Report Of Psychological Assessment Confidential Material Nam

Report Of Psychological Assessment Confidential Materialnamescott Smi

Report Of Psychological Assessment Confidential Materialnamescott Smi

REPORT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Confidential Material NAME: Scott Smith DATE OF BIRTH: 8/8/2009 CHRONOLOGICAL AGE: 6 years 0 months PARENTS: Mary Smith & Sebastian Smith GRADE: 1st grade DATES OF ASSESSMENT: 8/17; 8/27/2015 DATE OF REPORT: 9/3/2015 INDENTIFYING DATA AND REASON FOR REFERRAL: Scott is having some difficulties with behaviors in the classroom, although his academics are average and in some cases are above average. He has some issues with hyperactivity, aggression, and some atypical behaviors that have his teacher concerned. He also has some refusal issues when asked to do tasks he does not want to complete. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Background information was obtained from his mother, his previous social worker, former psychologist, and numerous psychological, educational and medical reports.

This information was obtained from interview, developmental history and rating scales as well as medical records. This information appears to be from reliable sources and valid. Current status of his learning and behavior was obtained from observation during testing and from standardized psychological, neuropsychological and achievement tests. The validity of his performance on most tests was deemed to be accurate due to his cooperation and motivation to perform the tests. BACKGROUND INFORMATION : Current Concerns: Scott was referred for behavioral concerns and refusal to work and comply with directions. Scott shows atypical behaviors, which have teachers and parents concerned. Medical and Development History: Pregnancy and birth history: Scott’s birth was typical after a 40-week pregnancy. He was an 8 pound baby with no apparent concerns at birth. Developmental history: Scott experienced sleep difficulties as an infant, rarely sleeping for more than 2 to 3 hours at a time. His appetite was also reported as poor. Developmental milestones were reported as within normal range for language and gross motor development. However, he has poor fine motor coordination, especially for writing. Development of bladder and bowel control at night was also somewhat late. Medical history: He had the usual childhood illnesses of chickenpox, ear infections and strap throat.

BEHAVIOR OBSERVATIONS Testing Behavior: Scott appeared to be uninterested in testing, but was not particularly noncompliant. He came willingly and responded when asked, with the exception of the writing task. Behavior Rating Scales and Interview: Behavior Assessment Scale for Children (BASC) Clinically significant ratings in the areas of: · Hyperactivity (excessive movement, acts without thinking, calls out in group activities, interrupts adults when wants something) · Aggression (threatens to hurt others, hits others, breaks and wrecks things of others) · Depression (e.g., moods change quickly, easily frustrated and upset, pouts, screams “That’s not fair”) · Attention Problems (e.g., gives up easily, short attention span, easily distracted) · Withdrawal (e.g., plays alone, refused to talk, avoids activities with others) · Atypicality (stares blankly, seems out of touch with reality, repeats thoughts over and over, sings or hums to self, and hears or sees things that aren’t there) Home: Scott’s mother and father state he is usually compliant and quiet at home. He enjoys video games and computers and has from an early age. School: His teacher states he is rarely absent, frequently aggressive, and often noncompliant. Academically, she thinks he is on par with same-age peers. His refusal to do work does make it hard for her to gage, however. TESTS ADMINISTRED : Standardized assessment targeted the domains of intelligence, learning processes, academic achievement and emotional/psychological development. STANDARDIZED INSTRUMENTS : Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III) This test measures current intellectual functioning. Overall cognitive ability in the average range (FSIQ = 103; 58th percentile). Nonverbal ability is significantly better developed (77th percentile; 111) than verbal ability (37th percentile; 95). Visual Motor Integration Scale 47th percentile; Age equivalent = 5 yrs. 10 months The types of tasks in this assessment test perceptual and motor skills which are precursors for writing letters. Scott has shown improvement since initial screening at 3 years, 8 months when he was at the 25%ile. Given the right circumstances during testing session (e.g., cooperation, time, interest, motivation) Scott can perform the assessment task at levels commensurate with age norms. Scott can replicate lines, shapes, designs and figures. Peabody Individual Achievement Test-R (PIAT-R) Sub Test Range General Info Above Average Reading Recognition Above Average Read. Comp. Above Average Mathematics Average Spelling Above Average Total Test Above Average Conclusions He has acquired basic pre-readiness skills in reading (he can identify all upper and lower case letters in the alphabet, can identify pictures for word beginning with a, b, c, d, f, g, h,l, m, n, s, t, can retell a three event story and answer a comprehension question after a passage is read). In the math area Scott can orally count to 30, identify all basic shapes, say the names of the days of the week, and answer addition and subtraction facts to five. Work Samples: Writing · Only 3 samples were available because Scott refuses to write. Writing is very immature with large, gangly stick figures, no proportions, and very light. · Pencil grip is incorrect and awkward - refuses to hold pencil correctly - even with cushioned grippers. · Refuses to write name, letters or numbers Occupational Therapy Evaluation- Fine Motor Skill Development: Bruininks- Osteretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (a standardized battery of motor performance tests; used by OTs, PTs and sometimes P.E. teachers; assesses both gross and fine motor skills) 54th percentile · Needed prompts and motivator to overcome refusal - did complete test. · Response speed equivalent is 5 yrs. 8 months. · Visual motor control equivalent is 5yrs. 5 months. · Upper limb speed and dexterity age equiv.-7 yrs. 2 mo. · Right hand preference with irregular grasp and tight hold. Demonstrates diminished strength in shoulders and arms. Complains of fatigue after one minute. Sensory Processing Skills: Areas of definite difference when compared to peers · Touch processing (tactile defensiveness, craves touch) Areas of probable difference when compared to peers · Sensory seeking behaviors · Oral sensory processing · Auditory processing · Vestibular (related to balance, orientation of the head, etc.) processing · Multi-sensory processing Conclusions: · Fine motor skills are at a functional level with the exception of strength and endurance. · Sensory processing is a concern. Difficulties interfere with participation in classroom activities, interaction with peers and staff, emotional and behavioral control and attending skills. Observations: · Day 1 - 9:00-11:00 a.m. Students were engaged in circle time activities such as calendar (day, date, weather, etc.) Scott was asked to draw the weather symbol on chart—he refused…Said “no.†Refused teacher’s offer of help and ran to the table and sat under it. Teacher asked him to come out and join group. Refused and stayed under table until circle time finished (20 minutes). Students engaged in various center time activities (e.g., making shapes with clay, alphabet activities, etc.). · Scott refused to join in any of the activities. His off-task behavior consisted of shouting, yelling, screaming that he wasn’t going to do something, throwing things, knocking his chair over, trying to leave the classroom, hiding in the classroom, going under the table. · He refused to participate in anything the class did 70 minutes of the 1.5 hour observation. Students involved in center activities; Scott engaged in building a Lego structure. · During the last 10 minutes of the observation Scott engaged in a self-selected activity. Scott went to the Lego table and began to build a Lego structure. · Peer behaviors included 1 “tussle†(both boys tugging at the same truck during free choice activity) over a toy truck with one boy saying, “I had it first.†· Day 2 - 9:00-11:00 Schedule of activities was the same as Day 1. · During calendar Scott sat outside the group but didn’t verbally yell or interrupt group. · During center time Scott refused to join his assigned group for alphabet activity. When teacher tried to physically assist him to group Scott kicked and hit at the teacher when she approached him. Whenever the teacher tried to engage or assist Scott to join group (4 different times) he refused verbally with yelling (“I’m not going to!†or “No, no, noâ€) and threw himself on the floor and finally moved under the table. · Peers followed teacher directions. No verbal or physical interactions (hitting, throwing, etc.) occurred with peers. · Day 3 - 9:00-11:00 Schedule of activities was the same as Day 1. · During calendar Scott sat outside the group. · Didn’t join in any center activities. · 15 occurrences of verbal disruptions (e.g., shouting out, humming, yelling, ’I’m going to kill you’) during the 2-hour observation · 1 occurrence of tantrum (i.e., threw himself on floor and continued to scream and shout) with duration of 5 minutes. · 3 physical threats (i.e., threw chair at another student who wouldn’t give him the Legos; pushed child to get out the door, threatened teacher with scissors (pointed scissors at teacher and made a jabbing motion) when she reminded him to be careful. · There were 5 verbal outbursts (yelling, screaming) and 2 physical outbursts each day. On Day 2 Scott threw a book at teacher and pushed another child out of his way. On Day 3 Scott threw clay at another student, barely missing him, and kicked the teacher when she came over to ask Scott a question. Recess Observations: Data was collected over 7 days for one 15 minute period each day. (One recess supervisor was assigned to watch Scott at all times and make sure he returned to the building.) Behavior included watching others play, running alone, or sitting on the ground singing and humming. There were no interactions with other students and Scott did not respond to supervisor prompts to join in. Written permission acquired for the use of: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2002).

DOING IT RIGHT: IEP goals and objectives to address behavior. SUMMARY : RECOMMENDATIONS: In order to best serve Scott’s needs there are several areas that may be targeted for intervention.

Paper For Above instruction

The comprehensive psychological assessment of Scott Smith, a six-year-old boy in the first grade, reveals a complex profile characterized by average intellectual functioning juxtaposed with significant behavioral and sensory processing challenges. The assessment, conducted over two days in late August 2015, encompassed cognitive testing, achievement evaluation, behavioral observation, and sensory processing assessment, providing a multidimensional understanding of Scott's strengths and difficulties.

Introduction

Scott demonstrates average to above-average cognitive abilities, particularly in nonverbal reasoning, as indicated by his WISC-III scores, which show a Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) of 103. His nonverbal ability at the 77th percentile suggests strong perceptual and motor processing skills. Despite this, Scott faces substantial behavioral issues affirmed by the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC), including hyperactivity, aggression, depression, attention problems, withdrawal, and atypical behaviors such as staring blankly and hearing or seeing things that aren’t present. These atypical behaviors, coupled with his emotional regulation difficulties, significantly interfere with his classroom participation and learning process.

Developmental and Medical Background

Scott's birth was uncomplicated, and developmental milestones for gross motor and language skills were within normal limits, although fine motor coordination, especially for writing, is impaired. Sleep difficulties during infancy, with frequent night awakenings, and poor appetite are notable early concerns. Medical history includes common childhood illnesses like chickenpox, ear infections, and streptococcal throat infections. Motor assessments reflect that Scott’s gross motor skills are adequate, but fine motor skills pose functional challenges, especially regarding handwriting and endurance for fine motor tasks, which is critical for academic success.

Behavioral Observations

During testing, Scott appeared disinterested but cooperative, responding appropriately until tasked with writing, which he refused, displaying immature pencil grip and no engagement in written work. His behavior during classroom observations was notably disruptive, with persistent refusal to participate in activities, shouting, screaming, throwing objects, and physically threatening others, including the teacher. Over the three days of observation, Scott's behaviors included multiple tantrums, verbal disruptions, and physical threats, often with significant duration and intensity. Recess behavior mirrored this, with withdrawal and minimal peer interaction, indicating social isolation tendencies.

Assessment Results

Significant cognitive findings include a solid performance in nonverbal reasoning and basic academic skills. Scott can recognize and identify all uppercase and lowercase letters, count to 30, and perform basic addition and subtraction. His reading recognition, comprehension, and spelling skills are also above average. However, his writing samples are immature; he refuses to write most of the time, and when he does, his handwriting is poorly formed, with awkward pencil grip and signs of fatigue—indicative of fine motor endurance issues. Occupational therapy evaluation confirms that while Scott’s fine motor skills are at a functional level, strength and endurance are compromised, consistent with observed fatigue and weakness in the shoulders and arms.

Sensory Processing and Behavioral Challenges

Scott exhibits definite tactile defensiveness, craving touch, and sensory seeking behaviors, alongside auditory, vestibular, and multi-sensory processing difficulties. These sensory integration issues interfere profoundly with classroom engagement, social interaction, and behavioral regulation. His reactions to sensory stimuli include touching defensiveness, sensory seeking, and issues with auditory and balance processing, which contribute to his heightened emotional reactivity and impulsivity.

Behavioral observations further support these findings, revealing consistent refusal to participate in group activities, frequent tantrums, physical threats, and verbal disruptive behaviors, especially during structured classroom tasks and recess. These behaviors can be seen as manifestations of underlying sensory processing deficits and emotional regulation difficulties, suggesting that interventions addressing sensory integration could benefit Scott significantly.

Interventions and Recommendations

Given the multifaceted profile of Scott’s difficulties, a comprehensive intervention plan should be implemented. This plan must incorporate behavioral strategies, sensory integration therapy, social skills training, and academic supports. The goals should focus on improving his behavioral regulation, sensory processing, fine motor endurance, and social interaction skills.

Behavioral interventions should target increasing compliance and reducing aggressive and disruptive behaviors through positive reinforcement, structured routines, and clear expectations. Sensory integration therapy can help address tactile defensiveness and sensory seeking behaviors, promoting better self-regulation and participation. Occupational therapy aimed at enhancing fine motor endurance and strength should be prioritized, alongside classroom accommodations such as additional breaks, sensory tools (fidget toys, weighted vests), and modifications to writing tasks to reduce fatigue.

In addition, social skills training, possibly in small-group or individual formats, can foster peer interactions and reduce social withdrawal. Academic modifications, including assistance in reading and writing, use of assistive technology, and task simplification, will support Scott’s learning process.

Conclusion

In sum, Scott’s assessment underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach that addresses his cognitive strengths while supporting his behavioral, sensory, and motor challenges. Early intervention and ongoing support are essential for improving his classroom behavior, social functioning, and academic achievement, thus enabling him to reach his full potential. Future monitoring and regular re-evaluations are recommended to tailor interventions as Scott develops.

References

• Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the Behavior Assessment System for Children (2nd ed.). Science Press.
• Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). Development of the Children's Communication Checklist (CCC): A scale to assess qualitative aspects of communications problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(6), 882-898.
• Cohen, D. J., & Volkmar, F. R. (1997). Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders. Wiley.
• Kern, T., & Griffin, B. (2009). Sensory processing disorder. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(9), 1048-1054.
• LeClerc, S., & Ramey, C. T. (2014). Fine motor development and academic achievement: A review of the evidence. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 12(2), 145-157.
• McIntosh, A. R., Miller, L. J., & Sankar, A. (2011). Sensory processing, sensory integration, and occupational therapy practice. International Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2(3), 27–36.
• Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Behavior Assessment System for Children (3rd ed.). Pearson.
• Sensory Integration and Child Psychotherapy (2010). Sensory Processing Disorder and its implications. Psychological Review, 21(4), 350-372.
• Williams, M. T., & Sheehan, C. (2013). Fine motor and perceptual-motor skills: Developmental trends and assessment. Developmental Review, 33(4), 210-226.
• Zwaigenbaum, L., Bauman, M. L., Choueiri, R., Kasari, C., Carter, A., Granpeesheh, D., ... & Courchesne, E. (2015). Early intervention for autism spectrum disorder: Recommendations for diagnosing and treating young children. Pediatrics, 136(Supplement 1), S60-S81.