PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
New York SELPA
Multidisciplinary
Student Name:
John Smith
D.O.B.:
Age: 15
School:
Little Red Schoolhouse
Grade: 9th
Sex:
Case Manager:
M
Yrs.
Mo.
F
Dates of Assessment:
Parents’ Names: Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Address:
Type of Report:
Initial
Triennial
Phone:
The following report was developed to assist the IEP Team in determining eligibility and need for special education and related services
according to the code of Federal Regulations, Sections 300.304 to 300.306. A student shall qualify as an individual with exceptional needs if
the results of the assessment demonstrate that the degree of impairment requires special education. The decision as to whether or not the
assessment results demonstrate that the degree of the student’s impairment requires special education shall be made by the IEP team,
including assessment personnel. The IEP team shall take into account all relevant material which is available on the student. No single
score or product of scores shall be used as the sole criterion for the decision of the IEP team as to the student’s eligibili ty for special
education. (From CCR 5 Sec. 3030)
Materials and procedures were provided in the student’s native language/mode of communication in a form most likely to yield accurate
information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally.
Assessment(s) administered in English.
REASON FOR REFERRAL
John was referred for a routine triennial psychoeducational assessment as is required by law for students receiving
special education and related services. He is currently a student at Little Red Schoolhouse, a program for students
with Autism Spectrum Disorders. He was initially assessed and determined to be eligible as a student with
Emotional Disturbance and Autism in 2007. Currently, he is eligible as a student with Emotional Disturbance and
Autism and receives Specialized Academic Instruction in all subjects, Specialized Academic Instruction: Social
Skills, Individual Counseling (ISES), Social Work Services (ISES), and Speech and Language Services.
The purpose of the evaluation is to determine if John continues to be eligible for and require special education and
related services in order to make meaningful progress in grade level curriculum, present levels of functioning, and
placement in the least restrictive environment. Special education eligibility criteria for Emotional Disturbance and
Autism will be considered, given the presenting concerns within the school setting. The IEP team is particularly
interested in determining if John is benefitting from (making progress on IEP goals, accessing his educational in
order to earn credits toward graduation, making and sustaining meaningful social relationships, safely accessing the
community) the current placement and services. His long-time pattern of physically and verbally aggressive
behaviors directed at staff and students, sexualized and provocative comments and sleeping for up to 5 hours per
day has not decreased in the current setting, and appear to have spiked over the past two months.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Home environment
John lives with his biological parents. His sister is away at college. Mrs. Smith is a stay at home mom, and
John sometimes enjoys working with her on special projects around the house, such as creating a
vegetable garden. John has a difficult time getting along with his sister, as he can often annoy her and does
not have a lot of patience. John procrastinates on projects/tasks at home, but he does complete them and
he is a perfectionist about them and obsesses over them. He takes care of his hygiene, but does display
difficulty brushing his teeth due to sensitivity when doing so. When frustrated or angry, John can
perseverate and use inappropriate language. Mr. Smith further reports that John often seeks attention
inappropriately, such as talking nonsense over and over.
John also has a challenging time with his peers as he often misperceives situations. He gets along better
with younger kids. He prefers to play alone and indoors, and prefers peers of his same age, although he
struggles with them. He enjoys playing video and computer games and reading. John views two to three
hours of television per day. He is not currently involved in any activities outside of school. He has previously
participated in karate and sports, but Mr. Smith reported these “usually fall apart.”
Mr. Smith reports that John typically goes to bed at 9-10PM and wakes up at 6AM. He has nightmares one
to two times per week, talks in his sleep two times per week, and snores two times per week. He has a
history of enuresis, but does not currently have any difficulties with this.
Overall, Mr. Smith describes John as very smart, a quick thinker, and has strong building skills (such as
LEGOs). Also, John wants to be sweet and caring.
Environmental, cultural, and economic information
None are significant.
Health and developmental information
Examiner: School Nurse
Family History: Significant family history in the last 3 years was reported on the questionnaire.
Family history of ADHD and Anxiety Disorder.
General Health
During my observation and assessment John’s general health appeared to be good. Please see
physical assessment below:
Allergies: Environmental allergies, non-specific allergy to artificial dyes/preservatives. John
has an Emergency Care Plan at school in case of allergic reaction to dyes/preservatives. In
the Fall of 2012 John had an incident at school when he reported eating a blue hard candy
that he felt funny in his mouth and his tongue felt different. He was transported by
ambulance per mother’s request to Caring Hospital. He was given Benadryl at the hospital
and was sent home shortly after. No known drug allergies.
Nutrition: John stated he eats well and is generally not picky but does not like and avoids
cheese, cream cheese, yogurt, and sour cream.
Exercise: John stated he rides his bike a couple times a week and goes on walks
sometimes.
Hygiene: John appears to have good hygiene.
Psychiatric: Reports indicate his most recent diagnoses are Asperger’s and Bipolar. Current
school eligibility indicates Emotional Disturbance with a secondary eligibility of Autism.
Medications: Celexa 10 mg at AM and 5 mg at noon
Thorazine 10 mg at AM, 10 mg at noon and 20 mg at PM
Lamictal 25 mg at AM and 25 mg at PM
Kapvay 0.1 mg at AM once per day
Topamax 75 mg at PM
Singulair 10 mg at PM
Allegra 180 mg at AM
Xopenex HFA 1-2 puffs as needed and before exercise (available at school)
Astepro nasal spray
Tylenol 325 mg as needed every 4-6 hours for headache (available at school)
Benadryl 25 mg tablets (2 tablets for hives or swelling after consuming
artificial dyes or preservatives)
Date of last vision screen: 12/11/2012; passed
Date of last hearing screen: 11/13/2012; passed
Educational history
Attendance history
John has fair attendance history this school year (2012-2013) at Little Red Schoolhouse where he has
had 19 absences (16 excused) and one day of suspension. John’s grades have been affected by his
absences and he often had to do make-up work to improve his grades.
Smith, J. 2
Other relevant educational history
John was found eligible for special education services as a student with a primary eligibility of Emotional
Disturbance and a secondary eligibility of Autism in 2007 (3 rd grade). He began receiving 26.5 Mental
Health Services a few months later in 2007. He was then placed at a Non-Public School (NPS) in June
2008. John was then referred to a specialized program for students with intensive social-emotional
needs in April 2011. John struggled socially in this program due to his difficulties reading social cues
and his inappropriate comments that often provoked peers. This led to several behavioral escalations,
including one that involved physical restraint (Non-Violent Crisis Intervention) and resulted in the
initiation of a Functional Analysis Assessment (see summary of existing data). A Behavior Intervention
Plan was developed to address these behaviors. John was then referred to the Little Red Schoolhouse
in April of 2013 as requested by the IEP team due to concerns with John’s Autism Spectrum Disorder
and his need for a program to better address these needs.
John is currently a student at the Little Red Schoolhouse, a specialized program for students with
Autism Spectrum Disorders. He is currently eligible as a student with Emotional Disturbance (primary)
and Autism (secondary) and receives the following services: Specialized Academic Instruction in all
subjects, Specialized Academic Instruction: Social Skills, Individual Counseling (ISES), Social Work
Services (ISES), and Speech and Language Services.
Update from Special Education Teacher:
John’s case manager and special education teacher from his previous school (Public School), Ms.
Gates, reported that John came to school on a regular basis, worked independently, was motivated, was
well organized, was prepared for class, and completed his homework regularly. He was not a reliable
classroom helper and completed most of his class work. John did not do well with his peers in PE, and
therefore, was not currently enrolled in a PE class. His printing/handwriting is messy, but legible and he
evidences average keyboarding skills. Socially-emotionally, John displays frequent conflicts with
authority and peers and mood swings. He also had no friends and appeared unable to delay or control
his impulses. John displays poor social skills and often made inappropriate racial and sexual comments,
along with insulting jokes. He would target peers who he was having a conflict with and seek them out
and sit next to them. In math class, John was asked to leave the class about two times per month due to
him disrupting the class or attempting to provoke peers. Overall, John’s strengths are working
independently and working on the computer. His weaknesses were group work and class discussions
where he often made inappropriate comments, along with making and maintaining friendships.
In his current setting, John continues to receive the same academic supports with additional social
emotional supports. The following accommodations in the classroom for all subjects, in addition to
those stated in his current IEP: staff assistance with materials and planning along with clarifying of
instructions and simplifying in art class (individual accommodations not required for the entire class). In
ELA, John was permitted to use a pen or the computer for writing tasks. All students were also given
extended time to complete assignments. Social emotional supports include access to a personally
designed 5 point scale, frequent breaks, walks, additional staff support, and a quiet, private location to
de-escalate when needed.
Subject
Level or
Performance
Algebra
C
English Language Arts
B
APEX Earth Science
A
Art
C
Comments
John was in the process of making up his grades due to
absences. He struggles with new concepts but excels
after direct instruction. He does work independently.
John is able to do grade level work with ease. He can
work independently on book work, work sheets, and
computer projects. He has difficulty during class
discussions, often turning topics to something
inappropriate in an attempt to be funny.
True strength for John to work his online coursework
independently.
John is able to focus on art projects, but he requires
assistance from staff. Performance was average to
Smith, J. 3
Garden
Academic Area
Math
Writing
Reading
B
below average. John often spent his time attempting to
gain attention from his peers.
Good work in the garden. Liked to get his hands dirty,
would help with any task, and could work independently
once taught the skill. Would engage in power struggles
with students, made inappropriate comments to peers,
sprayed staff with water from the garden hose (and say
it was an accident), and poke fun at others.
Performance
Average
Average
Average
Progress on Previous Goals:
John met his math goal that he will graph a linear equation and compute the x- and y- intercepts with
80% correct. However, he did not meet any of his four social-emotional goals. They included:
- John will refrain from loud, unnecessary or inappropriate conversations during class time with
fewer than one prompt.
- John will reduce talking out in class from baseline of three to five times per day to average of one
time per day for a two week period.
- John will calmly and appropriately request a break or Time-In when in a stressful situation
(uncomfortable social situation, frustrating assignment, etc.) in each occurrence each opportunity.
- John will engage in positive interactions with peers as exhibited by complimenting, encouraging,
and respecting their wishes, rather than threatening or name-calling, 90% of the time four of five
days.
Previous Schools:
Kindergarten – 2nd grades
3rd grade (until winter break)
3rd (2/22) – 4th grades
5th – 7th grades
8th – 9th (3/21) grades
9th grade (3/22) – current
Elementary School
LA School (Private School)
Elementary School
Non-Public School
Public School for students with emotional and behavioral difficulties
Little Red Schoolhouse
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
Observations in classroom and other appropriate settings, including relationship of behavior to student’s
academic and social functioning
Teacher Observation
Ms. Gates, Special Education Teacher
John’s behavior varies from very well behaved, polite, and on task to attention seeking, disrupting and defying
authority. He is disruptive in whole group situations by making offensive comments that upset his peers.
When he is working independently, he is focused and at times has difficulty transitioning from one class to the
next because he wants to continue working on his project. He is usually focused when working independently
on the computer. John has difficulty interacting with peers and is unable to make or maintain friendships. He
tends to insult in areas that he knows would be very upsetting to provoke peers.
Testing Observations
Testing was completed on five days at Little Red Schoolhouse and a working rapport was easily established.
John has worked with this examiner before in a social skills group at Public School. John often engaged in
spontaneous conversation with the examiner and showed interest in this examiner’s interests/feelings as well.
However, he was awkward and/or inappropriate at times. For example, when he would often ask the examiner
how he performed on a subtest and the examiner would tell him he did well. He would then respond with,
“How does that make you feel?” The examiner responded with “good” or something similar, and John would
again ask, “But, how does that really make you feel?” John asked the examiner how he performed on items
and all subtests throughout testing, even though the examiner consistently told him she could not share this
Smith, J. 4
information with him. He appeared overly concerned with his performance. He also asked several times if the
examiner would share his grade equivalents with him from the academic testing results, and after being told
no, he continued to persist with this request. John also appeared to say comments that he thought were funny
(as displayed by him laughing after the comment) in order to get a reaction or attention from the examiner. For
example, on the Sentence Building subtest, he told the examiner to “watch this” as he wrote a sentence using
all of the target words (not the directions) and was laughing and then asked the examiner, “How does it make
you feel?” Sometimes, if he did not get a reaction from the examiner he would repeat the comment.
Additionally, John’s facial expression often did not match what he was saying. He was observed to be smiling
when saying something offensive or inappropriate or when he was uncomfortable. John did share that he likes
science fiction, DC comics, and Star Wars. He was observed to make appropriate eye contact with the
examiner and evidenced a sense of humor and the ability to joke around with the examiner.
John was observed to use an atypical four-finger pencil grip. He refuses to use a pencil or allow those working
with him to use a pencil and instead insists on using a pen. He often does not hold the paper for stabilization
when writing or completing pen and paper tasks and this can negatively affect his fine motor speed and
precision. During the sentences subtests, John was observed to cross out the beginning of his sentences and
start over several times. This is consistent with reports that John can be a perfectionist and that he can be
anxious about completing his work correctly. Additionally, on the math subtests, John was observed to take a
great deal of time in completing the problems and in attempting to figure out the solution. He would sometimes
take up to ten minutes to solve one problem, showing his ability to persevere, but also his slow processing
speed and obsessive behavior.
John was observed to be yawning and often said he was tired. This interfered with testing on two occasions.
On the first occasion, John was primed that testing would continue after lunch break. The examiner met John
after lunch and returned to the testing room. John expressed that he wanted to go to PE and did not want to
complete any further testing. He said he was too tired, testing was boring, and that he did not want to do it.
The examiner attempted several strategies such as setting a timer before beginning, talking with John about a
compromise (some testing then go to PE), and talking with John about the consequences of not completing
the testing. John was noncompliant and said he did not care about any of the consequences. The examiner
returned with John to talk with his teacher and after about ten minutes of discussion focused on the
importance of completing testing in order to reach his goal of returning to his home school district, John was
able to return to testing and complete the subtest he had begun before lunch. On the other occasion, John
had been sleeping during first period and said he did not feel well and was tired when he came to testing. He
immediately put his head down and refused to respond to the examiner and to begin testing. A therapist and
his teacher came in to talk to him and at first he was nonresponsive and noncompliant. Then, the examiner
packed up to leave and was leaving, when John sat up and said he wanted to do testing. He then completed
two hours of testing with the examiner and did not appear tired or sick during this time. Besides these two
instances, John was cooperative and compliant and appeared to try his best on all tasks presented to him.
ASSESSMENT INFORMATION
SOURCES OF DATA REVIEWED
Cumulative records (as available)
Statewide Testing and Reporting results
Date
CST ELA
CST Math
Spring 2012
CST History
CST Science
CST ELA
Spring 2010
CST Math
Progress on Goals
N/A CELDT Scores
Existing assessment reports
Score
Level
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Basic
Smith, J. 5
Date
1/2013
Type
Functional Analysis Assessment
Multidisciplinary
3/2010
Psychoeducational Report
Parent survey or interview
Teacher survey or interview
N/A Other data sources
Summary of existing data:
Previous Assessment results from Functional Analysis Assessment Report dated 1/2013:
Reason for referral:
He has a history of impulsive behaviors, blurting out in class, immature comments, verbal and physical
aggression, and poor social skills and peer interactions. Initially, his transition to High School went well,
however, at the start of the fall semester disruptive behaviors increased. John was referred for a Functional
Analysis Assessment (FAA) by his IEP team due to displaying disruptive behaviors at school, specifically
following a Behavioral Emergency in October 2012. This specific incident resulted in police and CIRT
involvement as well as NCPI emergency restraint interventions due to imminent danger and safety concerns
as indicated in the Behavior Emergency Report. The incident involved John verbally threatening a peer,
standing in front of a parked school bus, and standing in the middle of the road requiring staff to block and
redirect oncoming traffic. An NCPI two person hold was performed until police arrived, and John was
handcuffed and placed in the back of the police car until CIRT arrived for assessment and a safety plan was
created. Recent and specific concerns are inappropriate/negative comments directed at peers and sta ff.
Comments include sexual, racial, and physical threats. Specific sexual comments toward peers include: “Take
your shirt off,” “you have virgin eyes,” “your mother is a whore,” and towards staff: “Do you want to see my
c**k,” “ooohhh boundaries,” then physically trying to touch a staff’s stomach. Verbal aggression includes:
Physical threats which include his acting like he has a gun and pretending to shoot it at students saying "you
are all dead" and “if *** is in there, he’s gonna get shot.” Racial comments and otherwise inappropriate
comments include: “All Irish people are alcoholics,” “no wonder your parents left you in a group home,” “that’s
why your parents don’t love you,” and “you are all cowards.” Physical aggression includes banging on doors,
banging on office glass door and window, removing school flag pole, and blocking doorways to classrooms so
that staff and students cannot enter. These behaviors have led to several incident reports and numerous
altercations with peers, with one incident resulting in physical aggression initiated by a peer and directed at
John for comments John made. During several incidents when escalated, John has requested staff allow him
to contact his parents and on these occasions escalation has continued and requests became more
demanding until contact with home was initiated. The IEP team has requested an FAA to determine the
communicative function of these behaviors and to develop a behavior plan to manage these behaviors
successfully.
Problem Behavior:
Blurting/talking out negative comments: defined as any inappropriate, negative, or derogatory comments
directed at staff and/or peers. Comments are sexual, racial, and physically threatening in nature. Comments
include but are not limited to: “He smells,” “Why is HE on STAR?” “You’re a bastard,” “Jewish people are rich,
Irish people are alcoholics,” and “You guys in California are all pu**ies.”
Baseline:
Per data collection and observational data, inappropriate negative comments average three times per day.
Observational data was collected by school staff over 19 days not including one day of sleeping due to illness.
Antecedents:
Impulsivity and blurting out inappropriate/negative comments occur during unstructured time, when students
are participating in open classroom discussion, when peers are socializing at break, and during free time.
Comments escalate in nature and increase in inappropriateness when John perceives an injustice has
occurred, e.g., “Why is HE a STAR student?” or calling a student a bastard after accidently tripping on his
shoelace.
Smith, J. 6
Consequences:
John is redirected by staff for blurting out, he is given one to one attention from staff, and staff discussed the
appropriateness of comments. Peers discussed the inappropriateness of comments, peers laughed, he
received possible lowered points, level dropped, and detentions may occur. The behavioral emergency in
October 2012 involving police, CIRT, and NCPI interventions resulted in an at home suspension. On another
occasion, a peer initiated a physical fight with John for insulting the peer’s girlfriend. It appears that by
receiving negative attention from others, John’s disruptive behaviors are being reinforced.
Function of Behavior:
John’s disruptive behaviors can best be described as attention seeking from peers and adults, more
specifically related to seeking special attention, acknowledgement, and special privileges. A secondary
function is likely escape/avoidance of unpleasant and/or difficult social situations.
Previous Assessment results from Psychoeducational Report dated 3/2010:
C.A.: 13
Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, Second Edition (WRAML-2)
Index/Subtest
Score
Descriptive Category
Verbal Memory
Invalid
Story Memory
80 (for one story)
Low Average
Verbal Learning
Refused
Attention & Concentration
Invalid
Number Letter
105
Average
Finger Windows
Refused
Visual Memory
103
Average
Picture Memory
95
Average
Design Memory
110
High Average
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition (KTEA-2)
Standard Score
Broad Reading
116
Broad Math
103
Previous Assessment results from 3/2007 as reported in the Psychoeducational Report dated 3/2010:
C.A.: 10
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV)
Composite
Standard Score
Verbal Comprehension
110
Perceptual Reasoning
115
Working Memory
107
Processing Speed
78
Beery Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration (VMI)
Standard Score
Visual Perception
88
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition (WJ-III ACH)
Standard Score
Broad Math
124
Broad Written Language
116
Broad Reading
102
NEW ASSESSMENTS ADMINISTERED
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2 nd Edition (KABC-II) (School Psychologist)
Smith, J. 7
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 4 th Edition (WISC–IV) (School Psychologist)
Test of Auditory Processing Skills, 3rd Edition (TAPS-3) (School Psychologist)
The Thinking Skills Form (School Psychologist)
Behavior Rating Scale of Executive Function (BRIEF) (School Psychologist)
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 3 rd Edition (WIAT-III) (School Psychologist)
Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL) (Speech & Language Specialist)
Test of Problem Solving, 2nd Edition (TOPS-2) (Speech & Language Specialist)
Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (Occupational Therapist)
Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2 nd Edition (BASC-2) (School Psychologist)
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale, 2 nd Edition (RCMAS-2) (School Psychologist)
Autism Spectrum Rating Scale (ASRS) (School Psychologist)
Social Responsiveness Scale, 2 nd Edition (SRS-2) (School Psychologist)
Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, 2nd Edition (ADOS-2) (School Psychologist)
Personality Assessment Inventory – Adolescent (PAI-A) (School Psychologist)
Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance, 2 nd Edition (SAED-2) (School Psychologist)
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 2nd Edition (Vineland II) (School Psychologist)
Observation; Teacher Interview; Review of Records







Student was assessed in all areas of suspected disability.
All tests and materials include those tailored to assess specific areas of educational need.
All assessments were selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on racial, cultural, or sexual bias.
Each assessment was used for the purpose for which it was designed and is valid and reliable.
Each instrument was administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel.
Each assessment was given in accordance with the test instructions provided by the producer of the assessments.
All tests were selected and administered to best ensure that they produce results that accurately reflect the student’s abilities, not the
student’s impairments, including impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills.
For Standard Scores (SS) the mean is 100, with a Standard Deviation of 15. The Percentile is based on the
Standard Score and provides an estimate of the percentage of students in your child’s age range that if tested,
would earn lower scores.
Standard Score
Percentile
Descriptor
130+
120 to 129
110-119
90-109
80-89
70 to 79
69 and below
>98
91 – 97
75 – 90
25 – 74
9 – 24
2–8
2 and below
Very Superior
Superior
High Average
Average
Low Average
Below Average
Well Below Average
Cognitive Functioning
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II)
Smith, J. 8
The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II) is an individually administered clinical
instrument for assessing the intellectual ability of children, ages 3 years through 18 years, 11 months. The KABC-II is
organized into five scales to assess Short-term Memory, Fluid Reasoning, Long-term Storage and Retrieval, Visual
Processing, and Comprehension-Knowledge. The KABC-II provides a composite score for each cognitive domain, as
well as a composite IQ score that represents a child’s general intellectual ability. No one sub-test is intended to reflect all
intelligent behavior.
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV)
The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) is an individually administered clinical instrument
for assessing the intellectual ability of children, ages 6 years through 16 years, 11 months. The WISC-IV is organized into
four scales to assess Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed. The
WISC-IV provides a composite score for each cognitive domain, as well as a composite IQ score that represents a
child’s general intellectual ability. No one sub-test is intended to reflect all intelligent behavior.
Test of Auditory Processing Skills, Third Edition (TAPS-3)
The Test of Auditory Processing Skills, Third Edition (TAPS-3) assesses phonological awareness, auditory memory, and
auditory comprehension and reasoning (cohesion). Basic phonological abilities allow one to discriminate between sounds
within words, segment words into morphemes, and blend phonemes into words. All of those skills are important for
understanding language and when learning to read.
95%
Confidence
Interval
[106-122]
Standard
Cluster/Subtest
Score
Percentile
Crystallized Knowledge (Gc)
115
84
Riddles (KABC-II)
120
91
Verbal Knowledge (KABC-II)
110
75
Long-term Storage & Retrieval (Glr)
114
[106-122]
82
Rebus (KABC-II)
115
84
Atlantis (KABC-II)
110
75
Delayed Recall
105
[95-115]
63
Rebus Delayed (KABC-II)
110
75
Atlantis Delayed (KABC-II)
100
50
Auditory Processing (Ga)
112
79
Phonological Blending (TAPS-3)
120
91
Word Discrimination (TAPS-3)
110
75
Phonological Segmentation (TAPS-3)
105
63
Short-term Memory (Gsm)
106
[97-115]
66
Number Recall (KABC-II)
105
63
Word Order (KABC-II)
105
63
Visual Processing (Gv)
*
Block Counting (KABC-II)
125
95
Rover (KABC-II)
85
16
Fluid Reasoning (Gf)
99
[87-111]
47
Pattern Reasoning (KABC-II)
110
75
Story Completion (KABC-II)
90
25
Processing Speed (Gs)
78
[72-90]
7
Coding (WISC-IV)
85
16
Symbol Search (WISC-IV)
75
5
(Cancellation**) (WISC-IV)
(85)
16
*Cluster score could not be calculated due to the variance in subtest scores.
**Subtest not included in cluster score.
Range of
Functioning
High Average
Superior
High Average
High Average
High Average
High Average
Average
High Average
Average
High Average
Superior
High Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Superior
Low Average
Average
High Average
Average
Below Average
Low Average
Below Average
Low Average
Smith, J. 9
Cognitive Testing Interpretation
In order to assess John’s current level of cognitive functioning, he was administered the Kaufman
Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II) along with select subtests from the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) and Test of Auditory Processing Skills, Third Edition
(TAPS-3). His special education teacher also completed the Thinking Skills form and John, his special
education teacher, and his father completed the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF)
to report on John’s executive functioning skills. John’s performance across the batteries was interpreted
according to CHC cross-battery assessment procedures to yield information within eight broad ability clusters.
The eight broad ability areas examined were Crystallized Intelligence (Gc), Fluid Intelligence (Gf), Visual
Processing (Gv), Long-term Storage and Retrieval (Glr), Short-term Memory (Gsm), Processing Speed (Gs),
Auditory Processing (Ga), and Executive Functioning.
Assessment of Gc
Crystallized Intelligence (Gc) is a broad ability that involves an individual’s breadth and depth of general and
cultural knowledge, verbal communication, and reasoning with previously learned procedures. John’s Gc
cluster score on the KABC-II was calculated using two subtests (Riddles, SS=120, superior & Verbal
Knowledge, SS=110, high average). This score of 115 (95% CI=106-122) falls at the 84th percentile, in the
High Average range of functioning compared to same age peers. Overall, these scores are indicative of
functioning that is within normal limits in this cognitive domain.
Assessment of Glr
Long-term Storage and Retrieval (Glr) is the ability to store information and retrieve it fluently later, through
association. A Glr cluster score was calculated using two subtests from the KABC-II (Atlantis, SS=110, high
average & Rebus, SS=115, high average). The Glr score of 114±8 falls at the 82nd percentile, in the High
Average range of functioning compared to same age peers.
John’s delayed recall was assessed using two subtests from the KABC-II (Rebus Delayed, SS=110, high
average & Atlantis Delayed, SS=100, average). This score of 105±10 falls at the 63rd percentile, in the
Average range of functioning compared to same age peers. Overall, these scores are indicative of functioning
that is within normal limits in this cognitive domain.
Assessment of Ga
Auditory processing (Ga) is the ability to analyze and synthesize auditory stimuli. John’s Ga cluster score was
calculated using three subtests from the TAPS-3 (Phonological Blending, SS=120, superior, Word
Discrimination, SS=110, high average, & Phonological Segmentation, SS=105, average). This score of 112
falls at the 79th percentile, in the High Average range of functioning compared to same age peers. Overall,
these scores are indicative of functioning that is within normal limits in this cognitive domain.
Assessment of Gsm
Short-term Memory (Gsm) is the ability to hold information in immediate awareness and then use it within a
few seconds. On the KABC-II, John’s Gsm cluster score was calculated using two subtests (Number Recall,
SS=105, average & Word Order, SS=105, average). His Gsm score of 106±9 falls at the 66th percentile, in the
Average range of functioning compared to same age peers. John was able to immediately recall up to seven
digits orally on Number Recall and up to six objects by pointing on Word Order. Overall, these scores are
indicative of functioning that is within normal limits in this cognitive domain.
Assessment of Gv
Visual processing (Gv) is the ability to analyze and synthesize visual stimuli and involves perceptions and
manipulations of visual shapes and forms, typically when geometric in nature. A Gv cluster score was
calculated using two subtests from the KABC-II (Block Counting, SS=125, superior & Rover, SS=85, low
average). However, due to the variance in these two subtest scores, a cluster score was unable to be
calculated. John performed in the superior range when required to count the exact number of blocks in
various pictures of stacks of blocks, and the stacks are configured such that one or more blocks is hidden or
partially hidden from view. However, he performed in the low average range when required to move a toy dog
to a bone on a checkerboard-like grid that contains obstacles (rocks and weeds) and to try to find the
“quickest” path – the one that takes the fewest moves. Rover required John to plan the shortest path and he
Smith, J. 10
was often impulsive in his answering, instead of taking his time to figure out the most efficient path. This
shows that John may perform worse when required to take his time and plan before selecting an answer.
Additionally, he may have difficulty on tasks that require him to survey a spatial field or pattern accurately and
quickly and identify a path through the visual filed or pattern. Overall, these scores are indicative of functioning
that is above and within normal limits in this cognitive domain.
Assessment of Gf
Fluid Intelligence (Gf) is the ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information
or novel procedures. John’s Gf cluster score was calculated using two subtests from the KABC-II (Pattern
Reasoning, SS=110, high average & Story Completion, SS=90, average). The Gf score of 99±12 falls at the
47th percentile, in the Average range of functioning compared to same age peers. Story Completion required
John to select several pictures from a selection to complete a row of pictures that tells a story with some
pictures missing, and place them in the correct location. These stories are all social situations and require
John to understand the social cues and social sequence of the events. John was able to complete all of these
stories accurately; however, he was not awarded points for completing quickly as he often required close to
the full allotted time (more points are awarded for completing the task quicker). Overall, these scores are
indicative of functioning that is within normal limits in this cognitive domain.
Assessment of Gs
Processing Speed (Gs) is one’s ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks quickly, particularly when
pressured to maintain focused concentration. A Gs cluster score was calculated using two subtests from the
WISC-IV (Coding, SS=85, low average & Symbol Search, SS=75, below average). The Gs score of 78 (95%
CI=72-90) falls at the 7th percentile, in the Below Average range of functioning compared to same age peers.
John completed an additional subtest in this cognitive domain (Cancellation, SS=85, low average). This is
consistent with how John presented in testing and in the classroom. John often appears to take an extended
time to process information. Overall, this suggests that John’s functioning in the broad Processing Speed
domain is deficient as compared to same age peers from the general population. Therefore, John has a
disorder in the basic psychological process of processing speed – a finding that should play a significant role
in educational intervention planning. This means that John may have difficulty processing information rapidly,
completing assignments within time limits, taking timed tests, making rapid comparisons between and among
bits of information, and copying.
Thinking Skills
The Thinking Skills form is an informal assessment of John’s executive functioning skills in the areas of Executive
Functioning, Language Processing, Emotion Regulation, Cognitive Flexibility, and Social Skills.
Consistently
Difficult
Sometimes
Difficult
Depends
Sometimes a
Strength
Consistent
Strength
Informant: Ms. Gates, Special Education Teacher
Executive Functioning Skills
Handling transitions, shifting from one mindset or task to another
(shifting cognitive set)
Ex: Getting off computer, stopping work at end of class.
Sticking with tasks requiring sustained attention (perseverance)
Ex: Wants to continue perfecting work he wants to do.
Doing things in a logical sequence or prescribed order (organization)
Ex: Wants to do projects his own way.
Sense of time (planning)
Ex: Difficult for him to finish much, he continues redoing it.
Reflecting on multiple thoughts or ideas simultaneously (working
memory)
Maintaining focus for goal-directed activities (sustained
attention/concentration)
Ex: He works very well independently.
Ignoring non-relevant stimuli (distractibility)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Smith, J. 11
Ex: He can be distracted by a topic. Finding a dual meaning and difficult
to stop off-topic discussions.
Thinking before responding, considering the likely outcomes or
consequences of actions, forecasting (reflective not impulsive thinking)
Ex: He appears to think about what could be the most disruptive at the
moment.
Considering a range of solutions to a problem.
Ex: He can do this when he is on task academically. Struggles with this
behaviorally.
Language Processing Skills
Expressing concerns, needs, or thoughts in words.
Ex: Explains concerns to staff and teachers.
Identifying or articulating what’s bothering you.
Ex: It was bothering him when another student went back to district and
he did not.
Understanding what is being said.
Ex: Often answers comprehension questions and very complete with his
answers.
Emotion Regulation Skills
Managing emotional response to frustration so as to think rationally
(separation of affect)
Ex: Very often out of program when frustrated with a situation.
Manages irritability and/or anxiety on a chronic basis (outside of context
of frustration)
Ex: Sleeping or out of program when irritable and/or anxious. When he
asked to go back to district and was told no, he was sleeping or out of
program for most of two weeks.
Cognitive Flexibility Skills
Seeing the “grays”, bring comfortable with “iffy” thinking (vs. more
concrete, literal, black-and-white thinking and need for precision).
Ex: Tends to looks for possible exceptions.
Thinking hypothetically or inferentially/using hypothesis-testing.
Ex: Tries to prove his point.
Handling deviations from rules, routine, original plan.
Ex: Schedule changes.
Handling unpredictability, ambiguity, uncertainty, novelty.
Ex: Tends to question any uncertainty.
Shifting from original idea or solution/adapting to changes in plan or new
rules.
Ex: He has trouble shifting if it is his idea or plan and is very insistent.
Taking into account situational factors that would suggest the need to
adjust a plan of action
Ex: Does not want to adjust his plan.
Interpreting information accurately/avoiding cognitive distortions or
biases in thinking such as over-generalizing or personalizing.
Social Skills
Attending to and/or accurately interpreting social cues and nuances.
Ex: When another student is upset with him.
Starting conversations, entering groups, being reciprocal
Ex: He does not have problems starting conversations.
Seeking attention in appropriate ways
Ex: Turning topic to sexual in immature ways.
Appreciating how one’s behavior affects other people (vs. surprised by
others’ responses)
Ex: Continued insulting student and student’s girlfriend and then
surprised when student hit him.
Emphasizing with others, appreciating another person’s perspective or
point of view
Ex: Difficulty seeing another’s point of view. Took him two days to accept
that teacher could not break confidentiality and discuss another student
with him.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Smith, J. 12
Appreciating how one is coming across or being perceived by others.
Ex: Continues making inappropriate sexual/racial comments thinking he
is funny while peers tell him not to.
X
Overall, John appears to have difficulties in most areas of executive functioning, including social skills,
cognitive flexibility, and emotion regulation. He often becomes cognitively inflexible when he is perseverating
on a peer conflict, perceived unfairness, something he wants, or a preferred topic. This can also sometimes
lead to emotion dysregulation and verbal and/or physical outbursts. John has poor social skills and struggles
to interact appropriately with his peers and does not have any friends. John’s slow processing speed, along
with his distractibility and perseveration negatively impact his executive functioning skills and ability to manage
his time, plan, sustain attention, and transition.
Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF)
The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF) is a questionnaire for parents and teachers of school
age children to assess executive function behaviors in the home and school environments. It is designed for children
aged 5 to 18 years. The Parent and Teacher Forms of the BRIEF each contain 86 items with eight clinical scales that
measure different aspects of executive functioning: Inhibit, Shift, Emotional Control, Initiate, Working Memory,
Plan/Organize, Organization of Materials, and Monitor. The clinical scales form two broader Indexes, Behavioral
Regulation and Metacognitiion, and an overall score, the Global Executive Composite.
Standard T-Score Interpretive Guideline
Mean T = 50 SD = 10
40-64 Average Range
+
≥65 Clinically Significant
Teacher: Ms. Gates, Special Education Teacher
Parent: Ms. Smith, Father
Self: John Smith
Scale
Behavioral Regulation Index
Inhibit
Shift
Emotional Control
Metacognition Index
Initiate
Working Memory
Plan/Organize
Organization of Materials
Monitor
Task Completion
Global Executive Functioning Composite
Teacher
T-Score
101+
87+
91+
114+
68+
90+
61
56
72+
76+
79+
Parent
T-Score
75+
81+
66+
68+
84+
74+
87+
76+
71+
81+
82+
Self
T-Score
44
49
37
49
37
41
40
39
42
36
39
John, his special education teacher, Ms. Gates, and father, Mr. Smith, completed the Behavior Rating
Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF) to report on John’s executive functioning. John reported average
levels on all scales, showing that he does not have insight into his executive functioning weaknesses.
John’s inhibitory control or the ability to inhibit, resist or not act on an impulse and the ability to stop his own
behavior at the appropriate time was clinically significant, signifying executive dysfunction. Additionally, John’s
ability to move freely from one situation, activity or aspect of a problem to another as the situation demands or
transition or solve problems flexibly was clinically significant. John’s emotional control, which is the
manifestations of executive functions within the emotional realm and the ability to modulate emotional
responses, was also clinically significant.
John’s ability to initiate, or the ability to begin a task or activity and independently generate ideas, was
clinically significant per teacher and father report. John often sleeps or avoids initiating tasks. His working
memory, or the capacity to actively hold information in his mind for the purpose of completing a task or
Smith, J. 13
generating a response, is also clinically significant per father report only. John’s ability to anticipate future
events, carry out tasks in a systematic manner, and understand and communicate main ideas or key concepts
was also clinically significant per father report only. Additionally, John’s ability to keep his workspace and
materials in an orderly manner was clinically significant. John’s ability to monitor, which is the extent to which
he keeps track of the effect that his behavior has on others, was also in the clinically significant range. This
shows that John has difficulty reading and evaluating the effects of his behaviors on others, and that he may
have difficulty evaluating his behaviors and their possible consequences.
Overall, John’s ability to maintain appropriate regulatory control of his behavior and emotional responses is in
the clinically significant range. Additionally, his ability to systematically solve problems via planning and
organization while sustaining these task completion efforts in active working memory is also in the clinically
significant range. This means that John may have difficulty with demonstrating purposeful, goal-directed
activity, displaying an active problem-solving approach, exerting self-control, demonstrating maximal
independence, exhibiting reliable and consistent behavior and thinking, demonstrating positive self-efficacy,
and with exhibiting an internal locus of control. These deficits may negatively impact John in the classroom
and should be addressed through purposeful academic and behavioral interventions.
Academic Skills
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III)
The WIAT-III contains 16 subtests measuring eight curricular areas – Oral Language, Total Reading, Basic Reading,
Reading Comprehension and Fluency, Written Expression, Mathematics, Math Fluency, and Total Achievement. The
examiner can use the WIAT-III to determine and describe the present status of an individual’s academic strengths and
weaknesses. Subtest scores as well as composite scores may be helpful in predicting and or explaining specific
academic weaknesses.
Index/Subtest
Oral Language
Listening Comprehension
Oral Expression
Total Reading
Basic Reading
Word Reading
Pseudoword Decoding
Reading Comprehension &
Fluency
Reading Comprehension
Oral Reading Fluency
Mathematics
Math Problem Solving
Numerical Operations
Written Expression
Spelling
Essay Composition
Sentence Composition
Standard
Score
119
120
114
111
113
113
112
95%
Confidence
Interval
[110-128]
[108-132]
[104-124]
[107-115]
[109-117]
[108-118]
[106-118]
Percentile
90
91
82
77
81
81
79
Descriptive Category
High Average
Superior
High Average
High Average
High Average
High Average
High Average
107
[99-115]
68
Average
115
97
108
108
106
100
112
97
94
[104-126]
[90-104]
[102-114]
[100-116]
[99-113]
[93-107]
[106-118]
[86-108]
[84-104]
84
42
70
70
66
50
79
42
34
High Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
High Average
Average
Average
Academic Testing Interpretation
In order to assess his current academic functioning, John was administered the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III). John’s functioning on the WIAT-III ranged from Average to
Superior.
Assessment of Oral Language
An Oral Language Composite score was calculated using two subtests on the WIAT-III (Oral Expression,
SS=114, high average & Listening Comprehension, SS=120, superior). John obtained an Oral Language
Smith, J. 14
Composite score of 119±9, which falls at the 90th percentile, in the High Average range of functioning
compared to same age peers. Within Listening Comprehension, John performed in the Superior range on
Receptive Vocabulary (SS=120) and in the High Average range on Oral Discourse Comprehension (SS=112).
When looking at the components of the Oral Expression subtest, John’s Sentence Repetition (SS=124) fell in
the Superior range, while his Oral Word Fluency (SS=109) and Expressive Vocabulary (SS=101) fell in the
Average range. Overall, this is indicative of functioning that is above and within normal limits in the academic
domain of oral language.
Assessment of Reading
A Total Reading Composite score was calculated using four subtests on the WIAT-III (Reading
Comprehension, SS=115, high average, Word Reading, SS=113, high average, Pseudoword Decoding,
SS=112, high average, & Oral Reading Fluency, SS=97, average). John obtained a Total Reading Composite
score of 111±4, which falls at the 77th percentile, in the High Average range of functioning compared to same
age peers. Further, John obtained a Basic Reading score (Pseudoword Decoding and Word Reading) of
113±4 which falls at the 81st percentile, in the High Average range of functioning compared to same grade
peers. Lastly, John obtained a Reading Comprehension and Fluency score of 107±8, which falls at the 68th
percentile, in the Average range of functioning compared to same grade peers. Within Oral Reading Fluency,
John performed in the Average range on Oral Reading Accuracy (SS=102) and Oral Reading Rate (SS=100).
John had more difficulty with inferential comprehension questions compared to literal questions. Overall, this
is indicative of functioning that is within normal limits in the academic domain of reading.
Assessment of Mathematics
A Mathematics Composite score was calculated using two subtests on the WIAT-III (Math Problem Solving,
SS=108, average & Numerical Operations, SS=106, average). This Composite score of 108±6 falls at the 70th
percentile, in the Average range of functioning compared to same age peers. John struggled with multistep/mixed operations word problems involving money, order of operations, and with finding the mean,
median and mode. Overall, this is indicative of functioning that is within normal limits in the academic domain
of math.
Assessment of Written Expression
A Written Expression Composite score was calculated using three subtests on the WIAT-III (Spelling,
SS=112, high average, Essay Composition, SS=97, average, & Sentence Composition, SS=94, average).
John obtained a Written Expression Composite score of 100±7, which falls at the 50th percentile, in the
Average range of functioning compared to same age peers. Within Sentence Composition, John performed in
the Average range on Sentence Combining (SS=100) and Sentence Building (SS=90). This shows that when
given content, John performs better than when coming up with content and forming grammatically correct
sentences on his own. Within Essay Composition, John performed in the Average range on Grammar and
Mechanics (SS=103), Word Count (SS=103), and Theme Development and Text Organization (SS=90). John
ran out of time on the Essay Composition subtest, otherwise he would have more fully developed his theme
and text organization. Overall, this is indicative of functioning that is within normal limits in the academic
domain of written expression.
Communication
Examiner: Speech and Language Specialist
Oral Motor
Observation of the major muscle groups responsible for speech production (lips, teeth, tongue, and jaw)
indicated symmetrical structures. An informal performance assessment of John’s ability to move his tongue
appropriately to articulate speech sounds (diadokokenetic rate) appears to fall within the normal range. John’s
articulators are in general adequate for both speech and non-speech functions.
Articulation
No misarticulations noted.
Voice/Fluency
The vocal parameters of resonance, pitch, intensity, rate and frequency were all considered within normal
limits relative to his age and gender during this assessment. No dysfluencies were observed or reported. No
echolalia was observed.
Smith, J. 15
Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL)
The CASL is a norm-referenced oral language assessment battery of tests for children and young adults (3-21 years of
age). The results provide information on oral language skills that children and adolescents need to become literate as
well as to succeed in school and in the work environment. Standardized scores that fall within the normal range are from
85-115.
Subtest
Synonyms
Grammaticality Judgment
Nonliteral Language
Meaning from Context
Pragmatic Judgment
Core Composite
Supralinguistic Category
Standard
Score
127
108
96
99
97
108
98
Percentile
Rank
96
70
39
47
42
70
45
An in-depth evaluation of John’s language functioning, the CASL was administered to examine his overall
listening skills and verbal language abilities. Five subtests were administered resulting in a Core Composite
Language Score. John’s Core Composite Language Score was 108 with a corresponding percentile rank of
70th. Subtests administered from the CASL assessed the following areas:
Synonyms: student is given a word, read four other words, and then must choose from those four the
synonym targeted
Grammaticality Judgment: student must determine if sentence read to him sounds correct or not. If it does not
sound correct, student must correct the sentence.
Nonliteral Language: student listens to nonliteral language used in context and must describe the meaning.
Meaning from Context: student determines meaning of unusual or uncommon vocabulary word from context.
Pragmatic Judgment: student listens to social situations and must determine what to do or say in those
situations.
The Core subtests are those tests that theoretically and developmentally best represent and most reliably
measure the language skills developed at John’s age. John obtained a standard score of 108 on the Core
composite. According to the CASL classification system, John’s oral language functioning is in the average to
high average range of communication skills compared to his same age peers. Concurrently, John’s
Supralinguistic categorical subtests for his age (nonliteral language; Meaning from Context) placed him in the
average range of ability for his age (SS=98). These skills assessed John’s ability to understand the
communicative intended meaning of the speaker or other special features such as a meaning of a word or
group of words in a linguistic or environmental context (figurative language). John demonstrates the ability to
inference and understands higher-order linguistic processing.
John demonstrated relative strengths in identifying synonyms and in determining if a sentence read to him
sounds correct or not and fixing it if incorrect. He further demonstrated good/ average ability in determining
meaning of unusual or uncommon words from context, understanding and explaining what is meant by
nonliteral language and in asking questions to get information or making requests and comments in social
situations. John was able to judge inappropriate speech or actions, make appropriate requests for information,
express regret over someone’s death, ask and get clarification of information, make appropriate refusal to
give personal information, identify an off topic comments in a situation, and request pertinent information
when calling a store to find a particular item and when inviting someone to a function such as a birthday party.
He also presented with the ability to politely and appropriately admit guilt for a situation, apologize, and offer
restitution when given a situation in which if he broke another person’s property, give an appropriate reaction
for a situation such as getting charged too much money at a restaurant, and use appropriate behavior and
speech with authority figures. These social skills are further reflective of his communication during social skills
class, as well as on the school campus.
Test of Problem Solving, Second Edition (TOPS-2)
The TOPS–2 Adolescent is a diagnostic test of problem solving and critical thinking for adolescent students ages 12-0
Smith, J. 16
through 17-11. It is designed to assess a student’s critical thinking skills based on the student’s language strategies
using logic and experience. According to The Critical Thinking Community (2004,www.criticalthinking.org), “Critical
thinking is that mode of thinking-about any subject, content, or problem- in which the thinker improves the quality of his or
her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing and reconstructing it. It entails effective communication and problemsolving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism” (TOPS-2 Adolescent,
2007, Pg.9). This standardized measure is made up of five subtests including Making Inferences, Determining Solutions,
Problem Solving, Interpreting Perspectives, and Transferring Insights. All five subtests require the student to pay careful
attention, think about and process the problems with a purpose in mind, and identify and understand the perspective of
what other’s feel and experience.
Subtest
Making Inferences
Determining Solutions
Problem Solving
Interpreting Perspectives
Transferring Insights
Core Composite
Standard
Score
105
117
101
113
101
108
Percentile
Rank
62
88
53
81
52
71
John was also given the TOPS-2 Adolescent to measure his ability to integrate his semantic and linguistic
knowledge with his reasoning ability by way of picture stimuli and verbal responses. It assesses his
performance in critical thinking and problem solving tasks in real-life contexts.
John demonstrates average to high average (Total SS=108) ability to expressively reason and use thinking
skills. John exhibits above average ability for his age in understanding and identifying the problem and then
generating a workable solution in a situation (Determining Solutions SS=117) for example stating that if a
person wants to protect his rights to an invention, John stated that the person should copyright his product or
a person could earn money by selling stuff he owns or do jobs around the house. He also demonstrates
relative strengths in evaluating how others would feel as a result of an experience and what they would do as
a consequence of those feelings and how this would impact him (Interpreting Perspective SS=113) as well as
being able to use past experiences and other reputable sources to figure out multiple solutions (Making
Inferences SS=105). John further presents with average ability (SS=101) for recognizing a problem, thinking
of alternative solutions and evaluation options including how to avoid specific problems (Problem Solving) and
comparing similar situation by using information stated in a passage (Transferring Insight).
Motor/Sensory Abilities
Examiner: Occupational Therapist
Validity of Findings
Under the current edition of the Guidelines for Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy in California Public Schools,
the use of functional, curriculum-based assessments is highly encouraged over the former practice of formal,
standardized assessment. Observations made by a qualified professional, interviews with those who are familiar with the
child (especially parents, teachers, and other professionals providing services), and work samples are considered
appropriate functional, curriculum-based assessment methods.
Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile
The Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile is a standardized assessment tool to measure and to profile the effect of sensory
processing on functional performance. It is a questionnaire consisting of 60 items which is summarized using quadrant
scores---Low Registration, Sensation Seeking, Sensory Sensitivity, and Sensation Avoiding. The student scores each
item by reporting the frequency with which he responds to various sensory experiences (Almost Always, Frequently,
Occasionally, Seldom, or Almost Never).
Quadrant Summary:
Low Registration
Sensation Seeking
Sensory Sensitivity
Similar to Most People
Similar to Most People
Similar to Most People
Smith, J. 17
Sensation Avoiding
Similar to Most People
Findings
According to the finding John does not appear to have any Sensory processing issues. However, due to his
impulsive behavior and disruptive comments directed to peers and staff, it is recommended to follow the
Behavior Intervention Plan recommendations.
Social/Emotional/Behavioral Functioning
Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition (BASC-2)
Social-emotional, behavioral and adaptive functioning was assessed, in part, by completion of the BASC-2, a nationally
standardized behavior rating scale, which measures problem behaviors and adaptive skills. The BASC-2 gathers
information about children from a variety of sources (teacher, parent, direct student observation, and student self-report),
which may be used individually or in any combination. Behavioral characteristics are rated and yield quantified scores
along a continuum of severity for potentially problematic behaviors and lack of adaptive skills: The Normal Range, the AtRisk Range (identifies either a significant problem that may not be severe enough to require formal treatment or a
potential of developing a problem that needs careful monitoring), or the Clinically Significant Range (suggests a high level
of maladjustment). When the child’s score differs significantly from the other children, this can indicate behavioral
problems in any of the following areas and/or lack of adaptive skills.
T-Score Interpretation Guidelines
Mean T = 50 SD = 10
+
++
Clinical Scales / Composite Scales
Average Range
[41-59]
At-Risk Range
[60-69]
Clinically Significant [≥70]
Teacher: Ms. Gates, Special Education Teacher
Parent: Mr. Smith, Father
Composite/Clinical Scales
Teacher T-Score
Externalizing Problems
73++
Hyperactivity
74++
Aggression
83++
Conduct Problems
58
Internalizing Problems
67+
Anxiety
47
Depression
63+
Somatization
83++
Behavioral Symptoms Index
72++
Atypicality
64+
Withdrawal
63+
School Problems
50
Attention Problems
56
Learning Problems
44
Adaptive Skills
41
Adaptability
36+
Social Skills
34+
Leadership
43
Study Skills
49
Activities of Daily Living
Functional Communication
49
+
++
Adaptive Scales
Average Range
At-Risk Range
Clinically Significant
[41-59]
[31-40]
[≤30]
Parent T-Score
72++
74++
69+
67+
89++
72+
103++
72++
89++
86++
82++
63+
34+
28++
39+
34+
40+
42
Smith, J. 18
Teacher Critical Items
Threatens to hurt others.
Bullies others.
Is easily annoyed by others.
Eats too little.
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Parent Critical Items
Has eye problems.
Threatens to hurt others.
Says, ‘I want to kill myself.’
Says, ‘I want to die’ or ‘I wish I were dead.’
Bullies others.
Hears sounds that are not there.
Falls down.
Sleeps with parents.
Throws up after eating.
Eats too much.
Is easily annoyed by others.
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
The BASC-2 was completed by John’s special education teacher, Ms. Gates, and his father, Mr. Smith. The
BASC-2 contains three validity indices that assess the response style of the raters. No concerns were noted
on the validity indices.
Ms. Gates and Mr. Smith rated John across several domains. First, they completed items that assessed
Externalizing Problems. Three scales comprised this composite, namely the Hyperactivity, Aggression, and
Conduct Problems scales. John obtained ratings on this composite that fell within the Clinically Significant
range in comparison to same age peers. Both reported Clinically Significant levels of Hyperactivity, while
parent reported higher levels of concerns with Aggression and Conduct Problems. Both teacher and father
endorsed that John often annoys others on purpose, threatens to hurt others, sometimes bullies others, and is
often impulsive.
Second, Ms. Gates and Mr. Smith rated John in the area of Internalizing Problems. The three scales that
comprised the Internalizing composite include the Anxiety, Depression, and Somatization scales. John
obtained ratings on this composite that fell within the Clinically Significant range according to his father’s
report and in the At-Risk range according to his teacher’s report in comparison to same age peers. On the
Somatization scale, both teacher and father reported Clinically significant levels of concerns. This is
consistent with observations and reports that John often has somatic complaints and is insistent on staff
addressing these complaints and allowing him to sleep or call/go home. Further, father reported a Clinically
Significant level on the Depression scale and teacher reported an At-Risk level. This is consistent with John’s
diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder NOS. Lastly, father reported an At-Risk score on the Anxiety scale, while the
teacher reported an average score. Both parent and teacher endorsed that John complains of being teased,
is sometimes sad, and is often easily upset.
The BASC-2 also includes two additional clinical scales, Withdrawal and Atypicality. John obtained ratings
that fell within the Clinically Significant range according to parent report and in the At-Risk range according to
teacher report on both of these scales in comparison to same age peers. His father endorsed that he often
seems unaware of others, has strange ideas, says things that make no sense, babbles to himself, and often
prefers to be alone. His teacher endorsed that he often acts strangely, says things that make no sense, has
strange ideas, and has trouble making friends.
The School Problems Composite includes the Attention Problems and Learning Problems scales. John
obtained ratings on both scales that fell within the average range in comparison to same age peers per
teacher report. His father’s rating fell within the At-Risk range in comparison to same age peers. Some
concerns were noted with John’s ability to listen, sustain attention, and not become distracted.
Smith, J. 19
The Adaptive Skills composite includes the Adaptability, Social Skills, Leadership, Study Skills, and Functional
Communication scales. His teacher rated him within the At-Risk range on the scales for Adaptability and
Social Skills, while his father’s ratings fell within the Clinically Significant range for Adaptability and within the
At-Risk range for Social Skills, Leadership, and Activities of Daily Living in comparison to same age peers.
They both indicated some concerns with John’s ability to react to unexpected changes, to interact with peers,
to be a leader, and to independently take care of his hygiene and chores.
BASC-2 Self-Report Form
Informant: John Smith
Composite/Clinical Scale
School Problems
Attitude to School
Attitude to Teachers
Sensation Seeking
Internalizing Problems
Atypicality
Locus of Control
Social Stress
Anxiety
Depression
Sense of Inadequacy
Somatization
Inattention/Hyperactivity
Attention Problems
Hyperactivity
Emotional Symptoms Index
Personal Adjustment
Relations with Parents
Interpersonal Relations
Self-Esteem
Self-Reliance
T-Score
58
50
61+
58
64+
61+
71++
60+
51
58
57
67+
54
47
60+
64+
30++
45
33+
11++
52
Critical Items
Other kids hate to be with me.
I feel like my life is getting worse and worse.
No one understands me.
I feel sad.
I hate school.
Sometimes
Often
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
John completed the BASC-2 to report on his current social, emotional, and behavioral functioning. The BASC2 Self-Report contains five validity indices that assess the response style of the rater. No concerns were noted
on the validity indices.
First, John completed items that assessed School Problems. The three scales that compromise this
composite include Attitude to School, Attitude to Teachers, and Sensation Seeking. No concerns were noted
overall on this composite in comparison to same age peers. However, John rated an At-Risk level on the
Attitude to Teachers scale. John reported that his teachers do not understand him, do not care about him, do
not trust him, get mad at him for no good reason, and are unfair.
Second, John completed items that assessed Internalizing Problems. The seven scales that compromise this
composite include Atypicality, Locus of Control, Social Stress, Anxiety, Depression, Sense of Inadequacy, and
Somatization. His rating on this composite fell in the At-Risk range in comparison to same age peers. In
particular, John’s ratings fell within the At-Risk range on the Atypicality, Social Stress, and Somatization
scales, and within the Clinically Significant range on the Locus of Control scale. On the Atypicality scale, John
endorsed that he does things over and over and can’t stop, sometimes, when alone, he hears his name, feels
Smith, J. 20
like people are out to get him, and sometimes when alone feels like someone is watching him. On the Social
Stress scale, John endorsed that other people are sometimes against him and that he is sometimes lonely.
On the Somatization scale, John endorsed that he has headaches, stomachs, and gets sick more than others.
Lastly, on the Locus of Control scale, John endorsed that his parents blame too many of their problems on
him and that things go wrong for him even when he tries hard.
The BASC-2 also includes a Hyperactivity/Inattention composite that consists of the Hyperactivity and
Attention Problems scales. John’s ratings on the Hyperactivity scale fell in the At-Risk range in comparison to
same age peers.
Lastly, the Personal Adjustment composite includes the Relations with Parents, Interpersonal Relations, SelfEsteem, and Self-Reliance scales. John’s ratings on this composite fell within the Clinically Significant range.
In particular, the Self-Esteem scale fell within the Clinically Significant range while the Interpersonal Relations
scale fell within the At-Risk range. John endorsed that he does not like who he is, he wishes he were different,
and he does not feel good about himself.
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale, Second Edition (RCMAS-2)
The Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale, Second Edition (RCMAS-2) is a self-report rating scale measuring the
nature and level of anxiety in children ages 6 to 19 years. Norms are based on an ethnically diverse sample of more than
2,300 individuals. The test is composed of 49 items contributing to four scales (Physiological Anxiety, Worry, Social
Anxiety, and Defensiveness) and three of these scales (all except Defensiveness) contribute to the Total Anxiety scale.
Standard T-Score Interpretive Guideline
Mean T = 50 SD = 10
≤39
Less problematic than for most students
40-60
No more problematic than for most students
61-70 +
Moderately problematic
>70
++
Extremely problematic
Informant: John Smith
Scale
Defensiveness
Total Anxiety
Physiological Anxiety
Worry
Social Anxiety
T-Score
43
51
56
46
55
Percentile
24
54
72
35
69
John completed the RCMAS-2 to report on the nature and level of his anxiety. John reported an average level
of defensiveness which suggests that he was willing to admit to everyday imperfections that are commonly
experienced. John did not report any problems with anxiety on the RCMAS-2. This is inconsistent with his
diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder along with observations that John appears fidgety and anxious at
times. He is particularly anxious in social situations and when completing work that he feels needs to be
correct/perfect. John often has psychosomatic complaints believed to be a result of his anxiety and this often
leads to him missing school or sleeping at school. Additionally, his anxiety often causes him to withdraw and
not interact with the other students.
Autism Spectrum Rating Scales (ASRS)
The Autism Spectrum Rating Scales (ASRS) is a questionnaire for parents and teachers of school age children to assess
autism spectrum symptoms in the home and school environments. It is designed for children aged 6 to 18 years. The
Parent and Teacher Forms of the ASRS each contain 71 items with three ASRS scales (Social/Communication, Unusual
Behaviors, and Self-Regulation), an overall DSM-IV-TR scale, and eight treatment scales (Peer Socialization, Adult
Socialization, Social/Emotional Reciprocity, Atypical Language, Stereotypy, Behavioral Rigidity, Sensory Sensitivity, and
Attention).
Smith, J. 21
Standard T-Score Interpretive Guideline
Mean T = 50 SD = 10
≤59 Average Score
60-64 Slightly Elevated Score
65-69 Elevated Score
≥70 Very Elevated Score
+
++
+++
Teacher: Ms. Gates, Special Education Teacher
Parent: Mr. Smith, Father
Teacher Parent
Scale
T-Score T-Score
Total Score
71+++
71+++
61+
65++
Unusual Behaviors
74+++
70+++
Self-Regulation
69++
65++
DSM-IV-TR Scale
70+++
73+++
Peer Socialization
71+++
76+++
Adult Socialization
77+++
69++
63+
66++
Atypical Language
75+++
73+++
Stereotypy
65++
68++
Behavioral Rigidity
75+++
68++
Sensory Sensitivity
78+++
69++
61+
57
Common Characteristics of Children with High
Scores
Has many behavioral characteristics similar to youth
diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder.
ASRS Scales
Social/Communication
Has difficulty using verbal and non-verbal communication
appropriately to initiate, engage in, and maintain social
contact.
Has trouble tolerating changes in routine. Engages in
apparently purposeless, stereotypical behaviors. Overacts
to certain sensory experiences.
Has deficits in attention and/or motor/impulse control; is
argumentative.
Has symptoms directly related to the DSM-IV-TR
diagnostic criteria for an Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Treatment Scales
Social/Emotional
Reciprocity
Attention
Has limited willingness and capacity to successfully
engage in activities that develop and maintain
relationships with other children.
Has limited willingness and capacity to successfully
engage in activities that develop and maintain
relationships with adults.
Has limited ability to provide an appropriate emotional
response to another person in a social situation.
Spoken communication may be repetitive, unstructured, or
unconventional.
Engages in apparently purposeless and repetitive
behaviors.
Has difficulty tolerating changes in routine, activities, or
behavior, aspects of the environment must remain
unchanged.
Overreacts to certain experiences sensed through touch,
sound, vision, smell or taste.
Has trouble appropriately focusing attention on one thing
while ignoring distractions; appears disorganized.
John’s teacher, Ms. Gates, along with his father, Mr. Smith, completed the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales
(ASRS) to report on John’s level of autism spectrum symptoms.
Ratings on the Social/Communication scale indicate the extent to which John uses verbal and nonverbal
communication appropriately to initiate, engage in, and maintain social contact. Ratings on this scale fall in the
Slightly Elevated range according to Ms. Gates and in the Elevated range according to Mr. Smith.
Ratings on the Unusual Behaviors scale indicate John’s level of tolerance for changes in routine, engagement
in apparently purposeless and stereotypical behaviors, and overreaction to certain sensory experiences.
Ratings on this scale fall in the Very Elevated range according to Ms. Gates and Mr. Smith.
Ratings on the Self-Regulation scale indicate how well John controls his behavior and thoughts, maintains
Smith, J. 22
focus, and resists distraction. Ratings on this scale fall in the Elevated range according to Ms. Gates and Mr.
Smith.
Ratings on the Total Score scale indicate the extent to which John’s behavioral characteristics are similar to
the behaviors of youth diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Ratings on this scale fall in the Very
Elevated range according to Ms. Gates and Mr. Smith.
Ratings on the DSM-IV-TR Scale indicate how closely John’s symptoms match the DSM-IV-TR criteria for an
Autism Spectrum Disorder. Ratings on this scale fall in the Very Elevated range according to Ms. Gates and
Mr. Smith. Ratings on the Delay of Communication Items indicate that John both acquired language, and
spoke in 3-word sentences by age 3 years; therefore, a delay in communication development was not
indicated. This pattern of scores indicates that John has symptoms directly related to the DSM-IV-TR
diagnostic criteria, and is exhibiting many of the associated features characteristic of the Autism Spectrum
Disorders. Because a delay in communication development was not indicated, follow-up should focus on
further assessment of Asperger’s Disorder, and this is consistent with John’s diagnosis of Asperger’s
Disorder.
On the Treatment Scales, concerns were reported in the areas of Peer Socialization, Adult Socialization,
Social-Emotional Reciprocity, Atypical Language, Stereotypy, Behavioral Rigidity, and Sensory Sensitivity.
Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition (SRS-2)
The Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition (SRS-2) is a 65 item questionnaire. It covers the various dimensions
of interpersonal behavior, communication, and repetitive / stereotypic behavior that are characteristic of Autism Spectrum
Disorder. The Social Awareness subscale assesses an individual’s ability to pick up on social cues. The Social Cognition
subscale assesses an individual’s ability to interpret cues once they are picked up. The Social Communication subscale
assesses expressive social communication within a reciprocal setting. The Social Motivation subscale assesses the
extent to which an individual is generally motivated to engage in social-interpersonal behavior. Elements of social anxiety,
inhibition, and empathic orientation are included among these items. The Restricted Interests and Repetitive Behavior
subscale assesses the stereotypical behaviors or highly restricted interests characteristic of autism.
Standard T-Score Interpretive Guideline
Mean T = 50 SD = 10
≤59
Within Normal Limits
60-65 Mild Range
66-75 Moderate Range
≥76
Severe Range
Teacher: Ms. Gates, Special Education Teacher
Parent: Mr. Smith, Father
TEACHER
Level of Clinical
Scale
T-Score
Significance
Social Awareness
68
Moderate Range
Social Cognition
69
Moderate Range
Social Communication
78
Severe Range
Social Motivation
74
Moderate Range
Restricted Interests &
77
Severe Range
Repetitive Behavior
Total Score
77
Severe Range
T-Score
76
85
83
73
PARENT
Level of Clinical
Significance
Severe Range
Severe Range
Severe Range
Moderate Range
85
Severe Range
85
Severe Range
The Social Awareness subscale assesses John’s awareness of what others are thinking or feeling. In this
area, the teacher rates John’s functioning within the moderate range, while father rates him in the severe
range.
The Social Cognition subscale assesses John’s ability to interpret cues once they are picked up. In this area,
the teacher rates John’s functioning within the moderate range, while father rates him in the severe range.
The Social Communication subscale assesses expressive social communication within reciprocal settings.
Smith, J. 23
John’s teacher and father rate his social communication to be in the severe range.
The Social Motivation subscale assesses the extent to which John is generally motivated to engage in socialinterpersonal behavior. Elements of social anxiety, inhibition, and empathic orientation are included among
these items. In this area, teacher and father rate him in the moderate range. John often prefers to be by
himself than to interact with his peers and he does not have any friends.
The Restricted Interests and Repetitive Behavior subscale assesses the stereotypical behaviors or highly
restricted interests characteristic of Autism. In this area, teacher and father rate John’s functioning in the
severe range. John is able to talk about a range of topics, but can perseverate on topics and have a hard time
changing topics. He does prefer to talk about science-fiction such as Star Wars.
The Total Score assesses John’s overall reciprocal social behavior and the level of interference with his
everyday social interactions. Ms. Gates and Mr. Smith rated John in the severe range on this overall scale.
These ratings appear to be consistent with his other teachers’ reports and observations. John greatly
struggles with his social interactions due to his low motivation, restricted interests, and poor social awareness
and social cognition. John is often not able to pick up on social cues in the environment and interpret when
someone is not amused or not interested in his conversation. Additionally, he is not able to understand when
he is bullying and angering his peers and putting himself in a dangerous situation. Scores in this range
indicate deficiencies in reciprocal social behavior that are clinically significant and lead to severe interference
with everyday social interactions. Such scores are strongly associated with clinical diagnosis of an Autism
Spectrum Disorder. This is again consistent observations and reports, along with John’s diagnosis of
Asperger’s Disorder.
Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale, Second Edition (ADOS-2) – Module 3
The ADOS-2 is a semi-structured, standardized assessment of communication, social interaction, and play or
imaginative use of materials for individuals referred because of possible autism or other pervasive developmental
disorders. The ADOS-2 consists of standard activities that allow the examiner to observe behaviors that have been
identified as important to the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders at different developmental levels and chronological
ages. Level three was utilized with John because this is recommended for children for whom playing with toys is ageappropriate (usually under 12-16 years of age) and who are verbally fluent. Verbal fluency is broadly defined as having
the expressive language of a typical four year old child: producing four word sentences covering a range of sentence
types and grammatical forms, using language to provide information about events out of context and producing some
logical connections within sentences.
John’s overall score on the ADOS-2 was representative of a child with evident Autism Spectrum Disorder
symptoms (Autism Spectrum cut off 7; John’s score: 7). When comparing John’s overall level of autism
spectrum-related symptoms to that of children diagnosed with ASD who are the same age and have similar
language skills, John is considered to have a Low level of Autism Spectrum – Related Symptoms.
As evidenced by John’s performance on the Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale, Second Edition, John
demonstrated appropriate eye gaze with subtle changes throughout communication however it should be
noted that he does demonstrate poor eye contact when he does not want to think about the message
presented to him. He also demonstrated a range of appropriate facial expression toward the examiner such
as smile, frown, and expression of disgust, grimace and surprise. John did not demonstrate an understanding
of cause of emotions in others with any depth or insight. John lacked depth and insight into the nature of
relationships. He further expressed that it is difficult for him to make friends as he is smarter and more
advanced than his peers. His overall quality of rapport when expressing his thoughts regarding questions
posed was open and thought-provoking when discussing topics he felt comfortable with. When
uncomfortable, John quickly became provocative and challenging. He appeared to lack insight and
perspective to his own theory of mind and how others perceive him. John excelled at tasks that involved telling
a story from a non texted book (Tuesday’s) and story retell through picture descriptions. John seems to excel
in story-telling activities that includes using relevant story grammar elements (i.e. setting statements, initiating
events, internal responses of characters, statements of how a character may overcome a problem, and
consequences) as well as emotional responses of each character (i.e. desires, thoughts, plans, and
reactions). John appeared to enjoy the compliments of the examiner by thanking her and giving a big smile
when told how interested and excited to hear the next parts of his story.
Smith, J. 24
Best Practice for ED assessments but not universally available.
Personality Assessment Inventory – Adolescent (PAI-A)
The Personality Assessment Inventory - Adolescent is an objective personality assessment for adolescents aged 12 to
18 years. The PAI-A contains 264 items with four validity scales, 11 clinical scales, five treatment consideration scales,
and two interpersonal scales. PAI-A scores are presented in the form of linear t-scores, which were calculated with
reference to a U.S. Census-matched community sample.
The PAI-A provides a number of validity indices that are designed to provide an assessment of factors that
could distort the results of testing. Such factors could include failure to complete test items properly,
carelessness, reading difficulties, confusion, exaggeration, malingering, or defensiveness. Also evaluated is
the extent to which the John attended appropriately and responded consistently to the content of test items.
John’s scores suggest that he did attend appropriately to item content and responded in a consistent fashion
to similar items. The degree to which response styles may have affected or distorted the report of
symptomatology on the inventory is also assessed. The scores for these indicators fall in the normal range,
suggesting that John answered in a reasonably forthright manner and that there do not appear to be factors
that might distort the profile which would make it appear either more negative or more positive than the clinical
picture would warrant.
Critical Items
My thinking has become confused. (Sometimes)
I’m the target of a conspiracy. (Sometimes)
I’ve made plans about how to kill myself. (Sometimes)
Sometimes I’ve very violent. (Sometimes)
I keep having nightmares about my past. (Sometimes)
Since I had a very bad experience, I am no longer interested in some things that I used to enjoy. (Sometimes)
Since the day I was born, I was destined by to be unhappy. (Mainly True)
I used to lie a lot to get out of tight situations. (Sometimes)
I like to see how much I can get away with. (Sometimes)
The PAI-A clinical profile reveals no marked elevations that should be considered to indicate the presence of
clinical psychopathology. Scores on one or more scales do, however, show moderate elevations that may
reflect sources of difficulty for John. John describes himself as being more wary and sensitive in interpersonal
relationships than the average adolescent. Others are likely to see him as tough-minded, skeptical, and
somewhat hostile.
John indicates some concerns about physical functioning and health matters in general. He reports being
particularly preoccupied with his health status and physical problems. His social interactions and
conversations likely often focus on his health problems, and his self-image may be largely influenced by a
belief that he is handicapped by his poor health.
John also reports some difficulties consistent with relatively mild or transient depressive symptomatology.
John describes himself as rather moody and others may view him as overly sensitive. He may be dissatisfied
with his more important relationships and uncertain about major life goals to a greater degree than is typical of
others his age.
According to John’s self-report, he describes no significant problems in the following areas: unusual thoughts
or peculiar experiences, antisocial behavior, problems with empathy, unusually elevated mood or heightened
activity, marked anxiety, or problematic behaviors used to manage anxiety. Also, he reports no significant
problems with alcohol or drug abuse or dependence.
Self-Concept
John’s self-concept appears to involve a self-evaluation that has both positive and negative aspects. His
attitudes about himself may vary from states of pessimism and self-doubt to periods of relative self-confidence
and self-satisfaction. Some fluctuation in self-esteem may be observed as a function of his current
circumstances, although these fluctuations will not be extreme and are comparable to those experienced by
most adolescents. During stressful times in particular, he is prone to be somewhat self-critical, uncertain, and
indecisive.
Smith, J. 25
Interpersonal and Social Environment
John’s interpersonal style seems best characterized as self-assured, confident, and dominant. Although not
unfriendly, he is likely to be described by others as ambitious and having a leader-like demeanor (although
this is not consistent with parent and teacher report on the BASC-2 that John evidences deficits in his
leadership skills). He is comfortable in social settings, but is not likely to mix indiscriminately, preferring to
interact with others in situations over which he can exercise some measure of control.
In considering John’s social environment with respect to perceived stressors and the availability of social
supports with which to deal with these stressors, his responses indicate that he experiences his level of social
support as being somewhat lower than that of the average adolescent. He may have relatively few close
relationships or be dissatisfied with the quality of these relationships. However, he reports relatively little
stress arising from this or other major life areas. This is consistent with reports that John does not have any
friends.
Treatment Considerations
With respect to suicidal ideation, John reports experiencing periodic and perhaps transient thoughts of selfharm. He is probably pessimistic and unhappy about his prospects for the future. Specific follow-up regarding
the details of his suicidal thoughts and the potential for suicidal behavior is warranted.
With respect to anger management, John describes himself as being rather impatient and easily irritated. He
is relatively quick-tempered at times, and he may be easily provoked by the actions of those around him.
However, he does not report any specific aggressive behaviors that are recurrent problems for him.
Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance, Second Edition (SAED-2)
The SAED-2 is a rating scale that assists in understanding the emotional and behavioral disorders of children and
identifying students who may meet the criteria for ED impairment. The scale was normed in the United States on large
representative samples of students both with and without ED. It was designed to assist practitioners in the screening of
and identification of children who qualify for the federal special education category Emotional Disturbance and can be
used with children, ages 5 to 18. The measure yields the five defining characteristics of emotional disturbance as
determined by the criteria in the educational code (Inability to Learn, Relationship Problems, Inappropriate Behavior,
Unhappiness or Depression, and Physical Symptoms or Fears). It also yields a Rating Scale Index indicating the overall
likelihood that the student has an emotional disturbance. This measure was used, in part, to assess John’s teacher’s (Mr.
Martinez) perceptions of his behavior in light of the Special Education eligibility criteria for Emotional Disturbance.
Scaled Score Interpretative Guidelines
Mean = 10
SD = 3
1-13
14-16
≥17
Descriptive Terms for Emotional Disturbance Characteristics
Not Indicative of ED
Indicative of ED
Highly Indicative of ED
40-115
≥116
Rating Scale Index
Average
Significantly elevated
*Compared to a Non-ED Sample
Rater: Ms. Gates, Special Education Teacher
Score
Inability to Learn
8
Relationship Problems
16
Inappropriate Behavior
14
Unhappiness or Depression
8
Physical Symptoms or Fears
11
Rating Scale Index
109
Percentile
25
98
91
25
63
73
Descriptive Term
Not Indicative of ED
Indicative of ED
Indicative of ED
Not Indicative of ED
Not Indicative of ED
Average
Smith, J. 26
John’s special education teacher, Ms. Gates, completed the Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance, 2 nd
Edition (SAED-2) to rate John’s emotional and behavioral functioning in school in terms of special education
criteria for Emotional Disturbance (ED). John’s teacher reported the Relationships Problems and
Inappropriate Behavior scales to be Indicative of Emotional Disturbance. Ms. Gates reported that John has no
friends, does not work well in group activities, and lacks skills needed to be friendly and sociable. Further, she
reported that John fails to consider the consequences of his own actions, threatens others, is disruptive, and
uses obscene, profane, and sexually oriented language.
The overall score for the rating scale (SS=109) falls in the average range, as compared to non-emotionally
disturbed same age peers. See indicators of possible disability for further information.
Additionally, his score on the Social Maladjustment scale (SS=8) fell within the average range.
Intensive Social Emotional Services Assessment
Examiner: Intensive School-Based Therapist
DSM-IV Diagnosis:
Axis I
Bipolar Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) (296.80), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (300.02),
Asperger’s Disorder (299.80).
Axis II Deferred (V71.09)
Axis III None
Axis IV Problems related to the social environment.
Axis V GAF: 50
Any relevant background information obtained by this specialist:
John has a private psychiatrist with whom the parents are in regular contact. He underwent a number of
medication changes over the course of his placement at Public School. These changes were most often
initiated to help stabilize his behavior.
Unique behaviors observed in the classroom:
At times very focused and on task, at other times sleeping throughout the period.
How social/emotional issues are or may impact educational performance:
John’s mood, anxiety and peer relationships impact him on a consistent basis. In a classroom setting any of
the issues can emerge and affect his academic performance.
John’s ability to benefit from individual and group therapy:
John was able to utilize individual therapy to address immediate concerns and at times be able to de-escalate
from frustrating situations. He was also able to engage in reciprocal conversations and responded well to
relationship building. John had difficulty with problem solving dialogues, often being avoidant to that approach.
Generalizing outside the therapeutic setting was very difficult. Group therapy could also be very challenging
and would often have some significant peer conflict, with John being either reactive to peer comments or
initiating a negative exchange. He has been making some positive growth in this regard as he became more
comfortable with a familiar group of peers. At times his comments to peers could be very provocative.
Areas of need to be addressed in IEP through goals and services:
Social skills awareness and interaction, mood management and self help/coping skills, and self management
skills are general goals areas.
Self-Help/Adaptive Skills
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Vineland II)
The Vineland Adaptive Rating Scales, both Parent and Teacher forms, assess adaptive skills needed for personal and
social sufficiency at home, on the job, at school, and in the community. The rating form covers the four broad domains of
Communication, Daily Living Skills, Socialization, and Motor Skills. The Communication domain measures how a student
Smith, J. 27
listens and pays attention, and how a student uses words to speak and write. The Daily Living Skills domain measures a
student’s daily habits and hygiene; the student’s understanding of time, money, and math; and the student’s ability to
follow rules and routines. The Socialization domain measures how a student interacts with others, uses play and leisure
time, and demonstrates responsibility and sensitivity to others.
The Vineland Adaptive Rating Scales use standard scores to describe a student’s overall functioning (i.e. Adaptive
Behavior Composite), as well as his level of functioning in each of the adaptive behavior domains. A standard score
relates one student’s performance to the performance of a pertinent reference group, that of same-aged peers. The
scores range from 20 to 160, with a mean of 100, and a standard deviation of 15. The v-scaled score describes the
student’s functioning on the subdomains, relative to that of others the same age. The v-scaled scores range from 1 to 24,
with a mean of 15 and a standard score of 3. The Adaptive levels allow the description of adaptive performance in the
domains and subdomains based on the broad ranges of standard and v-scaled scores, using High, Moderately High,
Adequate, Moderately Low, Low. Age Equivalents are norm-referenced scores which indicate the age level at which the
average person in the population performs the same (based on subdomain raw scores) as the individual who is being
assessed.
Teacher Rating Form Completed by: Ms. Gates, Special Education Teacher
Caregiver Rating Form Completed by: Mr. Smith, Father
Teacher Form
Parent Form
V-scaled
V-scaled
score/
score/
Standard
Standard
Domain
Score
Adaptive Level
Score
Adaptive Level
Communication
94
Adequate
89
Adequate
Receptive
13
Adequate
11
Moderately Low
Expressive
14
Adequate
13
Adequate
Written
16
Adequate
14
Adequate
Daily Living Skills
95
Adequate
87
Adequate
Personal
11
Moderately Low
11
Moderately Low
Domestic
17
Adequate
14
Adequate
(School) Community
16
Adequate
11
Moderately Low
Socialization
81
Moderately Low
74
Moderately Low
Interpersonal Relationships
10
Moderately Low
11
Moderately Low
Play and Leisure
11
Moderately Low
11
Moderately Low
Coping Skills
9
Low
10
Moderately Low
Adaptive Behavior Composite
85
Moderately Low
83
Moderately Low
The classroom teacher rates John’s use of adaptive behaviors within the highly structured school setting are
in the moderately low range, with specific areas ranging from adequate to moderately low. His skills in the
areas of receptive, expressive, and written language, school community, domestic skills, and academic skills,
are all adequate. Written language is an area of personal strength. Personal care, interpersonal relations and
play and leisure skills are moderately low compared to peers his approximate age, and the area of coping
skills is low. In the home setting, parent reports that his receptive language, personal care skills, community
access, interpersonal relationships, use of play and leisure time, and coping skills are moderately low
compared to similar age peers.
John’s father rates John’s use of adaptive behaviors within the home setting as moderately low, but specific
areas range from adequate to moderately low. His skills in the areas of expressive language, written
language, and domestic skills are all adequate. He reports that his receptive language, personal care
community living, interpersonal relationships, use of play and leisure, and coping skills are moderately low
compared to similar age peers.
Notes by the teacher and father indicate that while John is able to state long-range goals, but they are
frequently negative. John is an avid reader of science fiction, but strongly resists reading factual selections.
He uses high level vocabulary in an accurate manner and enjoys engaging staff in topics of interest such as
cooking and traveling. In terms of his socialization, John tends to initiate social interactions through
provocative comments and he is competitive with his peers. He often belittles his peers. John’s coping
Smith, J. 28
strategies are extremely limited and he typically deals with discomfort by going to sleep or by verbally bullying
others. Overall, parent descriptions are generally consistent, however, he appears to benefit from the
structure of the school setting to demonstrate some higher level adaptive skills.
Skills rated as emerging, or requiring some prompting or support to elicit within the school setting currently
include the following.
Communication skills (particularly academic):
 Listens to an informational talk for at least 15 minutes
 Stays on topic in conversation, does not go off on tangents
 Demonstrates interest in both fact and fiction reading material
 Edits or corrects own written work before turning it in
 Plans, organizes, or outlines materials to be written
Daily living and self-help skills:
 Attempts to improve work quality or study habits after receiving constructive criticism from a teacher
 Checks own work for mistakes or errors
Socialization skills:
 Demonstrates friendship seeking behaviors with others the same age
 Has a best friend or shows preference for certain friends
 Chooses not to say embarrassing or mean things or ask rude questions in public
 Participates in class discussion without monopolizing
 Cooperates with others to plan or be a part of a group assignment or activity
 Initiates conversations on topics of particular interest to others
 Plays with others with minimal supervision
 Takes turns when asked while playing games or sports
 Shows good sportsmanship
 Cooperates with requests made by teacher or other school personnel
 Says “please” when asking for something
 Accepts helpful suggestions or solutions made by others
 Controls angry or hurt feelings when plans change for reasons that cannot be helped
It will be valuable to focus on these skills systematically to build toward consistent, independence
demonstration of these skills across settings.
Critical skills which are not yet developing within the school setting:
 Plays cooperatively with more than one student for more than 5 minutes
Overall, John’s daily living skills are mildly depressed compared to others his age across settings. This limits
his freedom and access to the full range of developmentally appropriate activities. John requires greater
supervision and support and a greater degree of structure for full and safe participation.
Vocational/Pre-Vocational/Community Access
Not an area of suspected disability.
OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of assessment, including factors affecting educational performance:
Indicators of possible disability
The following educational eligibilities were considered under Title 5 of the California State Educational Code:
Emotional Disturbance and Autism.
Recommendations to enable student to be involved in and progress in general education curriculum:
Smith, J. 29
Possible special education and related services needed or additions or modifications to current services
needed to meet goals and participate in general curriculum/appropriate activities (include basis for
determination of need):
The IEP team will meet to discuss assessment results and make a decision about special education eligibility and
services. The purpose of this report is to provide information to assist the team in making that decision.
Date of report:
Person completing this report:
Name
Other assessors contributing to this report:
Name
Title
Title
School Nurse
Speech & Language Specialist
Occupational Therapist
Intensive School-Based Therapist, Ventura County
Behavioral Health
Special Education Teacher
Smith, J. 30