Wais IV Report

Interpretive Report of WAIS–IV and WMS–IV Testing
Examinee and Testing I nformation
Examinee Name Client A Date of Report 8/ 24/ 2009

Examinee I D Years of Education 16
Date of Birth 4/ 24/ 1947 Home Language < Not Specified>
Gender Male Handedness < Not Specified>
Race/ Ethnicity White 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
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.

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).

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).
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
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
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.

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:
_______________________________________________

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.

Composite Scores and
Standard Error
Composite Score Profile of Measurement
Composite Score SEM
VCI 110 2.6
PRI 104 3.35
WMI 105 3.67
PSI 86 4.5
FSI Q 103 2.12
GAI 107 2.6
The vertical bars represent the standard error of measurement (SEM).
I ndex Level Discrepancy Comparisons

Critical Significant
Value Difference Base Rate
Comparison Score 1 Score 2 Difference .05 Y/ N Overall Sample
VCI - PRI 110 104 6 8.31 N 32.5
VCI - WMI 110 105 5 8.82 N 36.8
VCI - PSI 110 86 24 10.19 Y 7
PRI - WMI 104 105 -1 9.74 N 48
PRI - PSI 104 86 18 11 Y 12.1
WMI - PSI 105 86 19 11.38 Y 10.8
FSI Q - GAI 103 107 -4 3.51 Y 23.8
Base rate by overall sample.
Statistical significance (critical value) at the .05 level.

Verbal Comprehension Subtests Summary
Raw Scaled Percentile Reference Group
Subtest Score Score Rank Scaled Score SEM
Similarities 27 11 63 11 1.08
Vocabulary 45 12 75 13 0.73
I nformation 21 13 84 15 0.67
Perceptual Reasoning Subtests Summary

Block Design 32 9 37 7 1.04
Matrix Reasoning 16 11 63 8 0.95
Visual Puzzles 15 12 75 10 0.99
Working Memory Subtests Summary

Digit Span 27 10 50 9 0.85
Arithmetic 17 12 75 12 1.04
Processing Speed Subtests Summary

Symbol Search 21 7 16 6 1.31
Coding 52 8 25 6 0.99
Subtest Level Discrepancy Comparisons

Significant
Critical Value Difference Base
Subtest Comparison Score 1 Score 2 Difference .05 Y/ N Rate
Digit Span - Arithmetic 10 12 -2 2.57 N 27.8
Symbol Search - Coding 7 8 -1 3.41 N 40.1

Subtest Scaled Score Profile
The vertical bars represent the standard error of measurement (SEM)
Determining Strengths and Weaknesses

Differences Betw een Subtest and Overall Mean of Subtest Scores
Subtest Mean
Scaled Scaled Critical Value Strength or Base
Subtest Score Score Difference .05 Weakness Rate
Block Design 9 10.50 -1.5 2.85 > 25%
Similarities 11 10.50 0.5 2.82 > 25%
Digit Span 10 10.50 -0.5 2.22 > 25%
Matrix Reasoning 11 10.50 0.5 2.54 > 25%
Vocabulary 12 10.50 1.5 2.03 > 25%
Arithmetic 12 10.50 1.5 2.73 > 25%
Symbol Search 7 10.50 -3.5 3.42 W 10-15%
Visual Puzzles 12 10.50 1.5 2.71 > 25%
I nformation 13 10.50 2.5 2.19 S 15-25%
Coding 8 10.50 -2.5 2.97 25%
Overall: Mean = 10.5, Scatter = 6, Base rate = 68.4.
Base Rate for Intersubtest Scatter is reported for 10 Full Scale Subtests.
Working Memory Process Score Summary
Raw Scaled Percentile Base
Process Score Score Score Rank Rate SEM
Digit Span Forward 9 9 37 -- 1.44
Digit Span Backward 9 11 63 -- 1.27
Digit Span Sequencing 9 11 63 -- 1.37
Process Level Discrepancy Comparisons

Critical Significant
Value Difference Base
Process Comparison Score 1 Score 2 Difference .05 Y/ N Rate
Digit Span Forward - Digit Span Backward 9 11 -2 3.65 N 31.5
Digit Span Forward - Digit Span Sequencing 9 11 -2 3.6 N 31.7
Digit Span Backward - Digit Span Sequencing 11 11 0 3.56 N

WMS–I V Results
Brief Cognitive Status Exam Classification
Age Years of Education Raw Score Classification Level Base Rate
62 years 4 months 16 52 Low Average 22.1
I ndex Score Summary

95%
Sum of Confidence
I ndex Scaled Scores I ndex Score Percentile Rank I nterval Qualitative Description
Auditory Memory 31 AMI 87 19 81-94 Low Average
Visual Memory 31 VMI 86 18 81-92 Low Average
Visual Working Memory 19 VWMI 97 42 90-104 Average
I mmediate Memory 32 I MI 86 18 80-93 Low Average
Delayed Memory 30 DMI 82 12 76-90 Low Average

I ndex Score Profile I ndex Scores and
Standard Error of
Measurement
I ndex Score SEM
AMI 87 3.35
VMI 86 3
VWMI 97 3.97
I MI 86 3.67
DMI 82 3.67
The vertical bars represent the standard error of measurement (SEM).
Primary Subtest Scaled Score Summary

Subtest Domain Raw Score Scaled Score Percentile Rank
Logical Memory I AM 21 8 25
Logical Memory I I AM 14 7 16
Verbal Paired Associates I AM 27 9 37
Verbal Paired Associates I I AM 6 7 16
Designs I VM 50 7 16
Designs I I VM 45 8 25
Visual Reproduction I VM 29 8 25
Visual Reproduction I I VM 16 8 25
Spatial Addition VWM 10 9 37
Symbol Span VWM 22 10 50

Primary Subtest Scaled Score Profile
Process Score Conversions

Visual Memory Process Score Summary
Cumulative Percentage
Process Score Raw Score Scaled Score Percentile Rank ( Base Rate)
DE I Content 35 10 50 -
DE I Spatial 11 6 9 -
DE I I Content 24 6 9 -
DE I I Spatial 13 11 63 -
Subtest- Level Differences Within I ndexes

Auditory Memory I ndex
AMI Mean
Subtest Scaled Score Score Difference from Mean Critical Value Base Rate
Logical Memory I 8 7.75 0.25 2.64 > 25%
Logical Memory I I 7 7.75 -0.75 2.48 > 25%
Verbal Paired Associates I 9 7.75 1.25 1.90 > 25%
Verbal Paired Associates I I 7 7.75 -0.75 2.48 > 25%
Visual Memory I ndex

VMI Mean
Designs I 7 7.75 -0.75 2.38 > 25%
Designs I I 8 7.75 0.25 2.38 > 25%
Visual Reproduction I 8 7.75 0.25 1.86 > 25%
Visual Reproduction I I 8 7.75 0.25 1.48 > 25%
I mmediate Memory I ndex

I MI Mean
Logical Memory I 8 8.00 0.00 2.59 > 25%
Verbal Paired Associates I 9 8.00 1.00 1.82 > 25%
Designs I 7 8.00 -1.00 2.42 > 25%
Visual Reproduction I 8 8.00 0.00 1.91 > 25%
Delayed Memory I ndex

DMI Mean
Logical Memory I I 7 7.50 -0.50 2.44 > 25%
Verbal Paired Associates I I 7 7.50 -0.50 2.44 > 25%
Designs I I 8 7.50 0.50 2.44 > 25%
Visual Reproduction I I 8 7.50 0.50 1.57 > 25%
Subtest Discrepancy Comparison

Comparison Score 1 Score 2 Difference Critical Value Base Rate
Spatial Addition – Symbol Span 9 10 -1 2.74 85.9
Subtest- Level Contrast Scaled Scores

Logical Memory
Score Score 1 Score 2 Contrast Scaled Score
LM I mmediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall 8 7 7
Verbal Paired Associates

VPA I mmediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall 9 7 6
Designs
DE I Spatial vs. Content 6 10 12
DE I I Spatial vs. Content 11 6 5
DE I mmediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall 7 8 10
Visual Reproduction
VR I mmediate Recall vs. Delayed Recall 8 8 9
I ndex-Level Contrast Scaled Scores

WMS–I V I ndexes
Auditory Memory I ndex vs. Visual Memory I ndex 87 86 8
Visual Working Memory I ndex vs. Visual Memory I ndex 97 86 7
I mmediate Memory I ndex vs. Delayed Memory I ndex 86 82 7

Ability-Memory Analysis
Ability Score Type: GAI
Ability Score: 107
Predicted Difference Method

Predicted Actual WMS– Significant
WMS–I V I V I ndex Difference Base
I ndex I ndex Score Score Difference Critical Value Y/ N Rate
Auditory Memory 104 87 17 8.95 Y 10%
Visual Memory 104 86 18 8.82 Y 5-10%
Visual Working Memory 105 97 8 11.24 N
I mmediate Memory 105 86 19 10.35 Y 5%
Delayed Memory 104 82 22 10.08 Y 4%
Contrast Scaled Scores

General Ability I ndex vs. Auditory Memory I ndex 107 87 6
General Ability I ndex vs. Visual Memory I ndex 107 86 5
General Ability I ndex vs. Visual Working Memory I ndex 107 97 8
General Ability I ndex vs. I mmediate Memory I ndex 107 86 5
General Ability I ndex vs. Delayed Memory I ndex 107 82 5
Verbal Comprehension I ndex vs. Auditory Memory I ndex 110 87 6
Perceptual Reasoning I ndex vs. Visual Memory I ndex 104 86 6
Perceptual Reasoning I ndex vs. Visual Working Memory I ndex 104 97 9
Working Memory I ndex vs. Auditory Memory I ndex 105 87 7
Working Memory I ndex vs. Visual Working Memory I ndex 105 97 8


Wais IV Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wais IV Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wais IV Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interpretive Report of WAIS–IV and WMS–IV Testing

Examinee and Testing I nformation

Examinee Name Client A Date of Report 8/ 24/ 2009

WAI S–I V Comments

Purpose for Evaluation

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

Test Session Behavior: WMS–I V

I nterpretation of WAI S–I V Results

General I ntellectual Ability

I nterpretation of WMS–I V Results

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Client A

Brief Cognitive Status Exam

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Client A

Modality-Specific Memory Strengths and Weaknesses

Visual Working Memory

Specificity of Episodic Visual Memory Abilities Compared to Visual Working

I mmediate and Delayed Memory

Specific Auditory Memory Abilities

Auditory Forgetting and Retrieval Scores

Specific Visual Memory Abilities

Visual Process Scores

Visual Forgetting and Retrieval Scores

Summary of WMS–I V Memory Abilities

Summary of I ntellectual and Memory Abilities

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Client A

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

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Client A

Composite Score Summary

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Client A

The vertical bars represent the standard error of measurement (SEM).

I ndex Level Discrepancy Comparisons

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Client A

Perceptual Reasoning Subtests Summary

Working Memory Subtests Summary

Processing Speed Subtests Summary

Subtest Level Discrepancy Comparisons

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Client A

The vertical bars represent the standard error of measurement (SEM)

Determining Strengths and Weaknesses

Process Level Discrepancy Comparisons

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Client A

I ndex Score Summary

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Client A

The vertical bars represent the standard error of measurement (SEM).

Primary Subtest Scaled Score Summary

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Client A

Process Score Conversions

Subtest- Level Differences Within I ndexes

Visual Memory I ndex

I mmediate Memory I ndex

Delayed Memory I ndex

Subtest Discrepancy Comparison

Subtest- Level Contrast Scaled Scores

Verbal Paired Associates

I ndex-Level Contrast Scaled Scores

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Client A

Predicted Difference Method

Contrast Scaled Scores

Copyright © 2009 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Client A