JWBT354_FM.indd iiJWBT354_FM.indd ii 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATIONS

JWBT354_FM.indd iJWBT354_FM.indd i 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

JWBT354_FM.indd iiJWBT354_FM.indd ii 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATIONS:

CASE REPORTS FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS, DIAGNOSTICIANS,

AND SPECIAL EDUCATORS

Edited by

NANCY MATHER

LYNNE E. JAFFE

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

JWBT354_FM.indd iiiJWBT354_FM.indd iii 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

This book is printed on acid-free paper. o

Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without

either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance

Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to

the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030,

(201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no

representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifi cally disclaim any implied

warranties of merchantability or fi tness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales

materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate.

Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profi t or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental,

consequential, or other damages.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding

that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If legal, accounting, medical, psychological, or any other expert assistance is

required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. In all instances where John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is

aware of a claim, the product names appear in initial capital or all capital letters. Readers, however, should contact the appropriate companies for

more complete information regarding trademarks and registration.

For general information on our other products and services please contact our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at (800) 762-2974, outside

the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. For

more information about Wiley products, visit our website at www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Comprehensive evaluations : case reports for psychologists, diagnosticians, and special educators / edited by Nancy Mather and Lynne E. Jaffe.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-470-61791-5 (pbk.); 978-0-470-88194-1 (ePDF); 978-0-470-88195-8 (eMobi); 978-0-470-88196-5 (ePub)

1. Autism—Case studies. I. Mather, Nancy. II. Jaffe, Lynne, 1946–

RC553.A88C673 2011

616.85’882—dc22

2010013511

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

JWBT354_FM.indd ivJWBT354_FM.indd iv 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

This book is dedicated to Dr. Richard W. Woodcock, a visionary in the fi eld of cognitive and academic measurement. He has always understood, and has helped others to understand, the role and the importance of comprehensive evaluations

in identifying the factors that underlie a student’s problems in learning and behavior.

N. M.L. J.

JWBT354_FM.indd vJWBT354_FM.indd v 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

JWBT354_FM.indd viJWBT354_FM.indd vi 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

vii

Contents

Acknowledgments xiii

List of Contributors xv

Foreword xix

John O. Willis, Ed.D.

Introduction xxv

1 ⏐ Assessment of Individuals with Autism: Procedures and Pitfalls 1

Sally Logerquist, Ph.D.

2 ⏐ Neuropsychological Evaluation of a Young Child with a Seizure Disorder 8

Marshall Andrew Glenn, Ph.D.

3 ⏐ Language Assessment of a Sibling of a Child with Autism 17

Dale A. Bailey, M.A., CCC-SLP

4 ⏐ Cognitive and Achievement Correlates of Language Disorders 23

Stephen Camarata, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, and Mary N. Camarata, M.S., CCC-SLP

5 ⏐ Comorbidity and Cumulative Effects of Inattention, Poor Emotional Control, and Language Problems on Academic Achievement in Early Childhood 38

R. W. Kamphaus, Ph.D., and Tara C. Raines, Psy.S.

6 ⏐ How a Weakness in Attention Can Mask True Learning Capabilities and Achievement Gains 46

Eva M. Prince, Ed.S

7 ⏐ Associative Memory Disorder: An Unexpected Struggle Resulting in Difficulty with Basic Skill Acquisition 53

James M. Creed, M.Ed.

8 ⏐ Evaluation of a Bilingual Student with a History of Language Delay: Differentiating Between a Language Impairment and Second Language Learning 61

Brigid Garvin, M.Ed.

JWBT354_FM.indd viiJWBT354_FM.indd vii 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

viii Contents

9 ⏐ Twice-Exceptional: A Gifted Child with Concomitant Learning Disabilities 80

Aimee Yermish, Psy.D.

10 ⏐ An Elementary School Student with a Specific Learning Disability in Reading: Use of the DAS-II to Generate and Test Causal Hypotheses 91

Colin D. Elliott, Ph.D.

11 ⏐ Using a Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Approach in a Complex Case 99

James Hanson, M.Ed.

12 ⏐ Learning Is the Best Therapy: The Emotional Consequences of a Learning Disability 109

Lynne E. Jaffe, Ph.D.

13 ⏐ Difference versus Disorder: Nondiscriminatory Assessment of an English Learner Suspected of Learning Disability 128

Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D.

14 ⏐ Using the PASS Theory to Uncover Disorders in Basic Psychological Processes: An Example of Specific Learning Disability 137

Jack A. Naglieri, Ph.D.

15 ⏐ Neuropsychological Evaluation of a Child with a Brain Injury at Birth 141

Sam Goldstein, Ph.D., and Sean Cunningham, M.S.

16 ⏐ Missing Out on Early Intervention: The Delay of Appropriate Services for a Child with SLD 150

Nancy Mather, Ph.D.

17 ⏐ Learning Disabilities and Mathematics: A School Psychological Framework 162

Steven G. Feifer, D.Ed.

18 ⏐ The Cognitive Assessment System and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV in a Neuropsychological Context 170

Tulio M. Otero, Ph.D., and Jack A. Naglieri, Ph.D.

19 ⏐ Reestablishing Eligibility and Reevaluation Post Natural Disaster 174 Tara C. Raines, Psy.S., and Cecil Reynolds, Ph.D.

20 ⏐ Psychoeducational Assessment of a Child with High-Functioning Autism Using a Problem-Solving Approach 187 Joel S. Hanania, Ph.D.

21 ⏐ RTI Data and Cognitive Assessment Are Both Useful for SLD Identification and Intervention Planning 197

Dawn Flanagan, Ph.D., and Vincent Alfonso, Ph.D.

JWBT354_FM.indd viiiJWBT354_FM.indd viii 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

Contents ix

22 ⏐ Specific Learning Disability Report: The Importance of Professional Judgment 207 Edward Schultz, Ph.D.

23 ⏐ Integrating RTI with an Individual Comprehensive Assessment to Identify a Specific Learning Disability in Reading 217 Donna Rury Smith, Ed.D.

24 ⏐ Assessing a Child with a Nonspecific Pervasive Development Disorder: Can a Nonverbal Cognitive Measure Help? 228

R. Steve McCallum, Ph.D.

25 ⏐ Difficulty Versus Disability? A Student Struggling with Math 233

John M. Garruto, D.Ed.

26 ⏐ Psychoeducational Assessment of a Student with a Visual Impairment Using the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement—Braille Adaptation 243

Kimberly Morris, Ph.D.

27 ⏐ Differential Diagnosis: ADHD, Emotional Disturbance, or Asperger’s Syndrome? 256

Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, Ed.D.

28 ⏐ The Heterogeneity and Complexities of Children with Developmental Delays 262

Melissa M. King, M.Ed., and Mary C. Wright, M.A.

29 ⏐ Differential Diagnosis: Emotional Disturbance or Conduct Disorder? 273

Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, Ed.D.

30 ⏐ Integration of Post-Referral Progress Monitoring Data in a Specific Learning Disability Evaluation 283 Robert Misak, M.A., M.Ed.

31 ⏐ Sweet Child (But Only When Not in School) 293

Mitchel D. Perlman, Ph.D.

32 ⏐ Psychoeducational Evaluation of a Bilingual Student with a Visual Impairment 316 Sarah Gaines, Psy.S.

33 ⏐ Memory and Processing Assessments: A Report for Parents 329

Milton J. Dehn, Ph.D.

34 ⏐ Oral and Written Language Influences on Academic and Social Functioning: A Whole Child Approach 338 Blanche Podhajski, Ph.D., and Frances Ingram, M.A.

JWBT354_FM.indd ixJWBT354_FM.indd ix 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

x Contents

35 ⏐ Process Assessment of the Learner, 2nd Edition (PAL-II): Comprehensive Assessment for Evidence-Based, Treatment-Relevant Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, Oral and Written Language Learning Disability (OWLLD), and Dyscalculia 345 Virginia W. Berninger, Ph.D.

36 ⏐ Math Problem Solving: Applying a Processing Model to LD Determination 356 Gail M. Cheramie, Ph.D., Linda Hernandez Parks, M.A., and Ashley Schuler, M.A.

37 ⏐ “Nonverbal” Learning Disabilities or Asperger’s Syndrome? Clarification Through Cognitive Hypothesis Testing 372 Lisa A. Hain, Psy.D., and James B. Hale, Ph.D.

38 ⏐ Applying a Multilevel Interpretive Framework with an Emphasis on the Assessment of Executive Functions 388

George McCloskey, Ph.D.

39 ⏐ The Assessment of “Nonverbal” Learning Disabilities 411

Christopher J. Nicholls, Ph.D.

40 ⏐ Actively Involving an Adolescent in the Evaluation Process from Intake to Feedback: Promoting Positive Outcomes 421

Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Ph.D., and Nadeen L. Kaufman, Ed.D.

41 ⏐ A Comprehensive Evaluation of a High School Student: When Social-Emotional Functioning and Specific Learning Disabilities Interact 438

Toby D. Laird, Ph.D.

42 ⏐ ADHD: To Be or Not to Be? That Was the Question 450

Ron Dumont, Ed.D.

43 ⏐ Assessing an Adolescent English Language Learner: Teasing Apart the Threads of Two Languages 463

Deborah Rhein, Ph.D.

44 ⏐ Neuropsychological Evaluation of an Adolescent with Moderate Mental Retardation: The Importance of Making an Accurate Diagnosis 473

Janice Sammons, Ph.D., and Judith M. Kroese, Ph.D., CCC-SLP

45 ⏐ The Impact of Slow Processing Speed on Performance 481

Jane McClure, Ph.D.

46 ⏐ Falling Through the Cracks: An Adolescent with a Severe Reading Disability 491

Bashir Abu-Hamour, Ph.D., Annmarie Urso, Ph.D., and Nancy Mather, Ph.D.

JWBT354_FM.indd xJWBT354_FM.indd x 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

Contents xi

47 ⏐ A Multiple Measures Approach to Assessing a Student Who Is Deaf 509

Lisa S. Coyner, Ph.D.

48 ⏐ Comprehensive Assessment of an Attention-Based Learning Problem: Capturing the Relevance of “Psychological Vital Signs” 517

Thomas M. Brunner, Ph.D.

49 ⏐ Psychoeducational Assessment of a Juvenile Offender in a Correctional Setting 531

Christina Vasquez, Ed.S., and Richard Morris, Ph.D.

50 ⏐ When the Child with Specific Learning Disabilities Grows Up 538

Nicole Ofi esh, Ph.D.

51 ⏐ A Comprehensive Evaluation of a High-Functioning Secondary Student with Dyslexia 544

Chris Coleman, M.A.

52 ⏐ Use of Nonverbal Cognitive Assessment to Distinguish Learning Disabilities from Second Language Learning Difficulties 553

Sherry Mee Bell, Ph.D.

53 ⏐ The Enduring Nature of Specific Learning Disability: A College Freshman with a Specific Reading Disability 562

Barbara J. Wendling, M.A.

54 ⏐ Comprehensive Evaluation of a Hard of Hearing High School Student in a Rural Setting 572

Kelly Metz, M.Ed.

55 ⏐ Assessment of a Cognitively Capable Student Who Is Struggling to Succeed in College 581

Andrew Shanock, Ph.D.

56 ⏐ Making the Most of One’s Strengths: When Verbal Intelligence and Dedication to Succeed Overcome Late Identification 589

Michael E. Gerner, Ph.D.

57 ⏐ Use of the Stanford-Binet Fifth Edition in a Brain Injury Case 600

Gale Roid, Ph.D., and Krystle Edwards, B.S.

58 ⏐ Psychoeducational Evaluation of an Adult for LD and ADHD: Integrating Neuropsychological Measures into Cross-Battery Assessment 610

Cathy Fiorello, Ph.D.

Appendix A: Table of Reports 619

Appendix B: Guidelines for Writing Psychoeducational Assessment Reports 623

Appendix C: Test Acronyms 626

JWBT354_FM.indd xiJWBT354_FM.indd xi 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

JWBT354_FM.indd xiiJWBT354_FM.indd xii 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

xiii

We would not have been able to bring this book to publica-

tion without the encouragement and contributions of our

friends and colleagues. We are sincerely grateful

To our colleagues, who generously responded to our •

requests for reports and for their willingness to share

their expertise regarding students with diverse special

needs.

To Kathy Gardner, who graciously accepted the oner-•

ous task of obtaining multiple permissions for the use of

copyrighted material. Without her help, we would still

be sending out forms.

To Erin Katz, for her help in formatting the reports and •

gathering information for the appendices during the ini-

tial stages of this project.

To Isabel Pratt, our project director at John Wiley & •

Sons, for her enthusiasm, encouragement, and friend-

ship as she guided us through the publication process.

To Kim Nir, our production editor, for her attention to de-•

tail. She oversaw the design, copyediting, typesetting, and

proofreading stages of a long and complex manuscript.

To our life partners, Michael and Brian, who have toler-•

ated our writing of yet another book with minimal com-

plaint and plenty of love, encouragement, and support.

To each other, for fi nishing this book and still remaining •

the best of friends.

Finally, we raise our glasses in a toast to Dr. John Willis

for his ability to connect clinical knowledge with cogni-

tive theory, and his skill in explaining controversial issues

in the fi eld with both eloquence and wit. We are grateful

for his willingness to take time from his busy schedule to

write the foreword to this book.

Acknowledgments

JWBT354_FM.indd xiiiJWBT354_FM.indd xiii 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

JWBT354_FM.indd xivJWBT354_FM.indd xiv 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

xv

Bashir Abu Hamour, Ph.D. Mu’tah University

Jordan

Vincent C. Alfonso, Ph.D.Professor and Associate Dean

Graduate School of Education

Fordham University

New York, NY

Dale A. Bailey, M.A., CCC-SLPSpeech-Language Pathologist

Special Education Consultant

Fort Kent, ME

Sherry Mee Bell, Ph.D.Associate Professor

Special Education

Nashville, TN

Virginia W. Berninger, Ph.D.Professor of Educational Psychology

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

Thomas M. Brunner, Ph.D. Clinical, Forensic, & Consulting Psychology

San Rafael Professional Offi ces

Tucson, AZ

Mary N. Camarata, M.S., CCC-SLPAssistant Professor Hearing & Speech Science

Vanderbilt University School of Medicine

Nashville, TN

Stephen M. Camarata, Ph.D., CCC-SLPProfessor Hearing & Speech Science

Vanderbilt University School of Medicine

Nashville, TN

Gail Cheramie, Ph.D.Associate Professor and Director

School Psychology Program

University of Houston-Clear Lake

Houston, TX

Chris Coleman, M.A.University of Georgia

Athens, GA

Lisa Coyner, Ph.D.School Psychologist

Arizona State Schools for the Deaf and the Blind

Tucson, AZ

James M. Creed, M.Ed. JCreed Consulting

Leominster, MA

Sean Cunningham, M.S.University of Utah

Salt Lake City, UT

Milton J. Dehn, Ed.D.Schoolhouse Educational Services

Stoddard, WI

Ron Dumont, Ed.D.Director of School Psychology

Fairleigh Dickinson University

Teaneck, NJ

Krystle Edwards, B.A.Warner Pacifi c College

Portland, OR

Colin D. Elliott, Ph.D.Gevirtz Graduate School of Education,

University of California, Santa Barbara

Newbury Park

List of Contributors

JWBT354_FM.indd xvJWBT354_FM.indd xv 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

xvi List of Contributors

Steven Feifer, D.Ed.School Psychologist

Frederick, MD

Catherine A. Fiorello, Ph.D.Associate Professor and Coordinator of School

Psychology

Temple University

Philadelphia, PA

Dawn P. Flanagan, Ph.D.Professor of Psychology

Director, School Psychology Programs

St. John’s University

Jamaica, NY

Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, Ed.D.American Board of Pediatric Neuropsychology

Professor of School Psychology

Chicago School of Professional Psychology

Chicago, IL

Sarah Gaines, Psy.S., NCSPSchool Psychologist

Arizona State Schools for the Deaf and the Blind

Tucson, AZ

John M. Garruto, D.Ed., NCSPSchool Psychologist

Oswego City School District

Fulton, NY

Brigid Garvin, M.Ed.School Psychology Program

Temple University

Philadelphia, PA

Michael E. Gerner, Ph.D., P.C.Consulting Psychologists

Flagstaff, AZ

Marshall Andrew Glenn, Ph.D.Oklahoma City University

Norman, OK

Sam Goldstein, Ph.D.Neurology, Learning, and Behavior

Salt Lake City, UT

Lisa A. Hain, Psy.D., NCSPSchool Psychologist

Adjunct Faculty

Department of Psychology

Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine

James B. Hale, Ph.D.Associate Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology

University of Victoria

Victoria, BC, Canada

Joel S. Hanania, Ph.D.School Psychologist, Washington School District

Kid Assist, Director

Cave Creek, AZ

Jim Hanson, M.Ed.School Psychologist

Portland, OR

Frances Ingram, M.A.School Psychologist

Stern Center for Language and Learning

Williston, VT

Lynne E. Jaffe, Ph.D.Learning Disabilities Consulting and Evaluation

Adjunct Assistant Professor

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Randy Kamphaus, Ph.D.Dean and Distinguished Research Professor

Georgia State University

College of Education

Atlanta, GA

Nadeen L. Kaufman, Ed.D.Child Study Center

Yale University School of Medicine

New Haven, CT

Melissa M. King, M.Ed.Educational Consultant

Learning Curve, LLC

Essex Junction, VT

Judith M. Kroese, Ph.D.Pediatric Neuropsychologist

Southern Arizona Neuropsychology Associates

Tucson, AZ

Toby Laird, Ph.D.Consulting Psychologists

Flagstaff, AZ

JWBT354_FM.indd xviJWBT354_FM.indd xvi 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

List of Contributors xvii

Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Ph.D.Clinical Psychologist

Carlsbad, CA

Sally J. Logerquist, Ph.D.Psychologist

Scottsdale, AZ

Nancy Mather, Ph.D.Professor, Learning Disabilities

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

R. Steve McCallum, Ph.D.Professor and Head

Educational Psychology and Counseling

Knoxville, TN

George McCloskey, Ph.D.Professor and Director of School Psychology Research

Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine

Philadelphia, PA

Jane McClure, Ph.D.Psychologist

McClure, Mallory & Baron

San Francisco, CA

Kelly Kathleen Metz, M.Ed.Measurement and Evaluation

Teacher for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Arizona State Schools for the Deaf and Blind

Phoenix, AZ

Robert Misak, M.Ed., M.A.Licensed Specialist in School Psychology

Victoria Independent School District

Kimberly Morris, Ph.D., NCSPSchool Psychologist

Tucson, AZ

Richard Morris, Ph.D.Meyerson Distinguished Professor of Disability and

Rehabilitation

Professor and Director, School Psychology Program

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Jack A. Naglieri, Ph.D.Professor of Psychology

George Mason University

Senior Research Scientist

The Devereux Foundation

Centreville, VA

Christopher J. Nicholls, Ph.D.Clinical/Pediatric Neuropsychologist

The Nicholls Group

Scottsdale, AZ

Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology

St. John’s University

New York, NY

Tulio M. Otero, Ph.D.Associate Professor

Departments of Clinical & School Psychology Programs

Chicago School of Professional Psychology

Chicago, IL

Linda Hernandez Parks, M.A.University of Houston-Clear Lake

Houston, TX

Mitchel D. Perlman, Ph.D.Forensic Neuropsychologist

San Diego, CA

Blanche Podhajski, Ph.D. President, Stern Center for Language and Learning

Clinical Associate Professor of Neurology

University of Vermont College of Medicine

Williston, Vermont

Eva M. Prince, Ed.S.School Psychologist

Tucson, AZ

Tara C. Raines, Psy.S. School Psychologist

Atlanta, GA

Cecil Reynolds, Ph.D.Emeritus

Professor of Educational Psychology

Professor of Neuroscience

Distinguished Research Scholar

Texas A&M University

Bastrop, TX

JWBT354_FM.indd xviiJWBT354_FM.indd xvii 10/14/10 8:27:02 PM10/14/10 8:27:02 PM

xviii List of Contributors

Deborah Rhein, Ph.D., CCC-SLPAssistant Professor

Communication Disorders Program

New Mexico State University

Las Cruces, NM

Gale H. Roid, Ph.D.Warner Pacifi c College

Portland, OR

Janice R. Sammons, Ph.D.Southern Arizona Neuropsychology Associates

Tucson, AZ

Ashley Schuler, M.A.University of Houston-Clear Lake

Houston, TX

Ed Schultz, Ph.D.Assistant Professor

Midwestern State University

Wichita Falls, TX

Andrew Shanock, Ph.D.Associate Professor of Psychology

College of Saint Rose

Schenectady, NY

Donna Rury Smith, Ed.D.Independent Consultant

Fort Worth, TX

Annmarie Urso, Ph.D.Assistant Professor

State University of New York at Geneseo

Geneseo, NY

Christina M. Vasquez, Ed.S.School Psychology Program

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Barbara J. Wendling, M.A.Woodcock-Munoz Foundation

Dallas, TX

Mary C. Wright, M.A., School Psychologist

Learning Curve, LLC

Essex Junction, VT

Aimee Yermish, Psy.D.Educational Therapist

da Vinci Learning Center

Stow, MA

JWBT354_FM.indd xviiiJWBT354_FM.indd xviii 10/14/10 8:27:03 PM10/14/10 8:27:03 PM

xix

Comprehensive Evaluations: Case Reports for Psycholo-gists, Diagnosticians, and Special Educators clearly and

informatively answers in the affi rmative the question: “Do

we need comprehensive psychoeducational evaluations of

children with disabilities?”

A passion for parsimony, efforts to save time and control

costs, and complacency about offering nothing more than

diagnoses with only minimal, vague, generic, or one-size-

fi ts-all recommendations often lead to evaluation reports

that are neither very comprehensive nor especially helpful

to examinees, parents, teachers, therapists, and other con-

sumers of our reports. Perhaps the most extreme pressure

for oversimplifi cation of reports has been with evaluations

for children with specifi c learning disabilities (SLD).

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improve-

ment Act (IDEA) (1990, 1997, 2004) and its predecessor,

the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA,

1975) have always used the following defi nition for SLD

with minor word changes: “a disorder in one or more of the

basic psychological processes involved in understanding or

in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may

manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak,

read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.”

That defi nition seems clear enough, with “a disorder in

one or more of the basic psychological processes” being

the defi ning characteristic of the disability. However, since

the original Education of All Handicapped Children Act

(1975), the regulations implementing the laws have never

operationalized or even required the assessment of basic

psychological processes as part of the legal identifi cation

ForewordJohn O. Willis

If you don’t know where you are going, you will probably end up somewhere else.

—Laurence J. Peter

of SLD. Instead, the requirements focused on ruling out

sensory or motor impairments, intellectual disability, emo-

tional disturbance, or disadvantage as primary causes of

the child’s learning problems, and—until 2004—on estab-

lishing a “severe discrepancy” between levels of achieve-

ment and intellectual ability. Based on myriad complaints

about severe discrepancy (e.g., Bijou, 1942; Bradley,

Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002; Cronbach, 1957; Donovan

& Cross, 2002; Fletcher, Denton, & Francis, 2005; Hoskyn

& Swanson, 2000; Kavale, 2002; Reschly, Tilly, & Grimes,

1999), the 2006 regulations for the 2004 reauthorization of

IDEA (Assistance to States, 2006) fundamentally altered

the operational defi nition of specifi c learning disability.

Critics referred to the “severe discrepancy” criterion as a

“wait to fail” model. Under the new (2006) regulations,

the states could still allow, but could no longer require,

a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement as

a criterion for identifying SLD. Instead, states were re-

quired to permit a Response to Intervention (RtI) approach

as part of the process for identifying SLD and could also

permit the use of other, undefi ned research-based meth-

ods of identifi cation. Explaining these regulations in more

detail, the criterion for low achievement was expanded:

“The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age

or to meet state-approved grade-level standards.” In ad-

dition, the criteria for identifying a child as having SLD

through the RtI process were explained: “The child does

not make suffi cient progress to meet age or state-approved

grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identifi ed

in paragraph (a)(1) of this section when using a process

JWBT354_FM.indd xixJWBT354_FM.indd xix 10/14/10 8:27:03 PM10/14/10 8:27:03 PM

xx Foreword

based on the child’s response to scientifi c, research-based

intervention.” The more confusing alternative, use of

undefi ned research-based methods, was described: “The

child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in

performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state-

approved grade level standards, or intellectual develop-

ment, that is determined by the group to be relevant to

the identifi cation of a specifi c learning disability, using

appropriate assessments, consistent with §§ 300.304 and

300.305.”

Subsequently, partly in response to the regulations and

partly to minimize educational spending, special education

programs often attempt to limit the number of comprehen-

sive psychoeducational assessments that are conducted or,

in the case of SLD, eliminate them altogether in the belief

that documented failure to respond to scientifi c, research-

based interventions, plus a vision and hearing screening,

and a review of the student’s history, including school-

wide and state-wide assessments, would constitute a suf-

fi ciently comprehensive evaluation to identify SLD.

The addition of and preference for RtI for the purpose

of identifying specifi c learning disabilities has caused

consternation in the fi eld (see, for example, Mather &

Kaufman [2006a, 2006b]). A superfi cial reading of the reg-

ulations might suggest that there is no longer any place for

traditional psychoeducational evaluations. However, the

commentary in the 2006 regulations (Assistance to States,

2006) includes such observations as “An RtI process does

not replace the need for a comprehensive evaluation, and a

child’s eligibility for special education services cannot be

changed solely on the basis of data from an RtI process”

(p. 46648) and “RtI is only one component of the process

to identify children in need of special education and re-

lated services. Determining why a child has not responded

to research-based interventions requires a comprehensive

evaluation” (p. 46647). I think they got that part right.

Identifi cation of other disabilities under EHA (1975) and

IDEA (1990, 1997, 2004) has always required surprisingly

little psychoeducational information about the student.

Unlike SLD, which has its very own sections for detailing

evaluation methods, the other disabilities have no specifi c

guidance for evaluation other than the defi nition of each

disability and the general guidelines for all evaluations in

Evaluations and Reevaluations (IDEA 2004, § 614). Yet, it

is often a referral for academic diffi culties and the subse-

quent comprehensive evaluation that provides a different

perspective on the diffi culty the student is having, as well

as a non-SLD diagnosis, that lead to the most appropriate

treatment recommendations. For these students (e.g., with

severe anxiety, autism, intellectual disability), “watching

them fail” the RtI interventions just postpones the help

they need. “Watch them fail” does not seem to be much of

an improvement over “wait to fail.”

Thus, for students who do not respond completely sat-

isfactorily to attempted interventions in an RtI model, the

questions should become why does the student have such

diffi culty and, once we understand the why, how can we

help the student succeed? If we do not fully understand the

problem, we are unlikely to stumble across the solution. I

believe that this is the reason that the IDEA defi nition of

a specifi c learning disability still specifi es “a disorder in

one or more of the basic psychological processes” as the

core of the disability. Similarly, the defi nition of emotional

disturbance specifi es that it is “a condition exhibiting one

or more of the following characteristics over a long pe-

riod of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects

a child’s educational performance” [emphasis supplied]

(Assistance to States, 2006, § 300.8 (c) (4) (i)). If we un-

derstand, for example, the nature of the “disorder” or the

“condition,” then we have a fi ghting chance of fi guring

out what to do to help the student succeed. The above ex-

amples are drawn from federal laws and regulations per-

taining to two disabilities in schoolchildren, but the same

considerations are equally important for evaluations of all

disabilities and concerns with both children and adults. If

we cannot explain the mechanism whereby the disability

impairs the examinee’s functioning, we have little hope

of offering useful suggestions. An unexplained and unex-

plored diagnosis or IDEA category leaves us closing our

eyes and blindly sticking pins into books of remedial tech-

niques, such as provided in Mather and Jaffe (2002) or

Wendling and Mather (2009).

As just one example (Beal, Dumont, & Willis, 2003),

let us consider how many different ways you can fail to

read the word “cat.” These 21 possibilities do not exhaust

all reasons for reading diffi culty, are listed in no particular

sequence, and include diffi culties with auditory percep-

tion, memory span and working memory, long-term stor-

age and retrieval, sequencing, oral vocabulary, and other

issues.

1. You do not know the sounds represented by each of the

three letters.

2. You know the sounds but cannot recall them.

3. You know the sounds and can eventually recall them, but

not quickly enough to fi nish sounding out the word.

4. You cannot blend the three sounds into a single, spoken

word.

JWBT354_FM.indd xxJWBT354_FM.indd xx 10/14/10 8:27:03 PM10/14/10 8:27:03 PM

Foreword xxi

5. You can blend the sounds but not quickly enough to

fi nish sounding out the word before you forget what

you are doing.

6. You do not recognize the spoken word “cat” as con-

taining three distinct sounds.

7. You appreciate the three distinct sounds but do not rec-

ognize them as /k /, /a /, and /t/.

8. You do not process the three sounds in correct sequence

(“act,” “tac”).

9. You sound out the word fl awlessly, but do not know

the spoken English word “cat.”

10. Your working memory cannot handle all three sounds

at once.

11. Your working memory cannot handle two possible

sounds for c, four (or more) possible sounds for a, and

one more sound for t.

12. Your processing speed is too slow for your memory.

13. Your memory span is too limited for your processing

speed.

14. Your visual acuity is insuffi cient to discern the letters

correctly.

15. Your visual perception or orthographic ability causes

you to confuse t with f.

16. Your auditory acuity impairs your ability to hear the

spoken word “cat.”

17. Your auditory perception impairs your ability to per-

ceive the spoken word “cat.”

18. You have not had enough whole-language experience

with rich literature involving cats.

19. You cannot guess a word without seeing it in context.

20. There is a social or emotional barrier to your reading

progress.

21. English is not your fi rst language.

Given even this incomplete list of reasons a student

might encounter diffi culty with a simple reading task, it

should be obvious that we sometimes need more than a

record of responses to intervention to determine and re-

mediate the causes of school diffi culty. In many instances,

a careful, thoughtful consideration of the student’s history

will suggest an intervention that will be completely effec-

tive in resolving the student’s school diffi culties. However,

in others, the record of interventions will be like the ship

whose bridge was swamped by a rogue wave that destroyed

all navigational equipment except the speedometer. The

captain announced, “We have no idea where we are and

no clue where we might be headed, but we do know we

are making record time.”

“Explaining” the failure to read with a diagnosis of

mental retardation, learning disability, emotional distur-

bance, or some other disability really does not, by itself,

tell us how to help the student. We still need to under-

stand why the student cannot read (or do math or get along

with other students or pay attention in class or succeed in

the job for which she or he was trained), and we need to

understand how all of the cognitive, personality, sensory,

motor, social, academic, and other issues interact. In short,

we need a comprehensive evaluation.

We see far too many evaluations that focus on an overall

intelligence score and one or more diagnoses. Although they

may be admirably parsimonious, I fi nd such evaluations of

little value in helping plan remediation and rehabilitation.

More than 40 years ago, John McLeod commented that “A

respect for the law of parsimony is a characteristic of sci-

ence, but educational psychology’s penchant for simple an-

swers to questions of complex human behavior, particularly

in the area of learning disability, has tended toward paucity

rather than parsimony of explanation” (1968, p. 97). Sadly,

McLeod’s lament still holds true far too often.

My shelves sag under the weight of excellent texts tell-

ing me how to select, administer, score, and interpret psy-

chological and educational tests. Many of my best books

even tell me how to write reports and recommendations

with specifi c strategies, and some even include helpful

case studies. A few are devoted to carefully constructed

philosophies and frameworks for rationally planning and

organizing assessments. The special virtue of Comprehen-sive Evaluations: Case Reports for Psychologists, Diag-nosticians, and Special Educators is that it provides us

with complete models of a variety of actual assessments,

not just instructions and a few examples.

The case reports in this book dramatically illustrate the

value and the importance of providing genuinely compre-

hensive evaluations when referral questions are complex

and perplexing and when other approaches to solving the

problems have failed. The reports employ a variety of ap-

proaches and instruments to explore different concerns and

different types of disabilities for both children and adults.

The unifying theme is that complex and diffi cult problems

require carefully planned, very thorough, goal-directed,

comprehensive evaluations that will guide the examinees,

parents, teachers, and other professionals in fully under-

standing the student’s strengths and needs as a basis for

planning interventions that will ameliorate the problems

and lead to improved functioning.

JWBT354_FM.indd xxiJWBT354_FM.indd xxi 10/14/10 8:27:03 PM10/14/10 8:27:03 PM

xxii Foreword

The evaluations in this book go well beyond simply

using intelligence tests to measure overall, global intel-

lectual ability or g. Global intellectual ability is probably

the best single predictor of academic achievement and

other important things (see, for example, Sternberg &

Grigorenko, 2002), but it is not, by itself, much help in un-

derstanding the nature of complex learning problems, nor

in designing effective interventions. These evaluations use

test, observation, interview, and historical data in a variety

of ways, all resulting in concrete plans for remediation.

The cases are all real evaluations done with real (albeit

disguised) persons; they offer insights into the methods,

instruments, and—most important—the thinking of the

evaluators. Far better than a textbook explaining what can

be done, this compendium of evaluations shows both what

can be done as well as how it can be done. I plan to refer

to these reports frequently in my teaching and in planning

my own evaluations.

REFERENCES

Assistance to States for the Education of Children With

Disabilities, 34 C.F.R. Part 300 (2006).

Beal, A. L., Dumont, R., & Willis, J. O. (April 2003). Guide to identifi cation of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the

meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists,

Toronto, Ontario.

Bijou, S. W. (1942). The psychometric pattern approach as an

aid to clinical assessment—A review. American Journal of Mental Defi ciency, 46, 354–362.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L. & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.) (2002).

Identifi cation of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientifi c

psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Education of All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400

ff. (1975).

Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Validity

of alternative approaches for the identifi cation of LD:

Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545–552.

Hoskyn, M., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). Cognitive processing

of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A

selective meta-analytic review of the published literature.

The School Psychology Review, 29, 102–119.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20

U.S.C. § 1400 ff. (1990).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20

U.S.C. § 1400 ff. (1997).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of

2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 ff.

Kavale, K. (2002). Discrepancy models in the identifi cation of

learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P.

Hallahan (Eds.). Identifi cation of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 370–371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. (2002). Woodcock-Johnson III: Recommendations, reports, and strategies (with CD). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Mather, N., & Kaufman, N. (Guest Eds.) (2006a). Special Issue,

Part 1: Integration of cognitive assessment and response to

intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7).Mather, N., & Kaufman, N. (Guest Eds.) (2006b). Special Issue,

Part 2: Integration of cognitive assessment and response to

intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8).McLeod, J. (1968). Reading expectancy from disabled readers.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1, 97–105.

Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D., & Grimes, J. P. (1999). Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (Eds.) (2002). The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wendling, B. J., & Mather, N. (2009). Essentials of evidence-based academic interventions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &

Sons.

JWBT354_FM.indd xxiiJWBT354_FM.indd xxii 10/14/10 8:27:03 PM10/14/10 8:27:03 PM

xxiii

If these tests will give us a basis from which we can start to understand a child’s diffi culties, they will have justifi ed the time spent on them. Anything which helps educators or parents to understand any phase of development or lack of development is of immeasurable value.

Stanger & Donohue, 1937, p. 189

JWBT354_FM.indd xxiiiJWBT354_FM.indd xxiii 10/14/10 8:27:03 PM10/14/10 8:27:03 PM

JWBT354_FM.indd xxivJWBT354_FM.indd xxiv 10/14/10 8:27:03 PM10/14/10 8:27:03 PM

xxv

COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATIONS: CASE REPORTS FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS, DIAGNOSTICIANS, AND SPECIAL EDUCATORS

This book contains a wide variety of reports written for

the purpose of explaining the reasons for an individual’s

school-related diffi culties. The reports come from different

disciplines within psychology and education, and refl ect

different theoretical perspectives and paradigms. The sub-

jects of these case reports range in educational level from

preschool to postsecondary. Similarly, the evaluators who

contributed their reports represent multiple professions,

but all related, in some way, to the education of individu-

als with exceptional needs. They include authors of the

tests frequently used; educational and cognitive research-

ers; university faculty responsible for training school psy-

chologists and specialists in special education; clinical

psychologists, school psychologists, diagnosticians, spe-

cial education teachers, and speech-language therapists

working in public schools or private practice.

Although the content, style, and format of these reports

vary considerably, they all illustrate that informative,

clearly written psychological and educational evaluations

play an essential role in describing and explaining an in-

dividual’s abilities and disabilities, and provide the basis

on which effective interventions and accommodations are

developed.

The reports in this book were selected to represent the

usual questions that accompany a referral, the cognitive

and educational problems that typically and not so typi-

cally confront evaluators, an assortment of writing styles,

and different levels of information analysis and methods of

interpretation. Throughout, however, these reports answer

the referral question through carefully selected tests; pro-

vide appropriate interpretation of the scores and other key

information (e.g., history, observations, interviews, quali-

tative analysis); and propose logical and knowledgeable

solutions for intervention.

PURPOSES OF THE BOOK

In the current educational and political climate, some re-

searchers and practitioners have questioned the value of

comprehensive evaluations for students suspected of hav-

ing specifi c learning disabilities (SLD), arguing that moni-

toring of a student’s performance and response to varying

instructional approaches can provide suffi cient informa-

tion to make a disability diagnosis and determine effective

interventions. Comprehensive evaluations, however, are

both benefi cial and necessary for truly understanding the

reasons why a student is struggling in school and for de-

signing interventions that are tailored to the cognitive and

academic profi le of that student. A child who appears to

have a learning disability may, in fact, have an intellectual

disability. A language impairment could be confused with

autism, learning disability, or inattention. Behaviors sug-

gestive of emotional disturbance may really stem from the

school failure and low self-esteem that accompanies learn-

ing disabilities. Sometimes, the problem is not a disability

at all, but rather a case of “dyspedagogia,” or inadequate

teaching (Cohen, 1971). The interventions for these dif-

ferent types of problems can differ considerably and the

sooner a student can receive effective interventions, the

better. Otherwise, the learner continues to be confronted

by evidence of his or her “inability” to learn,

What is a comprehensive evaluation? IDEA 2004 Reg-

ulations regarding evaluation procedures mandate that an

evaluation for disability includes “all areas related to the

suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vi-

sion, hearing, social and emotional status, general intel-

ligence, academic performance, communicative status,

Introduction

JWBT354_FM.indd xxvJWBT354_FM.indd xxv 10/14/10 8:27:03 PM10/14/10 8:27:03 PM

xxvi Introduction

and motor abilities.” It further states that “… in evaluat-

ing each child with a disability … the evaluation is suffi -

ciently comprehensive to identify all of the child’s special

education and related services needs, whether or not com-

monly linked to the disability category in which the child

has been classifi ed” (Assistance to States, 2006). Although

well-planned, problem-focused Response to Intervention

(RtI) is an appropriate pre-referral intervention and may

reduce the number of comprehensive evaluations that are

needed, RtI should not be used as the sole method for di-

agnosing the existence of a disability.

People who write comprehensive evaluations often think:

“I wonder how others write their reports?” The purposes of

this book are therefore twofold: (a) to provide models of

psychological and educational reports using a variety of dif-

ferent tests and approaches, and (b) to illustrate the value

of comprehensive evaluations for understanding an individ-

ual’s unique learning abilities and disabilities. In building

a new skill or polishing a frequently used one, models are

often helpful. Rather than “starting from scratch,” one may

adopt what fi ts and adapt what does not. By reading and

studying these diagnostic reports, practitioners may:

Increase their understanding of the usefulness of com-•

prehensive evaluations;

Expand their knowledge of possible interpretations of •

assessment results;

Expand their familiarity with widely used test instru-•

ments;

Enhance their understanding of test scores; •

Increase their understanding of common childhood dis-•

orders and how these, treated or untreated, manifest in

adults;

Improve their ability to tailor written reports to the pur-•

poses of the evaluation;

Improve their abilities to translate assessment results •

into meaningful treatment recommendations; and

Recognize the differences in what evaluators from vari-•

ous school districts and agencies consider to be a com-

prehensive evaluation.

TYPES OF CASES

The diagnostic reports in this book are authentic, but

for the sake of confi dentiality, all names and identifying

information have been changed. The reports illustrate:

(a) varied reasons for referral (e.g., academic, behavioral);

(b) different ages, backgrounds, medical histories, and edu-

cational situations; (c) the use of a variety of evaluation ma-

terials (e.g., standardized tests, curriculum-based measures,

classroom work samples, rating scales); (d) the use and

interpretation of different types of scores; and (e) a range

of different diagnoses from clear-cut cases to those that are

extremely complex. The reader may also observe how dif-

ferent clinical perspectives and the choice of assessment in-

struments have infl uenced the interpretation of results.

Some reports are follow-ups based on a referral from

another evaluator for a more specialized evaluation; other

reports contain recommendations for further testing from

a specialist in another fi eld regarding a suspected comor-

bid or underlying disability (e.g., language impairment,

Attention-Defi cit/Hyperactivity Disorder, or clinical de-

pression). To help a reader locate specifi c types of re-

ports, the Table of Reports (see Appendix A) lists key

characteristics of each report, including the name and age

of the examinee, the diagnosis, the tests used, and the

examiners.

COMPONENTS OF REPORTS

A comprehensive, individualized assessment may include

an assessment of cognitive and metacognitive processes,

such as executive function; language development and

processing; academic performance; and social-emotional

functioning and behavior. It will also include the student’s

background, including information provided by parents

and teachers.

The types of information provided in a report often cor-

respond with the sections of the report. These typically

include:

Reason for referral•

Background information•

Tests administered and assessment procedures used•

Behavioral observations•

Results of cognitive and academic testing•

Results of social/emotional/behavioral testing•

Interpretation of results•

Conclusions•

Recommendations•

Appendix B provides guidelines regarding the types of

components typically included in comprehensive evalua-

tions. Further guidelines for report writing can be found

JWBT354_FM.indd xxviJWBT354_FM.indd xxvi 10/14/10 8:27:03 PM10/14/10 8:27:03 PM

Introduction xxvii

in other sources (e.g., Lichtenberger, Mather, Kaufman, &

Kaufman, 2004; Sattler, 2008). Appendix C provides a list

of the acronyms for the tests that were used within the cur-

rent evaluations.

Ultimately, the quality and validity of the results of

a comprehensive evaluation depend on the skill of the

evaluator in: (a) selecting and administering the tests; (b)

evaluating the validity of individual test scores in light of

possible interfering factors (e.g., fatigue, inattention, mo-

tivation, cultural differences, sensory impairments); (c) in-

terpreting and integrating test results; (d) analyzing error

patterns; (e) discerning the person’s strengths, strategies,

and compensations; and (f) selecting appropriate recom-

mendations and interventions.

REASONS FOR THE EVALUATION

Evaluations may be requested for a variety of reasons,

leading to different types of assessments and recommen-

dations. For a child or adult without a previous diagnosis,

a full battery of tests may be administered, including cog-

nitive, language, and academic assessments. If a concern

exists regarding social functioning, emotional stability, or

behavior that interferes with learning, social-emotional and

behavior rating scales—and possibly projective tests—may

be added to the battery. Reports of delayed motor develop-

ment may generate a further evaluation by an occupational

therapist. Such reports tend to be quite complicated and

lengthy, especially if recommendations are added for the

home and for each area in which the individual needs inter-

vention, accommodations, or more information.

When an evaluation of this type is requested, vision and

hearing problems should be the fi rst to be ruled out, prior

to any testing, to avoid a misdiagnosis. For example, at one

clinic, a complete developmental history of a child was

not taken prior to testing. The child was nonresponsive to

auditory tests, attended better to visual stimuli, and had

trouble following verbal directions. He received a diagno-

sis of severe auditory processing disorder. Subsequently,

when the parents took the child for a long-overdue pe-

diatric checkup, they found that he had a severe hearing

impairment.

Other evaluations can be brief. For example, if contin-

ued eligibility for special education services is the primary

issue, administration of a standardized achievement test,

supplemented by informal testing, curriculum-based mea-

surement, and work samples, may be suffi cient. Similarly,

if the evaluation is solely for documentation of progress in

academic skills, the evaluator might decide to administer

only progress monitoring procedures, such as CBM, and

review classroom work samples.

LEVEL OF DETAIL AND REPORT WRITING STYLE

The purpose for an evaluation may also infl uence the lev-

els of information sought through testing and interpreta-

tion, as well as the amount of detail included in the report.

A lengthy report with detailed information does not neces-

sarily signal the complexity of the case, although a per-

son with many diffi culties and/or an atypical background

may certainly warrant a more extensive evaluation and

a more complex report. Alternatively, a lengthy and de-

tailed report—or a brief overview of what was done and

the conclusions—may also be a refl ection of the writer’s

personal style.

All of the information included in a report should help

answer the referral question. This might include develop-

mental, medical, and educational history that would assist

the writer in confi rming or ruling out specifi c disabilities.

Some evaluators prefer to describe all of the tasks used in

the testing process, the individual’s response, and the scores

achieved. Others write an entire report as if it were the sum-

mary and conclusions. Still others offer a couple of sen-

tences explaining the skill or ability that is measured by the

test, a verbal descriptor of range in which the score fell, and

the practical application of the ability in relation to the stu-

dent’s functioning in the classroom. In schools, practicality

may dictate less time for testing, error analysis, and report

writing; the teachers, who are the ultimate readers, often do

not have time to read a lengthy report. A psychologist or di-

agnostician in private practice might be able to devote more

time to the process of assessment and analysis, and include

more detail, recognizing that the report is likely to be read

by physicians, therapists, other specialists, and teachers, as

well as the parents or the individual.

The two most important features of a report are that it is

accurate and comprehensible to the readers for whom it is

intended. Thus, it is important to omit professional jargon

and use terms and examples that people who do not have

training in psychology, cognitive sciences, or even the

terminology of academics, will understand. Lichtenberger

and Kaufman found their way around this diffi culty by

writing two forms of the same report—one for the parents

and teachers, and another, simplifi ed but with a practical

focus, for the teenage client.

JWBT354_FM.indd xxviiJWBT354_FM.indd xxvii 10/14/10 8:27:03 PM10/14/10 8:27:03 PM

xxviii Introduction

REPORTING SCORES

Depending on the purpose of the evaluation and the spe-

cifi c information offered within the report, evaluators use,

emphasize, or report different types of test scores. Some

evaluators embed scores in the narrative; some place par-

tial score tables throughout the results section (e.g., read-

ing scores above the section in which reading performance

is discussed); and some include a notation stating, “All

test scores are attached to the end of this report.” Although

the scores were not included in all cases within this book

because of space constraints, many of the case reports do

include the full set of obtained scores. Individuals who are

new to report writing may want to read the background in-

formation, study the score tables, and formulate their own

hypotheses and conclusions before reading the interpreta-

tion of scores presented within the report.

Score Ranges and Verbal Classifi cations

Most tests provide verbal classifi cations, or descriptors, for

given sets of score ranges. The width of the score ranges

may differ from test to test; many tests label standard

scores from 90 to 109 as Average but a few use 85 to 115.

Within each test or test battery, ranges of scaled scores and

percentiles will be set to match the standard score ranges.

Each test or test battery may use its own verbal classifi ca-

tions as well. For example, standard scores from 80 to 89

may be described as Low Average or Below Average. So

that the verbal classifi cations do not change with each test

the evaluator is discussing, it is important to select one

classifi cation scheme to use for all of the tests discussed

in the report.

Other types of scores also have verbal descriptors for

score ranges (e.g., relative profi ciency index [RPI]). When

using these descriptors, the writer must ensure that it is

clear to the reader what type of score is being described.

For example, verbal descriptors for the levels of profi -

ciency based on the RPI ranges include: Very Advanced,

Advanced, Average to Advanced, Average, Limited to Av-

erage, Limited, Very Limited, and Negligible. These de-

scriptors are specifi c to the RPI, not to the standard score

ranges. The delineation must be clear.

Willis and Dumont (1998) presented the following ex-

ample to illustrate the different verbal classifi cation sys-

tems used.

&& &&

There are 200 &s. &&&&&& &&&&&&

Each && = 1%. &&&&&& &&&&&&

&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&

&&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&&

&&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&&

& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &

&&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&&

& & & & &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& & & & &

Percent in each 2.2% 6.7% 16.1% 50% 16.1% 6.7% 2.2%

Standard Scores < 70 70–79 80–89 90–110 110–120 121 – 130 > 130

Scaled Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Percentile Ranks < 03 03 – 08 09 – 24 25 – 74 75 – 90 91 – 97 > 97

Woodcock-Johnson

Classifi cation

Very Low Low Low Average Average High Average Superior Very Superior

PRO-ED

Classifi cation

Very Poor Poor Below Average Average Above

Average

Superior Very Superior

KTEA-II

Classifi cation

Lower

Extreme

Below Average

70–84

Average

85 115

Above Average

116–130

Upper Extreme

Source: Willis, J. O., & Dumont, R. P. (1998). Guide to identifi cation of learning disabilities (New York State ed.) (Acton, MA: Copley Custom

Publishing, p. 27). Also available at: http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/test_score_descriptions.htm.

JWBT354_FM.indd xxviiiJWBT354_FM.indd xxviii 10/14/10 8:27:03 PM10/14/10 8:27:03 PM