Source: Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, 2nd Edition (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007)
Interpretive Statement 1 Based on WISC-IV Nonunitary (but Clinically Meaningful) VCI of 69
On the three tasks that comprise the WISC-IV Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Jim’s performance
was consistently Below Average and in the Normative Weakness range. For example, when required to
give definitions of words presented orally his performance was slightly below average (Vocabulary = 6
[SS = 80]; 9th percentile). When asked to give oral responses to hypothetical questions that assess
everyday problems or understanding of social rules and concepts his performance was lower (WISC-IV
Comprehension = 3 [SS = 65]; 1st percentile). And, when required to explain the similarity between the
concepts represented by two different words his performance was the lowest (WISC-IV Similarities = 1
[SS = 55], <1st percentile). The difference between his highest and lowest performances on these tests is
statistically significant rendering the VCI nonunitary. Because all of Jim’s Verbal Comprehension score
performances were below average however, the VCI is interpretable. Jim’s VCI or Crystallized
Intelligence (Gc) is ranked at the 1st percentile (SS = 69) and is a Normative Weakness. This score
suggests that Jim’s functioning in the broad Gc domain is deficient as compared to same-age peers from
the general population. Therefore, Jim’s fund of knowledge is deficient and his ability to reason with
verbal information is impaired – these findings should play a significant role in educational intervention
planning.
Interpretive statement 1 (XBA version as an alternative to the above)
Source: Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, 2nd Edition (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007)
On the three tasks that comprise the WISC-IV Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Jim’s performance
was consistently Below Average and in the Normative Weakness range. For example, when required to
give definitions of words presented orally his performance was slightly below average (Vocabulary = 6
[SS = 80]; 9th percentile). When asked to give oral responses to hypothetical questions that assess
everyday problems or understanding of social rules and concepts his performance was lower (WISC-IV
Comprehension = 3 [SS = 65]; 1st percentile). And, when required to explain the similarity between the
concepts represented by two different words his performance was the lowest (WISC-IV Similarities = 1
[SS = 55], <1st percentile). The difference between his highest and lowest performances on these tests is
statistically significant rendering the VCI nonunitary and noninterpretable. To better assess and
understand Jim’s functioning in this domain, his scores were examined using XBA interpretive guidelines.
Analysis of his scores within this framework indicated that although the VCI is nonunitary, a valid
Crystallized Intelligence (Gc) cluster can be formed based on these three subtest performances because
they were all in the same normative range. Jim’s Gc cluster of 67 is ranked at the 1st percentile and is a
Normative Weakness. Overall, this suggests that Jim’s functioning in the broad Gc domain is deficient as
compared to same-age peers from the general population. Therefore, Jim has a disorder in the basic
psychological process of Gc – a finding that should play a significant role in educational intervention
planning.
Interpretive statement 2
On tasks that measured Carol’s Fluid Intelligence (Gf) her performance was Below Average and in the
Normative Weakness range when required to determine the logic behind why some objects are grouped
together and others are not (WJ III Concept Formation = 80; 9th percentile) and in the Average Range
when asked to solve logic puzzles that are based on combinations of different colored squares (WJ III
Analysis-Synthesis = 110; 75th percentile). The difference between her performances on these tests is
statistically significant, rendering her overall Gf cluster nonunitary and noninterpretable. To better
assess and understand Carol’s functioning in this domain, a second measure of her weaker Gf narrow
ability (i.e., Induction) was administered. On an Induction task that required Carol to determine the
correct components that complete a matrix reasoning or logic puzzles, her performance this time was in
the Average Range (WISC-IV Matrix Reasoning = 11 [SS = 105]; 65th percentile). The lack of
convergence here between two measures of Induction (Concept Formation and Matrix Reasoning)
indicates that Carol’s performance on the WJ III Concept Formation subtest is likely to be an anomalous
result and not an accurate indication of her ability to reason inductively.* Therefore, Carol’s broad Gf
ability was based on the aggregate of her performances on WJ III Analysis-Synthesis and WISC-IV
Matrix Reasoning. She earned a Gf cluster of 108 which is ranked at the 71st percentile and is classified
as Average Range/Within Normal Limits, indicating that her functioning in this broad ability/process is
intact.
* Describe factors that may have contributed to this anomaly
Source: Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, 2nd Edition (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007)
Interpretive statement 3
On tasks that measured Alan’s Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) his performance was Below Average and in the
Normative Weakness range when required to learn and recall words associated with picture symbols that
form sentences (WJ III Visual-Auditory Learning = 80; 9th percentile) and Above Average and in the
Normative Strength range when asked to quickly recall words that belong to a particular category (WJ III
Retrieval Fluency = 118; 88th percentile). The difference between his performances on these tests is
statistically significant rendering his overall Glr cluster nonunitary and noninterpretable. To better assess
and understand Alan’s functioning in this domain, a second measure of his weaker ability (i.e.,
Associative Memory) was administered. On a task that required Alan to again remember and recall words
that are associated with graphical symbols, his performance this time was Above Average and in the
Normative Strength range (KABC-II Rebus 14 [SS = 120]; 91st percentile). The lack of convergence here
between two measures of Associative Memory (WJ III Visual-Auditory Learning and KABC-II Rebus)
appears to indicate that Alan’s performance on the WJ III Visual Auditory Learning subtest is an
anomalous result and not an accurate indication of his Associative Memory ability. Therefore, Alan’s
broad Glr ability was based on the aggregate of his performances on WJ III Retrieval Fluency and
KABC-II Rebus. He earned a Glr cluster of 119, which is ranked at the 89th percentile and is classified as
Above Average/Normative Strength, indicating that his functioning in this area is intact and above what
is typically expected of individuals his age.
Interpretive statement 4
On tasks that measured Sarah’s Crystallized Intelligence (Gc), her performance was Below Average and
in the Normative Weakness range when required to state a word that is either similar or opposite in
meaning to a presented word or name familiar and unfamiliar pictured objects (WJ III Verbal
Comprehension = 80; 9th percentile) and in the Average Range when asked to answer orally presented
questions regarding the common or typical characteristics of objects (WJ III General Information = 100;
50th percentile). The difference between her performances on these tests is statistically significant
rendering her overall Gc cluster nonunitary and noninterpretable. To better assess and understand
Sarah’s functioning in this domain, a second measure of her weaker narrow ability (Lexical Knowledge)
was administered. On a task that required Sarah to give definitions of words presented orally, her
performance again fell Below Average and in the Normative Weakness range (WISC-IV Vocabulary =
5[SS = 75]; 5th percentile). Thus, a narrow ability Lexical Knowledge cluster was formed based on the
aggregate of WJ III Verbal Comprehension and WISC-IV Vocabulary. Sarah earned a Lexical
Knowledge cluster of 78, which is ranked at the 7th percentile and is classified as Below
Average/Normative Weakness. Overall, it appears that although one aspect of Sarah’s Gc is average
(General Information), another aspect (Lexical Knowledge) is Below Average or deficient.
Source: Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, 2nd Edition (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007)
Interpretive statement 5
On tasks that measured Trent’s Crystallized Intelligence (Gc), his performance was in the upper end of
the Average Range when required to point to one of six pictures that show the meaning of the word or the
answer to a question posed by the examiner (KABC-II Verbal Knowledge = 13 [SS = 115]; 84th
percentile) and in the lower end of the Average Range when asked to solve orally presented riddles by
pointing to a picture or using words (KABC-II Riddles = 7 [SS = 85]; 16th percentile). Although both
scores are within the Average Range, the difference between his performances on these tests is
statistically significant, rendering his overall Gc cluster nonunitary and noninterpretable. To better assess
and understand Trent’s functioning in this domain, a second measure of his relatively weaker narrow
ability (Lexical Knowledge/Reasoning) was administered. On a task that required Trent to answer
questions using reasoning, his performance again fell within the Average Range (WISC-IV Word
Reasoning = 9 [SS = 95]; 37th percentile). This result indicates that Trent’s Lexical
Knowledge/Reasoning ability is, in fact, intact. When evaluated from a CHC theoretical perspective, the
aggregate of his three scores yielded a valid broad Gc cluster that was within the Average Range (Gc =
98, 45th percentile). Although this cluster is considered nonunitary, it is nonetheless interpretable since
all three Gc performances fell within the same normative range. Thus, Trent’s ability to work and reason
with primarily learned information is within normal limits.
Interpretive statement 6
On the three tasks that comprise the WISC-IV Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Anita’s performance
was consistently in the Average to Above Average range. For example, when required to give definitions
of words presented orally her performance was Average (Vocabulary = 11 [SS = 105]; 65th percentile).
However, when asked to give oral responses to hypothetical questions that assess everyday problems or
understanding of social rules and concepts her performance was Above Average and considered a
Normative Strength (WISC-IV Comprehension = 16 [SS = 130]; 98th percentile). And, when required to
respond orally and explain the similarity between the concepts represented by two different words her
performance was again Above Average (WISC-IV Similarities = 14 [SS = 120], 91st percentile). The
difference between her highest and lowest performances on these tests is statistically significant rendering
the VCI nonunitary and noninterpretable. To better assess and understand Anita’s functioning in this
domain, her scores were examined using XBA interpretive guidelines. Analysis of her scores within this
framework indicated that a valid Crystallized Intelligence (Gc) cluster can be formed based on the
aggregate of the Comprehension and Similarities subtest scores. Anita earned a Gc cluster of 125, which
is ranked at the 95th percentile and is classified as Above Average/Normative Strength. Although Anita’s
performance on the Vocabulary subtest was lower than her Gc cluster, her Vocabulary performance was
Average. Overall, when asked to reason with words and general information, Anita’s performance is
significantly Above Average as compared to same age peers from the general population.
Source: Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, 2nd Edition (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007)
Interpretive statement 7
On tasks that measured Rick’s Long-Term Retrieval (Glr), his performance was Above Average and in
the Normative Strength range when required to learn and recall words associated with picture symbols
that formed sentences (WJ III Visual-Auditory Learning = 125; 95th percentile) and Below Average and
in the Normative Weakness range when asked to quickly recall as many words that belong to a particular
category (WJ III Retrieval Fluency = 80; 9th percentile). The difference between his performances on
these tests is statistically significant, rendering his overall Glr cluster nonunitary and noninterpretable. To
better assess and understand Rick’s functioning in this domain, a second measure of his weaker narrow
ability (Ideational Fluency/Naming Facilty) was administered. On a task that required Rick to quickly
identify and name pictures of common objects, his performance was again Below Average and in the
Normative Weakness range (WJ III Rapid Picture Naming = 82; 12th percentile). Thus, a valid narrow
ability cluster (Ideational Fluency/Naming Facility) was formed based on the aggregate of WJ III
Retrieval Fluency and Rapid Picture Naming. Rick earned an Ideational Fluency/Naming Facility cluster
of 81 (76-85), which is ranked at the 11th percentile and is classified as Below Average/Normative
Weakness. Overall, it appears that although one aspect of Rick’s Glr is Above Average (Associative
Memory) another aspect is Below Average and deficient (Ideational Fluency/Naming Facility).
Interpretive Statement 8 Using XBA Gf Cluster
On the three subtests that comprise the WISC-IV Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI), Jing’s performance
was consistently Average to Above Average. For example, when required to reproduce a series of
pictorial designs using blocks her performance was Above Average and considered a Normative Strength
(Block Design = 16 [SS = 130]; 98th percentile). When required to choose one picture from each row to
form a group with a common characteristic, her performance was within the Average Range (WISC-IV
Picture Concepts = 11 [SS = 105]; 65th percentile). And, when required to select the option that
completes a matrix, Jing’s performance was again within the Average Range (WISC-IV Matrix
Reasoning = 13 [SS = 115], 84th percentile). The difference between her highest and lowest
performances on these PRI subtests is statistically significant, rendering the PRI nonunitary and
noninterpretable. To better understand Jing’s functioning in this domain, her scores were examined using
XBA interpretive guidelines. Analysis of her scores within this framework indicated that a valid Fluid
Intelligence (Gf) cluster can be formed based on the Picture Concepts (Induction) and Matrix Reasoning
(Induction/General Sequential Reasoning) subtests. Jing earned a Gf cluster of 110, which is ranked at
the 75th percentile and is classified as Average Range/Within Normal Limits. Jing’s performance on
Block Design was even higher than this cluster, indicating that her Visual Processing (Gv) ability,
particularly Spatial Relations is well developed. Overall, these results indicate that Jing reasons well
with visual information.
Interpretive Statement 8 Using Wechsler Gf Cluster
On the three subtests that comprise the WISC-IV Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI), Jing’s performance
was consistently Average to Above Average. For example, when required to reproduce a series of
pictorial designs using blocks her performance was Above Average and considered a Normative Strength
Source: Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, 2nd Edition (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007)
(Block Design = 16 [SS = 130]; 98th percentile). When required to choose one picture from each row to
form a group with a common characteristic, her performance was within the Average Range (WISC-IV
Picture Concepts = 11 [SS = 105]; 65th percentile). And, when required to select the option that
completes a matrix, Jing’s performance was again within the Average Range (WISC-IV Matrix
Reasoning = 13 [SS = 115], 84th percentile). Although the difference between Jing’s highest and lowest
performances on the PRI subtests is statistically significant, rendering the PRI nonunitary and
noninterpretable, it is clear that Jing’s ability to reason with nonverbal stimuli is well developed.
Specifically, she earned a Wechsler Fluid Intelligence (Gf) cluster of 112 (79th percentile; Average
Range) based on the Picture Concepts and Matrix Reasoning subtests. Jing’s performance on Block
Design was even higher than her Gf cluster, indicating that her Visual Processing (Gv) ability,
particularly Spatial Relations is well developed. Overall, these results indicate that Jing reasons well
with visual information.
Interpretive statement 9
On the three tasks that comprise the WISC-IV Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI), Guillermo’s
performance was consistently in the Above Average/Normative Strength range. For example, when
required to reproduce a series of pictorial designs using blocks, his performance was Above Average
(Block Design = 19 [SS = 145]; 99th percentile). When required to choose one picture from each row to
form a group with a common characteristic, his performance was also Above Average (WISC-IV Picture
Concepts = 14 [SS = 120]; 91st percentile). And when required to select the option that completes a
matrix, Guillermo’s performance was again Above Average (WISC-IV Matrix Reasoning = 15 [SS =
125], 95th percentile). Nevertheless, the difference between his highest and lowest performances on the
PRI subtests is statistically significant rendering, the PRI nonunitary and noninterpretable. To better
understand Guillermo’s functioning in this domain, his scores were examined using XBA interpretive
guidelines. Analysis of his scores within this framework indicated that although his PRI is nonunitary, a
valid cluster can be formed based on all three subtests. Guillermo earned a Fluid Reasoning/Visual
Processing (Gf/Gv) cluster of 130, which is ranked at the 98th percentile and considered a Normative
Strength. Overall these results indicate that Guillermo’s ability to reason with visual information is well
Above Average as compared to same age peers from the general population.