Child Z began the WISC-V on 9/17/16 and then finished in the second session on 10/01/16. The WISC-V, consisting of 21 subtests, was used to assess Child Z overall intellectual ability or full scale intelligence quotient (FSIQ), as well as other areas of cognitive functioning: Verbal Comprehension (VCI), Visual Spatial Processing (VSI), Fluid Reasoning (FRI), Working Memory (WMI), and Processing Speed (PSI). In FSIQ and the other indexes, a composite score between 90 and 109 is considered to be within the Average range. In addition, each indexes includes two separate subtests, where a scaled score between 8 to 12 is within the Average range. According to Child Z’s performance on the WISC-V, his overall functioning fell within the Average
…show more content…
Child Z scored within the Low Average range (87), which indicates that Child Z is prone to be inattentive, distractible, has visuomotor difficulties, and limited working memory storage or mental manipulation capacity. There is also a significant discrepancy between CPI and GAI (4.2) where GAI > CPI and this indicates that higher-order cognitive abilities may be a relative strength as opposed to those that support cognitive processing efficiency. This should also be viewed with caution because CPI is based on the subtests that contribute to PSI, which has been mentioned to have a questionable …show more content…
During Coding, the child works within a specific time limit and uses a key to copy symbols that correspond with simple geometric shapes and numbers. The errors in Naming Speed Literacy only occurred in the first trial for Child Z, which may indicate that he had problems with visual tracking due to the additional complexity of the test item page, which had more stimuli in comparison to the sample page. In Coding, Child Z had a significant rotation error (1; ≤5%), indicating that he may have a broader issue with mental rotation, however it may not be
Child Z scored within the Low Average range (87), which indicates that Child Z is prone to be inattentive, distractible, has visuomotor difficulties, and limited working memory storage or mental manipulation capacity. There is also a significant discrepancy between CPI and GAI (4.2) where GAI > CPI and this indicates that higher-order cognitive abilities may be a relative strength as opposed to those that support cognitive processing efficiency. This should also be viewed with caution because CPI is based on the subtests that contribute to PSI, which has been mentioned to have a questionable …show more content…
During Coding, the child works within a specific time limit and uses a key to copy symbols that correspond with simple geometric shapes and numbers. The errors in Naming Speed Literacy only occurred in the first trial for Child Z, which may indicate that he had problems with visual tracking due to the additional complexity of the test item page, which had more stimuli in comparison to the sample page. In Coding, Child Z had a significant rotation error (1; ≤5%), indicating that he may have a broader issue with mental rotation, however it may not be