Loading...

discussion 3

Open Posted By: surajrudrajnv33 Date: 14/10/2020 High School Rewriting & Paraphrasing

see attachment title discussion

Category: Arts & Education Subjects: English literature Deadline: 12 Hours Budget: $150 - $300 Pages: 3-6 Pages (Medium Assignment)

Attachment 1

School Logo and Address

Name of Examiner

Phone of Examiner

Email of Examiner

PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

Confidential

Name: Student Date of Birth: January 10, 1996

Date of Testing: 10--2009 Chronological Age: 13.9 years

Examiner: Sex: Female

Grade: 7 School:

WISC IV SCORES SUMMARY

WISC-IV COMPOSITE

Composite

Score

Percentile

Rank

95%

Confidence

Interval

Qualitative

Description

Verbal Comprehension 121 92 113-127 Superior

Perceptual Reasoning 127 96 117-132 Superior

Working Memory 99 47 91-107 Average

Processing Speed 103 58 94-112 Average

Full Scale (FSIQ) 119 90 113-123 High Average

General Abilities Score (GAS) 128 97 121-133 Superior

Verbal Comprehension Subtest Scores Summary Perceptual Reasoning Subtest Scores Summary

Subtests

Scaled

Score

Subtests

Scaled

Score

Similarities 15 Block Design 12

Vocabulary 10 Picture Concepts 16

Comprehension 16 Matrix Reasoning 15

(Information) (Picture Completion)

(Word Reasoning)

Working Memory Scores Summary Processing Speed Subtest Scores Summary

Subtests

Scaled

Score

Subtests

Scaled

Score

Digit Span 7 Coding 9

Letter-Number Sequencing 13 Symbol Search 12

(Arithmetic) (Cancellation)

PIAT-R SCORES SUMMARY

Subtest Standard Score 95% Confidence

Intervals

Percentile Rank Qualitative Description

General Information 114 108-120 82 High Average

Reading Recognition 102 96-108 55 Average

Reading Comprehension 92 85-99 30 Average

Total Reading 96 91-101 39 Average

Student-Examiner-Date

2

Mathematics 114 108-120 82 High Average

Spelling 80 72-88 9 Low Average

Total Test 100 90-110 50 Average

WRMT-R/NU Form G SCORES SUMMARY

Subtest Standard Score 90% Confidence

Intervals

Percentile Rank Qualitative Description

Visual-Auditory Learning 60 56-65 <1 Extremely Low

Letter-identification 79 70-88 20 Well Below Average

Word Identification 92 88-95 38 Average

Word Attack 105 98-113 57 Average

Word Comprehension 95 90-100 43 Average

Passage Comprehension 93 88-98 40 Average

Cluster

Readiness 73 68-78 10 Well Below Average

Basic Skills 97 94-99 45 Average

Reading Comprehension 93 91-96 41 Average

Total Reading -FS 95 93-97 43 Average

CTOPP SCORES SUMMARY

Composite Standard Score Percentile Rank Qualitative Description

Phonological Awareness 80 9 Below Average

Phonological Memory 91 27 Average

Rapid Naming 73 3 Well Below Average

Gray Oral Reading Tests-4

th Ed. Form A SCORES SUMMARY

Subtest GORT-4

Quotients

Standard Score Percentile Rank Qualitative

Description

Rate 5 5 Extremely Low

Accuracy 6 9 Extremely Low

Fluency 3 1 Extremely Low

Comprehension 8 25 Average

Oral Reading Quotient 73 Well Below Average

ORAL AND WRITTEN LANGUAGE SCALES SCORES SUMMARY

Subtest Standard

Score

Confidence Interval Percentile Rank Qualitative Description

Listening Comprehension 106 95-117 66 Average

TOWL-3 SCORES SUMMARY

Subtest Quotient Standard Scores Percentile Rank Qualitative Description

Contextual Conventions 9 37 Average

Contextual Language 8 25 Average

Student-Examiner-Date

3

Story Construction 7 16 Low Average

Spontaneous Writing 87 19 Low Average

EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

Student’s primary language, racial, and ethnic background were considered prior to selection and interpretation of

evaluation procedures and measures. All assessment procedures measure a limited sample of a person's total repertoire.

The selected measures should only be interpreted within the limits of their measured validity. The following procedures

were components of the evaluation:

Interview and Observation of Student

Developmental Checklist

All Kinds of Minds “Attuning a Student” Checklists

Wechsler Intelligence Scale For Children 4 th Edition (WISC-IV)

Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised/Normative Update (PIAT-R/NU)

Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised/Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU)

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS) Listening Comprehension Subtest

Test of Written Language, 3 rd

Edition (TOWL-3) Spontaneous Writing Subtests

Gray Oral Reading Test 4 th Edition (GORT-4)

Reason for Referral

Student was referred by his teacher because has been struggling with all reading and writing assignments across his

classes and in-class interventions have not been effective.

Home:

Student lives at home with his mother, father, and two sisters. Student is the youngest of the three siblings. He lives in a

three bedroom home in a gated community at Blackpoint, Kahala, on the island of O‘ahu Hawai‘i. This living

arrangement has been in effect since August, 2009. Mother and father are both highly educated. His father has an

engineering degree and his mother has a bachelor’s degree in art.

Language:

Student’s primary language is English which he has been exposed to since birth. The language spoken in Student’s home

is primarily English, however Spanish, is also spoken “frequently.” It was observed that his speech was clear and

intelligible. His verbal responses were generally complete, grammatically correct sentences.

Development:

Student’s birth was a “normal full-term” birth. His mother reports that he was “unsettled as [an] infant, as compared to his

two older sisters.” The following developmental milestones were achieved within the range of normal expectations:

Sitting alone Crawling

Standing Alone Walking Alone

Using Toilet When Awake Staying Dry at Night: Occasionally bed wet

Student is right handed.

Sensory/Motor Status:

Student-Examiner-Date

4

Student’s latest hearing screening was conducted in 2009; his latest vision screening in 2003. His mother reports that the

results were normal.

Medical/Psychiatric/Neurological Status:

Student was hospitalized in 2003 with a kidney infection. Mother reports no major medical or psychiatric concerns

Medication/Substance Abuse:

According to Student’s mother, Student has taken “natural supplements, e.g., Omegas, DHA, CoQ10, GABA,

Acidophilous” He is not currently taking any medication.” There is no history of substance abuse.

Family History

There is a family history of left-handedness (maternal grandmother), trouble learning to read (father and student),

giftedness, and creativity (student’s sisters).

Educational History

Student was cared for as an infant by his mother and grandmother, both of whom spoke English and Spanish equally.

Student attended a Montessori preschool beginning at age 3.5. The educational philosophy was a combination of

academics, practical life, and socialization skills.

Student began kindergarten at Collingwood School in West Vancouver, B. C. He attended from kindergarten to grade two

where he repeated second grade. He attended ASSETS School in Honolulu from third through sixth grade.

While at the blank School Student’s principal “noticed that Student was falling behind for his age group.

According to his mother, Student still finds spelling difficult and can “be easily distractable.” Student is not “fond of

identifying the names of states on a blank map.” His academic difficulties at this time include spelling, composition,

decoding language, reading, comprehension and staying focused.

Student “enjoys math” and is a “talented artist.” According to his mother Student can be “diligent and perseverant” and is

“not afraid to be challenged.” He is finding school a challenge now, however, and struggles to find a niche.

According to Student’s mother his social life is progressing “better more recently” as he has begun to make friends in his

new school. He has “always been a very social child” and “sometimes this is distracting to his studies.” As when he was

younger, socializing appears to be “one of his greatest skills” and he is described as “confident and equipped with a good

sense of humor.” He is popular amongst his peers and has always been “well-liked by his teachers.”

Behavioral Observations

Student presented as a friendly, attractive, cooperative, 13 year-old-boy. He was neatly groomed and appropriately attired.

He approached each task with persistence and was engaged in each activity throughout the testing experience. While he

was confident when he knew the answers, he was cautious and slow when not sure. He took one break within each 3 hour

testing session. Rapport was easy to establish and maintain.

During testing, Student had no apparent sensory or motor problems. He easily talked about his likes and was alert to

person, place and time. His oral expression was adequate. His eye contact was appropriate. His motor proficiency was

adequate. He used her right hand on paper and pencil tasks.

Student-Examiner-Date

5

When providing verbal responses, his sentences were complete. He used adequate vocabulary choices to express himself.

Student was oriented to the task and displayed appropriate attention, concentration and effort. There were no behavioral

indications of significant distractibility, hyperactivity or impulsivity.

Validity Statement

Student’s performance during formal testing did not appear to be adversely affected by failure or frustration. He did not

require any adaptations or modifications to the standardized procedures. He did not require an excessive amount of

reinforcement and praise. HISOverall, the results of the present testing and evaluation procedures appear to be valid for

the purpose of addressing the reason for referral.

COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT:

Description and Interpretation of WISC–IV Results

Student was administered ten subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) from

which his composite index scores are derived. The Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) is derived from a combination of ten subtest

scores and is considered the most representative estimate of global intellectual functioning. Student’s general cognitive

ability is within the above average range of intellectual functioning as measured by the FSIQ (FSIQ = 119; 95%

confidence interval =115-125), however there were significant differences (at the .05 level) among the four Indexes that

make up this composite; therefore the FSIQ score cannot be considered a valid representation of his overall cognitive

ability. In this case, it is appropriate to use the VCI and PRI scores

(http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/using_the_dwi_or_gia.htm) to create a General Ability Score (GAI) The GAI score is

derived from the subtests that comprise the Verbal Comprehension Index and the Perceptual Reasoning Index. Student’s

GAI score is in the superior range (GAI= 128, 95% confidence level = 121-133)

Student’s verbal reasoning abilities as measured by the Verbal Comprehension Index are in the superior range (VCI =

121; 95% confidence interval = 113-127). The Verbal Comprehension Index is designed to measure verbally acquired

knowledge, reasoning, and concept formation. Student’s performances on the subtests that contribute to the VCI were

variable, ranging from average to superior indicating that his abilities in this area are unevenly developed. He achieved

his best performance among the verbal reasoning tasks on the Comprehension subtest (Scaled Score = 16). The

Comprehension Subtest is designed to measure common sense, social judgment and a sense of social conventionality. His

score on this subtest reflects a significantly more well-developed ability relative to his other abilities. Student’s verbal

comprehension abilities are a significant strength relative to his working memory and processing speed abilities.

Student’s nonverbal reasoning abilities as measured by the Perceptual Reasoning Index are in the superior range (PRI =

127; 95% confidence interval = 117-132). The Perceptual Reasoning Index is designed to measure nonverbal concept

formation, visual perception and organization, simultaneous processing, learning, and the ability to separate figure and

ground in visual stimuli. Student’s performances on the subtests that contribute to the PRI ranged from average to

superior indicating that his abilities in this area are unevenly developed. Student achieved his best performance among the

nonverbal reasoning subtests on the Picture Concepts subtest (Scaled Score = 16). The Picture Concepts Subtest is

designed to measure abstract categorical reasoning based on perceptual recognition processes. Student’s perceptual

reasoning abilities are a significant strength relative to his processing speed and working memory abilities.

Student’s working memory abilities as measured by the Working Memory Index are in the average range (WMI =99;

95% confidence interval = 91-107). The Working Memory Index is designed to measure working memory, short–term

auditory memory, encoding ability, the ability to use rehearsal strategies and auditory processing skills, and the ability to

shift mental operations on auditory symbolic material. Student’s performances on the subtests that compose the working

memory index ranged from average to below average indicating that his abilities in this area are unevenly developed. A

comparison of the two subtests reveals that his short–term auditory memory for tasks that require rote memorization AND

Student-Examiner-Date

6

information processing is significantly better developed than his short-term auditory memory for tasks that require only

minimal information processing. In addition, Student’s scores on the subtest designed to measure short-term auditory

memory and attention requiring only minimal information processing indicate that his abilities in this area are

significantly less well developed than his other abilities.

Student’s speed of processing abilities as measured by the Processing Speed Index is in the average range (PS=103 95%

confidence interval = 94-112). The Processing Speed Index is designed to measure perceptual discrimination, speed of

mental operations, psychomotor speed, attention, concentration, short-term visual memory, visual-motor coordination, and

cognitive flexibility.

His performances on the subtests that compose the Processing Speed Index were all within the average range. Student’s

scores on the subtest that measures the ability to learn an unfamiliar task that involves speed and accuracy of visual-motor

coordination, speed of mental operation, attentional skills, visual acuity, visual scanning and tracking, and cognitive

flexibility indicate that his abilities in this area are significantly less well developed than his other abilities. This subtest

measures the ability to learn combinations of shapes and symbols and the ability to make associations quickly and

accurately and can be characterized as a task involving the discrimination and memory of visual pattern symbols.

ACHIEVEMENT ASSESSMENT

Description and Interpretation of PIAT-R/NU Academic Scores

Student completed the Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised/Normative Update to assess his current level of

functioning in specific academic areas. The report, generated from the PIAT-R/NU ASSIST software is summarized here.

General Information:

The General Information subtest measures mastery of the general body of knowledge taught in school, including

information from science, social studies, and fine arts. On this measure of general encyclopedic knowledge, Student

performed in the above average range (Standard Score = 114 95% confidence interval = 108-120).

Reading:

The reading subtests include the reading recognition subtest which measures the ability to recognize sounds associated

with printed letters and the ability to read words aloud, and the reading comprehension subtest which measures the ability

to understand the meaning of written material.

On the reading recognition subtest, Student performed in the average range (standard score = 102; 95% confidence

interval = 96-108).

On the reading comprehension subtest, Student performed in the average range (standard score =92; 95% confidence

interval = 85-99).

Student’s overall performance is summarized by the Total Reading composite score. She performed in the average range

(standard score = 96; 95% confidence interval = 91-101).

Mathematics:

The mathematics subtest measures the ability to understand mathematical concepts and procedures to perform

calculations, and to solve problems. Student’s performance was above average (standard score =114; 95% confidence

interval =108-120)

Student-Examiner-Date

7

Spelling:

This subtest measures the ability to recognize letters from their names or sounds and to recognize the standard spelling of

words. Student’s performance on this subtest was low average (standard score = 80; 95% confidence interval = 72-88).

Total Test:

The total test composite score is a measure of the overall level of achievement on the five subtests listed above. Student’s

overall performance was average (standard score = 91; 95% confidence interval = 88-94)

Strengths and Weaknesses:

Student’s strongest performance was on the general information subtest with a standard achievement score of 114. His

weakest performance was on the spelling subtest with a standard score of 80. His general information subtest score

revealed a significant strength in relationship to his other achievement scores.

Ability-Achievement Discrepancy Analysis:

Student recently obtained a GAI standard score of 128 on the WISC-IV. Based on this score, his actual total reading

achievement score of 91 is significantly lower than the expected achievement score of 119. The percent of the population

with the same size discrepancy or greater is 2.

Description and Interpretation of WRMT-R/NU Results

The Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised, Normative update is a comprehensive battery of tests measuring

important aspects of reading ability. It consists of six tests that measure several important aspects of reading. The Visual-

Auditory subtest measures the ability to learn new vocabulary. The Letter Identification subtest measures the ability to

identify letters of the alphabet when they are presented in many forms. The Word Identification subtest measures the

ability to read words that may be unfamiliar out loud. The Word Attack subtest measures the ability to analyze the form

and sound of unknown words in order to pronounce them. The Word Comprehension subtest measures a how your child

understands antonyms, synonyms and analogies. The Comprehension Subtest measures the ability to read and

comprehend a short passage. The WRMT-R/NU ASSIST was used to score the results.

Three cluster scores were derived from the six subtests. They included the Readiness cluster, measuring the skills useful

for beginning reading, the Basic Skills cluster, measuring basic reading skills, and the Reading Comprehension cluster,

measuring how well one understands what is being read.

The Readiness Cluster measures skills useful for beginning reading such as visual-auditory learning and letter

identification. Student performed in the well below average range (Standard Score = 73; 90% confidence interval = 68-

78), scoring in the extremely low range (Standard Score = 60, 90% confidence interval = 56-65) on the subtest designed to

measure visual-auditory learning ability.

The Basic Skills Cluster measures basic reading skills. Student performed in the average range

(Standard Score = 97; 90% confidence interval = 94=99) in the Basic Skills Cluster.

The Reading Comprehension Cluster measures how well an individual understands what he or she reads. Student

performed in the average range (Standard Score =93; 90% confidence interval = 93-97) in the Reading Comprehension

Cluster.

Student-Examiner-Date

8

The Total Reading-Full Scale Cluster measures overall reading ability and consists of the Word Identification, Word

Attack, Word Comprehension, and Passage Comprehensions tests. Student performed in the average range (standard

score = 95; 90% confidence interval = 93-97) on the Total Reading FS cluster.

His lowest attained score (Standard Score = 60; 90% confidence interval = 56-65) was on the visual-auditory learning

subtest; his highest was on the word attack skills subtest (Standard Score = 105; 90% confidence interval = 98-113).

There was a significant discrepancy in Student’s expected total reading score of 119 based on a recently administered

WISC-IV GAI of 128, and his actual score of 95. The percent of the population with this size discrepancy is 1.

Description and Interpretation of OWLS Results

The Oral and Written Language Scales are designed to measure (a) receptive oral language, which is the understanding of

spoken language (b) expressive oral language, which is the understanding and use of spoken language, and (c) the use of

the conventions of written language. It is comprised of three subtests that collapse into two composites.

The Listening Comprehension Scale assesses the ability to comprehend words and phrases, grammar, and higher order

language such as logic and humor. Student’s performance on this scale was in the average range (Standard Score =106;

90% confidence interval = 95 - 117).

Description and Interpretation of the GORT-4 Results

The Gray Oral Reading Tests, 4th ed., (GORT-4) assesses oral reading rate, accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. A

combination of all scores results in an Oral Reading Quotient, providing an overall index of the student’s ability to read

orally.

Student’s scores respectively, were in the extremely low range (scaled score 5; 5 th percentile) for the subtest measuring

Reading Rate (the amount of time taken by a student to read a story), the extremely low range (scaled score 6; 9 th

percentile) for the subtest measuring Accuracy (the student’s ability to pronounce each word in the story correctly) and in

the extremely low range (scaled score 3; 1 st percentile) for the subtest measuring Fluency (the student’s rate and accuracy

scores combined). He performed in the average range (scaled score 8; 25 th percentile) in the Comprehension subtest, a

test to measure understanding.

The combination of all scores resulted in an overall Reading Quotient in the well below average range (standard score

73; 2 nd

percentile).

Description and Interpretation of TOWL-3 Results

The Test of Written Language, 3 rd

. Ed., measures the student’s written communication skills as elicited by a picture

stimulus. To assess his spontaneous writing ability, Student was administered the three subtests of the Test of Written

Language 3 rd

Ed. Student’s Spontaneous Writing Quotient was in the low average range (Quotient = 87). His score for the

subtest measuring knowledge and use of contextual conventions was in the average range (standard score = 9; 37 th

percentile). His score measuring contextual language was in the average range (standard score = 8; 25 th percentile). His

score for story construction was in the below average range (standard score = 7; 11 th percentile) He did not include any

coordinating conjunctions other than “and,” he did not name any of the objects in the picture and his vocabulary selection

was sparse and immature. His story had an ordinary beginning, did not refer to a specific event occurring before or after

the picture, and the plot was meager with predictable story action and an abrupt ending. He took the entire 15 minutes

allotted and was only able to complete eleven lines of prose.

PROCESSING ASSESSMENT

Student-Examiner-Date

9

Description and Interpretation of CTOPP Results

Student was administered the six core subtests of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) to assess

phonological awareness, phonological memory, and rapid memory. Phonological processing refers to the ability to use the

sound elements that comprise oral language to process written and oral language. These core subtests collapse into three

composites, Phonological Awareness, Phonological Memory, and Rapid Naming. An individual such as Student with

deficits in both rapid automatic naming and phonological awareness is at greater risk of reading problems compared to an

individual with deficits in only one of the two areas.

Phonological Awareness:

Phonological Awareness refers to the individual’s awareness of and access to phonemes, the individual sound units that

make up spoken words. Student’s composite performance on the two core subtests that contribute to the phonological

awareness composite is within the low average range (standard score =80). A weakness in phonological processing is a

hallmark of dyslexia.

Phonological Memory:

Phonological Memory refers to coding information phonologically for temporary storage in working or short-term

memory. Student’s performance on the subtests that contribute to the Phonological Memory Composite is within the

average range (standard score = 91).

Rapid Automatic Naming:

Rapid Automatic Naming evaluates the student’s ability to quickly and efficiently retrieve phonological information

stored in long-term memory. Student’s performance on the subtests that contribute to the Rapid Automatic Naming

Composite is within the extremely low range (standard score = 73). The abilities measured by this set of sub-tests include

efficient retrieval from long-term or permanent memory and executing a series of operations quickly and efficiently. A

deficit in this area suggests Student may have problems with reading fluency.

SUMMARY

Student is a friendly and cooperative 13 year-old boy who was evaluated using a developmental checklist the WISC-IV,

the PIAT-R/NU, the CTOPP, the TOWL-3, the GORT-4, and the listening comprehension protocol for the OWLS.

Student was referred by his teacher because of ongoing challenges in all course requiring reading and writing.

The capability or potential to succeed in school-related tasks was assessed by use of the Weschler Intelligence Scale for

Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). The overall profile is that of a student who has an above average to superior

aptitude for learning, with a significant strength in perceptual reasoning and verbal comprehension relative to his speed of

processing and his auditory working memory. He has significant strengths in (a) his understanding of what is called

“common sense,” his social judgment and sense of social conventionality, and (b) his ability to reason using abstract

categories based on perceptual recognition processes.

Student’s phonological processing abilities were assessed by the use of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological

Processing (CTOPP). His ability to rapidly name familiar symbols such as letters and numbers is well below average.

Student scored in the 3 rd

percentile compared to his same-age peers.He also scored in the below average range in his

ability to

Student-Examiner-Date

10

Student’s current academic functioning was assessed by use of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised (PIAT-

R), the Test of Written Language, Third Edition (TOWL-3), the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-4) and the listening

portion of the Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS).

His scores in the entire area of language arts are not commensurate with his abilities scores. His spelling achievement

score was in the below average range; his basic reading skills and ability to accurately and quickly read orally fall in the

well below average ranges, and his contextual writing scores are also in the below average range with spelling mistakes

such as “”yestorday” for yesterday, “theator” for theater, “whatching” for watching, and “movei” for movie. These

outcomes are in spite of abilities scores in the superior range in his verbal and perceptual abilities, a supportive home

environment, consistent school attendance and Tier One Interventions provided by an experienced team of educators.

The above scores along with Student’s extremely low scores in visual-auditory learning, placing his in the below 1% when

compared to his same age peers in this category, and his well below average scores in rapid digit naming reveal the

benchmarks for a learning disability known as dyslexia.

RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON TESTS AND OTHER INFORMATION DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT

1. The following additional accommodations may help with Student’s school requirements include the following:

2. The following interventions are recommended

3. Additional suggestions include the following:

Student’s family and teachers are encouraged to support him in developing her strengths and interests. Emotional

support is also encouraged through the use of positive feedback in recognition of both effort and progress.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in his evaluation.

Signed __________________________________

Name of Examiner

Educational Psychologist