NEW YORK STATE INSTITUTE ON DISABILITY, INC.

930 Willowbrook Road-Bldg. 41-A Staten Island, NY 10314 Phone/Fax (718) 494-6457

CONFIDENTIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Name: Amelia Suazo

DOB: 1/22/07 Age: 14-11 Gender: E

Phone:

Contact:

Date of Evaluation: 1/21/22 Address:

Type: Comprehensive – Home

REFERRAL

Amelia was referred for a comprehensive psychological evaluation in order to assess current levels of functioning and determine her eligibility for NYS OPWDD services. The following report was completed during the COVID-19 crisis. Consequently, modifications were made in order for services to be delivered, including the use of web-based technology and the omission of aspects of data collection which could only occur by way of in-person interaction. While some data could therefore not be obtained, services were provided using the best practice standards available at the time given the constraints of the pandemic emergency. The family was made aware of the necessary adjustments to our services and consented to proceed under these conditions.

PROCEDURES

Review of Records Clinical Interview Behavioral Observations

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale – 5"' Ed. (prorated) Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales – 3n1 Ed.

BACKGROUND

Amelia is a verbal and ambulatory fourteen-year-old female of Hispanic descent with a history of developmental delays and learning difficulties in school. She has a complex medical history significant for a malignant brain tumor at the age of four, followed by invasive neurosurgery, several associated epileptic seizures, chemotherapy, and a stem cell transplant, along with a VP shunt. Amelia also has a mild high frequency hearing loss and central auditory processing disorder, which requires dual hearing aids and FM unit in the classroom. She is prescribed HGH and an estrogen patch to correct hormonal imbalances. Amelia receives periodic MR.I's and is

Page 12

Amelia Suazo / Psychological / 01.21.22

followed by a neurologist, oncologist, endocrinologist, and gastroenterologist to meet her health needs. She does not have a formal psychiatric history and no behavioral problems are noted in school records but the family reports self-esteem issues and social skills deficits. Amelia is classified as Other Health Impaired on her IEP and participates in a special education program at the Cooke School and Institute, where she receives speech, counseling, and occupational therapies. She resides with her mother in an apartment in the Bronx.

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS

The remote testing environment appeared free of distractions and adequate rapport was established with the examinee via the Zoom digital platform. The examinee was engaged in the task throughout the session with no problems noted during the administration.

Amelia is pretty and well-groomed fourteen-year-old girl who appears her stated age. She is slim and petite with long straight dark brown hair, dark brown eyes, and a light tan complex.ion with dental braces. Her gait, balance, and coordination appear grossly normal and observed fine­ motor functions are intact. Amelia presents with a shy demeanor but made good eye contact and has a fair capacity to relate with others, as rapport was easily established with the examiner. She typically speaks in grammatically-complete sentences, albeit simple with a limited functional vocabulary and mild articulation difficulties at times. No deficits in pragmatic communication or reciprocal social interaction were noted. Amelia was cooperative throughout the assessment and participated in all activities as requested. She denied visual/auditory hallucinations or suicidal ideations but demonstrated limited insight and social judgment for his chronological age, along with a visibly slow mental process when engaged in cognitive tasks, particularly on verbal subtests. Gross hearing and visual acuities were deemed adequate for assessment purposes.

TEST RESULTS

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales- 51h Edition (SB-V) was administered to assess Amelia' current level of intellectual functioning. Please note that deviations from standard procedures were utilized in order to accommodate remote testing. Specifically, a proration of the nonverbal domain due to the exclusion of visual-spatial processing (form board) and working memory (block tapping). The results are as follows:

Scale

Standard ScorePercentile RankClassification

—————·————————-

Verbal80

Nonverbal92

Full Scale85

09Low Average

30Average (prorated)

16Low Average (prorated)

Amelia Suazo / Psychological / O1.21.22

Page 13

elia achi veda prorated Full-Scale I.Q. Score of 85 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, which Usm the low average range and is ranked at the 16th percentile . There is a 90-percent probab1hty that her true I.Q. Score falls between 82 and 88. She enjoyed considerably more success with tasks that involved perceptual reasoning than those which required verbal comprehension. Deficits in the area of speech and language are contributory.

The Verbal Scale of the SB-V measures the ability to reason, solve problems, visualize, and recall important information presented in words and sentences (printed and spoken). It is based on the verbal subtests of five factor index scales, which assess the ability to express verbal responses clearly, present a basic rationale for response choices, create simple stories, and explain spatia l

relations. Amelia achieved a Verbal I.Q. Score of 80, which falls in the low average range and is ranked at the 9m percenti le.

The Nonverbal Scale of the SB-V measures the ability to reason, solve problems, visualize, and recall information presented in pictorial, figural, and symbolic form, as opposed to information presented in the form of words and sentences (printed or spoken). Amelia performed adequately on the Fluid Reasoning subtest, which required her to recognize and continue patterns. She fared similarly on the Knowledge subtest, during which she had to demonstrate nonverbally what items in pictures are used for, and had only mirlor difficulty on the Quantitative Reasoning subtest, which required her to demonstrate nonverbally how many items are being asked of her to selecL Amelia achieved a prorated Nonverbal I.Q. Score of 92, which falls in the average range and is ranked at the 30111 pe rce ntile.

ADAPTIVE FUNCTIONING

The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 3n1 Ed. (Vineland-3) is a standardized measure of adaptive behavior – the things that people do to function in their everyday lives. Whereas ability measures focus on what the examinee can do in a testing situation, the Vineland-3 focuses on what he or she actually does in daily life. Because it is a nonn-based instrument, the examinee's adaptive functioning is compared to that of others his or her age. The Vineland-3 provides overall scores for Communication, Daily Living Skills, Socialization, and Motor Skills (optional). It also provides a composite score that summarizes the individual's performance across all domains.

Amelia's adaptive behavior was measured using the Vineland-3 Domain-Level Parent/Caregiver Form utilizing her mother as the primary informant through the Zoom audio-video feed. The results are deemed reliable and summarized below:

Amelia Suazo I Psychological / 01.21.22

Page 1 4

.

DomainStandard ScorePercentileAdaptive Level

.

Communication75

Daily Living Skills81

Socialization79

Composite76

05Moderately Low

10Moderately Low

08Moderately Low

05Moderately Low

Amelia's overall level of adaptive functioning is moderately low, corresponding with a standard score of 76 which is ranked at the 5th percentile.

In the area of Communication, Amelia's standard score of 75 is moderately low and ranked at the 5th percentile. The Communication domain measures how well Amelia listens and understands, expresses herself through speech, and her basic literacy. Amelia follows straightforward directives, expresses basic wants or needs adequately, speaks in complete sentences, and asks appropriate "wh" questions to obtain relevant information. However, she has difficulty following multi-step directives, relating detailed experiences , or saying something in a different way to clarify what she means. Her overall literacy skills are at a_3ni grade level.

In the area of Daily Living Skills, Amelia's standard score of 81 is moderately low and ranked at the 10th percentile. The Daily Living Skills domain assesses Amelia's performance of the practical, everyday tasks of living that are appropriate for her chronological age. Amelia is independent in basic AOL areas, including feeding, toileting, showering, and dressing. She can help herself to cold cereal in the morning or make sandwich for lunch. However, she does not read analog time, has poor money skills, and does not count change from minor purchases, nor does she complete household chores or use the stovetop for cooking. Amelia is minimally-aware of basic safety issues, is easily distracted outdoors, and may not look both ways before crossing the street or road.

In the area of Socialization, Amelia's standard score of79 is moderately low and ranked at the 8th percen tile. The Socialization domain measures how well Amelia functions in social situation s. Amelia can be affectionate with family members at times, shows some interest in other people, and will participate in games or structured activities with prompting and supervision in school. However, more often than not Amelia tends to self-isolate and avoids interaction with peers. She rarely talks with others about shared interests or show understanding that gentle teasing with family and friends can be a form of humor or affection. Amelia's interpersonal development and coping skills are immature for her chronological age and she has difficulty interacting appropriately with peers. She also has self-esteem issues.

Amelia Suaz.() /Psychological/ 01.21.22

Page / 5

SUMMARY

Amelia is a verbal and ambulatory fourteen-year-old girl with a history of developmental delays and learning difficulties who was referred for a psychological evaluation to assess current levels of functioning and determine her eligibility for OPWDD services. She has a complex medical history significant for a malignant brain tumor at the age of four, followed by invasive neurosurgery, several associated epileptic seizures, chemotherapy, and a stern ceJl transplant, along with a VP shunt. Amelia also has a mild high .frequency hearing loss and central auditory processing disorder, which requires dual hearing aids and FM unit in the classroom. She does not have a formal psychiatric history and no behavioral problems are noted in school records but the family reports self-esteem issues and social skills deficits. The current evaluation was completed during the COVID-19 crisis and deviations from standard procedures were utiliz.ed in order to accommodate remote testing. On this date, Amelia achieved a prorated Full-Scale 1 Q. Score of 85 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, which falls in the low average range of cognitive ability. Her overall level of adaptive functioning is moderately low, corresponding with

a standard score of 76 which is ranked at the 5th percentile.

Developmental Disability Diagnosis: Traumatic Brain Injury (S06.9)

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Continued participation in special education programming with supportive therapies.

2. Psychological counseling to address low self-esteem and social skills deficits.

3. Community habilitation to improve self-sufficiency,travel skills, and safety awareness.

4. A need for after-school/recreational programming is also indicated.

5. Coordination of services through ca:re management.

Licensed Psychologist

NYS License No. 7876lfll/2022

Part 2: Explanation of Psychoeducational Assessments – 10 points

Explain in detail what assessments were utilized to evaluate your student’s educational and psychological ability levels. Explain why these assessments were selected, and how they address the need of bilingual learners. Also explain in detail the results. Also include a brief paragraph in which you explain whether or not these evaluations were accepted and what decisions were made regarding the student’s need for special education and related services. In your opinion, were these the best assessments to be used for this student? Why or why not? Connect to the literature of the course.

Guide for Part 2:

Explanation of Psychoeducational Tests

(10 points)

2.1. Identification of Test Tools: 3 points (2 paragraphs)

Describe the psychometrics of the test so that the reader understands what the tool entails.

1. Educational Testing: Introduce the test tool, what it aims to measure, and how. Briefly describe the conditions of the test, i.e., language of testing and any modifications provided for the student during the administration of the test.

2. Psychological Testing: Introduce the test tool, what it aims to measure, and how. Briefly describe the conditions of the test, i.e., language of testing and any modifications provided for the student during the administration of the test.

Most of this information can be found in the Test Manuals.

2.2. PUMI Review of Test Tools: 3 points (2 paragraphs)

Describe design of the assessment regarding the following:

1. Purpose

2. Use

3. Methods

4. Instrument

This may be general to the test, and it should also describe how it pertains to the Language Learner (or does not, according to the Test Manuals). Rely on the theories of the class to interpret these aspects.

2.3 Interpretation of Results: 3 points (1-2 paragraphs)

Describe the results of the test statistically and in prose. How have the tests results been shown about the student’s cognitive and educational abilities and weaknesses? If there is a disagreement between the way the results to were delivered to the family or in the child study team setting, please dedicate one paragraph to explaining these discrepancies.

2.4: Decision and Acceptance: 1 point (1 paragraph)

State any decisions made as a result of these tests. Please state whether or not the student was deemed eligible for special education and or related services and how those services were to be delivered. If there as any disagreement on behalf of the student’s family, please include it here and any result of the disagreement as well.

Additional points for Part 2: An additional 1 point is reserved for correct grammar and readability.

Sample Part II:

The educational testing tool used to evaluate Jose was the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievements (WJ IV). According to Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual (2014), the test is designed to measure “general intellectual ability; broad and narrow cognitive abilities as defined by contemporary Cattell- Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory, including oral language, reading, mathematics, writing abilities, and academic domain-specific aptitudes; and academic knowledge” (p. 1). The Woodcock- Johnson IV also “retains the focus on psychometric quality that has been associated with the previous editions of Woodcock-Johnson batteries” by providing a “large, nationally representative norming sample” from the entire US population (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p. 2).

The entire Woodcock Johnson IV is “organized into three distinct batteries to facilitate a broad range of tailored and comprehensive assessments by one or more assessment professionals.” (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p. 8). The three subcategories are cognitive abilities, oral language and achievement. The achievement portion of the WJ IV test of achievement includes 20 different tests that measure academic achievement in reading, math, written language, science, social studies and humanities (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014). In reference to testing accommodations, according to the Woodcock- Johnson IV Technical Manual (2014), “test instructions are written in clear, concise language without high vocabulary demands, making them appropriate for young children and individuals who are English language learners (p. 57). The manual states the test is provided in Spanish in the oral language. According to the Woodcock- Johnson IV Technical Manual (2014), “an important provision in the WJ IV OL is the Broad Oral Language cluster in Spanish, Amplio lenguaje oral. Amplio lenguaje oral also may be used as an ability measure for comparison to reading, mathematics, and written language measures in English when Spanish is the student’s dominant language.” (p. 21). This allows students who are not English language dominant to be able to take the oral assessment in Spanish.

The purpose of the WJ IV is to “form a comprehensive system for measuring general intellectual ability (g), specific cognitive abilities, oral language, and academic achievement across a wide age range” (Woodcock- Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p.1). The assessment is used to measure the most important cognitive, language, and academic abilities” of students (Woodcock- Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p.1). This method of administration includes specific directions and questions provided and a Spanish oral assessment given to Spanish speaking students. As stated earlier, the testing instrument consists of a variety of “20 tests for measuring academic achievement in reading, mathematics, written language, science, social studies, and the humanities” (Woodcock- Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p.11).

In Jose’s WJ IV scores, the IEP states that for his age level he is performing at a very low range of scores. Also, it was noted that he has significant deficits in oral languages skills in both languages with more developed Spanish oral language skills although still limited. Jose was unable to complete any of the formal standardized testing in the areas of reading due to his limited ability to respond to any items in English. He verbalized during the assessment that he was unable to complete or understand the questions and asked for the question to be stated in Spanish. According to the results of the assessment, Jose stated he had a difficult time with school in the Dominican Republic in the areas of reading and math. The family was not in disagreement with the results although the father probably did not understand the results and wanted any assistance to help his son. The test seemed to be administered in Spanish but Jose struggled with the Spanish content as well. The main reason stated for the inability to complete some of the assessment was the lack of English language oral skills and lack of any skills in reading in both English and Spanish.

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fifth Edition (WISC-V) (Spanish) was used to obtain a comprehensive assessment of Jose’s general intellectual functioning. The WISC-V is an individually administered, comprehensive clinical instrument for assessing intelligence for children aged 6-16 years old (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015). The WISC-V can also be used as part of “ of an assessment to identify intellectual giftedness, intellectual disability, and cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Results can also serve as a guide for treatment planning and placement decisions in clinical and/or educational settings and can provide invaluable clinical information for neuropsychological evaluation and research purposes.” (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015). The WISC-V provides subset and composite scores that represent intellectual functioning in 5 specific cognitive domains. The five domains include: Verbal Comprehension (VCI), Visual Spatial (VSI), Fluid Reasoning (FRI), Working Memory (WMI), Processing Speed (PSI). These five domains are then compiled into a Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015). The WISC-V is as a normative test that provides comparison sample scores. Since the WISC-V has the most substantial effect on student performance, the raw scores are calculated and compared to the normative scores for that specific age group. As related to language, the WISC is only a “culturally and linguistically valid test of cognitive ability in Spanish.” According to the WISC testing manual, the WISC has been adapted to be “proven and reliable” as the “adaptation is more than just a linguistic translation—test items have been validated to minimize cultural bias across multiple regions of origin, and modified when needed. While the test is given in Spanish, children earn credit for correct answers in either Spanish or English” (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015).This flexibility in testing allows for emergent bilinguals to access their full linguistic repertoires and obtain an accurate report of intellectual ability regardless of language use.

As mentioned earlier, one of the purposes of the WISC-V is “to assess and identify cognitive function and ability ranges which can help identify giftedness, learning disabilities, or general strengths and weaknesses” (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015). Learning disabilities can be be identified by “comparing results from an intelligence test like the WISC with the scores from an achievement test like the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test to identify gaps between academic achievement and a child’s level of intellectual functioning (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015).” The test is administered on a 1:1 basis with the identified child and the clinician. The test could be administered via standard paper-and-pencil or through a digital format. Overall, the WISC-V “includes a total of 16 subtests; however, the standard number of subtests given is 7.” The Visual Spatial Index testing involves solving puzzles and constructing geometric designs; the Fluid Reasoning Index requires the students to “detect relationships among visual objects”; the Working Memory Index asks students to repeat number sequences and utilize their auditory and visual attention and working memory; the Processing Speed Index tests the ability to match symbols associated to numbers and the ability to visually scan and match them quickly; and the Verbal Comprehension Index measures verbal reasoning (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015).

Jose was administered the WISC-V in Spanish on 1/30/2019. Jose obtained the following results: Verbal Comprehension Index score of 73, which falls in the very low range (4th percentile); Visual Spatial Index Score of 78, which falls in the very low range (7th percentile)

; Fluid Reasoning Index score of 76, which places him in the very low range (5th percentile); Working Memory Index score of 67, which falls in the extremely low range (1st percentile); Processing Speed Index score of 63, which falls in the extremely low range (1st percentile). In addition, the test determined that Jose’s Full Scale IQ was 67, which falls in the extremely low range at the 1st percentile. Lastly, according to Jose’s IEP, the ABAS-3 was completed by Jose’s teacher. Jose’s General Adaptive Composite Standard Score was 80, which places him in the 9th percentile, below average range. After testing, These results were relayed to Jose’s father. Jose's father was in agreement with the results and recommendations, especially since he suspected that Jose had cognitive/ learning delays from an early age.

The testing determined that Jose was eligible for Special Education services under the classification of Specific Learning Disability in the areas of oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression and basic reading skills. Jose was offered an immediate placement into a special class mild/moderate learning or language disabilities for the remainder of the school year. However, the placement required Jose to be moved to a different campus due to lack of availability at his current site. Both of Jose’s parents and the CST determined it would be academically and emotionally challenging to change Jose’s educational placement so late into the school year and decided to postpone the move. Jose began receiving related services of speech and language therapy in his current school and will receive the remainder of his services during the 2019-2020 school year after he changes campuses. Jose’s father and the team were all in agreement to this disposition.

  

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4. This chapter analyses and interprets the data collected. The chapter discusses the results of the study. You can divide the chapter into the desired number of sections and sub-sections. Analysis is still a method or a tool being used to break down your findings.

4.1. Put Sample Main Heading

Research the below topics- write a 2 page reflection of your learning and include any experiences you’ve had with this population. Include any questions you have to approach working with the given population. Consider the following questions:

· What are the issues that this population encounters?

· What socio-emotional issues does this population have to deal with?

· What, if any, are the academic implications?

· What can you do to best serve the population better?

· Why is it important to serve this population?

Topic

Journal 9: Resources for the grade levels you serve (or wish to serve)