Interpretive Report Of WAIS–IV Testing
Interpretive Report of WAIS–IV TestingExaminee and Testing InformationExaminee NameExaminee IDJohn Doe9172013Date of ReportYears of Education9/18/201310Date of Birth10/3/1958Home cityAfrican AmericanExaminer NamePaul W SimpsonTest Administered WAIS-IV (9/17/2013)Age at Testing 54 years 10 monthsRetest?NoWAIS–IV CommentsScore SummaryWAIS–IV ScaleScoreVerbal Comprehension66Perceptual Reasoning69Working Memory58Processing Speed53Full Scale56Interpretation of WAIS–IV ResultsGeneral Intellectual AbilityJohn was administered 10 subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV). His composite scores are derived from these subtest scores. The Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) compositescore is derived from 10 subtest scores and is considered the most representative estimate of globalintellectual functioning. John’s general cognitive ability is within the extremely low range ofintellectual functioning, as measured by the FSIQ. His overall thinking and reasoning abilities exceedthose of only approximately 0.2% of individuals his age (FSIQ 56; 95% confidence interval 5361). John may experience great difficulty in keeping up with his peers in a wide variety of situationsthat require thinking and reasoning abilities. His ability to reason with words is comparable to hisability to reason without the use of words. John’s verbal and nonverbal reasoning abilities are in theextremely low range.Verbal ComprehensionJohn’s verbal reasoning abilities as measured by the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) are in theextremely low range and above those of only 1% of his peers (VCI 66; 95% confidence interval 62-73). The VCI is designed to measure verbal reasoning and concept formation. John performedCopyright 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.Michael MoorePage 1 of 8
comparably on the verbal subtests contributing to the VCI, suggesting that the various verbal cognitiveabilities measured by these subtests are similarly developed. However, he may experience greatdifficulty in keeping up with his peers in situations that require verbal skills.Perceptual ReasoningJohn’s nonverbal reasoning abilities as measured by the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) are in theextremely low range and above those of only 2% of his peers (PRI 69; 95% confidence interval 6477). The PRI is designed to measure fluid reasoning in the perceptual domain with tasks that assessnonverbal concept formation, visual perception and organization, visual-motor coordination, learning,and the ability to separate figure and ground in visual stimuli. John’s performance on the perceptualreasoning subtests contributing to the PRI is somewhat variable, although the magnitude of thisdifference in performance is not unusual among individuals his age. Examination of John’sperformance on individual subtests provides additional information regarding his specific nonverbalabilities.John achieved his best performance among the nonverbal reasoning tasks on the Visual Puzzlessubtest and his lowest score on the Matrix Reasoning subtest. His performance across these areasdiffers significantly and suggest that these are the areas of most pronounced strength and weakness,respectively, in John’s profile of perceptual reasoning abilities. Although better developed than hisother nonverbal reasoning abilities, John’s abilities on the Visual Puzzles subtest were below those ofmost individuals his age. His weak performance on the Matrix Reasoning subtest was far below that ofmost individuals his age.The Matrix Reasoning subtest required John to look at an incomplete matrix and select the missingportion from five response options. This subtest assesses fluid visual information processing andabstract reasoning skills (Matrix Reasoning scaled score 3). The Visual Puzzles subtest requiredJohn to view a completed puzzle and select three response options that, when combined, reconstructthe puzzle, and do so within a specified time limit. This subtest is designed to measure nonverbalreasoning and the ability to analyze and synthesize abstract visual stimuli. Performance on this taskalso may be influenced by visual perception, broad visual intelligence, fluid intelligence, simultaneousprocessing, spatial visualization and manipulation, and the ability to anticipate relationships amongparts (Visual Puzzles scaled score 6).Working MemoryJohn’s ability to sustain attention, concentrate, and exert mental control is in the extremely low range.He performed better than approximately 0.3% of his peers in this area (Working Memory Index(WMI) 58; 95% confidence interval 54-67).John had difficulty with the two tasks that demand mental control, that is, attending and holdinginformation in short-term memory while performing some operation or manipulation with it and thencorrectly producing the transformed information (Digit Span scaled score 1; Arithmetic scaled score 4).Processing SpeedJohn’s ability in processing simple or routine visual material without making errors is in the extremelylow range when compared to his peers. He performed better than approximately 0.1% of his peers onCopyright 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.Michael MoorePage 2 of 8
the processing speed tasks (Processing Speed Index [PSI] 53; 95% confidence interval 49-66).Processing visual material quickly is an ability that John performs poorly as compared to hisnonverbal reasoning ability. Processing speed is an indication of the rapidity with which John canmentally process simple or routine information without making errors.SummaryJohn is a 54-year-old male who completed the WAIS–IV. His general cognitive ability, as estimatedby the WAIS–IV, is in the extremely low range (FSIQ 56). John’s verbal comprehension andperceptual reasoning abilities were both in the extremely low range (VCI 66, PRI 69). John’sability to sustain attention, concentrate, and exert mental control is in the extremely low range (WMI 58). John’s ability in processing simple or routine visual material without making errors is in theextremely low range when compared to his peers (PSI 53).This report is valid only if signed by a qualified professional:Copyright 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.Michael MoorePage 3 of 8
WAIS–IV Score ReportComposite Score SummaryScaleSum ofScaled ScoresVerbal Comprehension12Perceptual ReasoningWorking MemoryProcessing rvalQualitativeDescription162-73Extremely LowVCI6614PRI69264-77Extremely Low5WMI580.354-67Extremely Low3PSI530.149-66Extremely LowFull Scale34FSIQ560.253-61Extremely LowConfidence Intervals are based on the Overall Average SEMs. Values reported in the SEM column are based on the examinee’sage.Copyright 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.Michael MoorePage 4 of 8
Composite Scores andStandard Errorof MeasurementComposite Score Q562.12CompositeThe vertical bars represent the standard error of measurement (SEM).AnalysisIndex Level Discrepancy ComparisonsScore 1Score 2DifferenceCriticalValue.05VCI - PRI6669-37.78N43.4VCI - WMI665888.31N27.1VCI - PSI66531311.76Y20.3PRI - WMI6958118.81Y20.8PRI - PSI69531612.12Y15512.47N37.7ComparisonWMI - PSI5853Base rate by overall sample.Statistical significance (critical value) at the .05 level.SignificantDifferenceY/NBase RateOverall SampleVerbal Comprehension Subtests SummaryCopyright 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.Michael MoorePage 5 of 8
SubtestRawScoreScaledScorePercentileRankReference GroupScaled bularyInformationPerceptual Reasoning Subtests SummaryRawScoreScaledScorePercentileRankReference GroupScaled ScoreSEMBlock Design165540.95Matrix Reasoning43110.95Visual Puzzles76950.85SubtestWorking Memory Subtests SummaryRawScoreScaledScorePercentileRankReference GroupScaled ScoreSEMDigit Span810.110.73Arithmetic74250.9SubtestProcessing Speed Subtests SummaryRawScoreScaledScorePercentileRankReference GroupScaled ScoreSEMSymbol Search510.111.56Coding2220.411.2SubtestSubtest Level Discrepancy ComparisonsSignificantDifferenceY/NBaseRateScore 1Score 2DifferenceCritical Value.0514-32.57Y16.9Symbol Search - Coding12Statistical significance (critical value) at the .05 level.-13.41N40.1Subtest ComparisonDigit Span - ArithmeticCopyright 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.Michael MoorePage 6 of 8
Subtest Scaled Score ProfileThe vertical bars represent the standard error of measurement (SEM)Determining Strengths and WeaknessesDifferences Between Subtest and Overall Mean of Subtest ritical Value.05Block Design53.401.62.85 25%Similarities43.400.62.82 25%Digit Span13.40-2.42.22Matrix Reasoning33.40-0.42.54 25%Vocabulary43.400.62.03 25%Arithmetic43.400.62.73 25%Symbol Search13.40-2.43.42 25%Visual Puzzles63.402.62.7115-25%Information43.400.62.19 25%Coding23.40-1.4Overall: Mean 3.4, Scatter 5, Base rate 85.4.Base Rate for Intersubtest Scatter is reported for 10 Full Scale Subtests.Statistical significance (critical value) at the .05 level.2.97 25%SubtestCopyright 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.Strength orWeaknessWBaseRate25%Michael MoorePage 7 of 8
Process AnalysisPerceptual Reasoning Process Score SummaryProcess ScoreRawScoreScaledScorePercentileRankSEMBlock Design No Time Bonus16421.08Working Memory Process Score MDigit Span Forward420.4--1.24Digit Span Backward331--1.12Digit Span Sequencing120.4--1.27Longest Digit Span Forward3----99.5--Longest Digit Span Backward2----99.5--Longest Digit Span Sequence2----99.5--Process ScoreProcess Level Discrepancy ComparisonsProcess ComparisonScore 1Critical SignificantValue DifferenceScore 2 Difference.05Y/NBaseRateBlock Design - Block Design No Time Bonus5413.08N21.5Digit Span Forward - Digit Span Backward23-13.65N46.8Digit Span Forward - Digit Span Sequencing2203.6NDigit Span Backward - Digit Span Sequencing3213.56N43Longest DS Forward - Longest DS Backward321----84.5Longest DS Forward - Longest DS Sequence321----67Longest DS Backward - Longest DS SequenceStatistical significance (critical value) at the .05 level.220----Copyright 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.Michael MoorePage 8 of 8
Sep 18, 2013 · John is a 54-year-old male who completed the WAIS–IV. His general cognitive ability, as estimated by the WAIS–IV, is in the extremely low range (FSIQ 56). John’s verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning abilities were bot
ring WAIS-IV kit to class September 25 WAIS-IV scoring WAIS-IV interpretation READ: Lichtenberger & Kaufmann – hapter 4 and hapter 5 (pp. 150-172, 175-179, 184–192) ring WAIS-IV kit to class October 2 WAIS-IV interpretation DUE: WAIS-IV scored protocol #1,
ever, a comparison between WAIS-III and WAIS-IV results suggests only minimal recalibration. The “av-erage” WAIS-III FSIQ compared to the “average” WAIS-IV FSIQ is only 2.9 points higher (table 5.5 in WAIS-IV manual),3 which most clinicians would Table WAIS-IVmodifications(fromtable
WAIS-R differences would reflect WAIS/WAIS-R differences, in addition to English/Spanish Wechsler differences. A related advantage in comparing the EIWA with the WAIS is that two of the subtests are identical with respect to con
volumes and each of the four WAIS III dimensions. For example, the WAIS III dimension Processing Speed is an index of the speed of central nervous system processing (WAIS III, 1997), and is therefore expected to be related strongest to white matter volume, as white matter reflects
You will also test three volunteers on your own, administering the WAIS-IV, WMS-IV, WIAT-III and optional ancillary neuropsychological tests to assess ADD/ADHD or LD. The first volunteer will be given the WAIS and WMS, the second will receive the WAIS and the WIAT, and the last will get the WAIS and either the WMS or the WAIT.
The WAIS-IV manual outlines the underlying four-factor structure of the WAIS-IV [1], where there is strong construct validity . shown to be a better fit to WAIS-IV data collected from a clinical sample attending a university-based clinic specializing in learning disabilities [5
Introduction to the WAIS-III The WAIS-III is an individually-administered test of intellectual ability for people aged 16-89 years. It is administered in 60-75 minutes and consists of 14 subtests. Like the previous ver- sions, the
ner, Gladys Thomas, Charles McKinney, Mary Pelfrey, Christine Qualls, Dora Turner, David Petry, Cleone Gor don, Dorothy Scruggs, Phyllis Rice, Jacquelyn White, Rowena Napier, William Smith, Annie Smith, Ruth Ann Workman, Barbara Johnson and Letha Esque. The awards were presented by MU President Robert B. Hayes on March 4. Faculty meet Tuesday A general faculty meeting has been scheduled for .
