WISC-V UK Interpretive Considerations for Sarah Sample (03/11/2016)Interpretive considerations provide additional information to assist you, the examiner, in interpretingSarah's performance. This section should not be provided to the parent or recipient of the report.Please review these interpretive considerations before reading the report, as they may suggest that youmake changes to the report settings in Q-global. If you make changes to the report settings, you can rerun the report without being charged.This file contains two full reports: first, the interpretive report, and second, the parent report. Be sure toseparate these reports before providing them to the appropriate recipients.Recommendation ConsiderationsEItems listed in the 'Recommendations' section at the end of the report are meant to be an aid to you as aclinician, not a substitute for individualised recommendations that should be provided by a professionalwho is familiar with the examinee. Please read through the automatically generated recommendationscarefully and edit them according to the examinee's individual strengths and needs.PLThe recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Verbal Comprehension Skills' was includedin the report because the examinee's verbal skills were an area of strength relative to her overall abilitylevel.SAMThe recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Visual Spatial Skills' was included in thereport because the examinee's visual spatial skills were an area of strength relative to other areas ofcognitive functioning.The recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Fluid Reasoning Skills' was included in thereport because fluid reasoning skills were an area of weakness relative to other areas of cognitive ability.The recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Working Memory Skills' was included inthe report because the examinee's WMI fell below a standard score of 90.The recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Processing Speed' was included in thereport because the examinee's PSI fell below a standard score of 90.End of Interpretive ConsiderationsCopyright 2015 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Adapted by permission. European adaptation copyright 2016 Pearson Education Ltd. or itsaffiliate(s). All rights reserved.Pearson, the PSI logo, PsychCorp, Wechsler, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, and WISC are trademarks in the U.S. and/orother countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s).[ 1.3 / RE1 / QG1 ]

Examinee ID54321Date of Birth24/11/2008GenderFemaleRace/EthnicityWhiteDate of Testing03/11/2016Comments:Date of Report06/12/2016PLSarah SampleSchool YearYear 4Primary LanguageEnglishHandednessRightExaminer NameSample ExaminerAge at Testing7 years 11 monthsSAMExaminee NameEWISC -VUKWechsler Intelligence Scale for Children -Fifth Edition: United KingdomInterpretive ReportRetest? NoCopyright 2015 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Adapted by permission. European adaptation copyright 2016 Pearson Education Ltd. or itsaffiliate(s). All rights reserved.Pearson, the PSI logo, PsychCorp, Wechsler, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, and WISC are trademarks in the U.S. and/orother countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s).This report contains copyrighted material and trade secrets. The qualified licensee may excerpt portions of this output report, limited to theminimum text necessary to accurately describe their significant core conclusions, for incorporation into a written evaluation of the examinee, inaccordance with their profession's citation standards, if any. No adaptations, translations, modifications, or special versions may be made ofthis report without prior written permission from Pearson.[ 1.3 / RE1 / QG1 ]

UKWISC -V Interpretive Report03/11/2016, Page 2ID: 54321Sarah SampleABOUT WISC-V UK SCORESESarah was administered 16 subtests from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Fifth UKEdition (WISC-VUK). The WISC-V is an individually administered, comprehensive clinical instrumentfor assessing the intelligence of children aged 6:0-16:11. The primary and secondary subtests are on ascaled score metric with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation (SD) of 3. These subtest scores rangefrom 1 to 19, with scores between 8 and 12 typically considered average. The primary subtest scorescontribute to the primary index scores, which represent intellectual functioning in five cognitive areas:Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Visual Spatial Index (VSI), Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI), WorkingMemory Index (WMI), and the Processing Speed Index (PSI). This assessment also produces a FullScale IQ (FSIQ) composite score that represents general intellectual ability. The primary index scoresand the FSIQ are on a standard score metric with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15. The primary indexscores range from 45 to 155; the FSIQ ranges from 40 to 160. For both the primary index scores and theFSIQ, scores ranging from 90 to 109 are typically considered average.SAMPLAncillary index scores are also provided. The ancillary index scores represent cognitive abilities usingdifferent primary and secondary subtest groupings than do the primary index scores. The ancillary indexscores are also on a standard score metric with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15. The QuantitativeReasoning Index (QRI) and Auditory Working Memory Index (AWMI) scores have a range of 45-155.The remaining three ancillary index scores have a range of 40-160: Nonverbal Index (NVI), GeneralAbility Index (GAI), and the Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI). Scores ranging from 90 to 109 aretypically considered average.A percentile rank (PR) is provided for each reported composite and subtest score to show Sarah'sstanding relative to other same-age children in the WISC-V normative sample. If the percentile rank forher Verbal Comprehension Index score is 77, for example, it means that she performed as well as orbetter than approximately 77% of children her age. This appears in the report as PR 77.The scores obtained on the WISC-V reflect Sarah's true abilities combined with some degree ofmeasurement error. Her true score is more accurately represented by a confidence interval (CI), which isa range of scores within which her true score is likely to fall. Composite scores are reported with 95%confidence intervals to ensure greater accuracy when interpreting test scores. For each composite scorereported for Sarah, there is a 95% certainty that her true score falls within the listed range.It is common for children to exhibit score differences across areas of performance. Comparing the scoredifferences in relation to three separate benchmarks may yield a richer portrait of a child's strengths andweaknesses. The three types of score difference comparisons presented in this report use interpretivestatements that describe what can be generically understood as strengths or weaknesses. Because manyscore comparisons are possible within the WISC-V, attention to exactly what the scores are compared tois necessary to understand Sarah's performance. The first type of comparison may be used to detect anormative strength or weakness, which occurs if a composite or subtest score differs from what istypical in the normative sample. For the purposes of this report, scores that fall above or below theAverage qualitative descriptor range suggest either a normative strength or a normative weakness. Thereport will include phrases such as 'very high for her age' or 'lower than most children her age' when thisoccurs. The second type of comparison may be used to examine score differences from an intrapersonal

UKWISC -V Interpretive Report03/11/2016, Page 3ID: 54321Sarah Sampleperspective. For this comparison, a score is described as a strength or weakness if a primary index orsubtest score differs from an indicator of overall performance (i.e., the mean of the primary index scores,the mean of the FSIQ subtest scores, the mean of the primary subtest scores, or the mean of the FSIQsubtest scores). Statistically significant differences are described with phrases such as 'personal strength'or 'personal weakness' or as one of the child's 'strongest or weakest areas of performance'. The third typeof comparison may be used to examine scores for a relative strength or weakness, which occurs if acomposite or subtest score differs in relation to another score of the same type (e.g., scaled, standard).When a scaled or standard score is compared with another scaled or standard score, the phrases 'relativestrength' and 'relative weakness' are used to describe statistically significant differences when comparingperformance on one score in relation to another.SAMPLEIf the difference between two scores is statistically significant, it is listed in the report with a base rate toaid in interpretation. The statistical significance and base rate results provide different information. Astatistically significant difference suggests that the result is reliable and would likely be observed againif the assessment were repeated (i.e., the difference is not due to measurement error). The base rate (BR)provides a basis for estimating how common or rare a particular score difference was among otherchildren of similar ability in the WISC-V normative sample. For example, a base rate of 15% isreported if the score for the the Verbal Comprehension Index is 11.80 points higher than the meanprimary index score (MIS). This appears on the report as VCI MIS, BR 15%. This means that 15% of children of similar ability level in the WISC-V normative sample obtained a difference of thismagnitude or greater between those two scores. In many cases, a statistically significant difference maybe accompanied by a base rate of greater than 15%, which indicates that the difference, while reliableand not due to measurement error, is relatively common among children. This result does not necessarilyreduce the importance of the difference, but does indicate a difference that large or larger is relativelycommon.It is possible for intellectual abilities to change over the course of childhood. Additionally, a child'sscores on the WISC-V can be influenced by motivation, attention, interests, and opportunities forlearning. All scores may be slightly higher or lower if Sarah were tested again on a different day. It istherefore important to view these test scores as a snapshot of Sarah's current level of intellectualfunctioning. When these scores are used as part of a comprehensive evaluation, they contribute to anunderstanding of her current strengths and any needs that can be addressed.INTERPRETATION OF WISC-V UK RESULTSFSIQThe FSIQ is derived from seven subtests and summarises ability across a diverse set of cognitivefunctions. This score is typically considered the most representative indicator of general intellectualfunctioning. Subtests are drawn from five areas of cognitive ability: verbal comprehension, visualspatial, fluid reasoning, working memory, and processing speed. Sarah's FSIQ score is in the Averagerange when compared to other children her age (FSIQ 100, PR 50, CI 94-106). Although theWISC-V measures various aspects of ability, a child's scores on this test can also be influenced by manyfactors that are not captured in this report. When interpreting this report, consider additional sources ofinformation that may not be reflected in the scores on this assessment. While the FSIQ provides a broad

UKWISC -V Interpretive Report03/11/2016, Page 4ID: 54321Sarah Samplerepresentation of cognitive ability, describing Sarah's domain-specific performance allows for a morethorough understanding of her functioning in distinct areas. Some children perform at approximately thesame level in all of these areas, but many others display areas of cognitive strengths and weaknesses.Verbal ComprehensionSAMPLEThe Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) measured Sarah's ability to access and apply acquired wordknowledge. Specifically, this score reflects her ability to verbalise meaningful concepts, think aboutverbal information, and express herself using words. Overall, Sarah's performance on the VCI wasabove average for her age and emerged as a relative strength for Sarah (VCI 111, PR 77, HighAverage range, CI 102-118; VCI MIS, BR 15%). High scores in this area indicate a welldeveloped verbal reasoning system with strong word knowledge acquisition, effective informationretrieval, good ability to reason and solve verbal problems, and effective communication of knowledge.Additionally, her performance on verbal comprehension tasks was particularly strong when compared toher performance on tasks that involved using logic to solve problems (VCI FRI, BR 16.6%). Herpattern of performance implies a strength in crystallised abilities relative to fluid reasoning abilities.Moreover, her performance on verbal comprehension tasks was stronger than her performance on tasksrequiring her to mentally manipulate information and work quickly and efficiently (VCI WMI, BR 6.5%; VCI PSI, BR 5.5%). Although her working memory capacity is a personal weakness, it doesnot appear to be interfering with her verbal comprehension. Sarah's processing speed was a relativeweakness when compared to verbal comprehension, but does not appear to be interfering with hercapacity to perform complex verbal tasks.With regard to individual subtests within the VCI, Similarities (SI) required Sarah to describe asimilarity between two words that represent a common object or concept and Vocabulary (VC) requiredher to name depicted objects and/or define words that were read aloud. She performed comparablyacross both subtests, suggesting that her abstract reasoning skills and word knowledge are similarlydeveloped at this time (SI 13; VC 11). Her performance on Similarities was somewhat advanced forher age and was one of her highest scores (SI 13; SI MSS-P, BR 10%). This suggests that herverbal concept formation and abstract reasoning skills are areas of strength when compared to heroverall level of ability. This represents a strength that can be built upon in her future development. Inaddition to the two subtests that contribute to the VCI, two other verbal comprehension subtests wereadministered to gain a more detailed understanding of Sarah's verbal comprehension abilities. ForInformation (IN), she answered questions about a broad range of general-knowledge topics. Herperformance was average for her age, suggesting age-appropriate ability to acquire, remember, andretrieve knowledge about the world around her (IN 10). On Comprehension (CO), a subtest requiringher to answer questions based on her understanding of general principles and social situations, Sarah'sperformance was strong for her age. This suggests advanced understanding of practical knowledge andability to verbalise meaningful concepts (CO 14).Visual SpatialThe Visual Spatial Index (VSI) measured Sarah's ability to evaluate visual details and understand visualspatial relationships in order to construct geometric designs from a model. This skill requires visualspatial reasoning, integration and synthesis of part-whole relationships, attentiveness to visual detail, andvisual-motor integration. During this evaluation, visual spatial processing was one of Sarah's strengths,

UKWISC -V Interpretive Report03/11/2016, Page 5ID: 54321Sarah SampleEwith performance that was somewhat advanced for her age (VSI 117, PR 87, High Average range,CI 107-124; VSI MIS, BR 5%). High scores in this area indicate a well-developed capacity toapply spatial reasoning and analyse visual details. Sarah quickly and accurately put together geometricdesigns using a model. This reflects her ability to understand and apply visual-perceptual and visualspatial information. Her performance in this area was particularly strong in relation to her performanceon fluid reasoning tasks (VSI FRI, BR 7.9%). Because her visual spatial skills currently appearstronger than her fluid reasoning skills, she may work easily with purely visual information, but havegreater difficulty applying complex reasoning to visual stimuli. Her visual spatial performance was alsoparticularly strong when compared to her performance on working memory tasks and tests of processingspeed (VSI WMI, BR 2.7%; VSI PSI, BR 2.1%). It appears that she can solve complex visualspatial problems, despite relative working memory and processing speed weaknesses. Her relative visualspatial strength, as compared to working memory, indicate that although she shows skill whenprocessing visual information, she may experience difficulty making distinctions between the visualinformation that she previously viewed and the visual information that she is currently viewing.SAMPLThe VSI is derived from two subtests. During Block Design (BD), Sarah viewed a model and/or pictureand used two-coloured blocks to re-create the design. Visual Puzzles (VP) required her to view acompleted puzzle and select three response options that together would reconstruct the puzzle. Sheperformed comparably across both subtests, suggesting that her visual-spatial reasoning ability isequally well developed, whether solving problems that involve a motor response and reuse the samestimulus repeatedly while receiving concrete visual feedback about accuracy, or solving problems withunique stimuli that must be solved mentally and do not involve feedback about accuracy (BD 13; VP 13). In addition to the BD score, the Block Design No Time Bonus score (BDn) was calculated. BDnis based on the child's performance on Block Design (BD) without including bonus points for rapidcompletion of items. The score's reduced emphasis on speed may be useful when a child's limitations,problem-solving strategies, or personality characteristics are believed to affect performance on timedtasks, as this score does not award extra points for working quickly. Sarah's BD score is significantlyhigher than her BDn score (BDn 1), suggesting that speed did not attenuate Block Design performance(BR 0.0%). The Block Design Partial score (BDp) was also calculated, which awards points for thenumber of blocks correctly placed when the time runs out, even if the child has not finished the entiredesign. This score reduces the emphasis on speed and attention to detail, providing an estimate ofperformance in children who are impulsive or who misperceive the design. Sarah's BD score issignificantly higher than her BDp score (BDp 1), indicating that response speed and attention to detaildid not disrupt her performance on Block Design.Fluid ReasoningThe Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI) measured Sarah's ability to detect the underlying conceptualrelationship among visual objects and use reasoning to identify and apply rules. Identification andapplication of conceptual relationships in the FRI requires inductive and quantitative reasoning, broadvisual intelligence, simultaneous processing, and abstract thinking. Overall, Sarah's performance on theFRI was typical for her age (FRI 97, PR 42, Average range, CI 90-104). Sarah's overallperformance on the FRI was stronger than performance on tasks that measured processing speed (FRI PSI, BR 21.5%). It appears that she is well able to solve complex problems despite having difficultyon other tasks. While Sarah's fluid reasoning performance during this assessment appeared stronger thansome cognitive abilities, it was also weaker than others. Her current performance evidenced difficulty

UKWISC -V Interpretive Report03/11/2016, Page 6ID: 54321Sarah Samplewith fluid reasoning tasks in relation to her performance on language-based and visual spatial tasks (FRI VCI, BR 16.6%; FRI VSI, BR 7.9%). This pattern of strengths and weaknesses suggests that shemay currently experience relative difficulty applying logical reasoning skills to visual information, butshe may have relatively strong ability to verbalis