Newton Public Schools
Elementary
Newtonville, MA
Student Name: XX XXX
Teacher Name:
Grade: Second
Date of Birth:
Date of Evaluation:
Age: 8 years, 1 month
Parent(s)/Guardian(s):
Phone: (617)
Type of Assessment: Educational
Evaluator:
Point in Cycle: Initial Evaluation
Title: Learning Center Teacher
Reason for Referral
XX is currently a second grader at the Horace Mann School. XX has demonstrated some
difficulties in mathematics, and her teacher reports that she has difficulty understanding
directions. XX sometimes has difficulty completing homework. She has been provided
small group interventions in first and second grade.
Assessment Instruments
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA-II)
Gray Oral Reading Test-Fourth Edition
Test of Early Mathematics Ability
Behavioral Observations:
XX was somewhat familiar with the examiner and came willingly for her test sessions.
She appeared well motivated, refused breaks, and did not require redirection. Conversely,
XX appeared to have difficulty holding verbal information in working memory. In both
reading and listening comprehension, she had difficulty recalling facts, and she was better
able to answer multiple-choice questions when compared to open responses. These
evaluation results are deemed to be an accurate representation of her academic skills.
XXX, XX – Confidential
2
Assessment Descriptions and Evaluation Results:
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition (KTEA-II)
Is an individually administered measure of academic achievement for ages 4 ½ through 25. The
Comprehensive Form is a curriculum-based instrument that is norm-referenced and, through its error
analysis systems, criterion-referenced assessment in the domains of reading, mathematics, written
language, and oral language. All seven specific learning disability areas identified in t IDEA, 1997) are
measured: basic reading skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, mathematics reasoning,
oral expression, listening comprehension, and written expression. Subtests were developed to have similar
formats to enable useful comparisons to be made between each pair of subtests. These comparisons help the
examiner distinguish specific problems in reading or writing form more general language problems. The
KTEA-II was normed using two separate representative, nationwide standardizations, one in the fall and
one in the spring. This procedure was implemented to accurately measure students’ performance both at the
beginning and end of the year.
Following are the subtests scores (8-12 is the average range) and standard scores (greater than 130 = Upper
Extreme; 116-130 = Above Average; 85-115 = Average; 70-84 = Below Average; below 70 = Lower
Extreme). The corresponding percentile ranks are also listed (50 = average):
Letter & Word Recognition
Reading Comprehension
Math Concepts and Applications
Math Computation
Written Expression
Spelling
Listening Comprehension
Oral Expression
Reading Related Subtests
Phonological Awareness
Nonsense Word Decoding
Word Recognition Fluency
Decoding Fluency
Associational Fluency
Naming Facility
Standard Score
%ile
Composites
102 (99-105)
91 (86-96)
90 (84-96)
87 (81-93)
101 (92-110)
101 (96-106)
91 (81-101)
105 (94-116)
55%
27%
25%
19%
53%
53%
27%
63%
Reading
95 (86-104)
102 (96-108)
97 (88-106)
95 (88-102)
107 (95-119)
102 (94-110)
37%
55%
42%
37%
68%
55%
Standard Score
%ile
95 (130-140)
99%
87 (82-92)
19%
101 (95-107)
53%
Oral Language
97 (88-106)
42%
Composite:
91 (87-125)
42%
98 (91-105)
95 (89-101)
102 (98-106)
105 (96-114)
45%
37%
55%
63%
Math
Written Language
Sound Symbol
Reading Fluency
Decoding
Oral Fluency
The results indicate that XX has earned a comprehensive composite score that is in the
lower end of the average range. XX’s strongest composite score was in Written
Language, which fell well within average, and her area of weakness was in Math, with a
composite score that was barely within the average range. In reading skills, XX
demonstrated well developed word recognition and decoding skills. XX performed
slightly lower in timed reading tasks, but the difference is not statistically significant. The
other composite score that involves timed tasks (Oral Fluency) was well within average.
Reading and Listening Comprehension scores were equal and fall in the lower end of the
average range.
In the Reading subtests, XX displayed average skill in reading isolated words and in
decoding nonsense words in an untimed task. She also scored within the average range
when reading real and nonsense words under timed conditions. XX scored less well in
reading comprehension. She scored well within the average range in other reading related
XXX, XX – Confidential
3
composites and subtests including Sound-symbol associations, Decoding and Reading
Fluency. More specifically, in Letter and Word Recognition, she was able to decode
words such as couple, blossomed, meant, and acceptable. Among her errors were kneel,
several, conductor, and guarded. She performed in the average range in timed and
untimed nonsense word decoding. She decoded nonsense words such as dompest,
bloundering, and frapperless. XX scored in the average range for phonological skills, but
she had difficulty choosing one word that did not rhyme with other words. She seemed to
have difficulty holding the items in memory and chose the last word spoken. In Reading
Comprehension, she seemed to answer quickly and was unable to inferences when
information was not directly stated. XX was allowed to reread text but did not use this
strategy to make sure her answer was correct.
In math skills, XX’s composite score falls in the lower end of the average range with
equally well-developed skills in both word problem solving and computation. XX
demonstrated low average problem-solving and logical thinking in the Math Concepts
and Applications subtest, solving an addition word problem, telling time to hour and half
hour, ordering numbers from smallest to largest, computing with money, and number
concepts. She had difficulty with a subtraction word problem and translating a pictured
word problem into a number sentence. In computation, XX was able to solve most oneand two-digit addition and subtraction problems with no regrouping. She made one odd
error: 8-4 = 1, and a more common error of subtracting “up” in 16-9 = 13.
XX scored well within the average range in written language composite. Her individual
responses indicated strong skills in capitalization and average skill employing
punctuation. The second section of the written expression subtest requires the student to
retell a story in ten minutes. XX earned the maximum number of points for length,
sentence construction, subject matter, and main point, but lost points for logical flow and
sequence. She did not have evidence of planning. Her written retell follows:
Since we fell
out of the mover
van every thingwas
going bad but than
it got better.
Now are new
home is at a school
so thank you
for bumpink us off
cause now we
have a great
Plase to
live. First
it started at
the libary but
than the libarey in cicted (kicked)
us out so thank you
XXX, XX – Confidential
4
a lot for doing that.
Spelling skills fall in the average range. In the spelling subtest, XX demonstrated mastery
of words such as graded, dressing, phone, reached, and while. She wrote dry as drie,
omitted the apostrophe in both don’t and she’s, and she wrote whood for would.
XX displayed lower average ability in Oral Language. In the Listening Comprehension
subtest, XX had difficulty recalling information and make inferences after listening to
short paragraphs of story structures and nonfiction information. In comparison to
Listening Comprehension, her oral expression skills were in the higher end of the average
range. XX did well describing actions in a series of pictures, and she was able to
construct a compound sentence. She had difficulty combining two sentences into one
sentence that preserved the information in both sentences. She also had difficulty
incorporating “although” or “in spite of” when asked to devise a new sentence structure.
Gray Oral Reading Test-4
The GORT-4 is a norm-referenced, reliable, and valid test of oral reading rate, accuracy, fluency and
comprehension. It is designed to identify students who are significantly below their peers in oral reading
proficiency and who may profit from supplemental help, and to aid in determining the particular kinds of
reading strengths and weaknesses that individual students possess. This instrument requires the student to
read paragraphs of increasing difficulty. Oral reading is timed to measure rate and scored for accuracy. The
rate and accuracy scores are then combined to generate a fluency score. After each paragraph is read, the
student chooses from five multiple choice questions to measure comprehension. Subtest scores from 8 to 12
are in the Average range. The Total Score is expressed as a Standard Score (90-110 is average) and
Percentiles (25%-75% is average).
Results:
Rate
Accuracy
Fluency
Comprehension
Total Score
Standard Score
11
10
10
10
100
Percentile
63%
50%
50%
50%
50%
This test instrument shows that XX earned an overall score in the average range. Fluency
and comprehension were evenly developed. Her comprehension score is higher than the
results of the KTEA Reading comprehension subtest. The GORT-IV does not allow the
student to look back at text, but the multiple choice options are listed and read by the
examiner. This may have helped her consider the options before answering. Also, XX
was allowed to but did not reread and refer back to text on the KTEA.
Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA)
The TEMA-3 is a norm-referenced, reliable, and valid test of early mathematical ability
that is appropriate for children of ages 3 years 0 months through 8 years 11 months. The
TEMA-3 has two parallel forms, form A and form B, each containing 72 items. The
TEMA-3 yields a raw score, age equivalent, grade equivalent, percentile rank, and Math
Ability Score (standard score).
XXX, XX – Confidential
5
Percentile Standard Score Standard Score Range
32%
93
90-96
These test results indicate that XX earned a score in the lower end of the average range,
which is commensurate to her performance on the KTEA math composite score. XX lost
points primarily for those items that required a response in less than three seconds in
order to measure fact fluency. Otherwise, she was able to answer the items that are
covered in the second grade curriculum so far. This outcome indicates that she has
relatively good number sense for numbers through the hundreds. The items are designed
to determine if she has internalized a number line, which is evident. She was able to
count by tens above 100, determine which two numbers are close, how many tens are in
100 and how many 100s in 1,000. XX was able to 2-digit addition and knows the
appropriate way to set up a 2-digit subtraction example.
Summary of Results:
XX is a cooperative second grader who is performing at the lower end of the average
range in academic skills. Written language skills are an area of strength, and math skills
are her weakest area, with less well developed computation and problem-solving skills.
XX’s word reading and decoding skills are intact, and her speed and fluency are average.
XX’s reading and listening comprehension scores are less well developed. XX seems to
have difficulty holding verbal information in working memory, and this outcome should
be compared to her working memory and verbal comprehension as measured by the
school psychologist and speech/language pathologist.
Recommendations:
1. XX will benefit from activities that require her to locate (underline, highlight)
directly stated information in text in order to answer literal comprehension
questions.
2. XX’s current performance in mathematics indicates that she will need additional
practice and instruction to better master word problem solving and multi-digit
computation.
3. The team should compare the academic results to those of the psychologist and
speech/language pathologist to determine to degree to which working memory
and verbal comprehension impact XX’s academic achievement.
It was truly pleasure to work with XX during this evaluation. Please contact me at 617559- should you have any questions or comments.
________________________
Learning Center Teacher