Wais Iv Sample Report Details

Every year colleges and universities across the United States require students to complete a Wais Iv Report form. This report is used to measure cognitive ability and educational achievement. The form is also used to determine if a student is eligible for special services or accommodations. In this blog post, we will discuss what is included on the Wais Iv Report Form, how it is scored, and who should take the test. We will also provide tips on how to prepare for the test.

Below is the data regarding the PDF you were seeking to fill out. It will show you the amount of time you'll need to complete wais iv report, exactly what fields you need to fill in, etc.

QuestionAnswer
Form NameWais Iv Report
Form Length20 pages
Fillable?No
Fillable fields0
Avg. time to fill out5 min
Other nameswisc iv sample report, wais iv sample report template, wais iv report template, wais iv record form pdf

Form Preview Example

Interpretive Report of WAIS–IV and WMS–IV Testing

Examinee and Testing I nformation

Examinee Name

Client A

Examinee I D

 

 

 

Date of Birth

4/ 24/ 1947

 

 

Gender

Male

 

 

Race/ Ethnicity

White

Date of Report

8/ 24/ 2009

Years of Education

16

 

 

Home Language

< Not Specified>

 

 

Handedness

< Not Specified>

 

 

Examiner Name

Examiner G

Test Administered

WAI S–I V (8/ 24/ 2009)

Age at Testing 62 years 4 months

Retest? No

 

 

 

 

 

WMS–I V (8/ 24/ 2009)

62 years 4 months

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WAI S–I V Comments

 

 

 

 

 

WMS–I V Comments

Referred by family physician due to increasing memory loss over the past few years

 

 

 

 

Purpose for Evaluation

Client was referred for an evaluation by Dr. G, his physician, secondary to Neurological difficulties.

Background

Client is a 62-year-old married male who lives with spouse/partner and has been for the past 32 years. He has 3 children.

Client achieved a degree from a 4-year university program.

Client has been diagnosed with hypertension and sleep disturbances. He is currently taking medication and/or receiving treatment for hypertension.

Client is currently retired. Previously, for 26 years Client was employed full-time as a(n) Manager. It is reported that his work performance was satisfactory.

Test Session Behavior: WMS– I V

Client arrived early for the test session accompanied by his spouse. His appearance was neat. He was oriented to person, place, time and situation.

I nterpretation of WAI S– I V Results

General I ntellectual Ability

Client was administered 10 subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS– IV). His composite scores are derived from these subtest scores. The Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) composite

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 1 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

score is derived from 10 subtest scores and is considered the most representative estimate of global intellectual functioning. Client’s general cognitive ability is within the average range of intellectual functioning, as measured by the FSIQ. His overall thinking and reasoning abilities exceed those of approximately 58% of individuals his age (FSIQ = 103; 95% confidence interval = 99-107). He performed slightly better on verbal than on nonverbal reasoning tasks, but there is no meaningful difference between Client’s ability to reason with and without the use of words.

Verbal Comprehension

Client’s verbal reasoning abilities as measured by the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) are in the high average range and above those of approximately 75% of his peers (VCI = 110; 95% confidence interval = 104-115). The VCI is designed to measure verbal reasoning and concept formation. Client’s performance on the verbal subtests contributing to the VCI presents a diverse set of verbal abilities, as he performed much better on some verbal tasks than others. The degree of variability is unusual and may be noticeable to those who know him well. Examination of Client’s performance on individual subtests provides additional information regarding his specific verbal abilities.

Client achieved his best performance among the verbal reasoning tasks on the Information subtest. His strong performance on the Information subtest was better than that of most of his peers.

The Information subtest required Client to respond orally to questions about common events, objects, places, and people. The subtest is primarily a measure of his fund of general knowledge. Performance on this subtest also may be influenced by cultural experience and quality of education, as well as his ability to retrieve information from long-term memory (Information scaled score = 13).

Perceptual Reasoning

Client’s nonverbal reasoning abilities as measured by the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) are in the average range and above those of approximately 61% of his peers (PRI =104; 95% confidence interval

=98-110). The PRI is designed to measure fluid reasoning in the perceptual domain with tasks that assess nonverbal concept formation, visual perception and organization, visual-motor coordination, learning, and the ability to separate figure and ground in visual stimuli. Client’s performance on the perceptual reasoning subtests contributing to the PRI is somewhat variable, although the magnitude of this difference in performance is not unusual among individuals his age. Examination of Client’s performance on individual subtests provides additional information regarding his specific nonverbal abilities.

Client achieved his best performance among the nonverbal reasoning tasks on the Visual Puzzles subtest and his lowest score on the Block Design subtest. His performance across these areas differs significantly and suggest that these are the areas of most pronounced strength and weakness, respectively, in Client’s profile of perceptual reasoning abilities.

The Block Design subtest required Client to use two-color cubes to construct replicas of two- dimensional, geometric patterns. This subtest assesses nonverbal fluid reasoning and the ability to mentally organize visual information. More specifically, this subtest assesses his ability to analyze part-whole relationships when information is presented spatially. Performance on this task also may be influenced by visual-spatial perception and visual perception-fine motor coordination, as well as planning ability (Block Design scaled score = 9). The Visual Puzzles subtest required Client to view a

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 2 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

completed puzzle and select three response options that, when combined, reconstruct the puzzle, and do so within a specified time limit. This subtest is designed to measure nonverbal reasoning and the ability to analyze and synthesize abstract visual stimuli. Performance on this task also may be influenced by visual perception, broad visual intelligence, fluid intelligence, simultaneous processing, spatial visualization and manipulation, and the ability to anticipate relationships among parts (Visual Puzzles scaled score = 12).

Working Memory

Client’s ability to sustain attention, concentrate, and exert mental control is in the average range. He performed better than approximately 63% of his peers in this area (Working Memory Index (WMI) = 105; 95% confidence interval 98-111).

Processing Speed

Client’s ability in processing simple or routine visual material without making errors is in the low average range when compared to his peers. He performed better than approximately 18% of his peers on the processing speed tasks (Processing Speed Index [PSI] = 86; 95% confidence interval 79-96). Processing visual material quickly is an ability that Client performs poorly as compared to his verbal and nonverbal reasoning ability. Processing speed is an indication of the rapidity with which Client can mentally process simple or routine information without making errors. Because learning often involves a combination of routine information processing (such as reading) and complex information processing (such as reasoning), a weakness in the speed of processing routine information may make the task of comprehending novel information more time-consuming and difficult for Client. Thus, this weakness in simple visual scanning and tracking may leave him less time and mental energy for the complex task of understanding new material.

Summary

Client was referred for an evaluation by Dr. G, his physician, secondary to Neurological difficulties. Client is a 62-year-old male who completed the WAIS–IV. His general cognitive ability, as estimated by the WAIS–IV, is in the average range (FSIQ = 103).Client’s general verbal comprehension abilities were in the high average range (VCI = 110), and his general perceptual reasoning abilities were in the average range (PRI = 104). Client’s ability to sustain attention, concentrate, and exert mental control is in the average range (WMI = 105). Client’s ability in processing simple or routine visual material without making errors is in the low average range when compared to his peers (PSI = 86).

I nterpretation of WMS– I V Results

Client was administered 10 subtests of the Adult battery of the Wechsler Memory Scale–Fourth Edition (WMS–IV), from which his index scores were derived. He was also administered the Brief Cognitive Status Exam (BCSE), an optional procedure measuring global cognitive functioning. Client’s scores on the WMS–IV indexes are discussed in the following sections of this report, as are discrepancies in performance across different modalities and categories of memory processes. In addition, specific strengths and deficits within modalities are discussed.

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 3 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

When interpreting performance on the WMS–IV, it is important to take into consideration factors that may have contributed to Client’s test performance, such as difficulties with vision, hearing, motor functioning, English language proficiency, and speech/language functioning. In addition, personal factors, such as physical illness, fatigue, headache, or factors specific to the testing session such as distractions or a lack of motivation, can affect performance on any given day. According to the information provided, some of the following issues may have affected Client’s performance. His difficulties with expressive language may have had a minimal effect on his performance on measures such as Logical Memory and Verbal Paired Associates that required him to express himself orally. Therefore, caution is recommended when interpreting these subtest scores and the index scores derived from them. His reported experience of family stress or conflicts at the time of the assessment appeared to have a minimal effect on his overall performance. Client’s history of above average academic performance should be kept in mind, as this may have had a positive influence on his performance on this assessment.

Brief Cognitive Status Exam

The Brief Cognitive Status Exam (BCSE) evaluates basic cognitive functions through tasks that assess orientation to time, incidental recall, mental control, planning/visual perceptual processing, inhibitory control, and verbal productivity. Client’s global cognitive functioning, as measured by the BCSE, was in the Low Average range, compared to others, ages 45 to 69, with a similar educational background. This classification level represents 10–24% of cases within his age and education group. Functioning in this range is not typically associated with global impairments in cognitive functioning.

Auditory Memory

The Auditory Memory Index (AMI) is a measure of Client’s ability to listen to oral information, repeat it immediately, and then recall the information after a 20 to 30 minute delay. Compared to other individuals his age, Client's auditory memory capacity is in the Low Average range (AMI = 87, 95% Confidence Interval = 81-94) and exceeds that of approximately 19 percent of individuals in his age group.

However, it is important to note that the expressive language difficulties that Client appeared to experience during the assessment are suspected of having had a minimal effect on his ability to fully express his auditory memory capacity.

To determine if Client’s auditory memory capacity is consistent with his general intellectual ability, a comparison between his GAI and AMI index scores is recommended. Client’s performance on the GAI and AMI indicate that his ability to recall information presented orally is significantly lower than expected when compared to his general intellectual ability (GAI = 107; AMI = 87). Such difference is rare and may be noticeable to those close to him. Client’s ability to recall information presented orally is in the Low Average range when compared others with similar general intellectual ability (9th percentile). This result indicates that his auditory memory is lower than expected, given his level of general intellectual functioning (GAI vs. AMI Contrast Scaled Score = 6).

Client’s ability to recall information presented orally is in the Low Average range when compared to others with similar verbal comprehension (9th percentile). This result indicates that his auditory memory is lower than expected, given his level of verbal comprehension (VCI vs. AMI Contrast Scaled Score = 6).

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 4 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

Client’s ability to recall orally presented information is in the Low Average range when compared to others with similar auditory working memory capacity (16th percentile). This result indicates that his auditory memory is lower than expected, given his level of working memory (WMI vs. AMI Contrast Scaled Score = 7).

Visual Memory

On the Visual Memory Index (VMI), a measure of memory for visual details and spatial location, Client performed in the Low Average range (VMI = 86, 95% Confidence Interval = 81-92). Client's visual memory capacity exceeds that of approximately 18 percent of individuals in his age group.

To determine if Client’s visual memory function is consistent with his general intellectual ability, a comparison between his performance on the VMI and GAI is recommended. Client’s ability to recall information presented visually is significantly lower than expected when compared to his general intellectual ability (GAI = 107; VMI = 86). Furthermore, such difference is rare and may be noticeable to those close to him. Client’s ability to recall orally presented information is in the Borderline range when compared to others with similar general intellectual functioning (5th percentile). This result indicates that his visual memory is much lower than expected, given his level of general intellectual functioning (GAI vs. VMI Contrast Scaled Score = 5).

Client’s ability to recall information presented orally is in the Low Average range when compared to others with similar perceptual reasoning ability (9th percentile). This result indicates that his visual memory is lower than expected, given his level of perceptual reasoning ability (PRI vs. VMI Contrast Scaled Score = 6).

Modality- Specific Memory Strengths and Weaknesses

Some individuals are better at recalling visual information than recalling auditory information, while for others the reverse is true. Compared to individuals with similar auditory memory capacity, Client’s visual memory performance is in the Average range (25th percentile), indicating no significant difference between his levels of visual and auditory memory functioning. The interpretation of Client’s modality-specific memory strengths and weaknesses should take into account the previously mentioned expressive language difficulties which may have affected his performance.

Visual Working Memory

On the Visual Working Memory Index (VWMI), a measure of his ability to temporarily hold and manipulate spatial locations and visual details, Client performed in the Average range (VWMI = 97, 95% Confidence Interval = 90-104). Client’s visual working memory ability exceeds that of approximately 42 percent of individuals in his age group.

To determine if Client’s working memory capacity for visual information is consistent with his general intellectual ability, a comparison between his performance on the VWMI and GAI is recommended. Client’s performance on the GAI and VWMI indicates that his working memory capacity for visual information is consistent with his level of general intellectual ability (GAI = 107; VWMI = 97). Client’s working memory capacity for visual information is in the Average range when compared to others with similar general intellectual functioning (25th percentile). This result suggests there is no significant difference between his visual working memory and general intellectual functioning (GAI vs. VWMI Contrast Scaled Score = 8).

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 5 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

Client’s working memory capacity for visual information is in the Average range when compared to others of similar perceptual reasoning ability (37th percentile). This result indicates there is no significant difference between his working memory capacity for visual information and perceptual reasoning ability (PRI vs. VMI Contrast Scaled Score = 9).

To determine if Client’s auditor working memory function is consistent with his visual working memory ability, a comparison between his WMI and VWMI index scores is recommended. Client’s working memory capacity for visual information is in the Average range when compared to others with similar auditory working memory capacity (25th percentile). This result suggests that there is no significant difference between his working memory capacity for visually or orally presented information (WMI vs. VWMI Contrast Scaled Score = 8).

Specificity of Episodic Visual Memory Abilities Compared to Visual Working Memory Abilities

Comparing episodic visual memory to visual working memory performance can help determine the relative influence of visual memory on visual working memory (e.g., to determine if a low VMI score is due to deficits in visual working memory or to episodic visual memory deficits). Compared to individuals with similar visual working memory capacity, Client’s visual memory performance is in the Low Average range (16th percentile), indicating that his visual memory is lower than expected, given his level of visual working memory functioning.

I mmediate and Delayed Memory

The Immediate Memory Index (IMI) is a measure of Client’s ability to recall verbal and visual information immediately after the stimuli is presented. Compared to other individuals his age, Client's immediate memory capacity is in the Low Average range (IMI = 86, 95% Confidence Interval = 80-

93)and exceeds that of approximately 18 percent of individuals in his age group. On the Delayed

Memory Index (DMI), a measure of the ability to recall verbal and visual information after a 20 to 30 minute delay, Client performed in the Low Average range (DMI = 82, 95% Confidence Interval= 76-

90).Client's delayed memory capacity exceeds that of approximately 12 percent of individuals in his age group. However, it is important to note that the expressive language difficulties that Client appeared to experience during the assessment are suspected of having had a minimal effect on his immediate and delayed memory functioning.

To determine if Client’s immediate memory recall ability is consistent with his general intellectual functioning, a comparison between his performance on the GAI and IMI is recommended. Client’s ability to recall information immediately after its presentation is significantly lower than expected, given his general intellectual ability (GAI = 107; IMI = 86). Furthermore, such difference is rare and may be noticeable to those close to him. Client’s ability to recall information immediately after its presentation is in the Borderline range when compared to others of similar general intellectual functioning (5th percentile). This result suggests that his immediate memory recall is much lower than expected given his level of general intellectual functioning (GAI vs. IMI Contrast Scaled Score = 5).

In order to determine if Client’s memory recall after a 20–30 minute delay is consistent with his general intellectual ability, a comparison between his GAI and DMI index scores is recommended. Client’s ability to recall information after a delay is significantly lower than expected, given his general intellectual ability (GAI = 107; DMI = 82). In addition, such difference is rare and may be

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 6 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

noticeable to those close to him. Client’s ability to recall information after a delay is in the Borderline range when compared to others of similar general intellectual ability (5th percentile). This result suggests that his delayed memory recall is much lower than expected, given his level of general intellectual functioning (GAI vs. DMI Contrast Scaled Score = 5).

Retention of I nformation

Some individuals lose information between immediate and delayed recall, while others actually improve their memory performance over time. The overall amount of forgetting and consolidation that occurred between the immediate and delayed tasks is indicated by the level of Client’s delayed memory performance given his immediate memory performance. Compared to individuals with a similar level of immediate memory capacity, Client’s delayed memory performance is in the Low Average range (16th percentile), indicating that his delayed memory is lower than expected, given his level of initial encoding.

Specific Auditory Memory Abilities

Auditory Forgetting and Retrieval Scores

The degree to which Client forgot the story details he learned during the immediate condition of Logical Memory I can be determined by comparing his delayed recall performance to that of others with a similar level of immediate recall (LM II Immediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall contrast scaled score = 7). This comparison indicates that Client displayed a higher than expected rate of forgetting, given his immediate memory performance.

The degree to which Client forgot the word associations he learned during immediate recall of Verbal Paired Associates I can be determined by comparing his delayed recall performance to that of others with a similar level of immediate recall (VPA II Immediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall contrast scaled score = 6). This comparison indicates that Client displayed a higher than expected rate of forgetting, given his immediate memory performance.

Specific Visual Memory Abilities

Visual Process Scores

Client’s immediate memory for visual details is in the average range, while his delayed memory for visual details is below average (DE I Content scaled score = 10, DE II Content scaled score = 6). Although he is not likely to have difficulty recalling specific visual information soon after it is presented when compared to individuals his age, his ability to recall the information decreases over time more than is typical. When required to recall designs and their locations in a grid, Client’s immediate memory for the locations of cards placed in the grid, regardless of his ability to recall the visual details of the cards, is below average, while his delayed memory for the locations is in the average range (DE I Spatial scaled score = 6, DE II Spatial scaled score = 11). Although he may have difficulty recalling spatial locations soon after they are presented when compared to individuals his age, his ability to recall the information may benefit from time for consolidation.

Visual Forgetting and Retrieval Scores

Client’s immediate recall of visual details is average when compared to others with similar levels of immediate spatial memory ability. His delayed recall of visual details is below average when

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 7 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

compared to others with similar levels of delayed spatial memory ability. The degree to which Client forgot the visual details and spatial locations he learned during the immediate condition of the Designs subtest can be determined by comparing his delayed recall performance to that of individuals with a similar level of immediate memory (DE Immediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall contrast scaled score = 10). Based on this comparison, Client is able to recall visual details and spatial locations after a delay as well as expected, given his level of immediate recall.

The degree to which Client forgot the details and relative spatial relationship among elements of the designs presented during the immediate recall of the Visual Reproduction subtest can be determined by comparing his ability to recall and draw the designs after a delay to that of individuals with a similar level of immediate ability (VR Immediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall contrast scaled score = 9). Based on this comparison, Client is able to recall and draw this type of visual information after a delay as well as expected, given his level of immediate recall.

Summary of WMS– I V Memory Abilities

Client is a 62-year-old male who completed the WMS–IV. Client was referred for an evaluation by Dr. G, his physician, secondary to Neurological difficulties. When reviewing Client’s results, it is important to keep in mind the previously noted factors that may have affected his test performance.

Client was administered 10 subtests of the Adult battery of the WMS–IV. Client’s global cognitive functioning as measured by the BCSE was in the Low Average range, compared to others ages 45 to 69 and of a similar educational background. Client's ability to listen to oral information and repeat it immediately, and then recall the information after a 20 to 30 minute delay is in the Low Average range. His memory for visual details and spatial location is in the Low Average range. His ability to temporarily hold and manipulate spatial locations and visual details is in the Average range. The influence of Client’s visual memory on his visual working memory should be noted. Compared to individuals with similar visual working memory capacity, Client’s visual memory performance is in the Low Average range, indicating that his visual memory is lower than expected, given his level of visual working memory functioning. Client’s ability to recall verbal and visual information immediately after the stimuli is presented is in the Low Average range. His ability to recall verbal and visual information after a 20 to 30 minute delay is in the Low Average range. Client displayed a notable amount of forgetting between the immediate and delayed tasks of the WMS–IV. Compared to individuals with a similar level of immediate memory capacity, Client’s delayed memory performance is in the Low Average range, indicating that his delayed memory is lower than expected given his level of initial encoding.

Summary of I ntellectual and Memory Abilities

A comparison of Client’s auditory memory ability (AMI) to his results on WAIS–IV revealed that he performed significantly outside the expected range when compared to his general intellectual functioning. The adjustment of Client’s AMI result by his general intellectual functioning, generated a contrast scale score in the Low Average range, indicating that his auditory memory is lower than expected. The adjustment of Client’s AMI result by his verbal comprehension ability generated a contrast scaled score in the Low Average range, indicating that his auditory memory is lower than expected. The adjustment of Client’s AMI result by his working memory ability (WMI) generated a contrast scaled score in the Low Average range, indicating that his auditory memory is lower than expected.

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 8 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

A comparison of Client’s visual memory (VMI) to his results on WAIS–IV revealed that he performed significantly outside the expected range when compared to his general intellectual functioning. The adjustment of Client’s VMI result by his general intellectual ability (GAI) generated a contrast scaled score in the Borderline range, indicating that his visual memory is much lower than expected. The adjustment of Client’s VMI result by his perceptual reasoning (PRI) generated a contrast scaled score is in the Low Average range, indicating that his visual memory is lower than expected.

A comparison of Client’s visual working memory (VWMI) to his results on WAIS–IV revealed that he performed within the expected range when compared to his general intellectual functioning.

A comparison of Client’s immediate memory recall (IMI) to his results on the WAIS–IV revealed that he performed significantly outside the expected range when compared to his general intellectual functioning. A comparison of Client’s delayed memory recall results (DMI) to his results on WAIS– IV revealed that he performed significantly outside the expected range when compared to his general intellectual ability. The adjustment of Client’s IMI result by his general intellectual ability (GAI) generated a contrast scale score in the Borderline range, indicating that his immediate memory capacity is much lower than expected. The adjustment of Client’s DMI result by his general intellectual ability (GAI) generated a contrast scale score in the Borderline range, indicating that his delayed memory capacity is much lower than expected.

This report is valid only if signed by a qualified professional:

_______________________________________________

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 9 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

Score Report

WAI S– I V Results

Composite Score Summary

 

 

 

 

 

95%

 

 

Sum of

Composite

Percentile

Confidence

Qualitative

Scale

Scaled Scores

Score

Rank

I nterval

Description

Verbal Comprehension

36

VCI

110

75

104-115

High Average

Perceptual Reasoning

32

PRI

104

61

98-110

Average

Working Memory

22

WMI

105

63

98-111

Average

Processing Speed

15

PSI

86

18

79-96

Low Average

Full Scale

105

FSI Q

103

58

99-107

Average

General Ability

68

GAI

107

68

102-112

Average

Confidence Intervals are based on the Overall Average SEMs. Values reported in the SEM column are based on the examinee’s age.

The GAI is an optional composite summary score that is less sensitive to the influence of working memory and processing speed. Because working memory and processing speed are vital to a comprehensive evaluation of cognitive ability, it should be noted that the GAI does not have the breadth of construct coverage as the FSIQ.

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 10 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

Composite Score Profile

The vertical bars represent the standard error of measurement (SEM).

Composite Scores and

Standard Error

of Measurement

Composite

Score

SEM

VCI

110

2.6

PRI

104

3.35

WMI

105

3.67

PSI

86

4.5

FSI Q

103

2.12

GAI

107

2.6

I ndex Level Discrepancy Comparisons

 

 

 

 

Critical

Significant

 

 

 

 

 

Value

Difference

Base Rate

Comparison

Score 1

Score 2

Difference

.05

Y / N

Overall Sample

VCI - PRI

110

104

6

8.31

N

32.5

VCI - WMI

110

105

5

8.82

N

36.8

VCI - PSI

110

86

24

10.19

Y

7

PRI - WMI

104

105

-1

9.74

N

48

PRI - PSI

104

86

18

11

Y

12.1

WMI - PSI

105

86

19

11.38

Y

10.8

FSI Q - GAI

103

107

-4

3.51

Y

23.8

Base rate by overall sample.

Statistical significance (critical value) at the .05 level.

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 11 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

Verbal Comprehension Subtests Summary

 

Raw

Scaled

Percentile

Reference Group

 

Subtest

Score

Score

Rank

Scaled Score

SEM

Similarities

27

11

63

11

1.08

Vocabulary

45

12

75

13

0.73

I nformation

21

13

84

15

0.67

Perceptual Reasoning Subtests Summary

 

Raw

Scaled

Percentile

Reference Group

 

Subtest

Score

Score

Rank

Scaled Score

SEM

Block Design

32

9

37

7

1.04

Matrix Reasoning

16

11

63

8

0.95

Visual Puzzles

15

12

75

10

0.99

Working Memory Subtests Summary

 

Raw

Scaled

Percentile

Reference Group

 

Subtest

Score

Score

Rank

Scaled Score

SEM

Digit Span

27

10

50

9

0.85

Arithmetic

17

12

75

12

1.04

Processing Speed Subtests Summary

 

Raw

Scaled

Percentile

Reference Group

 

Subtest

Score

Score

Rank

Scaled Score

SEM

Symbol Search

21

7

16

6

1.31

Coding

52

8

25

6

0.99

Subtest Level Discrepancy Comparisons

 

 

 

 

 

Significant

 

 

 

 

 

Critical Value

Difference

Base

Subtest Comparison

Score 1

Score 2

Difference

.05

Y / N

Rate

Digit Span - Arithmetic

10

12

-2

2.57

N

27.8

Symbol Search - Coding

7

8

-1

3.41

N

40.1

Statistical significance (critical value) at the .05 level.

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 12 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

Subtest Scaled Score Profile

The vertical bars represent the standard error of measurement (SEM)

Determining Strengths and Weaknesses

Differences Betw een Subtest and Overall Mean of Subtest Scores

 

Subtest

Mean

 

 

 

 

 

Scaled

Scaled

 

Critical Value

Strength or

Base

Subtest

Score

Score

Difference

.05

Weakness

Rate

Block Design

9

10.50

-1.5

2.85

 

> 25%

Similarities

11

10.50

0.5

2.82

 

> 25%

Digit Span

10

10.50

-0.5

2.22

 

> 25%

Matrix Reasoning

11

10.50

0.5

2.54

 

> 25%

Vocabulary

12

10.50

1.5

2.03

 

> 25%

Arithmetic

12

10.50

1.5

2.73

 

> 25%

Symbol Search

7

10.50

-3.5

3.42

W

10-15%

Visual Puzzles

12

10.50

1.5

2.71

 

> 25%

I nformation

13

10.50

2.5

2.19

S

15-25%

Coding

8

10.50

-2.5

2.97

 

25%

Overall: Mean = 10.5, Scatter = 6, Base rate = 68.4.

 

 

 

 

Base Rate for Intersubtest Scatter is reported for 10 Full Scale Subtests.

 

 

 

Statistical significance (critical value) at the .05 level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

 

Client A

 

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

 

Page 13 of 20

 

 

All rights reserved.

 

 

 

Working Memory Process Score Summary

 

Raw

Scaled

Percentile

Base

 

Process Score

Score

Score

Rank

Rate

SEM

Digit Span Forward

9

9

37

--

1.44

Digit Span Backward

9

11

63

--

1.27

Digit Span Sequencing

9

11

63

--

1.37

Process Level Discrepancy Comparisons

 

 

 

 

Critical

Significant

 

 

 

 

 

Value

Difference

Base

Process Comparison

Score 1

Score 2

Difference

.05

Y / N

Rate

Digit Span Forward - Digit Span Backward

9

11

-2

3.65

N

31.5

Digit Span Forward - Digit Span Sequencing

9

11

-2

3.6

N

31.7

Digit Span Backward - Digit Span Sequencing

11

11

0

3.56

N

 

Statistical significance (critical value) at the .05 level.

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 14 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

WMS– I V Results

Brief Cognitive Status Exam Classification

Age

Years of Education

Raw Score

Classification Level

Base Rate

62 years 4 months

16

52

Low Average

22.1

I ndex Score Summary

 

 

 

 

 

95%

 

 

Sum of

 

 

 

Confidence

 

I ndex

Scaled Scores

I ndex Score

Percentile Rank

I nterval

Qualitative Description

Auditory Memory

31

AMI

87

19

81-94

Low Average

Visual Memory

31

VMI

86

18

81-92

Low Average

Visual Working Memory

19

VWMI

97

42

90-104

Average

I mmediate Memory

32

I MI

86

18

80-93

Low Average

Delayed Memory

30

DMI

82

12

76-90

Low Average

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 15 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

I ndex Score Profile

 

I ndex Scores and

 

 

Standard Error of

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measurement

 

 

 

I ndex

Score

SEM

 

 

AMI

87

3.35

 

 

VMI

86

3

 

 

VWMI

97

3.97

 

 

I MI

86

3.67

 

 

DMI

82

3.67

The vertical bars represent the standard error of measurement (SEM).

Primary Subtest Scaled Score Summary

Subtest

Domain

Raw Score

Scaled Score

Percentile Rank

Logical Memory I

AM

21

8

25

Logical Memory I I

AM

14

7

16

Verbal Paired Associates I

AM

27

9

37

Verbal Paired Associates I I

AM

6

7

16

Designs I

VM

50

7

16

Designs I I

VM

45

8

25

Visual Reproduction I

VM

29

8

25

Visual Reproduction I I

VM

16

8

25

Spatial Addition

VWM

10

9

37

Symbol Span

VWM

22

10

50

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 16 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

Primary Subtest Scaled Score Profile

Process Score Conversions

Visual Memory Process Score Summary

 

 

 

 

Cumulative Percentage

Process Score

Raw Score

Scaled Score

Percentile Rank

( Base Rate)

DE I Content

35

10

50

-

DE I Spatial

11

6

9

-

DE I I Content

24

6

9

-

DE I I Spatial

13

11

63

-

Subtest - Level Differences Within I ndexes

Auditory Memory I ndex

 

 

AMI Mean

 

 

 

Subtest

Scaled Score

Score

Difference from Mean

Critical Value

Base Rate

Logical Memory I

8

7.75

0.25

2.64

> 25%

Logical Memory I I

7

7.75

-0.75

2.48

> 25%

Verbal Paired Associates I

9

7.75

1.25

1.90

> 25%

Verbal Paired Associates I I

7

7.75

-0.75

2.48

> 25%

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 17 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

Statistical significance (critical value) at the .05 level.

Visual Memory I ndex

 

 

VMI Mean

 

 

 

Subtest

Scaled Score

Score

Difference from Mean

Critical Value

Base Rate

Designs I

7

7.75

-0.75

2.38

> 25%

Designs I I

8

7.75

0.25

2.38

> 25%

Visual Reproduction I

8

7.75

0.25

1.86

> 25%

Visual Reproduction I I

8

7.75

0.25

1.48

> 25%

Statistical significance (critical value) at the .05 level.

I mmediate Memory I ndex

 

 

I MI Mean

 

 

 

Subtest

Scaled Score

Score

Difference from Mean

Critical Value

Base Rate

Logical Memory I

8

8.00

0.00

2.59

> 25%

Verbal Paired Associates I

9

8.00

1.00

1.82

> 25%

Designs I

7

8.00

-1.00

2.42

> 25%

Visual Reproduction I

8

8.00

0.00

1.91

> 25%

Statistical significance (critical value) at the .05 level.

Delayed Memory I ndex

 

 

DMI Mean

 

 

 

Subtest

Scaled Score

Score

Difference from Mean

Critical Value

Base Rate

Logical Memory I I

7

7.50

-0.50

2.44

> 25%

Verbal Paired Associates I I

7

7.50

-0.50

2.44

> 25%

Designs I I

8

7.50

0.50

2.44

> 25%

Visual Reproduction I I

8

7.50

0.50

1.57

> 25%

Statistical significance (critical value) at the .05 level.

Subtest Discrepancy Comparison

Comparison

Score 1

Score 2

Difference

Critical Value

Base Rate

Spatial Addition – Symbol Span

9

10

-1

2.74

85.9

Statistical significance (critical value) at the .05 level.

Subtest - Level Contrast Scaled Scores

Logical Memory

Score

Score 1

Score 2

Contrast Scaled Score

LM I mmediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall

8

7

7

Verbal Paired Associates

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 18 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

Score

Score 1

Score 2

Contrast Scaled Score

VPA I mmediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall

9

7

6

Designs

Score

Score 1

Score 2

Contrast Scaled Score

DE I Spatial vs. Content

6

10

12

DE I I Spatial vs. Content

11

6

5

DE I mmediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall

7

8

10

Visual Reproduction

Score

Score 1

Score 2

Contrast Scaled Score

VR I mmediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall

8

8

9

I ndex- Level Contrast Scaled Scores

WMS– I V I ndexes

Score

Score 1

Score 2

Contrast Scaled Score

Auditory Memory I ndex vs. Visual Memory I ndex

87

86

8

Visual Working Memory I ndex vs. Visual Memory I ndex

97

86

7

I mmediate Memory I ndex vs. Delayed Memory I ndex

86

82

7

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 19 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

Ability- Memory Analysis

Ability Score Type: GAI

Ability Score: 107

Predicted Difference Method

 

Predicted

Actual WMS–

 

 

Significant

 

 

WMS– I V

I V I ndex

 

 

Difference

Base

I ndex

I ndex Score

Score

Difference

Critical Value

Y / N

Rate

Auditory Memory

104

87

17

8.95

Y

10%

Visual Memory

104

86

18

8.82

Y

5-10%

Visual Working Memory

105

97

8

11.24

N

 

I mmediate Memory

105

86

19

10.35

Y

5%

Delayed Memory

104

82

22

10.08

Y

4%

Statistical significance (critical value) at the .01 level.

Contrast Scaled Scores

Score

Score 1

Score 2

Contrast Scaled Score

General Ability I ndex vs. Auditory Memory I ndex

107

87

6

General Ability I ndex vs. Visual Memory I ndex

107

86

5

General Ability I ndex vs. Visual Working Memory I ndex

107

97

8

General Ability I ndex vs. I mmediate Memory I ndex

107

86

5

General Ability I ndex vs. Delayed Memory I ndex

107

82

5

Verbal Comprehension I ndex vs. Auditory Memory I ndex

110

87

6

Perceptual Reasoning I ndex vs. Visual Memory I ndex

104

86

6

Perceptual Reasoning I ndex vs. Visual Working Memory I ndex

104

97

9

Working Memory I ndex vs. Auditory Memory I ndex

105

87

7

Working Memory I ndex vs. Visual Working Memory I ndex

105

97

8

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 20 of 20

All rights reserved.