Garske

Houston Baptist University Testing Course7015 Fondren

Houston, Texas 77040

FULL AND INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION

Demographic Data

Student Name: Richard Garske Parents/Guardians: Mr. and Mrs. GarskeGrade: 9 Address and

Phone Number:19466 Little Pine LaneKaty, Texas 77449

Date of Birth: 07/14/1984 Email Address: Garske281@aol.comAge: 15 Date of Report: 10/5/2013Gender: Male

Reason for Individual Academic Assessment

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 Richard’s strengths and weaknesses and present levels of performance/functioning across multiple areas; (b) determine his disability condition(s) and educational needs; and (c) make recommendations regarding programming.

. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether is eligible for additional time on upcoming standardized test. All students that are given extended time on the STAAR Test must provide professional comprehensive testing that shows a deficiency in several areas of processing. All applicants that submit documentation are not guaranteed extra time approval. Applicants are granted extra time approval based on the results and are considered on a case-by-case basis

Sources of Evaluation Data

Standardized evaluation procedures were followed. Richard was tested at Elsik Ninth Grade Center in Alief I.S.D. The testing environment was quiet and conducive an environment in which true scoring measurements could be derived. At the beginning of the testing session Richard started extremely pleasant, cooperative, friendly and tasks driven. About half way through the test he became irritated and extremely eager for the session to end. Richard began to take multiple deep breaths and display a restless demeanor in his testing seat. Information regarding Richard was collected from a variety of reliable sources, which included the school nurse, records and his parents.

1

Garske

Table 1. Sources of Evaluation Data

Sources of Information Informant/Position Dates

Parent Mr. and Mrs. Garske 10/05/2013

Student Observation/Interview

Richard Garske 10/05/2013

Vision/Hearing Screening Nurse, Mrs. Bell 10/05/2013

Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities-Third Edition (WJ III Cognitive)

Ralph Bridges, Educational Diagnostician

10/05/2013

Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Third Edition (WJ III Achievement)

Ralph Bridges, Educational Diagnostician

10/05/2013

Review of Educational Records

Richard’s grades from middle elementary school and middle school were reviewed. Richard seemed to score a B+ in most of his subjects except Language Arts and Reading. Richard didn’t pass subject during his 6 and 7th grade year. As a result, he attended summer sessions in order to improve his grades in those subjects. The educational records were reviewed and his STAAR scores were scanned closely in the area of Reading. On the 8th grade Reading portion of the exam Richard’s scores were not within the range considered passing and were deemed unsatisfactory.

Speech/Language

Evaluation of Richard’s language consisted of informal and formal assessments of language proficiency in both the receptive and expressive domains. Richard’s language proficiency on the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement Assessment - Third Edition (WJ III ACH) when compared with same age peers may be regarded in the noted domains as:

Listening Comprehension: Low Average Oral Expression: Low Average

Richard expresses himself best in oral speech. Language functioning was observed during the evaluation and it was determined that he easily engages in informal conversation. He has intelligible speech and is able to make his needs known to others. His dominant language is English.

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

2

Garske

Physical Information

Physical conditions that may directly affect the student’s ability to profit from the educational process were considered. Richard’s vision and hearing appeared to be within normal limits without correction. He did not exhibit any signs of health or medical problems. Currently, he is not taking any prescribed medication, only over the counter Allegra for common allergies.

He does not appear to have physical conditions that must be considered in the provision of an appropriate education, including physical education. Analysis of the noted evaluations, interviews, and observations indicate that Richard can function in a regular physical education program including athletics

Sociological

Sociological data concerning Richard’s family and community environment that may influence learning/behavior patterns were considered. Richard is the older of two children and he lives with both his mother and father. His family seems to be very close and they are very involved in church activities. Richard also enjoys reading comic books and playing video games when he is not spending time with his family. He attends Elsik High School where he is part of the freshman cohort 2017. He is a proud member of the football and basketball team. Richard also hopes to become part of the choir at school because he enjoys singing in his church’s choir on Sundays. Based on current data, sociological factors do not appear to adversely affect Richards’s learning and behavior patterns to a degree that would impede his learning.

Emotional/Behavioral

The evaluation of Richards emotional and behavioral factors consists of identifying those characteristics of behaviors which may impact the individual’s learning. During the evaluation, Richard was friendly, cooperative, polite, respectful, and independent. Based on teacher interviews, observations, and parent and student information , serious emotional and behavioral factors do not appear to significantly interfere with his ability to learn.

Teacher Interviews – Ms. Tangney, Richards Language Arts Teacher, described Richard as a manner able young man who tries very hard to be successful in her classroom but is easily distracted by other stimuli. Ms. Tangney also emphasized that she must redirect Richard several times during silent reading time each day.

Classroom Observations – Richard seems to be engaged in the lesson especially when there are manipulates involved. He seems to perform well when following directions and reading simple passages. Richard seems to lose focus when attempting to read more than 5 paragraphs of information. Richard will then stare at objects around the classroom until the teacher redirects this action. He seems to have a very short attention span when attempting to read a story for an extended period of time.

3

Garske

Student Interviews – When interviewed, Richard expressed his passion for academics with Math being his favorite subject. He enjoys all of his academic subjects except Reading and Language Arts. He feels that the stories are not interesting and often gets confused about the plot of the story. Discuss information that client may have discussed that provided information about emotional and behavioral status

Parent Interviews (if applicable) – Richard’s parents describe him as sports orientated teenager. When at home Richard plays basketball with his friends. He completes his homework daily and his parents alternate turns assisting him in completing his Language homework each day.

Intellectual/Adaptive Behavior

An intelligence test was administered in order to assess Richard’s general range of intellectual functioning and to determine current cognitive strengths and weaknesses. The Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG) is a battery of carefully engineered tests for measuring cognitive abilities and related aspects of cognitive functioning. In all, 31 tests are contained in the standard battery, extended battery, and diagnostic supplement. Some WJ III COG tests are appropriate for individuals as young as 24 months, and all of the tests can be used with individuals from 5 to 95 years of age. Various tests from the WJ II COG are combined into clusters for interpretive purposes. Most of the scores generated through the administration of the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities- Third Edition (WJ-III COG) revealed that Richard’s overall intellectual ability is in the Low Average range.

The WJ III COG provides a General Intellectual Ability score (GIA) and three cognitive performance clusters (Verbal Ability Standard Scale, Thinking Ability Standard Scale and Cognitive Efficiency Standard Scale). The cluster scores are reported as age-correlated standard scores. The cluster scores are scaled to a metric with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15

The General Intellectual Ability (GIA) – is a score that represents the first principal component, or single g factor, accounting for the most variance in overall performance on the tests that comprise the scale. The General Intellectual Ability, or g, score will often be the best single-score predictor of various global criteria such as overall school achievement or other life outcomes that have some relationship to cognitive ability.

The Verbal Ability-Standard Scale – is a measure of language development that includes the comprehension of individual words and the comprehension of relationships between words.

The Thinking Ability-Standard Scale – is a sampling of the different thinking processes that may be invoked when information in short-term memory cannot be processed automatically.

The Cognitive Efficiency-Standard Scale – is the capacity of the cognitive system to process information automatically.

4

Garske

Richard obtained a General Intellectual Ability score (GIA) of 99, which is in the average range of intellectual functioning and falls with the 48th percentile rank. This means that Richard performed as well as or better than 48% of the students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 52%. The GIA is derived from the combined sum of cluster scores for the Verbal Ability, Thinking Ability, and Cognitive Efficiency scales, and is considered to be the score that is most representative of general intellectual functioning. His cluster scores for Verbal Ability Scale, Thinking Ability Scale, and Cognitive Efficiency Scale are also in the average range (see Table 2).

On the Verbal Ability Scale, Richard obtained a standard score of 87, which is in the low average range and is at the 20th percentile rank. This means that Richard performed as well as or better than 20% of the students in his norm group and not as well as the remaining 80%. The difference (-17) between Richard’s actual (87) and predicted (104) scores for this measure is not statistically significant. This means that his standard score for this measure is in the same range as scores for his norm group.

. On the Thinking Ability-Standard Scale test, Richard obtained a standard score of 102 which is in the 64th percentile rank which is in the average range. This means that Richard performed as well as or better than 64% and lower than the remaining 36% of the individuals in his normed group. The difference between the actual score of 102 and the predicted score of 98 indicates that there is no significant difference. This means the standard score of 102 is a valid indication of his performance on this measure.Major obtained a standard score of 109 on the Cognitive Efficiency-Standard Scale test, which is in the 72nd percentile rank. Major performed as well as or better than 72% of the individuals in this normed group and not as well as the remaining 28% of individuals. The difference between the actual score of 109 and the predicted score of 97 indicates that there is no significant difference. This means the standard score of 109 is a valid indication of this performance on this measure.

Table 2.Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Abilities Assessment – Third Edition Cluster Scores Summary

Cluster StandardScore

PR Actual Score

Predicted Score

Score Diff.

SD Sig at + or – 1.50 Y/N.

QualitativeDescription

General Intellectual Ability (GIA)

99 48 Average

Verbal Ability-Standard Scale

87 20 87 104 -17 -1.48 N Low Average

Thinking Ability-Standard Scale

102 64 102 98 4 0.37 N Average

Cognitive Efficiency-Standard Scale

109 97 109 97 83 0.94 N Average

5

Garske

Note: SS= Standard Score; PR=Percentile Rank; SD=Standard Deviation

Broad Clusters and Subtest Score Interpretations

In the WJ III COG, the broad ability clusters were designed to provide breadth among the different narrow abilities within each broad CHC factor. Each component test was designed to contribute a different aspect to the broad ability. The Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities -Third Edition contains 20 tests, each measuring a different aspect of cognitive ability. The tests combine to form clusters for interpretive purposes. Nine individual subtests were administered which represent the 7 broad CHC factors (Comprehension-Knowledge, Long-Tern Retrieval, Visual-Spatial Thinking, Auditory Processing, Fluid Reasoning, Processing Speed and Short-Term Memory) to obtain his cognitive ability scores.

Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 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 test of Verbal Comprehension measures Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc). The test of Verbal Comprehension includes: Picture Vocabulary which measures aspects of word knowledge requires the examinee to identify pictures of familiar and unfamiliar objects, Synonyms which measures aspects of vocabulary knowledge providing a similar word, Antonyms which measures vocabulary knowledge requires providing an opposite word and Verbal Analogies which measures reasoning using word knowledge requires the examinee to listen to three words of an analogy and provide a fourth word. Verbal Comprehension measures an individual’s acquired knowledge. His Verbal Comprehension standard score was 87, which is in the Low Average range. Relative Performance Index (RPI) is a score that provides a comparison of the examinee’s performance to the average performance of age or grade peers. His RPI was 63/90 which means that the student demonstrated 63% proficiency, whereas average-aged peers would demonstrate 90% proficiency on similar verbal comprehension tasks.

Long-term Retrieval (Glr) measures the ability to store information and retrieve it later. The Visual-Auditory Learning test measures Long-Term Retrieval. The Visual-Auditory Learning test measures associative and meaningful memory. The examinee learns and recalls rebuses (pictographic representations of words) that begin as phrases and then sentences that increase in length and complexity. Richard’s standard score was 77, which are in the first Low range and 7-percentile rank. This means the remaining 23% of individuals would perform better on visual-auditory tasks. Richard’s RPI was 74/90 which means the student demonstrated 74% proficiency, whereas average-age peers would demonstrate 90% proficiency on similar visual-auditory tasks.

Visual-Spatial Thinking (Gv) measures the ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize and think with visual patterns, including the ability to store and recall visual representations. Spatial Relations is a measure of Visual-Spatial Thinking. This cluster includes one subtest: Spatial Relations measures he ability to use visualization in thinking and required the examinee to identify two or three pieces that form a complete targeted shape. Richard obtained a standard score of 66, which is in the Very Low Average range and a RPI of 41/90. When his normed age group performs at 90%, Richard will only perform visual thinking skills at 41%.

6

Garske

Auditory Processing (Ga) measures the ability to analyze, synthesize, and discriminate auditory stimuli, including the ability to process and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions. Sound Blending is a test that measures Auditory Processing. The Sound Blending test measures the ability to produce language sounds. The examinee listens to a series of syllables and phonemes (sounds) and asked to blend the sounds into a word. Incomplete Words measures auditory analysis and auditory closure and requires the examinee to hear a word from an audio recording that is missing one or more phonemes and identify by completing the word. For Sound Blending, his standard score was 86, with an RPI of 43/90 meaning when compared to the normed group, they would perform at 90%; Richard would only perform at 43%. For Incomplete Words he obtained a standard score of 50, which is in the Very Low range. These scores are commensurate with his low average scores in Phonemic Awareness due to undeveloped skills.

Fluid Reasoning (Gf) measures the ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information or new procedures. Concept Formation is a test that measures Fluid Reasoning. Concept Formation involves categorical reasoning based on principles of inductive logic and an aspect of executive processing – flexibility in thinking when required to shift one’s mental set frequently. This test requires the individual to examine a stimulus set and then formulate a rule that applies to the item(s). Richard’s standard score was 100, which shows he is performing in the Average range. His RPI was 90/90, which means that on concept formation task, Richard will perform at same proficiency while his same aged peers.

Processing Speed (Gs) measures the ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, as an aspect of cognitive efficiency. Visual Matching is a test that measures Processing Speed. Visual Matching is a test measuring cognitive efficiency, which is the speed at which an individual can make visual symbol discriminations. Richard was administered the second version, Visual Matching 2, since he is function at or above the level of an average 5-year old. He was required to locate and circle two identical numbers in a row of six within a 3-minute time limit. The items became more difficult as they progressed from single-digit numbers to triple-digit numbers. Richard’s standard score was 86 and performing in the 18th percentile rank which means that he performed as well as or better than 86% and lower than the remaining 14% of individuals in his normed group. He obtained an RPI score of 75/90, which means that when his same aged peers are expected to perform visual matching tasks at 90% proficiency, Richard will only perform at 75% proficiency.

Short-Term Memory (Gsm) measures the ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness and then use it within a few seconds. Numbers Reversed and Auditory Working Memory both are measurements of Short-Term Memory. The first test administered, Numbers Reversed, measures short-term memory span, and requires the individual to hold a span of numbers in immediate memory while performing a mental operation on it by reciting the numbers in reverse order. Richard standard score was 119, which means he is performing in the High Average range. The second test, Auditory Working Memory, measures short-term auditory memory span and working memory or divided attention. The examinee listens to a series of digits and words, attempts to reorder the information repeating the objects first and then the numbers in sequential order. His standard score was 87 and performing in the Low Average range. He obtained an RPI score of 67/90, which means that when his same aged peers are

7

Garske

expected to perform visual matching tasks at 90% proficiency, Richard will only perform at 67% proficiency.Table 3. Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities – Third Edition Test Scores Summary

Test StandardScore

PR RPI AE QualitativeDescription

Verbal Comprehension 87 20 63/90 11-7 Low AverageVisual-Auditory Learning 77 07 74/90 8-20 Low

Spatial Relations 66 1 41/90 5-80 Very LowSound Blending 86 18 43/90 9-60 Low AverageConcept Formation 100 49 90/90 14-1100 Average

Table 3. (continued)

Test StandardScore

PR RPI AE QualitativeDescription

Visual Matching 86 18 75/90 11-110 Low AverageNumbers Reversed 119 90 99/90 >26 High AverageIncomplete Words 50 <0.1 37/90 4-4 Very LowAuditory Working Memory

87 20 67/90 11-40 Low Average

Note: SS= Standard Score; PR=Percentile Rank; AE= Age Equivalent; RPI=Relative Proficiency Index

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.

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

Academic/Developmental Performance

Information regarding an individual’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/his reports, information obtained from parents, observations, and the administration of standardized achievement tests. The collection of educational performance data is used to assess Richard’s level of acquired knowledge.

Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement Assessment-Third Edition (WJC III ACH)

8

Garske

The Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement Assessment-Third Edition (WJC III ACH) is administered to determine and describe an individual’s present status of academic strengths and weaknesses. The tests results help determine how certain factors are affecting related aspects of development. The WJ III ACH provides a more in depth evaluation after individual has failed a screening procedure or to substantiate the results of other tests or prior evaluations. The WJ III ACH has 22 tests organized into five areas/clusters: oral language, reading, written language, mathematics and academic knowledge, and can be administered to individuals as young as 2-years to 95-years and older.

Cluster and Subtest Score Interpretations

Overall, Richard’s academic skills are commensurate with his intellectual ability. Based on the findings of the WJ III ACH, Richard’s cluster standard scores in all academic areas are within either the Low Average or Average range. This suggests the individual has special strengths and weaknesses and may provide insights about the student’s learning styles and learning abilities and disabilities. The scores are explained in detail below.

Oral Language is related to success in reading, math and written language and the skills are measured in five oral language tests ranging from lower-level abilities to higher-level abilities. It is a measure of an individual’s expressive (speaking) and receptive language (listening). Richard obtained a standard score of 82, which is in the Low Average Range. His RPI was 77/90, which means that when the individuals in his norm group would be at a predicted proficiency of 90%, Richard would only perform at 77% proficiency.

Oral Expression measures linguistic competency and vocabulary knowledge. A test that measures Oral Expression is Story Recall. Story Recall measures aspects of oral language including language development and meaningful memory. The task required him to recall increasingly complex stories that are presented through an audio recording. After listening to the passage, Richard was asked to recall as many details of the story he could remember. His ability level is in the Low Average range with a standard score of 95. Richard’s RPI was 88/90 which means that other’s at the examinee’s age group show 90% proficiency on similar story recall tasks, this examinee is predicted to show only 88% success on these tasks.

Listening Comprehension measures an individual’s listening ability and verbal comprehension. The Understanding Directions tests measures Listening Comprehension. In Understanding Directions, the examinee listened to a sequence of audio-recorded instructions and then followed the directions by pointing to various objects in a colored picture. The items gradually increased in linguistic complexity as the number of tasks to perform increased. Richard’s standard score was 81% which is in the 10th percentile, meaning that Richard performed as well as or better than 81% individuals and the remaining 19% individuals performed better or higher on tasks which require listening comprehension skills. Richard’s RPI was 62/90 which means that other’s at the examinee’s age group show 90% proficiency on similar story recall tasks, this examinee is predicted to show only 62% success on these tasks.

Written Expression is a measure of written and fluent expressive skills. Overall, his standard score was 86 and performed in the Average range. Two subtests measure Written Expression; the

9

Garske

first test was Writing Fluency. This test measures skills in formulating and writing sample sentences quickly. Each student the individual writes must relate to a given stimulus picture and include a given set of three words. Richard performed in the Average range with a standard score of 86. The second test, Writing Samples, measures skill in writing responses to a variety of demands. The individual must produce written sentences that are evaluated with respect to quality of expression. Item difficulty increases by increasing passage length, level of vocabulary, grammar complexities and level of abstraction. The individual is not penalized for errors in basic writing skills. Richard performed in the Average range with a standard score of 94. There were no significant differences between the cluster and subtest standard scores, and this presents to be an area of strength for Richard.

Basic Reading Skills measures sight vocabulary, phonics and structural analysis. Basic Reading Skills is measured by the Letter-Word Identification test. Letter-Word Identification was administered and measures the subject’s word identification skills. The initial items require the individual to identify letters that appear in large type and the remaining items require correct pronunciation. The individual is not required to know the meaning of any words. The items become more increasingly difficult as the selected words appear less and less frequently in written English. His standard score was 91 which means he is performing in the Average range.

Reading Comprehension provides a broad view of an individual’s reading comprehension skills or understanding what they read. Passage Comprehension measures Reading Comprehension in a context of connected discourse. The items required the person to point to the picture represented by a phrase. The remaining items required the person to read a short passage and identify the missing key word that makes sense in the context of the passage. The items become more increasingly difficult by removing pictorial stimuli and by increasing passage length, level of vocabulary, and complexity of syntactic and semantic cues. His standard score was 99 and which means he performed in the Average range. When this score was compared to his performance in Basic Reading Skills and Listening Comprehension, Reading Comprehension was not affected and is the stronger performing area of the three.

Math Calculation Skills measure computational skills and automaticity with basic math facts and provides a measure of basic mathematical skills. The overall cluster standard score was 106. Two subtests measure Math Calculation Skills, which are Calculation and Math Fluency. For Calculation, an individual is measured by their ability to perform mathematical computations. Items required the person to perform addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and combinations of these basic operations as well as geometric, trigonometric, logarithmic and calculus operations. Calculations involved negative numbers, percent’s, decimals, fractions and whole numbers. The person is not required to make any decisions about what operations to use or what data to include. His standard score was 106 and in the Average range. The second subtest, Math Fluency, measures his ability to solve simple addition, subtraction and multiplication facts quickly. The person is presented a series of arithmetic problems and has a 3-minute time limit. He achieved a standard score of 101, in the Average range and both subtests scores are commensurate with the cluster score, making this a strength area for Richard.

Math Reasoning measures mathematical knowledge and reasoning including problem solving, analysis and vocabulary. Richard was administered the Applied Problems test which requires him to analyze and solve math problems. To solve the problems, a person must listen to the problem, recognize the procedure to follow and they perform relatively simple calculations. The

10

Garske

individual must decide not only which appropriate mathematical operation to use but also which numbers to include in the calculation. Item difficulty increases with complex calculations. Richard obtained a standard score of 110, which is in the Average range and performed in the 75th percentile rank. Compared to other individuals, be performed as well as or better than 75% of individuals and the remaining 25% of individuals would perform better on this achievement test. Oral Language does not seem to have a significant effect on his performance.

Table 4. Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement Assessment (WJ III ACH) -Third Edition Cluster Score Summary

Cluster SS PR RPI AE Qualitative Description

Oral Language 82 12 77/90 9-6 Low AverageOral Expression 95 37 88/90 11-9 AverageListening Comprehension

81 10 62/90 8-10 Low Average

Written Expression 88 22 76/90 15-5 Low AverageBasic Reading Skills 91 28 064/90 12-6 Average

Reading Comprehension

91 27 54/90 11-600 Average

Math Calculation Skills 106 65 94/90 19 AverageMath Reasoning 110 75 98/90 >30 AverageTotal Achievement 89 24 55/90 10-800 Low AverageNote: SS= Standard Score; PR=Percentile Rank; AE= Age Equivalent; RPI=Relative Proficiency Index

Table 5. Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement Assessment (WJ III ACH) -Third Edition Test Score Summary

Test SS PR RPI AE Quality Description

Letter-Word Identification 91 28 64/90 12-60 Average

Reading Fluency 93 32 81/90 13-4 Average

Story Recall 95 37 88/90 11-9 Low Average

Understanding Directions 81 10 62/90 08-10 Low Average

Calculation 108 71 96/90 >23 Average

Math Fluency 101 52 91/90 15-30 Average

Spelling 116 85 98/90 >300 High Average

Table 5.

11

Garske

Test SS PR RPI AE Quality Description

Writing Fluency 86 18 66/90 11-5 Low Average

Passage Comprehension 99 48 89/90 14-8 Average

Applied Problems 110 75 98/90 >30 Average

Writing Samples 94 35 84/90 12-10 Average

Handwriting 72 6-4 Low

Total Achievement 89 24 55/90 12-70 Low Average

Note: SS= Standard Score; PR=Percentile Rank; AE= Age Equivalent; RPI=Relative Proficiency Index

Assistive Technology

Richard can access the school environment without the need for AT services or devices. He communicates clearly and is not motor dependent.

Transition

After High School Richard plans on attending Louisiana State University. He wants to play Collegiate Football and study Criminal Justice.

Conclusion

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

Strengths – Richard performed best in the area of Spelling. He is able to perform mathematical calculations in response to orally presented problems. Additional strengths include Reading Fluency, Letter Word Identification, Calculation, Math Fluency, Writing Fluency, Passage Comprehension, Applied Problems and Writing samples. In all of these tests administered, Richard performed in the Average range.

Weaknesses – Richard exhibited difficulty in the areas of: Oral language, Listening Comprehension, and Written Expression. Richard performed all above tests in the Low Average range.

Richard’s overall intellectual ability as measured by the WJ III GIA, is in the Average range of standard scores. Richard’s cognitive cluster scores of Verbal Ability is in the low average range. Thinking Ability and Cognitive Efficiency were both found to be average. No significant discrepancies were found between Richard’s overall intellectual ability and his Phonemic

12

Garske

Awareness (the ability to hear, produce and manipulate speech sounds) in the High Average range and Working Memory (the ability to hold information in immediate awareness while performing a mental operation on the information) in the Average range.

Richard’s oral language skills are Low Average when compared to the range of scores obtained by others at his age level. His overall level of achievement is Average range. Richard’s fluency with academic tasks and his ability to apply academic skills are both within the average range. A significant discrepancy was found among the scores for a selected set of Richard’s achievement areas in Listening Comprehension.

Table 6. Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement – Third Edition and Clusters Measuring the Seven IDEA LD Qualifying Areas

Required LD Areas WJIII ACHSubtests

WJIII ACH

SubtestsSTD.

Scores

GIA GIA/ACHDif.

Sig.Y/N

Oral Expression Story Recall 95 99 +4 NListening Comprehension Understanding

Directions81 99 +18 Y

Written Expression Writing Sample 88 99 +11 NWriting Fluency 91 99 +8 N

Basic Reading Skills Letter-Word Identification

91 99 +8 N

Reading Comprehension Passage Comprehension

99 99 0 N

Math Calculation Calculation 108 99 -9 NMath Fluency 101 99 -2 N

Math Reasoning Applied Problems 110 99 -11 NNote: STD=Standard Scores; Dif=Difference; GIA=General Intellectual Ability; Sig=Significance

Recommendations

This evaluation is considered a valid representation of Richard’s current levels of functioning in the areas assessed. The following recommendations are based upon a review of evaluation data to assist Richard in Oral Language, Basic Reading Skills, Oral Expression, and Listening Comprehension. These recommendations are intended for the work environment.

Oral Languageo Present all types of verbal information accompanied by visual stimuli that clearly

illustrate the concept being taught.

13

Garske

o When lecturing, present ideas in an organized and logical sequence. Keep the points as simple as possible and group related information.

Basic Reading Skillso Present reading materials on independent level in order to follow along with

lectures and presentations.

Oral Expressiono Directly teach the student to request repetition or rephrasing of instructions,

questions, or statements when necessary. Additionally, encourage the student to ask you to paraphrase test questions when needed.

Listening Comprehensiono When teaching or speaking to the student, face him, speak slowly, pausing

between phrases for processing time, limited sentence length and complexity. If the student can count on you to do this consistently, he is more like to listen to what you say with intent to understand.

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.

14

Garske

MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM

Ralph BridgesEducational Diagnostician

SIGNATURE OF EVALUATOR

X Ralph Bridges

Ralph Bridges

Educational Diagnostician

15

Garske

References

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Groth-Marnat, G. (2003). Handbook of psychological assessment (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (1999). Essentials of WAIS-III assessment. New York: Wiley.

Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2006). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

MacDonald, M. C., Almor, A., Henderson, V. W., kempler, D., & Andersen, E. S. (2001). Assessing working memory and language comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain and Language, 78, 17-42.

Reynolds, C. R. (1997). Forward abd backward memory span should not be combined for clinical analysis. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 12, 29-40.

Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: cognitive applications (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Author.

Sattler, J. M. 2002. Assessment of children: Behavioral and clinical applications-fourth edition. CA: Sattler Publishing.

Sattler, J. M. (2008b). Resource guide to accompany assessment of children: Cognitivefoundations (5th ed.). San Diego, CA: Author.

Werheid, K., Hoppe, C., Thone, A., Muller, U., Mungerdorf, M., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2002). The adaptive digit ordering test: Clinical application, reliability, and validity of a verbal working memory test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 17, 547-565.

16