Write-Ups and Decision Points
1) EXPLAIN YOUR METHOD. We use XBA and CHC, so put that down, as well as a citation
for where the reader can go to get more information on this. Unless you want to make it up
as you go along and have nothing to back you up, include a paragraph about the method
used.
2) SOMEWHERE, put what tests were given, when were they given, and who gave them.
PLEASE, do not ramble on and on about the test. Nobody cares about the test (i.e., who
published it, when was it published, the norm sample). In your introduction, you should put
the FULL name of the test and the abbreviation you can but in parenthesis (e.g., “WoodcockJohnson III Tests of Cognitive Ability (WJ-III COG)”) and after that you can refer to the
abbreviation only.
We are going to use “Glr” and associated narrow abilities as placeholders. The SAME
procedures would apply to MOST broad areas (Gf, Glr, Gc, Gv).
1. Give a test of Glr-MM (Story Recall). Story Recall = 100
a. Give a test of Glr-MA. Visual-Auditory Learning.
i. Visual-Auditory Learning (Glr-MA) = 90
1. Cohesive, and follow-up not needed. Use the battery composite or
CHC Tab Composite. No divergent score.
2. Strengths-USE STATEMENT ALPHA. Put the composite in the
PSW-A.
3. Weaknesses-N/A
4. END.
ii. OR Visual-Auditory Learning (Glr-MA) = 70
1. Not cohesive, follow up with another measure of Glr-MA, Atlantis
(for example).
a. Atlantis (Glr-MA) = 90
i. DMIA CHC Tab Composite = 94
1. Made up of Story Recall (Glr-MM) and
Atlantis (Glr-MA). Because you have two
different narrow Glr abilities, the Composite
of 94 is BROAD Glr.
2. Visual-Auditory Learning = 70 is the
divergent score. Put a sticky on it.
3. Strengths-USE STATEMENT BRAVO.
Put composite in PSW-A.
4. Weaknesses-N/A
5. END
Provided by Robert Misak, MA, MEd, LSSP
robertmisak@me.com
Do not duplicate or distribute without permission
©2014
b. OR Atlantis (Glr-MA) = 65
i. DMIA CHC Tab Composite = 63
ii. Made up of Visual-Auditory Learning (Glr-MA) and
Atlantis (Glr-MA). Because they measure the same
Glr narrow ability, the Composite of 63 is NARROW
Glr-MA.
iii. Story Recall is the divergent score. Do NOT throw
away, since it is indicative of intact functioning.
iv. Is Glr good with a weakness in Glr-MA, or is Glr bad
with a strength in Glr-MM? We don’t know with the
data we have in front of us, so…
v. Give a measure of a THIRD Glr narrow, Glr-NA
(example) (WISC-IV Naming Speed Literacy).
1. Naming Speed Literacy (Glr-NA) = 107
a. TWO Composites
i. Composite A = 63
ii. It is made up of Visual-Auditory
Learning
(Glr-MA)
and
Naming Speed Literacy (GlrNA). Because they are the
same narrow, the Composite of
63 is narrow (Glr-MA)
iii. Composite B = 104
iv. It is made up of Story Recall
(Glr-MM) and Naming Speed
Literacy (Glr-NA). Because
they are different narrows, the
Composite of 104 is broad Glr.
Put composite in PSW-A.
b. Strengths-USE
STATEMENT
CHARLIE ONE. Put the broad
Composite of 104 in the PSW-A.
c. Weaknesses- USE STATEMENT
CHARLIE TWO.
d. END
Provided by Robert Misak, MA, MEd, LSSP
robertmisak@me.com
Do not duplicate or distribute without permission
©2014
2. OR Naming Speed Literacy (Glr-NA) = 74
a. Composite A = 63
b. It is made up of Visual-Auditory
Learning (Glr-MA), Atlantis (Glr-MA),
and Naming Speed Literacy (GlrNA). Because they are measures of
two different narrows (Glr-MA and
Glr-NA), the Composite of 63 is broad
Glr. Put composite in PSW-A.
c. The divergent score is 100 (Story
Recall, Glr-MM). Again, it is WNL so
you can’t throw it away. MOST of Glr
is low, but the student does have
intact ability in the narrow Glr-MM
ability.
d. Strengths-USE
STATEMENT
DELTA ONE. Put the composite of 63
in the PSW-A.
e. Weaknesses-USE
STATEMENT
DELTA TWO.
f. END
2. OR Give a test of Glr-MM (Story Recall). Story Recall = 70
a. Give a test of Glr-MA (example). Visual-Auditory Learning.
i. Visual-Auditory Learning (Glr-MA) = 90. See 1(a)(ii).
ii. OR Visual-Auditory Learning (Glr-MA) = 70
1. Cohesive, no follow-up necessary.
2. Strengths-NA
3. Weaknesses-USE STATEMENT ECHO.
4. END.
Provided by Robert Misak, MA, MEd, LSSP
robertmisak@me.com
Do not duplicate or distribute without permission
©2014
Intellectual functioning was assessed using formal measures. The following pertinent
findings were obtained by NAME, DATE, using the TEST.
Statistically and educationally significant discrepancies existed among STUDENT’s
strengths and weaknesses in cognitive abilities. Thus, the GENERAL INTELLECTUAL
ABILITY (GIA) score does not represent a unitary factor and is not interpreted or reported
here. Over-reliance on this measure would ignore the fact that many of his abilities are
within normal limits, whereas others are pronounced weaknesses. The reasoning for this
decision is as follows:
People often think of intelligence as a single overall ability, whereas it is actually a
combination of many different abilities. Most people perform different sorts of tasks at
different levels. As an example, you may be able to put a jigsaw puzzle together expertly
but totally unable to remember a phone number. You may be able to solve a complex
calculus problem but incompetent at writing an essay comparing and contrasting the
American and the French Revolutions. In some cases, a person is able to perform most
types of cognitive tasks at levels similar to most other people of the same age (or grade). If
just those types of tasks are considered, an overall estimate of cognitive ability - an IQ or
GIA - can be interpreted. As an analogy, if a student has an A in all of his classes, you can
safely say that he has an A average; if he has a C in all of his classes, he has a C average.
But if he has an A in Math, a B in Language Arts, and an F in Reading, of what use is an
overall average? Such an average misses the fact that he is performing well in Math, and
that he is performing poorly in Reading. With that sort of student, what is important is how
well he is doing in each class.
The following tests from the TESTS were combined and interpreted using procedures and
principles of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Cross-Battery Assessment. The CHC CrossBattery approach provides guidelines so that assessments can use multiple tests to
measure a broader range of abilities than might be available on only one battery. This
approach is based on current, research evidence regarding the structure of human cognitive
abilities and their interactions with academic abilities. This approach provides for an
analysis of cognitive strengths and weaknesses that results in more focused interventions
and accommodations. The results presented in this report were compiled from tests that do
not share a common norm group; however, test results have been interpreted following the
cross-battery approach and integrated with data from other sources including educational
records, parent/teacher interviews, behavioral observations, work samples, and other test
findings to ensure ecological validity. Standardization was followed for all test
administrations. No single test or procedure was used as the sole criterion for classification,
eligibility or educational planning. Unless otherwise noted, the results of this evaluation
are considered a reliable and valid estimate of STUDENT’s demonstrated skills and
abilities at this time.
Cognitive Strengths
If most of the abilities are intact (and cohesive), why go on at length about each and
every ability? Remember, your job it to be the filter. Include a sentence saying basically
“Out of the seven abilities examined, he was fine in most of them (5/7)…” Then, have a
bullet list of each of them. Bullets do not translate well into ESPED, so use dashes, then
once you have reset the formatting in ESPED, make it a bulleted list and delete the dashes
Provided by Robert Misak, MA, MEd, LSSP
robertmisak@me.com
Do not duplicate or distribute without permission
©2014
STATEMENT ALPHA
-BROAD ABILITY (or Gx) – DEFINITION (percentile)
STATEMENT BRAVO
IF YOU HAD SCATTER BUT THE LOWER SCORE WAS THE DIVERGENT – You
would do the following – BROAD ABILITY (or Gx) can be thought of as DEFINTION.
This was measured by two different measures. On the first, he/she had to PUT IN TASK
HE HAD TO DO (SUBTEST=X; X percentile), where his/her performance was in the
X/Within Normal Limits range for his/her age. HERE PUT IN ANY QUALITATIVE
INFORMATION. Then he/she had to PUT IN TASK HE HAD TO DO (SUBTEST=Y; Y
percentile), where his/her performance this time was in the Y/Normative Weakness range.
QUALITATIVE. The difference between the scores that comprised the composite was
significant and relatively uncommon. The composite is, therefore, not cohesive meaning
that it is not a good summary of the theoretically related abilities it was intended to
represent. In addition, because one score in the composite is indicative of average or better
performance and the other is indicative of a deficit, follow-up of the lower score is
considered necessary to determine if it is an accurate and valid representation of the
ability. So, another measure of the same narrow ability (NARROW) as the lower score was
given where he/she had to TASK (SUBTEST=Z; Z percentile), where this time his/her
performance was in the RANGE/Within Normal Limits range for his/her age.
QUALITATIVE. The lack of convergence here between two measures of NARROW
(SUBTEST and SUBTEST) indicates that his/her performance on the DIVERGENT
SUBTEST subtest is likely to be an anomalous result and not an accurate indication of
his/her ability to DEFNITION OF NARROW. Therefore, his/her broad Gx ability was
based on the aggregate of his/her performances on SUBTEST and SUBTEST (cohesive
ones). He/She earned a Gx cluster of SS, which is ranked at the ??? percentile and is
classified as ??? Range/Within Normal Limits, indicating that his/her functioning in this
broad ability/process is intact.
STATEMENT CHARLIE ONE
If the higher score was divergent and you had to give a third narrow and the
composite was WNL, use this - BROAD ABILITY (or Gx) can be thought of as
DEFINTION. This was measured by two different measures. On the first, he/she had to
PUT IN TASK HE HAD TO DO (SUBTEST=X; X percentile), where his/her performance
was in the X/Within Normal Limits range for his/her age. HERE PUT IN ANY
QUALITATIVE INFORMATION. Then he had to PUT IN TASK HE HAD TO DO
(SUBTEST=Y; Y percentile), where his/her performance this time was in the Y/Normative
Weakness range. QUALITATIVE. The difference between the scores that comprised the
composite was significant and relatively uncommon. The composite is, therefore, not
cohesive meaning that it is not a good summary of the theoretically related abilities it was
intended to represent. In addition, because one score in the composite is indicative of
average or better performance and the other is indicative of a deficit, follow-up of the lower
score is considered necessary to determine if it is an accurate and valid representation of
the ability. So, another measure of the same narrow ability (NARROW) as the lower score
Provided by Robert Misak, MA, MEd, LSSP
robertmisak@me.com
Do not duplicate or distribute without permission
©2014
was given where he/she had to TASK (SUBTEST=Z; Z percentile), where this time his/her
performance was in the RANGE/Within Normal Limits range for his/her age.
QUALITATIVE. Thus, a narrow ability/processing NARROW (the cohesive one) cluster was
formed based on the aggregate of SUBTEST 1 and SUBTEST 3. ### earned a NARROW
cluster of SS, which is ranked at the ??? percentile and is classified as RANGE/Normative
Weakness. Overall, it appears that although one aspect of ###’s Gx is intact (NARROW 2),
another aspect (NARROW 1) is deficient.
Now the question was does ### have intact Gx with a deficit in NARROW 1, or does he/she
have a deficit in Gx with intact NARROW 2? To figure this out, the examiner decided to
give a measure of a third Gx narrow ability, NARROW 3, where he/she had to TASK
(SUBTEST=A; A percentile), where this time his/her performance was in the
RANGE/Within Normal Limits range for his/her age. This resulted in a broad BROAD
composite (Gx=???; ??? percentile) in the RANGE/Within Normal Limits range and a
narrow NARROW 1 composite (Gx-???=???; ??? percentile), which was in the
RANGE/Normative Weakness range. This indicates that for the most part, ###’s Gx is
intact and within normal limits with an exception of the narrow Gx ability of NARROW 1.
STATEMENT DELTA ONE
If the higher score was divergent and third narrow was low, use this – The details
will be specified below, but ### did appear to have intact ability in the narrow BROAD
ability or NARROW, although otherwise his/her BROAD was considered a Normative
Weakness.
Weaknesses
### had significant difficulty performing the tasks measuring ???LIST WEAKNESSES???.
STATEMENT CHARLIE TWO
If the higher score was divergent and third narrow was WNL, use this – The details
were specified above, but ### did appear to have a deficit in the narrow BROAD ability,
although otherwise his/her BROAD was considered intact and Within Normal Limits. This
finding suggests he/she has a deficit in this basic psychological process (i.e., NARROW
DEF), a finding that should play an essential role in developing educational interventions.
STATEMENT DELTA TWO
If the higher score was divergent and you had to give a third narrow and the
composite was BNL, use this - BROAD ABILITY (or Gx) can be thought of as
DEFINTION. This was measured by two different measures. On the first, he/she had to
PUT IN TASK HE HAD TO DO (SUBTEST=X; X percentile), where his/her performance
Provided by Robert Misak, MA, MEd, LSSP
robertmisak@me.com
Do not duplicate or distribute without permission
©2014
was in the X/Within Normal Limits range for his/her age. HERE PUT IN ANY
QUALITATIVE INFORMATION. Then he/she had to PUT IN TASK HE HAD TO DO
(SUBTEST=Y; Y percentile), where his/her performance this time was in the Y/Normative
Weakness range. QUALITATIVE. The difference between the scores that comprised the
composite was significant and relatively uncommon. The composite is, therefore, not
cohesive meaning that it is not a good summary of the theoretically related abilities it was
intended to represent. In addition, because one score in the composite is indicative of
average or better performance and the other is indicative of a deficit, follow-up of the lower
score is considered necessary to determine if it is an accurate and valid representation of
the ability. So, another measure of the same narrow ability (NARROW) as the lower score
was given where he/she had to TASK (SUBTEST=Z; Z percentile), where this time his/her
performance was in the RANGE/Within Normal Limits range for his/her age.
QUALITATIVE. Thus, a narrow ability/processing NARROW (the cohesive one) cluster was
formed based on the aggregate of SUBTEST 1 and SUBTEST 3. ### earned a NARROW
cluster of SS, which is ranked at the ??? percentile and is classified as RANGE/Normative
Weakness. Overall, it appears that although one aspect of ###’s Gx is intact (NARROW 2),
another aspect (NARROW 1) is deficient.
Now the question was does ### have intact Gx with a deficit in NARROW 1, or does he/she
have a deficit in Gx with intact NARROW 2? To figure this out, the examiner decided to
give a measure of a third Gx narrow ability, NARROW 3, where he/she had to TASK
(SUBTEST=A; A percentile), where this time his/her performance was in the
RANGE/Normative Weakness range for his/her age. This resulted in a broad BROAD
composite (Gx=???; ??? percentile) in the RANGE/Normative Weakness range and a narrow
NARROW 1 composite (Gx-???=???; ??? percentile), which was in the RANGE/Within
Normal Limits range. This indicates that for the most part, ###’s Gx is a normative
weakness the exception of intact ability in the narrow Gx ability of NARROW 1. This
finding suggests that with the exception of (intact narrow), he/she has a deficit in this basic
psychological process (i.e., BROAD DEF), a finding that should play an essential role in
developing educational interventions.
USE STATEMENT ECHO
IF IT IS A SOLID COHESIVE 2-TEST WEAKNESS - The BROAD (Gx) Factor
represents his/her ability to DEFINTION. His/her Gx was assessed by tasks that required
him/her to TASK (SUBTEST=X; X percentile; RANGE/ Normative Weakness). In addition,
he/she was required to TASK (SUBTEST=Y; Y percentile; RANGE/Normative Weakness).
The difference between his/her performances on the tests that make up the Gx domain is
not statistically significant or uncommon, indicating that he/she performed similarly on
these tests. His/Her Gx cluster of Z (range) is ranked at the Z percentile and is classified as
RANGE/Normative Weakness. This finding suggests that he/she has a deficit in this basic
psychological process (i.e., BROAD DEF), a finding that should play an essential role in
developing educational interventions.
Provided by Robert Misak, MA, MEd, LSSP
robertmisak@me.com
Do not duplicate or distribute without permission
©2014
Cluster
Test + (CHC ability code)
Standard
Score
Confidence
Interval 68%
Percentile
Rank
Classification
(Gf) Fluid Reasoning
Gf Cluster Score=
Number Series (RQ)
Concept Formation (I)
Analysis-Synthesis (RG)
(Gc) Crystallized Intelligence
Gc Cluster Score=
Oral Vocabulary (VL)
General Information (K0)
(Gv) Visual Processing
Gv Cluster Score=
Visualization (Vz)
Picture Recognition (MV)
(Ga-PC) Auditory Processing
Ga Cluster Score=
Phonological Processing (PC)
Nonword Repetition (UR)
(Gsm-MW) Short-Term
Gsm Cluster Score=
Memory
Verbal Attention (MW)
Numbers Reversed (MW)
(Glr) Long-Term Retrieval
Glr Cluster Score=
Story Recall (MM)
Visual-Auditory Learning (MA)
(Gs-P) Processing Speed
Gs Cluster Score=
Letter-Pattern Matching (P)
Number-Pattern Matching (P)
Unless otherwise noted, cluster scores obtained from the WJ-IV Compuscore software and subtests from
WJ-IV COG
*=Divergent score, not calculated in GIA or broad ability cluster
**=Broad ability cluster calculated using DMIA 2.0 without divergent score if applicable
Provided by Robert Misak, MA, MEd, LSSP
robertmisak@me.com
Do not duplicate or distribute without permission
©2014