Homepage Fill Out Your Wais Iv Report Form
Article Structure

The WAIS-IV Report form serves as a comprehensive tool for evaluating an individual's cognitive abilities, particularly through the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition. Various aspects of the report illuminate an examinee's intellectual capabilities, encompassing general cognitive ability, verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed. In this specific case, the report details the testing of a 62-year-old male who presented with neurological difficulties and was referred for evaluation due to increasing memory loss. The report meticulously outlines testing conditions and examinee behavior, providing context for interpreting the results. Scores derived from ten subtests paint a picture of the examinee’s cognitive profile, indicating areas of strength and weakness. For instance, his general cognitive ability places him within the average range, yet his verbal reasoning skills notably exceed those of approximately 75% of individuals his age. On the other hand, his processing speed is identified as a particular area of concern, suggesting potential challenges in processing simple visual material effectively. By examining individual performance across subtests, the report sheds light on his nuanced cognitive abilities while also acknowledging factors that may have impacted test outcomes. This multifaceted approach helps in comprehending the overall cognitive functioning of the individual, thereby assisting in identifying appropriate interventions or support systems moving forward.

Wais Iv Report Example

Interpretive Report of WAIS–IV and WMS–IV Testing

Examinee and Testing I nformation

Examinee Name

Client A

Examinee I D

 

 

 

Date of Birth

4/ 24/ 1947

 

 

Gender

Male

 

 

Race/ Ethnicity

White

Date of Report

8/ 24/ 2009

Years of Education

16

 

 

Home Language

< Not Specified>

 

 

Handedness

< Not Specified>

 

 

Examiner Name

Examiner G

Test Administered

WAI S–I V (8/ 24/ 2009)

Age at Testing 62 years 4 months

Retest? No

 

 

 

 

 

WMS–I V (8/ 24/ 2009)

62 years 4 months

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WAI S–I V Comments

 

 

 

 

 

WMS–I V Comments

Referred by family physician due to increasing memory loss over the past few years

 

 

 

 

Purpose for Evaluation

Client was referred for an evaluation by Dr. G, his physician, secondary to Neurological difficulties.

Background

Client is a 62-year-old married male who lives with spouse/partner and has been for the past 32 years. He has 3 children.

Client achieved a degree from a 4-year university program.

Client has been diagnosed with hypertension and sleep disturbances. He is currently taking medication and/or receiving treatment for hypertension.

Client is currently retired. Previously, for 26 years Client was employed full-time as a(n) Manager. It is reported that his work performance was satisfactory.

Test Session Behavior: WMS– I V

Client arrived early for the test session accompanied by his spouse. His appearance was neat. He was oriented to person, place, time and situation.

I nterpretation of WAI S– I V Results

General I ntellectual Ability

Client was administered 10 subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS– IV). His composite scores are derived from these subtest scores. The Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) composite

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 1 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

score is derived from 10 subtest scores and is considered the most representative estimate of global intellectual functioning. Client’s general cognitive ability is within the average range of intellectual functioning, as measured by the FSIQ. His overall thinking and reasoning abilities exceed those of approximately 58% of individuals his age (FSIQ = 103; 95% confidence interval = 99-107). He performed slightly better on verbal than on nonverbal reasoning tasks, but there is no meaningful difference between Client’s ability to reason with and without the use of words.

Verbal Comprehension

Client’s verbal reasoning abilities as measured by the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) are in the high average range and above those of approximately 75% of his peers (VCI = 110; 95% confidence interval = 104-115). The VCI is designed to measure verbal reasoning and concept formation. Client’s performance on the verbal subtests contributing to the VCI presents a diverse set of verbal abilities, as he performed much better on some verbal tasks than others. The degree of variability is unusual and may be noticeable to those who know him well. Examination of Client’s performance on individual subtests provides additional information regarding his specific verbal abilities.

Client achieved his best performance among the verbal reasoning tasks on the Information subtest. His strong performance on the Information subtest was better than that of most of his peers.

The Information subtest required Client to respond orally to questions about common events, objects, places, and people. The subtest is primarily a measure of his fund of general knowledge. Performance on this subtest also may be influenced by cultural experience and quality of education, as well as his ability to retrieve information from long-term memory (Information scaled score = 13).

Perceptual Reasoning

Client’s nonverbal reasoning abilities as measured by the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) are in the average range and above those of approximately 61% of his peers (PRI =104; 95% confidence interval

=98-110). The PRI is designed to measure fluid reasoning in the perceptual domain with tasks that assess nonverbal concept formation, visual perception and organization, visual-motor coordination, learning, and the ability to separate figure and ground in visual stimuli. Client’s performance on the perceptual reasoning subtests contributing to the PRI is somewhat variable, although the magnitude of this difference in performance is not unusual among individuals his age. Examination of Client’s performance on individual subtests provides additional information regarding his specific nonverbal abilities.

Client achieved his best performance among the nonverbal reasoning tasks on the Visual Puzzles subtest and his lowest score on the Block Design subtest. His performance across these areas differs significantly and suggest that these are the areas of most pronounced strength and weakness, respectively, in Client’s profile of perceptual reasoning abilities.

The Block Design subtest required Client to use two-color cubes to construct replicas of two- dimensional, geometric patterns. This subtest assesses nonverbal fluid reasoning and the ability to mentally organize visual information. More specifically, this subtest assesses his ability to analyze part-whole relationships when information is presented spatially. Performance on this task also may be influenced by visual-spatial perception and visual perception-fine motor coordination, as well as planning ability (Block Design scaled score = 9). The Visual Puzzles subtest required Client to view a

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 2 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

completed puzzle and select three response options that, when combined, reconstruct the puzzle, and do so within a specified time limit. This subtest is designed to measure nonverbal reasoning and the ability to analyze and synthesize abstract visual stimuli. Performance on this task also may be influenced by visual perception, broad visual intelligence, fluid intelligence, simultaneous processing, spatial visualization and manipulation, and the ability to anticipate relationships among parts (Visual Puzzles scaled score = 12).

Working Memory

Client’s ability to sustain attention, concentrate, and exert mental control is in the average range. He performed better than approximately 63% of his peers in this area (Working Memory Index (WMI) = 105; 95% confidence interval 98-111).

Processing Speed

Client’s ability in processing simple or routine visual material without making errors is in the low average range when compared to his peers. He performed better than approximately 18% of his peers on the processing speed tasks (Processing Speed Index [PSI] = 86; 95% confidence interval 79-96). Processing visual material quickly is an ability that Client performs poorly as compared to his verbal and nonverbal reasoning ability. Processing speed is an indication of the rapidity with which Client can mentally process simple or routine information without making errors. Because learning often involves a combination of routine information processing (such as reading) and complex information processing (such as reasoning), a weakness in the speed of processing routine information may make the task of comprehending novel information more time-consuming and difficult for Client. Thus, this weakness in simple visual scanning and tracking may leave him less time and mental energy for the complex task of understanding new material.

Summary

Client was referred for an evaluation by Dr. G, his physician, secondary to Neurological difficulties. Client is a 62-year-old male who completed the WAIS–IV. His general cognitive ability, as estimated by the WAIS–IV, is in the average range (FSIQ = 103).Client’s general verbal comprehension abilities were in the high average range (VCI = 110), and his general perceptual reasoning abilities were in the average range (PRI = 104). Client’s ability to sustain attention, concentrate, and exert mental control is in the average range (WMI = 105). Client’s ability in processing simple or routine visual material without making errors is in the low average range when compared to his peers (PSI = 86).

I nterpretation of WMS– I V Results

Client was administered 10 subtests of the Adult battery of the Wechsler Memory Scale–Fourth Edition (WMS–IV), from which his index scores were derived. He was also administered the Brief Cognitive Status Exam (BCSE), an optional procedure measuring global cognitive functioning. Client’s scores on the WMS–IV indexes are discussed in the following sections of this report, as are discrepancies in performance across different modalities and categories of memory processes. In addition, specific strengths and deficits within modalities are discussed.

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 3 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

When interpreting performance on the WMS–IV, it is important to take into consideration factors that may have contributed to Client’s test performance, such as difficulties with vision, hearing, motor functioning, English language proficiency, and speech/language functioning. In addition, personal factors, such as physical illness, fatigue, headache, or factors specific to the testing session such as distractions or a lack of motivation, can affect performance on any given day. According to the information provided, some of the following issues may have affected Client’s performance. His difficulties with expressive language may have had a minimal effect on his performance on measures such as Logical Memory and Verbal Paired Associates that required him to express himself orally. Therefore, caution is recommended when interpreting these subtest scores and the index scores derived from them. His reported experience of family stress or conflicts at the time of the assessment appeared to have a minimal effect on his overall performance. Client’s history of above average academic performance should be kept in mind, as this may have had a positive influence on his performance on this assessment.

Brief Cognitive Status Exam

The Brief Cognitive Status Exam (BCSE) evaluates basic cognitive functions through tasks that assess orientation to time, incidental recall, mental control, planning/visual perceptual processing, inhibitory control, and verbal productivity. Client’s global cognitive functioning, as measured by the BCSE, was in the Low Average range, compared to others, ages 45 to 69, with a similar educational background. This classification level represents 10–24% of cases within his age and education group. Functioning in this range is not typically associated with global impairments in cognitive functioning.

Auditory Memory

The Auditory Memory Index (AMI) is a measure of Client’s ability to listen to oral information, repeat it immediately, and then recall the information after a 20 to 30 minute delay. Compared to other individuals his age, Client's auditory memory capacity is in the Low Average range (AMI = 87, 95% Confidence Interval = 81-94) and exceeds that of approximately 19 percent of individuals in his age group.

However, it is important to note that the expressive language difficulties that Client appeared to experience during the assessment are suspected of having had a minimal effect on his ability to fully express his auditory memory capacity.

To determine if Client’s auditory memory capacity is consistent with his general intellectual ability, a comparison between his GAI and AMI index scores is recommended. Client’s performance on the GAI and AMI indicate that his ability to recall information presented orally is significantly lower than expected when compared to his general intellectual ability (GAI = 107; AMI = 87). Such difference is rare and may be noticeable to those close to him. Client’s ability to recall information presented orally is in the Low Average range when compared others with similar general intellectual ability (9th percentile). This result indicates that his auditory memory is lower than expected, given his level of general intellectual functioning (GAI vs. AMI Contrast Scaled Score = 6).

Client’s ability to recall information presented orally is in the Low Average range when compared to others with similar verbal comprehension (9th percentile). This result indicates that his auditory memory is lower than expected, given his level of verbal comprehension (VCI vs. AMI Contrast Scaled Score = 6).

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 4 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

Client’s ability to recall orally presented information is in the Low Average range when compared to others with similar auditory working memory capacity (16th percentile). This result indicates that his auditory memory is lower than expected, given his level of working memory (WMI vs. AMI Contrast Scaled Score = 7).

Visual Memory

On the Visual Memory Index (VMI), a measure of memory for visual details and spatial location, Client performed in the Low Average range (VMI = 86, 95% Confidence Interval = 81-92). Client's visual memory capacity exceeds that of approximately 18 percent of individuals in his age group.

To determine if Client’s visual memory function is consistent with his general intellectual ability, a comparison between his performance on the VMI and GAI is recommended. Client’s ability to recall information presented visually is significantly lower than expected when compared to his general intellectual ability (GAI = 107; VMI = 86). Furthermore, such difference is rare and may be noticeable to those close to him. Client’s ability to recall orally presented information is in the Borderline range when compared to others with similar general intellectual functioning (5th percentile). This result indicates that his visual memory is much lower than expected, given his level of general intellectual functioning (GAI vs. VMI Contrast Scaled Score = 5).

Client’s ability to recall information presented orally is in the Low Average range when compared to others with similar perceptual reasoning ability (9th percentile). This result indicates that his visual memory is lower than expected, given his level of perceptual reasoning ability (PRI vs. VMI Contrast Scaled Score = 6).

Modality- Specific Memory Strengths and Weaknesses

Some individuals are better at recalling visual information than recalling auditory information, while for others the reverse is true. Compared to individuals with similar auditory memory capacity, Client’s visual memory performance is in the Average range (25th percentile), indicating no significant difference between his levels of visual and auditory memory functioning. The interpretation of Client’s modality-specific memory strengths and weaknesses should take into account the previously mentioned expressive language difficulties which may have affected his performance.

Visual Working Memory

On the Visual Working Memory Index (VWMI), a measure of his ability to temporarily hold and manipulate spatial locations and visual details, Client performed in the Average range (VWMI = 97, 95% Confidence Interval = 90-104). Client’s visual working memory ability exceeds that of approximately 42 percent of individuals in his age group.

To determine if Client’s working memory capacity for visual information is consistent with his general intellectual ability, a comparison between his performance on the VWMI and GAI is recommended. Client’s performance on the GAI and VWMI indicates that his working memory capacity for visual information is consistent with his level of general intellectual ability (GAI = 107; VWMI = 97). Client’s working memory capacity for visual information is in the Average range when compared to others with similar general intellectual functioning (25th percentile). This result suggests there is no significant difference between his visual working memory and general intellectual functioning (GAI vs. VWMI Contrast Scaled Score = 8).

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 5 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

Client’s working memory capacity for visual information is in the Average range when compared to others of similar perceptual reasoning ability (37th percentile). This result indicates there is no significant difference between his working memory capacity for visual information and perceptual reasoning ability (PRI vs. VMI Contrast Scaled Score = 9).

To determine if Client’s auditor working memory function is consistent with his visual working memory ability, a comparison between his WMI and VWMI index scores is recommended. Client’s working memory capacity for visual information is in the Average range when compared to others with similar auditory working memory capacity (25th percentile). This result suggests that there is no significant difference between his working memory capacity for visually or orally presented information (WMI vs. VWMI Contrast Scaled Score = 8).

Specificity of Episodic Visual Memory Abilities Compared to Visual Working Memory Abilities

Comparing episodic visual memory to visual working memory performance can help determine the relative influence of visual memory on visual working memory (e.g., to determine if a low VMI score is due to deficits in visual working memory or to episodic visual memory deficits). Compared to individuals with similar visual working memory capacity, Client’s visual memory performance is in the Low Average range (16th percentile), indicating that his visual memory is lower than expected, given his level of visual working memory functioning.

I mmediate and Delayed Memory

The Immediate Memory Index (IMI) is a measure of Client’s ability to recall verbal and visual information immediately after the stimuli is presented. Compared to other individuals his age, Client's immediate memory capacity is in the Low Average range (IMI = 86, 95% Confidence Interval = 80-

93)and exceeds that of approximately 18 percent of individuals in his age group. On the Delayed

Memory Index (DMI), a measure of the ability to recall verbal and visual information after a 20 to 30 minute delay, Client performed in the Low Average range (DMI = 82, 95% Confidence Interval= 76-

90).Client's delayed memory capacity exceeds that of approximately 12 percent of individuals in his age group. However, it is important to note that the expressive language difficulties that Client appeared to experience during the assessment are suspected of having had a minimal effect on his immediate and delayed memory functioning.

To determine if Client’s immediate memory recall ability is consistent with his general intellectual functioning, a comparison between his performance on the GAI and IMI is recommended. Client’s ability to recall information immediately after its presentation is significantly lower than expected, given his general intellectual ability (GAI = 107; IMI = 86). Furthermore, such difference is rare and may be noticeable to those close to him. Client’s ability to recall information immediately after its presentation is in the Borderline range when compared to others of similar general intellectual functioning (5th percentile). This result suggests that his immediate memory recall is much lower than expected given his level of general intellectual functioning (GAI vs. IMI Contrast Scaled Score = 5).

In order to determine if Client’s memory recall after a 20–30 minute delay is consistent with his general intellectual ability, a comparison between his GAI and DMI index scores is recommended. Client’s ability to recall information after a delay is significantly lower than expected, given his general intellectual ability (GAI = 107; DMI = 82). In addition, such difference is rare and may be

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 6 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

noticeable to those close to him. Client’s ability to recall information after a delay is in the Borderline range when compared to others of similar general intellectual ability (5th percentile). This result suggests that his delayed memory recall is much lower than expected, given his level of general intellectual functioning (GAI vs. DMI Contrast Scaled Score = 5).

Retention of I nformation

Some individuals lose information between immediate and delayed recall, while others actually improve their memory performance over time. The overall amount of forgetting and consolidation that occurred between the immediate and delayed tasks is indicated by the level of Client’s delayed memory performance given his immediate memory performance. Compared to individuals with a similar level of immediate memory capacity, Client’s delayed memory performance is in the Low Average range (16th percentile), indicating that his delayed memory is lower than expected, given his level of initial encoding.

Specific Auditory Memory Abilities

Auditory Forgetting and Retrieval Scores

The degree to which Client forgot the story details he learned during the immediate condition of Logical Memory I can be determined by comparing his delayed recall performance to that of others with a similar level of immediate recall (LM II Immediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall contrast scaled score = 7). This comparison indicates that Client displayed a higher than expected rate of forgetting, given his immediate memory performance.

The degree to which Client forgot the word associations he learned during immediate recall of Verbal Paired Associates I can be determined by comparing his delayed recall performance to that of others with a similar level of immediate recall (VPA II Immediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall contrast scaled score = 6). This comparison indicates that Client displayed a higher than expected rate of forgetting, given his immediate memory performance.

Specific Visual Memory Abilities

Visual Process Scores

Client’s immediate memory for visual details is in the average range, while his delayed memory for visual details is below average (DE I Content scaled score = 10, DE II Content scaled score = 6). Although he is not likely to have difficulty recalling specific visual information soon after it is presented when compared to individuals his age, his ability to recall the information decreases over time more than is typical. When required to recall designs and their locations in a grid, Client’s immediate memory for the locations of cards placed in the grid, regardless of his ability to recall the visual details of the cards, is below average, while his delayed memory for the locations is in the average range (DE I Spatial scaled score = 6, DE II Spatial scaled score = 11). Although he may have difficulty recalling spatial locations soon after they are presented when compared to individuals his age, his ability to recall the information may benefit from time for consolidation.

Visual Forgetting and Retrieval Scores

Client’s immediate recall of visual details is average when compared to others with similar levels of immediate spatial memory ability. His delayed recall of visual details is below average when

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 7 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

compared to others with similar levels of delayed spatial memory ability. The degree to which Client forgot the visual details and spatial locations he learned during the immediate condition of the Designs subtest can be determined by comparing his delayed recall performance to that of individuals with a similar level of immediate memory (DE Immediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall contrast scaled score = 10). Based on this comparison, Client is able to recall visual details and spatial locations after a delay as well as expected, given his level of immediate recall.

The degree to which Client forgot the details and relative spatial relationship among elements of the designs presented during the immediate recall of the Visual Reproduction subtest can be determined by comparing his ability to recall and draw the designs after a delay to that of individuals with a similar level of immediate ability (VR Immediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall contrast scaled score = 9). Based on this comparison, Client is able to recall and draw this type of visual information after a delay as well as expected, given his level of immediate recall.

Summary of WMS– I V Memory Abilities

Client is a 62-year-old male who completed the WMS–IV. Client was referred for an evaluation by Dr. G, his physician, secondary to Neurological difficulties. When reviewing Client’s results, it is important to keep in mind the previously noted factors that may have affected his test performance.

Client was administered 10 subtests of the Adult battery of the WMS–IV. Client’s global cognitive functioning as measured by the BCSE was in the Low Average range, compared to others ages 45 to 69 and of a similar educational background. Client's ability to listen to oral information and repeat it immediately, and then recall the information after a 20 to 30 minute delay is in the Low Average range. His memory for visual details and spatial location is in the Low Average range. His ability to temporarily hold and manipulate spatial locations and visual details is in the Average range. The influence of Client’s visual memory on his visual working memory should be noted. Compared to individuals with similar visual working memory capacity, Client’s visual memory performance is in the Low Average range, indicating that his visual memory is lower than expected, given his level of visual working memory functioning. Client’s ability to recall verbal and visual information immediately after the stimuli is presented is in the Low Average range. His ability to recall verbal and visual information after a 20 to 30 minute delay is in the Low Average range. Client displayed a notable amount of forgetting between the immediate and delayed tasks of the WMS–IV. Compared to individuals with a similar level of immediate memory capacity, Client’s delayed memory performance is in the Low Average range, indicating that his delayed memory is lower than expected given his level of initial encoding.

Summary of I ntellectual and Memory Abilities

A comparison of Client’s auditory memory ability (AMI) to his results on WAIS–IV revealed that he performed significantly outside the expected range when compared to his general intellectual functioning. The adjustment of Client’s AMI result by his general intellectual functioning, generated a contrast scale score in the Low Average range, indicating that his auditory memory is lower than expected. The adjustment of Client’s AMI result by his verbal comprehension ability generated a contrast scaled score in the Low Average range, indicating that his auditory memory is lower than expected. The adjustment of Client’s AMI result by his working memory ability (WMI) generated a contrast scaled score in the Low Average range, indicating that his auditory memory is lower than expected.

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 8 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

A comparison of Client’s visual memory (VMI) to his results on WAIS–IV revealed that he performed significantly outside the expected range when compared to his general intellectual functioning. The adjustment of Client’s VMI result by his general intellectual ability (GAI) generated a contrast scaled score in the Borderline range, indicating that his visual memory is much lower than expected. The adjustment of Client’s VMI result by his perceptual reasoning (PRI) generated a contrast scaled score is in the Low Average range, indicating that his visual memory is lower than expected.

A comparison of Client’s visual working memory (VWMI) to his results on WAIS–IV revealed that he performed within the expected range when compared to his general intellectual functioning.

A comparison of Client’s immediate memory recall (IMI) to his results on the WAIS–IV revealed that he performed significantly outside the expected range when compared to his general intellectual functioning. A comparison of Client’s delayed memory recall results (DMI) to his results on WAIS– IV revealed that he performed significantly outside the expected range when compared to his general intellectual ability. The adjustment of Client’s IMI result by his general intellectual ability (GAI) generated a contrast scale score in the Borderline range, indicating that his immediate memory capacity is much lower than expected. The adjustment of Client’s DMI result by his general intellectual ability (GAI) generated a contrast scale score in the Borderline range, indicating that his delayed memory capacity is much lower than expected.

This report is valid only if signed by a qualified professional:

_______________________________________________

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 9 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

Score Report

WAI S– I V Results

Composite Score Summary

 

 

 

 

 

95%

 

 

Sum of

Composite

Percentile

Confidence

Qualitative

Scale

Scaled Scores

Score

Rank

I nterval

Description

Verbal Comprehension

36

VCI

110

75

104-115

High Average

Perceptual Reasoning

32

PRI

104

61

98-110

Average

Working Memory

22

WMI

105

63

98-111

Average

Processing Speed

15

PSI

86

18

79-96

Low Average

Full Scale

105

FSI Q

103

58

99-107

Average

General Ability

68

GAI

107

68

102-112

Average

Confidence Intervals are based on the Overall Average SEMs. Values reported in the SEM column are based on the examinee’s age.

The GAI is an optional composite summary score that is less sensitive to the influence of working memory and processing speed. Because working memory and processing speed are vital to a comprehensive evaluation of cognitive ability, it should be noted that the GAI does not have the breadth of construct coverage as the FSIQ.

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Client A

Normative data copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc.

Page 10 of 20

All rights reserved.

 

Form Characteristics

Fact Name Fact Details
Examinee Name Client A
Date of Birth April 24, 1947
Age at Testing 62 years and 4 months
Test Dates WAIS-IV - August 24, 2009; WMS-IV - August 24, 2009
Full Scale IQ 103 (Average Range)
Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) 110 (High Average Range)
Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) 104 (Average Range)
Working Memory Index (WMI) 105 (Average Range)
Processing Speed Index (PSI) 86 (Low Average Range)
Referred By Family physician (Dr. G) due to neurological difficulties

Guidelines on Utilizing Wais Iv Report

Completing the WAIS-IV Report form involves providing detailed information about the examinee and interpreting the test results. This form captures essential data like cognitive abilities, memory function, and overall mental status. Follow these steps to ensure accurate completion of the report.

  1. Fill in the Examinee Information: Write the examinee's name, ID, date of birth, gender, race/ethnicity, and date of the report. In this case, enter "Client A," "4/24/1947," "Male," "White," and "8/24/2009."
  2. Document Educational Background: Enter the years of education (e.g., 16) and the home language (if specified).
  3. Indicate Handedness: Note handedness if known; otherwise, leave it unspecified.
  4. Provide Examiner Information: Fill in the examiner's name (e.g., "Examiner G").
  5. Record Test Administration Dates: Write the dates for the WAIS-IV and WMS-IV tests (e.g., both as "8/24/2009") and age at testing (e.g., "62 years 4 months").
  6. Specify Retest Information: Indicate if it was a retest (e.g., "No").
  7. Detail Comments: Include any comments regarding the WAIS-IV and WMS-IV tests. Provide observations on the examinee's background and test session behavior.
  8. Summarize the Client's Background: Record details about the client's background, including marital status, number of children, education level, current employment status, and any medical history relevant to the evaluation.
  9. Interpret the Results: Fill in interpretations related to general intellectual ability, verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed using the provided data.
  10. Complete Memory Index Assessments: Assess and record findings related to auditory memory, visual memory, and working memory. Be sure to compare performance with general intellectual ability when necessary.
  11. Calculate Final Summary: Provide an overall summary of the testing results, synthesizing the details recorded throughout the form.

What You Should Know About This Form

What is the WAIS-IV Report Form?

The WAIS-IV Report Form documents the results of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV), which is designed to assess the cognitive ability of individuals aged 16 to 90 years. It comprises various subtests that measure different types of reasoning and intelligence. The report summarizes the overall intellectual functioning of the examinee, including areas such as verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed.

Who typically uses the WAIS-IV Report Form?

This report is commonly used by psychologists, neuropsychologists, and other mental health professionals to evaluate cognitive functioning in adults. It can aid in diagnosing cognitive impairments, understanding educational and occupational challenges, and guiding treatment decisions. Families or guardians may also be involved when the assessment is regarding an individual who requires support.

What types of scores are included in the report?

The report presents several important scores including the Full Scale IQ (FSIQ), which gives an overall snapshot of cognitive ability. It also includes index scores such as the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI), Working Memory Index (WMI), and Processing Speed Index (PSI). Each of these indexes offers insight into specific cognitive domains, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the individual’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses.

How is the interpretation of the report structured?

The interpretation is organized into different sections, discussing the individual's performance on varied subtests. The results are compared to normative data based on individuals of the same age and educational background. This comparison helps professionals understand whether the examinee's performance falls within an average, low average, high average, or above-average range.

What factors might influence the results?

Numerous factors can affect the results of the WAIS-IV, including the individual’s physical and emotional state at the time of testing. Issues such as fatigue, stress, and any existing health conditions may impact performance. Furthermore, the examinee's language proficiency, education, and cultural background can also influence scores, particularly in tasks addressing verbal reasoning and comprehension.

Can the WAIS-IV report identify memory issues?

Yes, the WAIS-IV Report can help identify specific memory issues, especially when examining the individual’s working memory and processing speed. If cognitive assessments suggest significant difficulties in these areas, further evaluation might be recommended to explore underlying neurological or psychological factors, particularly in instances of memory loss or cognitive decline.

How often should the WAIS-IV be administered?

The WAIS-IV should be administered as needed rather than on a set schedule. It can provide valuable insights when there are observable changes in cognitive function, during evaluations for educational support, or when monitoring progress in treatment programs. The decision on when to retest should always consider the individual’s circumstances and needs.

Who prepares the WAIS-IV report and how is it shared?

The WAIS-IV report is typically prepared by a qualified examiner, such as a licensed psychologist. After being compiled, the report may be shared with the examinee, their family, or other relevant professionals, often accompanied by a discussion of the findings. Confidentiality and ethical considerations guide how and with whom this information is shared.

What should one do if there are concerns about the WAIS-IV scores?

If there are concerns regarding the scores or the implications of the results, it is advisable to discuss these with the administering professional. They can provide context, clarify any questions, and suggest next steps based on the individual’s specific situation. Follow-up evaluations or additional assessments may also be necessary depending on the discussion outcomes.

Common mistakes

Filling out the WAIS-IV Report form can be a straightforward process, but common mistakes can lead to inaccuracies. One mistake often made is failing to provide complete information about the examinee. Incomplete details like the home language or handedness can limit the interpretation of results. All relevant information should be included to ensure the report accurately reflects the examinee's background.

Another frequent oversight is neglecting to document the date of testing clearly. This information is vital for tracking performance changes over time. If the date is not correctly noted, it may lead to confusion regarding the context of the results, especially for comparative assessments with future evaluations.

Many individuals also underestimate the importance of noting the referral source. Not identifying who referred the examinee, such as a physician, can hinder the understanding of the underlying concerns leading to the evaluation. Knowing the reason for referral provides essential context when interpreting the test results.

Misreading the instructions for the various sections is another common error. Individuals may overlook specific guidelines for writing comments or providing feedback on subtests. Adhering to these instructions ensures that all relevant observations about the examinee's behavior and performance are appropriately documented.

Omitting demographic details may also occur. Details like age, gender, and education level have a direct impact on test performance and should be included. Such factors help in contextualizing the results within normative data provided for different populations.

Not capturing the examinee's emotional or physical condition on the testing day is another mistake. Factors such as fatigue or anxiety can significantly affect performance. Including observations about the examinee's state during the assessment offers insight into their results and helps in making informed conclusions about their cognitive abilities.

Finally, a notable error is the misunderstanding of the significance of scores. Some might misinterpret the implications of different index scores, such as conflating the Full Scale IQ with specific subtest scores. Each score serves a unique purpose and reflects distinct aspects of cognitive functioning, requiring careful consideration during analysis.

Documents used along the form

The WAIS-IV Report form is a comprehensive evaluation tool that provides insights into a client’s cognitive abilities. However, it is often used in conjunction with several other forms and documents that help paint a fuller picture of an individual's cognitive profile and background. Here are some commonly associated forms and documents:

  • Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-IV) Report - This report complements the WAIS-IV by evaluating various aspects of memory. It assesses both verbal and visual memory, helping to identify strengths and weaknesses in these areas.
  • Brief Cognitive Status Exam (BCSE) - A quick assessment tool that evaluates basic cognitive functions like orientation, recall, and mental control. The BCSE provides a snapshot of an individual's global cognitive abilities.
  • Patient History Questionnaire - This document gathers essential information regarding a client's medical history, family background, and any prior neurological issues, helping examiners understand their context better.
  • Referral Letter - This letter from a physician or mental health professional outlines the reasons for the evaluation. It provides insight into the referrals' concerns and specific behaviors prompting the assessment.
  • Demographic Information Form - Used to collect basic information such as age, gender, and education level. This data is crucial for interpreting test results in relation to normative populations.
  • Consent Form - A necessary document that ensures informed consent for testing. It details the nature of the assessment, helping clients understand its purpose and potential outcomes.
  • Testing Sessions Behavior Reports - Notes taken during the evaluation sessions that describe the client's demeanor, engagement, and any notable behaviors that might influence test performance.
  • Interpretive Summary - A detailed synthesis of the test results and findings, providing a clear narrative that explains the scores and any recommendations for further action or support.

Utilizing these supporting documents not only enhances the understanding of the WAIS-IV results but also enables a more rounded evaluation of an individual's cognitive abilities. They help to create a comprehensive view that can guide future interventions, support, or further assessments as needed.

Similar forms

The WAIS-IV Report form shares similarities with several other assessment documents. Below are ten such documents, along with a brief explanation of how each is related.

  • WMS-IV Report Form: This report focuses specifically on memory functioning. Like the WAIS-IV, it provides a comprehensive evaluation through various subtests that measure different types of memory, thus giving an overall picture of cognitive abilities.
  • Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales: This document assesses intellectual functioning through a range of tasks, similar to WAIS-IV. It evaluates both verbal and nonverbal abilities and provides a Full Scale IQ score.
  • Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities: This assessment measures cognitive skills much like the WAIS-IV, providing multiple scores that detail specific areas of cognitive function, including reasoning and problem-solving capabilities.
  • Binet-Kamat Test of Intelligence: Similar to WAIS-IV, this test measures intelligence across various domains and offers both verbal and performance IQ scores, which reflect cognitive strengths and weaknesses.
  • Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency: This assessment evaluates fine and gross motor skills. While WAIS-IV focuses on cognitive abilities, both tests provide insights into an individual's capacities, contributing to an overall understanding of functioning.
  • Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT): This document assesses academic skills and abilities through related subtests. The combination of WAIS-IV and WIAT results can offer a thorough picture of cognitive and academic functioning.
  • Beck Depression Inventory (BDI): Although primarily a measure of emotional state, the BDI can complement cognitive assessments like WAIS-IV, helping to contextualize how emotional factors might impact cognitive performance.
  • Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE): This brief screening tool assesses cognitive function, providing a quick overview of an individual’s cognitive status. Like WAIS-IV, the MMSE can indicate areas of concern in cognitive performance.
  • Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure test: This visual memory test evaluates planning and organization abilities, akin to the perceptual reasoning assessments within WAIS-IV. Both tests contribute information about visual processing and memory capabilities.
  • Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery: This comprehensive battery of tests assesses various cognitive functions affected by neurological conditions, similar to WAIS-IV. Both can assist in understanding specific cognitive impairments or strengths.

Dos and Don'ts

Things to Do When Filling Out the WAIS-IV Report Form:

  • Ensure all fields are completed accurately, including the examinee's name and ID.
  • Clearly indicate the date of birth and age at testing.
  • Document the reason for the evaluation in detail.
  • Provide information about the examinee's educational background and current occupation.
  • Note any relevant medical history that may impact cognitive functioning.
  • Include observations about the examinee's test session behavior.
  • Consistently use the correct format for presenting test results and scores.

Things to Avoid When Filling Out the WAIS-IV Report Form:

  • Do not leave any mandatory fields blank.
  • Avoid making assumptions about the examinee's abilities without factual evidence.
  • Do not include irrelevant personal details unrelated to the evaluation.
  • Refrain from using technical jargon that may confuse readers.
  • Do not overlook the influence of external factors on the test results.
  • Do not provide subjective opinions that are not based on observable behavior or data.
  • Avoid errors in scoring or interpreting the results.

Misconceptions

  • Misconception 1: The WAIS-IV report only reflects intelligence.

    The report includes detailed insights into various cognitive abilities, including memory, processing speed, and reasoning skills, not just overall intelligence.

  • Misconception 2: A higher IQ score always indicates better performance in all areas.

    Participants can have variability in their scores across subtests. Some may excel in verbal reasoning but struggle with processing speed.

  • Misconception 3: The report does not consider the individual's background.

    Factors like education level, cultural experiences, and health issues are crucial for interpreting results and can affect performance.

  • Misconception 4: WAIS-IV results are absolute and unchangeable.

    These scores can fluctuate over time, especially with varying life circumstances, health changes, or further learning experiences.

  • Misconception 5: The report provides a complete picture of one's abilities.

    The WAIS-IV focuses on specific cognitive areas and may not fully encompass other types of intelligence or skills, like creativity or emotional intelligence.

  • Misconception 6: All test scores should be interpreted the same way.

    Each subtest has its own context, and some may be influenced by factors like anxiety or fatigue, which should be considered when evaluating the results.

  • Misconception 7: A low Processing Speed Index indicates low intelligence.

    This index specifically measures efficiency in processing simple tasks and may not reflect overall cognitive functioning or intelligence.

  • Misconception 8: If someone performs poorly on the WAIS-IV, they have cognitive impairments.

    Low scores in certain areas might indicate specific weaknesses rather than global cognitive impairments or limitations.

  • Misconception 9: The report’s recommendations are restrictive and do not allow for future improvement.

    Suggestions aim to guide further development and do not limit the individual’s potential for growth and learning.

  • Misconception 10: The WAIS-IV is only relevant for children.

    This assessment is designed for adults and is utilized to evaluate cognitive functions across various age groups, including the elderly.

Key takeaways

  • Understanding the WAIS-IV Report Form requires recognizing its primary purpose: to assess a person's cognitive abilities. The results can help in identifying strengths and weaknesses in various areas of intellectual functioning.

  • It’s essential to note that the Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) provides the most comprehensive estimate of general cognitive ability. In this case, the client has an FSIQ of 103, indicating average cognitive functioning.

  • When interpreting specific scores, remember that factors like family stress, personal health, and even the test environment can influence performance. These contextual elements help contextualize the results.

  • Finally, utilizing the report involves ongoing assessment of the individual's situation and needs. Results from sections like the Working Memory Index and Auditory Memory Index, which show lower performance, can inform interventions or support strategies moving forward.