Michelle 1

Houston Baptist University Testing Course7015 Fondren

Houston, Texas 77040

FULL AND INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION

Demographic Data

Student Name: MD Parents/Guardians: Mr. & Mrs. DGrade: 3rd Address and

Phone Number:7910 Ranchester DriveHousto, TX 77073281-777-0909

Date of Birth: 5266/2005 Email Address: mdizon@sbcglobal.netAge: 8 years, 6 months Date of Report: Dec. 9, 2013Gender: Female

Reason for Full and Individual Evaluation (FIE)

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

Throughout her school years, Michelle has always learned academic concepts quite quickly. She received enrichment work from her teachers and finished them successfully. She did not have to exert much effort in order to excel academically. Her vocabulary is quite enriched for a third grader as well. At a most recent parent-teacher conference, MD’s teacher, Mrs. Adams, has expressed the fact that MD learns the concepts and skills taught in class quite well; she is reading and comprehending books at a 5 th Grade level; she has made straight A’s for two grading periods; her expressive vocabulary is comparable to that of a 4th or a 5th Grader; and she has lately been exhibiting boredom in class. Furthermore, Mrs. Adams shared that MD is a very independent learner and takes ownership of her learning. She has taken on the role of a peer tutor to a couple of her classmates who are struggling academically.

Sources of Evaluation Data

Standardized evaluation procedures were followed. During the testing, MD was extremely cooperative, friendly, and task driven. Her attitude toward testing was pleasant. Compared to the previous testing session, MD was quite restless this time. During the third subtest, Digit Span, she started to walk around the table while giving her answers

Michelle 2

and continued to do so throughout the assessment. The examiner offered her breaks; however, she refused and expressed her eagerness to continue without a break. MD, likewise, expressed the fact that she be aloud to move around the room while working. On the other hand, MD took the time to sit and process her answers during the parts of the assessment that needed for her to write or look at pictures. MD was tested in the study room at her place of residence. This environment was quiet, conducive, and appropriate for testing.

Table 1. Sources of Evaluation Data

Sources of Information Informant/Position Dates

Parent/Student Information Mrs. Dizon, mother Dec. 4, 2013

Student Observation/Interview

General Education Teacher-Ms. Adams, Diagnostician-Agnes B. Domingo

Dec. 1, 2013

Review of School Records Diagnostician-Agnes B. Domingo, General Education Teacher-Ms. Adams, Nurse-Ms. Hicks, Physical Education Teacher-Mr. Bridges, Counselor-Ms. Bonilla

Dec. 2, 2013

Vision/Hearing Screening Nurse-Ms. Hicks Dec. 2, 2013

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition(WISC-IV)

Diagnostician-Agnes B. Domingo Dec. 7, 2013

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III)

Diagnostician-Agnes B. Domingo Nov. 23, 2013

Review of Educational Records

This evaluation was an initial referral. No previous testing was completed. It was determined that MD scored within the Average range on intellectual test and Above Average in the achievement test.

MD attended preschool at Smaller Scholar’s Montessori. Her parents shared that she thrived in this setting where multi-age grouping was promoted for the purpose of providing an atmosphere where the children learned and helped each other. She was more than prepared for Kindergarten when she left the Montessori for the Harmony School of Science in Sugar Land to attend Kindergarten. Furthermore, Mr. & Mrs. D shared that MD had been attending Kumon classes since Kindergarten. Her teachers in the Primary Levels expressed their fondness for her due to the fact that she was excelling academically and at the same time very articulate. She was recommended to undergo GT

Michelle 3

screening in 2nd Grade; however, her parents declined the recommendation. MD has been promoted to the 3rd grade for the 2013-2014 school year; she continues to excel in all academic areas.

Speech/Language

Based on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test- Third Edition (WIAT-III), MD’s expressive and receptive language is in the Average range. Michelle’s language proficiency when compared with her same age peers may be regarded in the noted domains as:

Listening Comprehension: Average Oral Expression: Average

MD expresses herself best in oral speech. Language functioning was observed during the evaluation and it was determined that she easily engages in informal conversation. She has comprehensible speech and is able to make her needs known to others. Her dominant language is English.

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

Physical Information

Physical conditions that may directly affect MD’s ability to profit from the educational process were considered. MD’s vision and hearing appeared to be within normal limits without correction. She did not exhibit any signs of health or medical problems.

She does not appear to have physical conditions that must be considered. Analysis of the noted evaluations, interviews, and observations indicate that MD can function in a regular physical education program or athletics.

Sociological

Sociological data concerning MD’s family and community environment that may influence learning/behavior patterns were considered. She lives with both of her parents and a 19-year old cousin who is a freshman in college. She regards this cousin as her older sister with whom she is very close. Her now 86-year old maternal grandmother was her primary caregiver from the age of two months up to when she reached the age of two while both her parents worked a full-time job. Her grandmother has gone back to their home country since then. MD’s parents likewise shared that in the absence of her maternal grandmother, they try their very best to spend a lot of family time together. They make it a point to always attend Sunday church, have dinner as a family every evening, celebrate special occasions together, and most especially attending school

Michelle 4

events. They would drop everything just to attend school events with MD or have a conference with her teachers regardless of what the purpose is. Coupled with their enthusiasm about MD’s scholastic activities is their ultimate goal of making sure that she acquires the best education and a bright future as well. MD and her family appear to have a positive relationship. Her parents are very much involved in her educational performance and have provided continual support for her success.

As a child, MD loves to play with other children. She would rather play outside with her friends than watch children’s programs on television. She further shared that she is presently hooked on the Minecraft games where she could design and build her own house. She would be in competition with her friends as to who would be able to build and design the most sophisticated house on Minecraft. Her 3 rd Grade teachers expressed that MD is a friendly and talkative student; she can strike up a conversation with anyone in class (regardless of gender). However, there have been several times when she got in trouble because of her being talkative in class. Her parents’ likewise shared that MD is sociable with their neighbor’s children; she gets along with her friends quite well. Likewise, she loves swimming. She has been taking swimming lessons since June 2013 and she always looks forward to her Saturday swim class.

Based on current data, sociological factors do not appear to adversely affect MD’s learning or behavior patterns to a degree that would impede her learning.

Emotional/Behavioral

The evaluations of a student’s emotional and behavioral factors consist of identifying those characteristics, which may impact the student’s learning. During the evaluation, MD was friendly, cooperative, polite, respectful, and independent. Based on observations, parent and student information, MD does not exhibit serious emotional and behavioral factors that may significantly interfere with her ability to learn.

Teacher Interviews

According to MD’s teacher, she is a student who learns fast and takes ownership of her learning. Her teacher further stated that MD is always an active participant in her learning. She did not have any discipline or behavior issues in the classroom.

Classroom Observations

The school counselor observed MD on two occasions. On the afternoon of the first observation MD was seen sitting at a table with a peer working on a rock candy group project. The evaluator noticed that MD interacted cooperatively with her peers.

On the second observation, MD’s behavior appeared to be the same. She worked cooperatively with her peers during a group activity. About 10 minutes later the teacher had the students focus their attention on her as they discussed their findings in the groups.

Michelle 5

MD participated in this discussion freely. She appeared to speak among her peers and teacher with ease and confidence.

Intellectual/Adaptive Behavior

An intelligence test was administered in order to assess MD’s general range of intellectual functioning and to determine current cognitive strengths and weaknesses. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) is an individually administered, comprehensive clinical instrument for assessing intelligence (Wechsler, 2003). The WISC-IV provides composite scores that represent intellectual functioning in four specified cognitive domains, as well as a measure of general intellectual functioning.

The four cognitive domains are:

The Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) – this score is obtained from subtests measuring verbal abilities utilizing reasoning, comprehension, and conceptualization.

The Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) – this score is obtained from subtests measuring perceptual reasoning and organization.

The Working Memory Index (WMI) – this score is obtained from subtests measuring attention, concentration, and working memory.

The Processing Speed Index (PSI) – this score is obtained from subtests measuring the speed of mental and graphomotor processing.

The index composite scores are reported as age-correlated standard scores. The composite scores are scaled to a metric with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The scaled scores have a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of three.

MD obtained a Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) of 106, which ranks her overall ability at the 66thpercentile. This means that MD performed as well as or better than 66% and lower than 34% of the remaining peers in the same age group. This score is in the Average range of intellectual functioning. This score is derived from the combined sum of index composite scores for the VCI, PRI, WMI, and PSI, and is considered to be the score that is most representative of general intellectual functioning. Her composite scores for the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Working Memory Index (WMI), and the Processing Speed Index (PSI) are in the Average range. Her composite scores for the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) are in the Low Average range. (See Table 2).

Michelle 6

Table 2.Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) Composite Index Scores Summary

ScaleComposite

ScorePercentile

Rank

95%Confidence

IntervalQualitativeDescription

Verbal Comprehension (VCI)

108 70 104-114 Average

Perceptual Reasoning (PRI) 096 39 089-104 Low AverageWorking Memory (WMI) 107 68 099-114 AverageProcessing Speed (PSI) 106 66 096-114 AverageFull Scale (FSIQ) 106 66 101-111 Average

Composite Index Score Differences

Composite index score differences were examined to determine significant strengths and weaknesses. The scores are examined for statistical significance of the difference and for the frequency of the difference in the population by FSIQ ability level. In other words, are the differences real and are they clinically significant?

When analyzed for discrepancies, none of six paired index composite scores yielded statistically significant difference. The VCI-108 and WMI-107 yielded a difference of 1 point; VCI-108 and PSI-106 yielded a difference of 2 points; PRI-96 and WMI-107 yielded a difference of -11 points; PRI-96 and PSI-106 yielded a difference of -10 points. The differences between the paired composite index scores are greater than the critical values for each pair. The base rates (frequency of the difference in the population by FSIQ ability level ≤90- ≤109) for the paired index composite scores: (VCI-WMI, VCI-PSI, PRI-WMI, and PRI-PSI) are not statistically significant because they are higher than 15%. Base rates that are 15% or higher are not considered statically significant because the probability of occurrence of the difference in the population is considered high (see Table 3).

Table 3. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) Composite Index Score Differences

Discrepancy Comparisons

Scaled Score 1

Scaled Score 2

Diff. CriticalValue(.05)

Sig.Diff.Y/N

Base Rate

VCI - PRI 108 096 12 11.38 N 18.7VCI –WMI 108 107 0 1 12.12 N 48.9VCI – PSI 108 106 02 13.15 N 44.4PRI – WMI 096 107 -11 11.76 N 22.3PRI – PSI 096 106 -10 12.82 N 25.9WMI- PSI 107 106 01 13.48 N 47.4

Michelle 7

Composite Index Subtest Scaled Score Differences

The index composite scores for the VCI, PRI, WMI, and PSI were further analyzed to determine whether the scaled scores on the subtests that constitute each index measure are a consistent or non-consistent trait. The scaled scores of the index composite scores have a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of three. Discrepancies that are less than five points between the highest and lowest subtest scaled scores within an index are considered consistent. This indicates that the intra-index variability among the scaled score range of the subtests for a particular index composite score deems the index composite score as a valid predictor of the student’s skills for the index. Discrepancies that are equal to or greater than five points between the highest and lowest subtest scaled scores within an index are considered non-consistent. This indicates that the intra-index variability among the scaled score range of the subtests for a particular index composite score deems the index composite score as not a valid predictor of the student’s skills for the index.

In addition, the ten individual subtests administered represent 5 of the 7 broad CHC factors (Comprehension-Knowledge- Gc, Visual-Spatial Thinking-Gv, Fluid Reasoning-Gf, Processing Speed- Gs and Short-Term Memory-Gsm).

MDs composite score of 108 on the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) is ranked in the 70th percentile and is in the Average range of intellectual functioning. This means that she scored as well as or better than 70% and lower than the remaining 30% of peers in her age group. This index is a measure of verbal abilities utilizing reasoning, comprehension, and conceptualization. MD’s ability was assessed using several tasks that identified her skill sets. She was required to define words (Vocabulary). The Vocabulary subtest measures auditory perception and comprehension, verbal conceptualization, abstract thinking, and verbal expression. She was required to draw conceptual similarities between words (Similarities). The Similarities subtest measures verbal reasoning and concept formation. It also involves auditory comprehension, memory, distinction between nonessential and essential features, and verbal expression. She was required to answer questions based on her understanding of general principles and social situations (Comprehension). The Comprehension subtest measures verbal reasoning and conceptualization, verbal comprehension and expression, the ability to evaluate and use past experience, and the ability to demonstrate practical information. It measures knowledge of conventional standards of behavior, social judgment and maturity, and common sense.

The Similarities, Vocabulary, and Comprehension subtests measure Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc), which measures the breadth and depth of a person’s acquired knowledge, the ability to communicate one’s knowledge and ability to reason using previous learned experiences. The composite score of 108 obtained by MD on the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) is in the 70th percentile and is in the Average range of intellectual functioning. This means

Michelle 8

that MD scored as well as or better than 70% and lower than 30% of the remaining peers in her age group. During the assessment, she gave up so easily and did not seem to have the motivation to persist.

The PRI is a measure of perceptual reasoning and organization. This score represents MD’s ability to form a group with a common characteristic (Picture Concepts). The Picture Concepts subtest measures abstract, categorical reasoning ability. MD scored in the Low Average range of intellectual functioning for this subtest. She had the ability to use logical and abstract thinking, and a good ability to select appropriate relationships between two objects or concepts; however, she did not have the motivation to persist. The PRI seemed to be an area of weakness for MD.

She was required to analyze and synthesize abstract visual stimuli (Block Design). The Block Design subtest involves the ability to integrate visual and motor processes. The Block Design subtest measures Visual-Spatial Thinking (Gv) which measures the ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize and think with visual patterns, including the ability to store and recall visual representations.

She was required to use visual information processing and abstract reasoning skills (Matrix Reasoning). The Matrix Reasoning subtest measures visual information processing and abstract reasoning skills. It is also relatively culture-fair and language-free and requires no hand manipulation. The Matrix Reasoning subtest measures Fluid Reasoning (Gf) which measures the ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information or new procedures.

MD obtained a composite score of 107 on the Working Memory Index (WMI), which is in the 68th percentile and is in the Average range of intellectual functioning. This means that MD scored as well as or better than 68% and lower than 32% of the remaining peers in her age group. Working Memory is a measure of attention, concentration, and the ability to temporarily retain information in memory, perform some operation or manipulation with it, and produce a result. She had a good ability to receive stimuli, and self-monitor.

MD’s ability for this index was assessed using tasks that required her to repeat a sequence of numbers in the same order as presented by the examiner (Digit Span Forward) and in the reverse order (Digit Span Backward), and tasks that required her to listen to a sequence of numbers and letters and recall the numbers in ascending order. The Digit Span subtest measures auditory short-term memory, sequencing skills, attention, and concentration. Digit Span subtests measure Short-Term Memory (Gsm), which measures the ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness and then uses it within a few seconds.

MD was also required to listen to a sequence of numbers and letters and recall the numbers in ascending order and the letters in alphabetical order (Letter-Number Sequencing). This subtest measures abilities in sequencing, mental manipulation,

Michelle 9

attention, short-term auditory memory, visual-spatial imaging, and processing speed. During the assessment, MD used rehearsal strategies to aid her in recalling the numbers, letters and their sequences. She snapped her fingers as each letter-number sequence was called. This strategy appeared to help her recall the letters and numbers correctly. She continued walk around throughout the assessment.

MD’s composite score of 106 on the Processing Speed Index (PSI) is in the 66th

percentile and is in the Average range of intellectual functioning. This means that MD’s scored as well as or better than 66% and lower than 34% of the remaining peers in her age group. The PSI is a measure of the ability to quickly and correctly scan, sequence, or discriminate simple visual information. There is a high correlation between processing speed and general cognitive ability, and the score is sensitive to certain clinical conditions Although MD worked carefully during this part of the assessment, she seemed to have enjoyed completing this task. She actually took the time to sit and work. Working within a specific time limit, she was required to scan a search group and indicate whether one of the symbols in the target group matches (Symbol Search). The Symbol Search subtest measures processing speed, short-term visual memory, visual-motor coordination, cognitive flexibility, visual discrimination, psychomotor speed, speed of mental operation, attention, concentration, auditory comprehension, perceptual organization, fluid intelligence, and planning and learning ability.

MD’s ability was assessed using tasks that required her to copy symbols that are paired with numbers within a specified time limit (Coding). The Coding subtest measures processing speed, short-term visual memory, learning ability, psychomotor speed, visual perception, visual-motor coordination, visual scanning ability, cognitive flexibility, attention, motivation, sequential processing, and fluid intelligence.

The Symbol Search and Coding subtests measure Processing Speed (Gs), which measures the ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, as an aspect of cognitive efficiency.

MD’s WISC-IV Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) is a valid interpretation of her intellectual ability when the range of her FSIQ 101-111 is taken into consideration. Her FSIQ of 106 falls within the Average range of intellectual ability. This does not mean that MD will not experience academic difficulties. This means that she has the potential to overcome difficulties if she is afforded the opportunity to utilize accommodations and/or recommendations in academic settings.

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.

Michelle 10

MD’s adaptive behavior was assessed using informal measures (i.e.: student information and observation of behavior during the individual evaluation, and parent information). Based on this data, MD’s adaptive behavior appears to be within the Average range and consistent with her current intellectual functioning.

Academic/Developmental Performance

Information regarding a student’s 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. The collection of educational performance data is used to assess MD’s level of acquired knowledge.

Informal and School Based Academic Testing

MD is a Third Grade student at the Harmony School of Science. During this school year, she earned grades of A's for all subjects. She attends school regularly. She will continue to attend Harmony School of Science in 2014-2015.

MD just recently completed the mock State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) at their campus. She scored a 83% in the Reading test and a 91% in the Mathematics test. She will be taking the real STAAR test for Reading and Mathematics in April 2014.

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III)

The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III) was administered to assess MD’s current levels of academic functioning. The WIAT-III is an individually administered, diagnostic achievement test designed for students in grades Prekindergarten (PK) through 12, or ages 4 years 0 months through 19 years 11 months. The test includes 16 subtests designed to measure listening, speaking, reading, writing, and mathematics skills.

Composite and Subtest Score Interpretations

MD was administered the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III). This test includes 16 subtests to measure listening, speaking, reading, writing, and mathematics. Results obtained from the WIAT-III can be used to (a) identify the academic strengths and weaknesses of a student, (b) inform decisions regarding eligibility for educational services, educational placement, or a diagnosis of a specific learning disability, and (c) design instructional objectives and plan interventions. Furthermore, the results were interpreted using grade-based norms (Fall).

Michelle 11

MD obtained a Total Achievement score of 130, which is in the Above Average range of intellectual functioning and falls within the 98th percentile rank. This means that MD performed as well as or better than 98 percent of the students in her norm group and not as well as the remaining 2 percent. The Total Achievement score is derived from the combined sum of subtest standard scores for the Oral Language, Total Reading, Basic Reading, Reading Comprehension and Fluency, Written Expression, and Mathematics, and is considered to be the score that is most representative of MD’s listening, speaking, reading, and mathematics skills.

The Listening Comprehension subtest of the WIAT-III contains the Receptive Vocabulary and Oral Discourse Comprehension components and measures listening comprehension at the level of the word, sentence, and discourse. MD listened to vocabulary words and pointed to a picture that illustrates each word, and then listened to passages and answered questions about each one. On this subtest, MD’s performance was in Average range, earning a standard score of 114. As indicated by her percentile rank of 82, MD performed as well or better than 82 percent of students when compared to the norms for her grade level but not as well as the remaining 18 percent.

The Oral Expression subtest of the WIAT-III contains the Expressive Vocabulary, Oral Word Fluency, and Sentence Repetition components, and is designed to measure skills and competencies that are important for effective oral expression and that underlie written language skills. MD was shown pictures and was asked to name the concept shown in each picture. Then she said the words from a given category and repeated sentences. On this subtest, MD’s performance was in the Average range, earning a standard score of 99. As indicated by her percentile rank of 47, MD performed as well or better than 47 percent of students when compared to the norms for her grade level but not as well as the remaining 53 percent.

The Early Reading Skills subtest of the WIAT-III measures several skills deemed important for developing reading skills. Items present auditory, visual or combined auditory-visual stimuli, and require oral and pointing responses. On this subtest, MD’s performance was in the Average range, earning a standard score of 114. As indicated by her percentile rank of 82, MD performed as well or better than 82 percent of students when compared to the norms for her grade level but not as well as the remaining 12 percent.

The Reading Comprehension subtest of the WIAT-III measures literal and inferential reading comprehension skills using a variety of passage and question types that resemble those used in a school setting. MD read each passage aloud or silently under un-timed conditions, listened to each pen-ended comprehension question asked aloud by the examiner, and orally answered each question with the passage available for reference. On this subtest, MD’s performance was in the Average range, earning a standard score of 100. As indicated by her percentile rank of 50, MD performed as well or better than 50 percent of students when compared to the norms for her grade level but not as well as the remaining 50 percent.

The Word Reading subtest of the WIAT-III is designed to measure speed and accuracy of

Michelle 12

single word reading. MD was asked to read aloud from a list of increasingly difficult words under un-timed conditions. On this subtest, MD’s performance was in the Above Average range, earning a standard score of 120. As indicated by her percentile rank of 91, MD performed as well or better than 91 percent of students when compared to the norms for her grade level but not as well as the remaining 9 percent.

The Pseudoword Decoding subtest of the WIAT-III is designed to measure speed and accuracy of decoding skills. MD was asked to read aloud from a list of increasingly difficult nonsense words. On this subtest, MD’s performance was in the Superior range, earning a standard score of 134. As indicated by her percentile rank of 99, MD performed as well or better than 99 percent of students when compared to the norms for her grade level but not as well as the remaining 1 percent.

The Oral Reading Fluency subtest of the WIAT-III is designed to measure oral reading fluency of expository and narrative passages. MD read passages aloud, and then orally responded to comprehension questions. On this subtest, MD’s performance was in the Superior range, earning a standard score of 141. As indicated by her percentile rank of 99.7, MD performed as well or better than 99.7 percent of students when compared to the norms for her grade level but not as well as the remaining 0.3 percent.

The Sentence Composition subtest of the WIAT-III includes the Sentence Combining and Sentence Building components, which measure sentence formulation skills, including the use of morphology, grammar, syntax, semantics, and mechanics. MD combined the information from two or three sentences into single sentences that mean the same thing, and then wrote meaningful sentences that sue specific words. On this subtest, MD’s performance was in the Average range, earning a standard score of 123. As indicated by her percentile rank of 93, MD performed as well or better than 93 percent of students when compared to the norms for her grade level but not as well as the remaining 7 percent.

The Essay Composition subtest of the WIAT-III measures spontaneous written expression in response to a prompt under timed conditions. MD was asked to listen to the instructions for writing the essay; listened and followed along as the examiner read the essay prompt aloud, and then planned, wrote, and finalized an essay within a 10-minute time limit. On this subtest, MD’s performance was in the Average range, earning a standard score of 112. As indicated by her percentile rank of 79 percent, MD performed as well or better than 79 percent of students when compared to the norms for her grade level but not as well as 21 percent.

The Spelling subtest of the WIAT-III measures written spelling of single sounds and words from dictation. MD was asked to write single words that are dictated within the context of a sentence. On this subtest, MD’s performance was in the Average range, earning a standard score of 110. As indicated by her percentile rank of 75 percent, MD performed as well or better than 75 percent of students when compared to the norms for her grade level but not as well as 25 percent.

The Math Problem Solving subtest of the WIAT-III measures math problem solving skills

Michelle 13

under un-timed conditions. MD was asked to listen as the examiner read each problem, to look at the corresponding visual stimuli, and then provided oral and/or pointing responses. On this subtest, MD’s performance was in the Above Average range, earning a standard score of 124. As indicated by her percentile rank of 95 percent, MD performed as well or better than 95 percent of students when compared to the norms for her grade level but not as well as 5 percent.

The Numerical Operations subtest of the WIAT-III measures written mathematics calculation skills under un-timed conditions. MD was asked by the examiner to solve un-timed written math problems in the following domains: basic skills, basic operations with integers, geometry, algebra, and calculus. On this subtest, MD’s performance was in the Superior range, earning a standard score of 132. As indicated by her percentile rank of 98 percent, MD performed as well or better than 98 percent of students when compared to the norms for her grade level but not as well as 2 percent.

Table 4. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III) Composite Score Summary

Composite Standard Score

95%Confidence Interval

Percentile Rank

Qualitative Description

Oral Language 107 99-115 68 Average

Total Reading 131 126-136 98 Superior

Basic Reading 132 126-136 98 Superior

Reading Comprehension and Fluency

124 116-132 95 Above Average

Written Expression 120 114-126 91 Above Average

Mathematics 130 123-137 98 Above Average

Total Achievement 130 126-134 98 Above Average

**NOTE: The WIAT–III is a norm-referenced test. It is not aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).

Michelle 14

Table 5. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III) Subtest Score Summary

Subtest Standard Score

95%Confidence Interval

Percentile Rank

Qualitative Descriptor

Listening Comprehension

114 104-124 82 Average

Reading Comprehension

100 0089-111 50 Average

Math Problem Solving

124 115-133 95 Above Average

Sentence Completion 123 113-133 94 Above Average

Word Reading 120 0115-125 70 Above Average

Essay Composition 112 101-123 79 Average

Pseudoword Decoding

134 0128-140 99 Above Average

Numerical Operations

132 124-140 98 Superior

Oral Expression 99 88-110 47 Average

Oral Reading Fluency

141 133-149 99 Superior

Spelling 110 103-117 75 Average

Early ReadingSkills

114 102-126 82 Average

**NOTE: The WIAT–III is a norm-referenced test. It is not aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).

Assistive Technology

MD can access the school environment and curriculum without the need for AT services or devices. She communicates clearly and is expressively and receptively independent.

Michelle 15

Conclusion

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

Strengths – MD performed best in the areas of Total Reading and Basic Reading. She is able to use oral language to communicate with others. Additional strengths include Numerical Operations and Oral Reading Fluency.

Weaknesses – MD did not exhibit specific difficulty in any of the academic areas.

MD’s overall scores indicate that she is performing in the Average range of intellectual ability and in the Above Average range of achievement.

The standard scores for subtests and composites on the WIAT-III, which represent the seven areas for identification of a Learning Disability were compared to MD’s FSIQ to determine whether a significant difference exists. The findings indicate that a significant difference exists in the areas of Basic Reading and Math Problem Solving.

Table 6. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III) and Subtests/Composites Measuring the Seven IDEA Areas

Required LD Areas WIAT-III ACHSubtests/Composites

WIAT-III ACHSubtests/Composites STD. Scores

FSIQ FSIQ/ACHDif.

Sig.Y/N

Oral Expression Oral Expression 099 106 +07 NListening Comprehension Listening

Comprehension114 106 - 08 N

Written Expression Written Expression 120 106 - 14 NBasic Reading Skills Basic Reading 132 106 - 26 YReading Comprehension Reading

Comprehension100 106 +06 N

Math Reasoning Math Problem Solving

124 106 - 18 Y

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

Michelle 16

Recommendations

This evaluation is considered a valid representation of MD’s current levels of functioning in the areas assessed. The following recommendations are based upon a review of evaluation data to meet her academic needs. These recommendations are intended for the classroom as well as test settings.

Additional assessments, such as the Naglieri test, Stanford 10 (SAT 10) test, Torrance Test of Creativity, need to be administered to MD in order to determine GT qualification.

Challenge MD with high-order thinking materials and curriculum such as working on a research paper and presenting her findings through a PowerPoint presentation, creating a model or diorama, and/or writing a play.

The use of graphic organizers or thinking maps is highly recommended in order for MD to organize her thoughts and ideas before putting them together in a written composition. Making use of graphic organizers may reduce her level of frustration when required to write a composition.

In order for MD to develop her writing skills and reduce her level of frustration regarding the development of written compositions, it would be best for MD to maintain a writing journal and be encouraged to write on a daily basis by giving her a prompt to work from.

Assurances

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle 17

MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM

Agnes B. DomingoEducational Diagnostician

SIGNATURE OF EVALUATOR

___________________________________

Michelle 18