Michael D. Matthews,
Ed.D.
Superintendent
Board of Trustees
Jennifer Cochran
Cathy Graves
Jason Boxer
Jen Fenton
Sally Peel
Irene GonzalezManhattan Beach
Castillo, Ed.D.
Unified School District
Assistant
Superintendent,
Student Services
(310) 318-7345, Ext.
5913
FAX: (310) 303-3826
325 South Peck Avenue • Manhattan Beach • California 90266 • (310) 318-7345 • FAX (310)
303-3822
MANHATTAN BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
ACADEMIC FUNCTIONING REPORT
STUDENT’S NAME:
DATE OF BIRTH:
CA: Years Months
SCHOOL:
GRADE:
ASSESSMENT DATE:
EXAMINER:
TESTS ADMINISTERED: Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Fourth Edition (WIAT-4)
TEST BEHAVIOR:
XXXX was assessed with the WIAT-4 over two afternoon sessions. XXXX came to each testing
session willingly and presented with a friendly demeanor. Although offered frequent breaks,
XXXX would usually choose to continue onto the next task or subtest. XXXX appeared
confident when responding to prompts orally and appeared to work carefully and reviewed her
work when completing written prompts.
WIAT- 4 SUBTESTS
STANDARD
SCORE
PERCENTILE
DESCRIPTOR
Pseudoword decoding
Word Reading
Reading Comprehension
Oral Reading Fluency
1
Phonemic Proficiency
Decoding Fluency
Orthographic Fluency
Reading Composite
Basic Reading Composite
Decoding Composite
Orthographic Processing
Composite
Phonological Processing
Composite
Spelling
Sentence Combination
Sentence Building
Essay
Written Expression
Composite
Numerical Operations
Math Problem Solving
Math Composite
Receptive Vocabulary
Oral Discourse Comp.
Listening Comprehension
Expressive Vocabulary
Oral Word Fluency
Sentence Repetition
Oral Expression
INTERPRETATION OF TEST RESULTS:
XXXX was administered the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Fourth Edition (WIAT-4)
to assess her academic achievement or developed knowledge from her educational experiences.
The WIAT-4 test includes seventeen subtests that measure Listening, Orthographic Processing,
Reading, Written Language, Oral Expression, and Mathematics skills. The WIAT-4 scores show
how well XXXX did compared to a group of students at the same grade level from across the
United States. Scores on this test that have a mean of 100; from 90 to 110 are considered
average. Detailed information regarding each composite score and subtest is explained in the
following paragraphs.
READING:
Word Reading. The Word Reading subtest from the WIAT-4 is designed to measure letter and
letter-sound knowledge and single word reading. In Part 1 examinees identify letters and match
letters to sounds. In Part 2, examinees read aloud a list of regular and irregular words. XXXX’s
ability in Word Reading was in the average range and at the 30th percentile. Some words that
XXXX was able to read successfully include: radiant, interject, garnish, tough, ruin, budge,
photograph and manage.
Some errors observed included reading a replacement word with similar beginning sounds and
word parts. For example, she read chore for choir, disconnect for distance, and playful for
playfully. Additional errors included reading coast-en for custodian, rel-ish-ous for ridiculous,
sec-ur-il-y for surgery, and rime-ee for rhyme.
Reading Comprehension. The Reading Comprehension subtest from the WIAT-4 measures
reading comprehension skills at the level of the word, sentence, and passage. Early items require
examinees to match pictures with words to demonstrate comprehension. Sentence-level
comprehension items require examinees to read a sentence and then answer literal questions
about it. To measure passage comprehension, examinees read narrative and expository passages
and answer literal and inferential comprehension questions asked by the examiner. Examinees
can refer to the passage as needed to answer the questions. XXXX opted to read the selections
silently. XXXX scored in the average range and at the 34th percentile on the Reading
Comprehension subtest. XXXX answered seven out of twelve (58%) of the literal questions
correctly, and seven out of eight (88%) of the inferential questions correctly. She responded to
all questions about narrative text correctly. Her six errors were responses to questions for an
expository passage.
Oral Reading Fluency. For the Oral Reading Fluency subtest from the WIAT-4, examinees read
two passages aloud. The subtest standard score is based on the average number of words read
correctly per minute across the two passages. Examinees answer a comprehension question after
reading each passage to encourage reading with comprehension, but comprehension does not
factor into the score. XXXX responded to one of the two reading comprehension questions
correctly. XXXX scored in the average range and at the 30th percentile for the oral reading
fluency subtest. XXXX read passages with an average of 87% accuracy and an average of 75
words correct per minute.
Pseudoword Decoding. The Pseudoword Decoding subtest from the WIAT-4 is designed to
measure phonic decoding skills. Examinees read aloud a list of pseudowords. XXXX performed
in the low average range of functioning and the 18th percentile.
Examples of words read correctly include: caft, plid, droy, snay, dreep, rith, and sluck.
Sound insertions were observed in some errors. For example, XXXX read “jroom,” for “joom;”
“lirist,” for “lirst;” and “glatch-t,” for “glatch.” Another error was substituting a long vowel for a
short vowel, for example she read “cheed,” for “ched.”
Decoding Fluency. The Decoding Fluency subtest is designed to measure phonic decoding
fluency. Examinees read aloud a list of pseudowords as quickly as possible during two timed
trials. XXXX scored within the average range and the 25th percentile. She was able to read an
average of …..pseudowords correctly in thirty seconds.
Orthographic Fluency. The Orthographic Fluency subtest from the WIAT-4 is designed to
measure an examinee’s orthographic lexicon, or sight vocabulary. Examinees read aloud a list of
irregular words as quickly as possible during two timed trials. XXXX scored in the average
range and at the 30th percentile on this subtest. She was able to read an average of ….words
correctly in thirty seconds.
Phonemic Proficiency. The Phonemic Proficiency subtest from the WIAT-4 measures the
development of phonological/phonemic skills. Examinees respond orally to items that require
manipulation of sounds within words. Tasks include elision, substitution, and reversal of sounds.
Items are presented via audio recording. Corrective feedback is provided by the examiner on all
items, and scoring incorporates both speed and accuracy.
XXXX performed within the average range and the 47th percentile on the Phonemic Proficiency
subtest. XXXX answered fifteen out of eighteen of the elision prompts correctly. Of the fifteen
correct, fourteen were instant responses. She answered ten out of twelve of the substitution
prompts correctly, of which six were instant responses. XXXX’s response to four out of eight
reversal prompts were correct, however none of the reversal responses were instant.
Reading Composite. XXXX scored in the average range and in the 27th percentile for the overall
Reading Composite (which was composed of XXXX’s WIAT-4 Word Reading and Reading
Comprehension subtests).
The Decoding Composite, assesses for phonemic awareness and phonics skills and is comprised
of XXXX’s WIAT-4 Pseudoword Decoding and Word Reading scores. XXXX’s Decoding
Composite was in the low average range and the 19th percentile.
The Phonological Processing Composite assesses for the ability to use the sounds of language
(i.e., phonemes) to process spoken and written language. This composite is composed of the
WIAT-4 Pseudoword Decoding and Phonemic Proficiency subtests. XXXX’s Phonological
Processing Composite was in the average range and at the 27th percentile.
The Orthographic Processing Composite assesses for the ability to accurately recognize familiar
letter patterns either as whole words or within words and is comprised of XXXX’s Orthographic
Fluency and Spelling Subtests. XXXX’s Orthographic Processing Composite was in the average
range and at the 32nd percentile.
Dyslexia Index. The Dyslexia Index analyzes the examinee’s WIAT-4 Pseudoword Decoding,
Orthographic Fluency, and Word Reading subtests and generates a score that indicates the
examinee’s risk for Dyslexia. XXXX’s risk for Dyslexia was noted to be in the low range.
WRITTEN LANGUAGE:
Spelling. The Spelling subtest from the WIAT-4 measures written spelling from dictation.
Examinees write words that are dictated within the context of a sentence. For early items,
examinees write letters that represent sounds. XXXX scored in the low average range and at the
14th percentile in spelling. Examples of items spelled correctly include: known, camped, windy,
began, page, night, and mother.
Errors observed included, difficulty with affix patterns, (for example -tion, sus-, -ily) and
swapping short vowel and consonant sounds. For example, she wrote: colachon, for collection,
staconary, for stationary, haple for happily, and sucpact for suspect.
Sentence Composition. The Sentence Composition subtest from the WIAT-4 is designed to
measure sentence formulation skills. Responses are scored based on semantics, grammar,
capitalization, and use of internal and ending punctuation. It included two component scores:
 Sentence Building: Examinees write sentences that include a target word.
 Sentence Combining: Examinees combine ideas from two or three given sentences into
one sentence.
XXXX’s score for Sentence Building was in the high average range and at the 87th percentile.
Seven out of eight of XXXX’s sentence building prompts were scorable. One was not scorable
due to using the target word incorrectly. (She used “an,” in the context of “and.”
XXXX earned points in the area of semantics and grammar for seven out of seven scorable
prompts.
Out of seven scorable prompts, XXXX correctly applied capitalization to seven prompts, ending
punctuation for six prompts, and internal punctuation rules to seven prompts.
XXXX’s score for Sentence Combining was in the high average range and at the 84th percentile.
Five out of six responses met the criteria for scoring. XXXX earned credit for semantics on five
out of five scorable prompts, and in grammar for four out of five scorable prompts. In addition,
she earned extra credit points on four prompts for writing complex sentences. In terms of
mechanics she earned points for correct ending punctuation on five out of five scorable prompts.
She had one error for capitalization and one error for internal punctuation due to a missing
comma.
Essay Composition. The Essay Composition subtest from the WIAT-4 is designed to measure
spontaneous writing fluency at the discourse level. Examinees are asked to write a descriptive
expository essay within a 10-minute time limit. Essays are scored for semantics, grammar and
mechanics. Content and organization are also evaluated using a qualitative rubric. XXXX’s
Essay Composition score was in the low average range and at the 14th percentile. The following
is an analysis of what XXXX wrote in response to the prompt, “Write about your favorite game
and include at least three reasons why you like it.”
Introduction: XXXX began to address the topic prompt by writing:
I have a arcad in my tree house I like it because I have a lot of games to <choose>
from…it has my favorite game (Dig dug)
Conclusion: XXXX did not have a conclusion statement.
Paragraphs: XXXX did not earn points for paragraphing and she wrote one run-on sentence.
Transitions: XXXX used the transitions first, next, and last.
Reasons Why: XXXX did provide one reason why “Dig dug” is her favorite game.
 because it’s so much fun.
.
Elaborations or Supports: XXXX did not have any elaborations or supports for why she thinks
“Dig dug” is a fun game.
Written Language Composite. The Written Language Composite is based on XXXX’s
performance on the WIAT-4’s Spelling Subtest, Essay Composition Subtest, and the two
Sentence Composition Subtests. XXXX scored in the average range and at the 66th percentile for
the Written Language Composite.
MATHEMATICS:
Math Problem Solving. The WIAT-4 Math Problem Solving subtest measures a range of math
problem-solving skill domains including basic concepts, everyday applications, geometry, and
algebra. Examinees point to pictures or respond orally to items that require the application of
mathematical principles to real life situations. XXXX scored in the high average range and at the
77th percentile on the Math Problem Solving Subtest.
Items noted as correct included interpreting graphs and calendars, measuring objects, making and
ordering fractions and solving probability problems.
Items noted as incorrect included solving some single as well as mixed operation word problems,
finding the average of a set of numbers, solving fraction word problems and converting fractions
to decimals.
Numerical Operations. The WIAT-4 Numerical Operations subtest measures math calculation
skills. For early items, examinees respond orally to questions about number concepts and
counting. For later items, examinees write answers to printed math problems ranging from basic
operations with integers to geometry, algebra, and calculus problems. XXXX scored in the
average range and at the 27th percentile.
Items noted as correct included adding and subtracting up to two-digit numbers without
regrouping, and multiplying single digit numbers.
Items noted as incorrect included addition and subtraction of two-and-three digit numbers with
regrouping (particularly regrouping subtraction with 0’s), and single division facts.
Mathematics Composite. XXXX scored in the average range and at the 53rd percentile for the
overall Math Composite (which was composed of XXXX’s WIAT-4 Math Problem Solving and
Numerical Operations subtests).
LISTENING COMPREHENSION:
The WIAT-4 Listening Comprehension subtest is designed to measure listening comprehension
at the level of the word, sentence, and passage. The subtest included two component scores:
 Receptive Vocabulary: Examinees select the picture that best illustrates the meaning of
the target word spoken by the examiner.
 Oral Discourse Comprehension: Examinees listen to passages presented via audio
recording and then respond aloud to comprehension questions asked by the examiner.
XXXX’s score for Receptive Vocabulary was found to be in the low average range and at the
16th percentile. XXXX’s score for Oral Discourse Comprehension was in the average range
and at the 34th percentile. XXXX’s overall Listening Comprehension score was in the low
average range and at the 21st percentile.
ORAL EXPRESSION:
The WIAT-4 Oral Expression subtest is designed to measure oral expression at the level of the
word and sentence. It includes three component scores:
 Expressive Vocabulary: Examinees see a picture and hear a definition and then say the
word that best corresponds to the picture and the definition.
 Oral Word Fluency: Examinees name as many things as possible belonging to a given
category within 60 seconds.
 Sentence Repetition: Examinees listen to a sentence and then repeat it verbatim.
Sentences increase in length and complexity.
 XXXX’s score for Expressive Vocabulary was in the average range and at the 70th
percentile. XXXX’s Oral Word Fluency was in the average range and at the 58th
percentile. Her Sentence Repetition score was in the average range and was at the 45th
percentile. XXXX’s overall Oral Expression score was in the average range and at the
58th percentile.
CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE:
Current Grades:
Religion - 92%. B+
Reading - 89%. B
Language - 96%. A
Spelling - 82%. C+
Math - 94%. AScience - 99%. A
Social Studies - 100%. A
XXXX’s third grade teacher from American Martyrs reports that XXXX is “an angelic little girl”
who works extremely hard. Her teacher’s biggest academic area of concern is spelling, and
notes that despite XXXX’s consistent effort she still struggles in spelling. Her third grade
teacher notes that she is doing well and meeting expectations in all other subject areas. Socially,
her teacher reports that XXXX is a good friend to others and works well with others in small and
larger groups. Her teacher commented that “one of her biggest strengths is her persistence - she
never gives up!”
CONCLUSION:
In summary, XXXX was administered the WIAT- 4 to assess her academic skills.
In the area of reading, XXXX performed in the average range of functioning for the following
WIAT-4 subtest areas: Word Reading, Phonemic Proficiency, Oral Reading Fluency,
Orthographic Fluency and Reading Comprehension. She was in the low average range for
pseudoword decoding. Her teacher reports that she is meeting grade level expectations in reading
and is currently earning a B.
With regards to writing XXXX scored within the average range for the WIAT-4 spelling subtest.
She was in the high average range for both sentence writing subtests. XXXX’s essay writing
score was in the low average range. Her third-grade teacher expressed concerns for XXXX’s
spelling. She is currently earning an A in writing (Language).
With regards to math, XXXX scored in the above average range for the WIAT-4 Math Problem
Solving and the average range for the Numerical Operations subtest. Her third-grade teacher
reports that she is meeting grade level expectations in math and is currently earning an A-.
In the area of Listening Comprehension, XXXX scored in the low average range for the
Expressive Language subtest and the average range for the Oral Discourse Comprehension
subtest. Her overall listening comprehension is in the low average range of functioning.
In the area of Oral Comprehension, XXXX scored in the average range for the Expressive
Vocabulary, Oral Word Fluency and Sentence Repetition subtests. Overall oral expression was
found to be in the average range of functioning.
It is recommended that XXXX’s team meet to review assessments and discuss any supports that
may be necessary to ensure success within the general education classroom settings and provide
access to the core curriculum.
It was my pleasure working with XXXX.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________________
, Education Specialist
___________________
Date