
147

WJ IV OL
Picture Vocabulary (Test 1)
Oral Comprehension (Test 2)
Segmentation (Test 3)

130
131
121

Rapid Picture Naming (Test 4)

Sentence Repetition (Test 5)
Understanding Directions (Test 6)
Sound Blending (Test 7)
Retrieval Fluency (Test 8)
Sound Awareness (Test 9)

(Standard Scores)
(Scaled Scores)

50

119
136
116
150
121
124
55

60

65

70
4

75
80
85
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12
13
14
15
Low Average
Average
High Average Superior

Client JK 30
WJ IV Oral Language Tests Analysis

Test 1: Picture Vocabulary is a test of Client JKs expressive vocabulary that required her to
provide names of objects. Client JKs Picture Vocabulary standard score of 130 falls within the
Superior range (SS = 130 (123-136); Percentile rank = 98 (94->99). For this test, her RPI was
99/90 and her W difference was 28, which means that, on this test, her proficiency at
demonstrating lexical knowledge by identifying pictured objects is Advanced.
Test 2: Oral Comprehension measured Client JKs ability to comprehend a short passage and
then supply the missing word using syntactic and semantic cues. Client JKs Oral Comprehension
Standard Score is in the Superior range (SS = 131(121-141); percentile rank = 98 (92->99). For
this test, her RPI was 100/90 and her W difference was 29, which means that, on this test, her
proficiency at comprehending orally presented passages is Advanced.
Test 3: Segmentation measured Client JKs skill in breaking apart the speech sounds in words.
Client JKs Segmentation Standard score is in the High Average range (SS = 121 (116-127);
percentile rank = 92 (85-96). For this test, her RPI was 100/90 and her W difference was 29,
which means that, on this test, her proficiency in segmenting words into parts or sounds is
Advanced. Client JK will probably find it easy to succeed on normed group-appropriate tasks
involving breaking words into parts.
Test 4: Rapid Picture Naming measured Client JKs fluency of word access or speed of direct
recall of object names from acquired knowledge. Client JKs Rapid Picture Naming standard
score is in the High Average range (SS = 119 (114-125); percentile rank = 90 (82->95). For this
test, her RPI was 99/90 and her W difference was 26, which means that, on this test and for these
tasks, her proficiency at speedy direct recall of simple vocabulary is Advanced. JK will probably
find it easy to succeed on normed group-appropriate tasks involving rapid naming of objects.
Test 5: Sentence Repetition is a test of short-term memory span. Client JK had to remember
and repeat sentences presented orally. Client JKs Sentence Repetition standard score is in the
Superior range (SS = 136 (130-143); percentile rank = >99 (98->99). For this test, her RPI was
100/90 and her W difference was 52, which means that, on this test and for these tasks, her
proficiency at listening to, remembering, and repeating words, phrases, and sentences is Very
Advanced.
Test 6: Understanding Directions is a measure of verbal working memory. Client JK had to
listen to a sequence of instructions and then follow the directions by pointing to various objects in
a picture. Client JKs standard score on Understanding Directions is close to the Average range
(SS = 116 (104-127); percentile rank = 85 (61->96). For this test, her RPI was 97/90 and her W
difference was 13, which means that, on this test and for these tasks, her proficiency at listening
to and follow instructions is Average to Advanced. Client JK will probably find it work to
understand like most on normed group-appropriate verbal working memory tasks.

Client JK 31
Test 7: Sound Blending is a test of phonological processing. This test measured Client JKs
skill in blending phonemes or syllables into words. Client JKs Sound Blending standard score is
in the Superior range (SS = 150 (135-164); percentile rank = >99 (99->99)). For this test, her
RPI was 100/90 and her W difference was 53, which means that, on this test and for these tasks,
her. Her skill in synthesizing the given language sounds into words is Very Advanced.
Test 8: Retrieval Fluency is a word access test that required Client JK to name as many
examples as possible from a given category within a short time limit. Client JKs Retrieval
Fluency standard score is in the High Average range (SS = 121 (116-127); percentile rank = 92
(86-96)). For this test, her RPI was 98/90 and her W difference was 14, which means that, on this
test and for these tasks, her Word Retrieval Fluency is Advanced. Client JK will probably find it
easy to succeed on normed-group appropriate tasks involving fluent production of words or
names.
Test 9: Sound Awareness measures phonological abilities and is composed of two subtests;
Rhyming and Deletion. Deletion involves deleting word parts and phonemes from orally
presented words. This test can provide a screening of phonetic coding ability since it tests one of
the narrow abilities for the broader cognitive ability of Auditory Processing. Client JKs Sound
Awareness standard score is in the High Average range (SS = 124 (105-144); percentile rank =
>95 (63->99). For this test, her RPI was 97/90 and her W difference was 12, which means that,
on this test and for these tasks, her proficiency at rhyming and deleting words parts was Average
to Advanced. Client JK will probably find a need to practice to succeed fully on similar deletion
and rhyming tasks.

Client JK 32

DISCREPANCY DISCUSSION

Two types of procedures are available on the WJ IV: intra-ability variations (variations among
abilities) and ability/achievement comparisons (discrepancies between a predictor score and
measured academic performance). One primary purpose of the intra-ability variation procedures
is diagnosis, whereas one primary function of the ability/achievement comparison procedures is
prediction. Both purposes apply to the recommendations for Client JK.
Discrepancy Defined
Although there are many limitations to this procedure, a standard practice is to compare intellectual
ability with academic attainments for the purpose of computing whether a severe discrepancy exists
between intellectual abilities and achievement. The standard difference of 15 points is used to
indicate a significant discrepancy. This discrepancy is based on the difference between Client JKs
standard scores.
To calculate Variation and Prediction, both Actual Scores and Predicted Scores must be evaluated
and then subtracted to gauge the difference.
When Client JKs academic scores (cluster and subtest) are compared with her GIA of 147 within
her normed age comparison, a 15-point discrepancy from the average normed score (i.e. score
differences greater than 1 Standard Deviation) exists in specific domains for Client JKs Basic
Reading Skill results in the WJ IV Achievement Battery. This discrepancy may indicate that Client
JK will experience some unexpected challenge and/or weakened performance with mastering these
academic tasks. Since prior testing also revealed several discrepant or non-cohesive scores in
Wechsler Cognitive and/or Achievement Test cluster results, a quantitative cross-battery approach
was next applied to further interpret Client JKs cumulative data.

Variations
The WJ IV OL and WJ IV ACH provide several variation procedures that evaluate a
students strengths and weaknesses among abilities and two comparison procedures in
which two different abilities (oral language and academic knowledge) can be used to
predict present achievement levels.
When comparing Client JKs achievement areas in the Intra-Achievement Variation
Procedure, she had significant weaknesses in Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack
and a significant strengths in Academic Applications and Reading Comprehension.
When Client JKs Academic Skills, Academic Fluency, Academic Knowledge and
Reading Rate clusters were compared, she had significant strengths in Academic
Application and Fluency (+2.54 SD) and significant weaknesses in Academic Skills
(Letter-Word Identification, Spelling, -1.54 SD). In fact, only one out of 100 age mates
with a predicted score of 131 would obtain an actual standard score of 105 on the Letter
Word Identification test. Thus, Client JKs weakness here is unusual in relation to her
other abilities (e.g. Superior scores in Vocabulary Knowledge in both Cognitive and
Achievement Tests) yet consistent with her relatively weak performance in Word Attack

Client JK 33

(Predicted 126; Actual 121 SD -.44. Client JK made errors in both tasks where they
demanded mastery of vowel diphthong sounds that may vary between British and
American English (schwa sounds in one language; producing blended audible sounds in
the other).
VARIATIONS
Intra-Oral Language Variations (Table 6)
When Client JKs scores amongst the Oral Language measures are compared in the IntraOral Language Extended Variation procedure, she had significant weaknesses Letter-Word
Identification which forms part of both Basic Reading Skills and Academic Skills. She
had a significant strength in Vocabulary. In fact, when her Picture Vocabulary test was
compared to her predicted standard score, only out of 1,000 age mates with the same
predicted score would obtain an actual standard score of 132 or higher.
Table 6. Variations: Intra-Oral Language (Extended Variations)
For this assessment as mentioned earlier, Client JKs performance on the ability and achievement
assessments are interpreted using the W Difference value and the Relative Proficiency Index (RPI).
The W Difference value is derived from the W score which provides a common scale of equal
interval measurement that represents both a persons ability and the task difficulty. It represents
the difference between a persons ability and the task difficulty. W Difference values between -7
and -51 and below indicate that tasks in specific areas will be difficult to impossible for individuals
that obtain these scores. It is useful for the measurement of growth. The Relative Proficiency Index
(RPI) predicts an individuals level of proficiency on tasks that typical age- or grade-peers would
perform with 90% proficiency. For example, an RPI of 55/90 on the Calculation test would indicate
that, on similar math tasks, the individual would demonstrate 55% proficiency, whereas average
age- or grade-peers would demonstrate 90% proficiency. RPIs are based on the W scale. RPI scores
of 81/90 and below indicate that tasks in specific areas will be difficult to impossible for individuals
that obtain these scores. This method of interpretation was used because the W Difference value
and the RPI can document a performance deficit that may not be apparent in peer comparison scores
(e.g., standard scores, percentile ranks).
Interpretive Overview of Client JKs Scores
The scores derived from this administration can be interpreted at 4 different levels.
Client JKs performance can be based on single tests and/or upon logical-empirical combinations
of tests called clusters. To analyze Client JKs present levels of Achievement, cluster analysis is
the most valid and reliable scores to interpret since they indicate a more representative array of
abilities. Variations within groups of scores are evaluated to determine if any relative strengths
and/or weaknesses exist. Comparisons are also considered for the purposes of predicting patterns
of achievement.
GIA
Client JKs overall intellectual ability as measured by the WJ IV General Intellectual Ability (GIA)
standard score (144 (140-148)) is in the Advanced to Very Advanced range of others her age. There
is a 68% probability that her true GIA score would be included in the range of standard scores from

Client JK 34

140 to 148. Her proficiency and functioning levels are Advanced to Very Advanced (RPI of 99/90:
Percentile rank: 99% (>-99-99).
GIA/Achievement Discrepancies
Client JKs Gf-Gc Composite combined general cultural knowledge; lexical (word) knowledge
and quantitative, deductive, and inductive reasoning. Client JKs fluid and crystallized intellectual
ability composite standard score is in the Very Advanced range (percentile rank = >99% (>99>99); standard score of 142 (136-148). Her combined fluid reasoning and comprehensionknowledge abilities are Very Advanced (RPI of 100/90).

Comparisons
Gf-Gc Composite/Other Ability Comparisons
The Gf-Gc Composite is an index reflecting both Client JKs fluid and crystalized abilities as
drawn from current CHC Theory. Specifically, the Gf-Gc composite draws on four cognitive
tests: Test 1: Oral Vocabulary, Test 2: Number Series, Test 8: General Information and Test 9:
Concept Formation. Gf-Gc comparisons are helpful in cases where a processing deficit
attenuates the GIA estimate of potential. Various Cognitive abilities, Oral Language abilities, and
Achievement clusters are included in the Gf-Gc Abilities Comparison presented in the Appendix.
Comparison of Client JKs Gf-Gc Composite to Other Abilities reveals 2 relative cognitive
strengths (1) Long- Term Retrieval (Glr: Actual: 150; Predicted: 122; Difference = +28; PR =
99%, SD = +2.24); and 2) Visual Processing (Gv): Actual: 147; Predicted: 120; Difference = +27;
PR = 98%, SD = +2.03) and no significant cognitive and/or achievement discrepancies, although
the percentile rank and Standard Deviation (SD) associated with Basic Reading Skills (Actual
(112; Predicted: 126 with a difference of -14; PR = 13% and SD =-1.15 and Academic Skills
(Academic Skills = Actual (117; Predicted: 130 with a difference of -13; PR = 10% and SD =1.28 were relatively weaker than other ability comparisons.
Scholastic Aptitude Comparisons Gains for Client JK
Scholastic Aptitudes comparison are used to predict achievement in specific curricular areas (e.g.
Reading, Writing, Language, and Mathematics)--using different combinations of predictor tasks.
The actual standard scores of Client JK were notably higher than predicted in 4 scholastic domains:
1) Reading Comprehension (Predicted; 126, Actual 137; Difference = +11); 2) Reading
Comprehension Extended (Predicted; 127, Actual 139; Difference = +12); 3) Math Problem
Solving (Predicted; 125, Actual 137; Difference = +12); and 4) Written Language (Predicted; 130,
Actual 145; Difference = +15). Equally notable are Client JKs Superior standard scores in Social
Studies (130) and the Humanities (132) in the Academic Knowledge cluster. While these gains are
not statistically significant per se, they evidence gains in academic proficiency for Client JK that
may be of value for instructional recommendations.
Client JK Cognitive, Academic and Oral Language Strengths
Client JKs performance on the WJ IV Cognitive, Achievement and Oral Language Tests indicate
that she has numerous strengths and skills to build upon as she transitions towards her career
choices.

Client JK 35

Client JK Cognitive Strengths

Intra-cognitive abilities analysis from her WJ IV Cognitive Tests set forth in Table 3 indicate seven
strengths. First, she presented meaningful strengths in the two cognitive Broad Abilities of LongTerm Retrieval (Glr) (Standard Score 150, + 2.08 SD) and Visual Processing (Gv) (Standard Score
147, + 2.01 SD). In terms of test domains, Client JK evidenced 5 areas of strength in Oral
Vocabulary (Standard Score 147, + 1.72 SD); Story Recall (Standard Score 146, + 1.85 SD),
Visualization (Standard Score 141, + 1.61 SD), Picture Recognition (Standard Score 137, + 1.55
SD), and Sound Blending (Standard Score 150, + 2.60 SD).
Client JK WAIS-IV Cognitive Strengths and Relative Weaknesses
Client JK evidenced relative weaknesses in both Digit Span (working memory) auditory rote recall.
Client JK WISC-V Cognitive Strengths and Relative Weaknesses
In the WJ IV Tests of Achievement, Client JK evidenced six strengths, along with two relative
weaknesses.
Client JK Achievement Battery Strengths
Intra-achievement abilities analysis from her WJ IV Achievement Tests indicate six (6) strengths.
Client JK presented statistically meaningful strengths in the academic domains of Reading
Comprehension (Standard Score 139, + 1.73 SD), Math Problem Solving (Standard Score 137, +
1.77 SD), Written Expression (Standard Score 148, + 2.82 SD), Writing Samples (Standard Score
157, + 3.25 SD), Number Matrices (Standard Score 138, + 1.91 SD), and Reading Vocabulary
(Standard Score 139, + 1.74 SD).
Client JK Achievement Battery--Relative Weaknesses
In the WJ IV Tests of Achievement, Client JK evidenced two relative weaknesses set forth in Table
4. One relative weakness for Client JK arose in Basic Reading Skills (Standard Score 112, - 2.23
SD), presenting a W difference of 20. The Percentile Discrepancy for her Basic Reading Skills
Cluster score was at 1%---meaning that 99% of her age mates in the normed sample would perform
better than Client JK performed in this test area, given these tasks. The second relative weakness
in her WJ IV Achievement Battery results arose in Letter-Word Identification (Standard Score
105, - 2.83 SD). The Percentile Discrepancy for her Letter-Word Identification score was at .2%--meaning that 99.8% of her age mates in the normed sample would perform better than Client JK
performed in this test area, given these tasks.

Client JK 36

Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Cross-Battery Analysis

Since prior testing also revealed several discrepant or non-cohesive scores in Wechsler Cognitive
and/or Achievement Test cluster results, a quantitative cross-battery approach was next applied to
further interpret Client JKs cumulative data. Chart 1 below presents Client JKs cross-battery
results; three (3) specific interpretations follow.
Chart 1. Cross-Battery Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Analyzer Results-Client JK

1. Client JK data evidences domain-specific weaknesses in cognitive functioning

(Short-Term Working Memory (Gsm)) based on cross-battery analysis:
The difference between Client JKs estimate of intact cognitive abilities (SS=148) and the
score representing the area of specific cognitive weakness (in this case a scaled score of
11 or 105 in Digit Span from WAIS-IV) is statistically significant. This finding means
that there is likely a true or real difference between the estimate of overall cognitive
strengths and the identified area of specific cognitive weakness for Client JK. In
addition, there is an unusually large difference between actual performance in the specific
cognitive area and expected performance (as predicted by overall cognitive strengths).
That is, based on Client JKs estimate of cognitive strengths, it was predicted that she
would perform much better in the specific cognitive area. In fact, the size of the

Client JK 37
difference between Client JKs actual and predicted performance in the specific cognitive
area occurs very infrequentlywhich corroborates the significance of the SD and
Percentile Rank discrepancy arising during Intra-Achievement analysis of Client JKs
divergent Letter-Word Identification Scaled Scores in relation to her other obtained
results (Letter-Word Identification, SS = 105; .2% 2.05 SD). These analyses suggest
that Client JKs PSW may consist of a domainspecific cognitive weaknesswhich is
seen as particularly true when the standard score is 90 or below.
2. Client JKs Data Evidences Unexpected Underachievement Based on Cross
Battery Evaluation: The difference between Client JKs estimate of intact
cognitive abilities and the score representing the area of specific academic
weakness (e.g., a specific academic skill) is statistically significant. This finding
means that there is likely a true or real difference between the estimate of overall
cognitive strengths and the identified area of specific academic weakness for the
individual. In addition, there is an unusually large difference between actual
performance in the specific academic area and expected performance (as
predicted by overall cognitive strengths).
That is, based on Client JKs estimate of cognitive strengths, it was predicted that Client
JK would perform much better in the specific academic area. In fact, the size of the
difference between Client JKs actual and predicted performance in the specific academic
area occurs very infrequently (Letter-Word Identification=105, W Difference =-26, SD =
- 2.83, PR Discrepancy = 1%) (Academic Skills: 117 = Actual Score/132 = Predicted;
Difference = 15; SD = -2.02). The results of these analyses suggest that Client JKs
academic data is marked by unexpected underachievement (particularly when the actual
SS <90).
3. Since Client JKs weakest scores are at least average, Client JKs Achievement
data does not evidence below average aptitudeachievement consistency: Client JK
scores representing areas of specific cognitive (Digit Span, Scaled Score 11 and Standard
Score=105) and/or academic weakness (Letter-Word Identification=105; W Difference
=-26 - 2.83). However, because both Client JKs WJ IV ACH Letter-Word Identification
scores and Basic Reading Skills scores are at least average (each standard score exceeds
90), in terms of scholastic aptitude/achievement, they do not support a pattern of below
average aptitudeachievement consistency as part of an overall pattern of strengths and
weaknesses.
Client JKs weaker WJ IV Intra-Achievement scores in Letter-Word Identification and
Basic Reading Skills indicate neither normative weaknesses nor deficits, nor would their
relative weakness alone support a pattern of below average aptitude-achievement
consistency.
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY

Client JK 38

Client JK can access the school environment and curriculum without the need for AT services or
devices. She communicates clearly and possesses psychomotor independence.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Client JK is a talkative, outgoing 19-year old college student. Throughout her schooling, Client JK
has evidenced Superior cognitive abilities, yet also encountered varying levels of challenge with
focus and attention. Since entering college, academic skillsets and strategies are of increasing
importance to Client JK career and vocational interests. Client JK sought testing to discover how
to maximize her academic abilities and present levels of performance in ways that build upon her
strengths to compensate either for academic and/or behavioral weaknesses.
ERROR ANALYSIS of ENGLISH SOUNDS CLIENT JK and LINGUISTIC TRANSFER
Client JKs data from intra-Achievement and cluster analysis evidence a relative weakness in
Letter-Word Identification, Academic Skills and Basic Reading Skills. Letter-Word
Identification required Client JK to read isolated words orally. It measures reading decoding
(sight recognition) including reading readiness skills. Notably, test items are presented in a list
rather than in a context. Client JK did not need to know word meanings. An examinee with
good sight-word recognition skills recognizes the letters and words rapidly and with little effort.
Automatic and fluent sight-word identification facilitates reading performance.
Notwithstanding the fact that Client JK ranks within the Superior range in General Intellectual
Ability, and possesses Very advanced Proficiency in Reading Comprehension, Word
Identification skills are not automatic. Individuals with poor word recognition skillsdue to lack
of educational exposure, phonemic confusion or to other factors, may tend to read more slowly, to
hesitate and/or try new pronunciations in ways that may lead to numerous errors. Evaluation of
the types of errors made during testing can clarify the phonological and syllabic task demands
and thereby inform the appropriateness of recommendations. In its resources, WJ IV offers a list
of categories for the words featured in Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack and in Spelling.
Notably, Client JK showed relative weaker skillsets in each of these cluster tests. Analyzing
these types of errors made either on or across tests can provide teachers and clients with valuable
information for recommended instruction. Error Analysis of Client JKs responses follows in
Tables D1 and D2.
Error Analysis (Table D.1): Intra-Abilities Achievement
Table D.1
Error Analysis - Client JK Letter Word Identification (Test 7) & Word Attack (Test 7)
Word (Phonic
Item
Item Word
Type)

#70
#74
#75
#76.
#77
#78

minuend
(phonic)
Tertiary
(phonic)
septuagenarian
(phonic)
echelon
(French)
coiffure
(French)
macaque

Vowel/Diphthong
?
Y
#29

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Attack
fleighted

Vowel/Diphthong?
Y

Client JK 39

(French)

Notes. LWI Data. See Table 4.

Error Analysis (Table D.2): Intra-Abilities Achievement

Table D.2
Error Analysis - Client JK Letter (Spelling of Sounds) (Test 16)
Word (Phonic
Item
Item
#24

Type)
stoffering

Client Spelling?

stauffering

N - heard by client

#27

automerous

automaris

Y - not heard by
client

#29
#30.

strotted
stawn

straughted
staugh

N - heard by client
Y

Vowel/Diphthong?

Notes. S of S Data. See Table 4, 5 and 6.

The recommendations that follow address these relative weaknesses by drawing upon Client JKs
varied cognitive and academic strengths as evidenced through diagnostic testing.

Client JK 40

RECOMMENDATIONS for CLIENT JK

1. Educational Programming Recommendations and Metacognition General

Strategies
When combined with behavioral observations, work samples and other pertinent
information, WJ IV COG results as well as Intra-Cognitive, Intra-Achievement, and
Intra-Oral Language results can help to inform both educational and vocational planning
for Client JK. Test results may help determine the process and product arising from the
most appropriate enrichments and interventions to positively impact Client JKs
educational outcomes and career transitions.
To develop Client JKs individualized program, WJ IV variations, predictions,
achievement/ability, broad abilities and test clusters data are analyzed to interpret patterns
in Client JKs strengths and weaknesses in order to make appropriately individualized
recommendations at various educational and instructional levels. Appendix A contains
an integrated data analysis worksheet reflecting Client JKs Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 data.
The following experts and resources inform Individualized Recommendations for Client
JK:
o Dr. Dawn Flanagan, Dr. Samuel Ortiz, Patterns of Strengths and Weakness
Cross-Battery Analysis (DMIA 2.0)
o Dr. C. Simpson, Dr. E. Schultz, Integrated Data Analysis (Appendix A)
o Dr. David A. Sousa (How the Gifted Brain Learns)
o Ms. Harriet Sturgeon, Director of Disability Services & Testing, Houston Baptist
University
o Ms. Samantha Bottoms, Assistant Director, Academic Success Center, Houston
Baptist University
o Dr. Thomas Armstrong, Author Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom and
Awakening Genius in the Classroom (Figure 2.3 from ADD/ADHD Alternatives in
the Classroom) {Appendix B}
o Ms. Micaela Bracamonte, Director of The Lang School, Expert on Exceptional
Learners and Author-Editor of 2E Newsletter
o Dr. Stephen B. McCarney, Pre-Referral Intervention Manual, Third Edition,
Hawthorne
o Contrastive Pairs British English/American English Practice and Vowel and
Dipthong Practice Sites
o Executive Function College Coach Sites and Technology Tools
o Dr. Jerome Sattler, Assessment of Children: Cognitive Foundations, Fifth Edition.
2. Self-Advocacy, Focus and Goals: Strategies to Support Client JK with SelfReported Challenges
Since Client JK self-reported that she often has problems concentrating and
focusing, it is recommended that her support team:

Client JK 41

Use multiple modalities to present information to Client JK (auditory,

visual, and tactile) when present in directions, explanations and
instructional content. By using multiple modalities, the information may
hold Client JKs interest for a longer period of time.

Drawing upon her auditory and visualization strengths, have Client JK

listen and take Who, What Where, When, How and Why notes when
information is presented to engage and maintain focus.

Drawing on her varied interests in gaming and other activities, use

more interesting or stimulating activities as a reward for completing
less interesting activities (e.g. Client JK must complete drill and practice
before working on games and/or using the computer)

Motivate Client JK when presenting tasks to build focus; provide an

incentive statement along with a directive (You can go to lunch after you
complete 15 math problems.).

Build her on-task metacognition through auditory prompts:

encourage Client JK to develop an awareness of herself and the
environment--drawing on and internalizing her auditory and listening
abilities. Instruct her to periodically step back and ask herself, Am I ontask and paying attention? What should I be doing now?

Since Client JK self-reported that she often has problems attending to things that
seem boring, it is recommended that:

Since JK demonstrates Advanced Visualization skills, build upon

Client JKs visual metacognition to address behavioral and academic
weaknesses: High levels of complexity encourage students like Client JK
to think deeply and to generalize meaning to new situations. To help her
achieve these goals, activate the three variables. We must explicitly teach
the relationships across ideas by using graphic organizers and other
structures to show these relationships. We must encourage and support
students while they develop their understanding, and we must give them
time to reflect deeply on their learning.

For long-term cognitive and behavioral benefit, use graphic organizers

and charts to teach Client JK the structures of curriculum, of learning,
memory and intelligence so that she will be more empowered to become
more successful.

Client JK 42

3. Draw on HBU College Transition Strategies: Client JK shared that she wants to
use strategies that help her more smoothly effect both college and career
transitions. Her campus HBU states in its brochure on High School to College
Transition that self-advocacy and self-determination skills are critical to a
successful experience for all college students.
As an HBU Junior, therefore, Client JK is encouraged to:

Develop Self-Advocacy. Students are expected to advocate for

themselves. Students are responsible for accommodation requests and for
advocating with faculty and staff.
Work on issues of time and attendance: Full time students typically
spend 12-18 hours per week in class.
Seek feedback on coursework. Students must seek feedback from faculty.
Professors may or may not check homework but will assume students can
do the work on exams.
Professors are usually helpful, but do expect students to initiate contact
if they need help.
Professors may not remind students of incomplete work and expect
students to get missed notes from classmates.
Understand HBU test structures: Tests are often infrequent, cumulative
and cover a great deal of material. Organizing the material is up to the
student.

4. Draw upon HBU Academic Success Center Strategies:

Client JK self-reported challenges with making goals and deadlines. Two
recommendations from the Academic Success Center to not put off project
tasks are:
1. Break Your Project into Small Tasks. Sometimes the very size of a task
can make it seem overwhelming and impossible to tackle. Dont try to do it all
at once. Instead, break it into smaller segments. For example, if you have a
15-page paper due in a week, tell yourself that tonight, you will write just the
introduction.
2. Set a Clear Schedule for Task Completion. Mapping out when and how you
will do each step in your assignments helps to stay on task.

5. Draw upon linguistic and technological tools that make spelling and sounds
between languages immediately more accessible. Use Web 2.0 tools to build
automaticity in her diphthong distinction awareness, allow Client JK to teach
others about these differences (including her little brother), invoke her
imagination using game boards, famous favorites of hers (Liam Neeson, Johnny

Client JK 43

Depp, Seal, Adele etc.) using scenarios and simulations involving people relevant
to her world at HBU and home, who may also encounter vowel transfer
difficulties between British and American English.
6. Set up a web or blogsite for her called for example, Potato, Po-TAH-to, featuring
tools that train to improve spelling and grapheme-phoneme matching through
minimal sound pairs and other linguistic strategies.

Appendix: Detailed Interpretation of Clusters and Tests

This appendix provides information about each ability measure, including a description of Client
JKs developmental level, a comparison to age peers using a standard score range classification,
and a description of her proficiency levels.

Client JK 44

ASSURANCES
The evaluator 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 evaluator assures that the tests and other evaluation materials have been validated for the
specific purpose for which they were used.
The evaluator 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 considered 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, academic
achievement, and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.
The evaluation provides relevant information that directly assists in the determination of the
educational needs of the student and is sufficiently comprehensive to contribute to other pertinent
school information which may be used in the identification and diagnosis of a disability which may
impact the students educational performance.
Camille Jones, M.A., D.E.A.
Educational Diagnostician Trainee
SIGNATURE OF EVALUATOR

Client JK 45

REFERENCES
Schrank, F.A. McGrew, K.S. & Mather, N. (2014). Woodcock Johnson IV Tests of
Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
Schrank, F.A. McGrew, K.S. & Mather, N. (2014). Woodcock Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive
Abilities. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
Schrank, F.A. McGrew, K.S. & Mather, N. (2014). Woodcock Johnson IV Tests of Oral
Language. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
Schrank, F.A. McGrew, K.S. & Mather, N. (2014). Woodcock Johnson IV. Rolling Meadows,
IL: Riverside.
Schrank, F.A. McGrew, K.S. & Mather, N. (2014). Woodcock Johnson IV. Rolling Meadows,
IL: Riverside.
McGrew, K.S., LaForte, E. & Schrank, F.A. (2014). Technical Manual. Woodcock Johnson IV.
Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

Client JK 46

APPENDIX

Table 1. Cognitive Performance Clusters and Subtests (Norms based on age 19-8)
Table 2. Intra-Cognitive Battery (Extended Variations)
Table 3. Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement Form A and Extended
Table 4. Variation: Intra-Achievement
Table 5. Tests of Oral Language Clusters and Tests (Norms based on age 19-8)
Table 6. Variations: Intra-Oral Language
Table 7. Variations: Academic Skills/academic Fluency/Academic Applications
Table 8. Comparisons
Table 9. GIA/Achievement Discrepancy Procedure
Table 10. Oral Language Achievement Comparisons
Table 11. Comparisons- Academic Knowledge/Achievement
Table 12. Comparisons Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement

Client JK 47

Table 1. Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities (Norms based on age 19-8)

Cognitive
Performance
Clusters/Subtests

RPI

Age
Equiv
alent

W
Diffe
rence

Standard
Score
(68%
Band)

(SS)
Qualitative
Descriptor

Percentile
(68%
Band)

Proficiency
Level

Instructional
Implications

Client JK 48

Table 2. Variations - Intra-Cognitive Battery (Extended Variations)

STANDARD SCORES
Actual
Predicted Difference
Intra-Cognitive [Extended]
Variations

Standard
Scores

Percentile
Ranks

W Diff

DISCREPANCY
PR
SD

Interpretation
+ or 1.50 SD
(SEE)
S/W

Client JK 49

Table 3. Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement Form A and Extended (Norms based on

age 19-8)
Achievement
Clusters/Tests

RPI

Age
Equiv
alent

W
Diffe
rence

Standard
Score
(68%
Band)

(SS)
Qualitative
Descriptor

Percentile
(68%
Band)

Proficiency
Level

Instructional
Implications

Client JK 50

Client JK 51

Client JK 52

Table 4. Variations: Intra-Achievement (Extended Variations)

STANDARD SCORES
Actual
Predicted Difference
Intra-Achievement
[Extended] Variations

Standard
Scores

Percentile
Ranks

W Diff

DISCREPANCY
PR
SD

Interpretation
+ or 1.50 SD
(SEE)
S/W

Client JK 53

Table 5. Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language (Norms based on age 19-8)

Clusters/Tests

RPI

Age
Equiva
lent

W
Differ
ence

Standard
Score
(68%
Band)

(SS)
Qualitative
Descriptor

Percentile
(68%
Band)

Proficiency
Level

Instruc
tional
Implic
ations

Client JK 54

Clusters/Tests

RPI

Age
Equiv
alent

W
Diffe
rence

Standard
Score
(68%
Band)

(SS)
Qualitative
Descriptor

Percentile
(68%
Band)

Proficiency
Level

Instruc
tional
Implica
tions

Advanced
ORAL
LANGUAGE
Picture Vocabulary
Oral
Comprehension
BROAD ORAL
LANGUAGE
Picture Vocabulary
Oral
Comprehension
Understanding
Directions
ORAL
EXPRESSSION
Picture Vocabulary
Sentence
Recognition
LISTENING
COMPREHENSI
ON
Oral
Comprehension
Understanding
Directions
PHONETIC
CODING
Segmentation
Sound Blending
SPEED OF
LEXICAL
ACCESS
Rapid Picture
Naming
Retrieval Fluency
VOCABULARY
Picture Vocabulary
Oral Vocabulary
AUDITORY
MEMORY SPAN
Sentence
Repetition

144

140-148

99.8

Easy

Client JK 55

Table 6. Variations: Intra-Oral Language (Extended Variations)

STANDARD SCORES
Actual
Predicted Difference
Intra-Oral Language
[Extended] Variations

Standard
Scores

Percentile
Ranks

W Diff

DISCREPANCY
PR
SD

Interpretation
+ or 1.50 SD
(SEE)
S/W

Client JK 56

Table 7. Variations: Academic Skills/Academic Fluency/Academic Applications (Extended)

STANDARD SCORES
Actual
Predicted Difference
Academic/
Skills/Fluency/Applications
[Extended] Variations

Standard
Scores

Percentile
Ranks

W Diff

DISCREPANCY
PR
SD

Interpretation
+ or 1.50 SD
(SEE)
S/W

Client JK 57

Table 8. Comparisons Academic Skills/Fluency

COMPARISONS
Academic/
Skills/Fluency/Applications
[Extended] Variations

STANDARD SCORES
Actual
Predicted Difference
Standard
Scores

Percentile
Ranks

W Diff

DISCREPANCY
PR
SD

Client JK 58

Table 9. GIA/Achievement Discrepancy Procedure:

STANDARD SCORES
GIA Achievement
Discrepancy Procedure

Actual

Predicted

Difference

Standard
Scores

Percentile
Ranks

W Diff

DISCREPANCY

Interpretation

PR

+ or 1.50 SD
(SEE)
S/W

SD

Table 10. GIA/Achievement Discrepancy Procedure:

STANDARD SCORES
Oral Language/
Achievement Comparisons

Actual

Predicted

Difference

Standard
Scores

Percentile
Ranks

W Diff

DISCREPANCY

Interpretation

PR

+ or 1.50 SD
(SEE)
S/W

SD

Client JK 59

Table 11. Comparisons Academic Knowledge/Achievement:

STANDARD SCORES
Comparisons- Academic
Knowledge/ Achievement
Comparisons

Actual

Predicted

Difference

Standard
Scores

Percentile
Ranks

W Diff

DISCREPANCY

Interpretation

PR

+ or 1.50 SD
(SEE)

SD

S/W

Client JK 60

Table 12. Comparisons - Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement:

STANDARD SCORES
Comparisons- Scholastic
Aptitude/Achievement
Comparisons

Actual

Predicted

Difference

Standard
Scores

Percentile
Ranks

W Diff

http://diag4all.weebly.com/edsp-6344---fie---report.html

DISCREPANCY

Interpretation

PR

+ or 1.50 SD
(SEE)

SD

S/W