STUDENT completed the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales – 5th Edition (SB5). The SB5 is a valid and reliable measure of intelligence for individuals ages 2 through 85+. Index scores have an average of 100; scores between 90-110 are considered to fall within the Average range. Subtests have an average of 10 and scores between 7-13 are considered to fall within the Average range. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales- 5th Edition (SB5) includes 10 subtests, 5 within a verbal domain and 5 within the non-verbal domain.

STUDENT obtained a Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) score of 74 and was within the Borderline Impaired range. His score was ranked at the 4th percentile. This means STUDENT’s abilities were as well developed as or better than 4% of his same-aged peers included in the standardization sample. A 95% confidence interval suggests that his true score falls within the range of 71-79. STUDENT also obtained a Nonverbal IQ score of 77 which was within the Borderline Impaired range and was ranked at the 6th percentile. The nonverbal domain requires less language abilities and little or no verbal response. He also obtained a Verbal IQ score of 73, which was within the Borderline Impaired range and was ranked at the 4th percentile. The verbal domain requires expressive language or some degree of reading on some items. There was not a statistically significant difference between STUDENT’s nonverbal versus verbal abilities; which suggests that his nonverbal and verbal reasoning skills are fairly evenly developed. A more detailed interpretation of the five Factor Indexes that make up the SB5 revealed some variance among the different types of cognitive abilities. STUDENT obtained a score of 65 on the Fluid Reasoning Index, which was within the Mildly Impaired range and was ranked at the 1st percentile. A 95% confidence interval suggests that his true score falls within the range of 61-77. Fluid Reasoning is the ability to solve problems using reasoning skills which required him to reason from the parts to a whole, or specific to general, and to infer a conclusion or implication from general information. STUDENT’s performance suggests that he will likely struggle recognizing visual clues or patterns, have difficulty concentrating for long periods of time, and discriminating visual information. He may also have difficulty with rapidly retrieving words or explanations and mentally reviewing potential answers. His abilities with Fluid Reasoning and Knowledge were significantly lower than his Quantitative Reasoning and Visual-Spatial Processing abilities. This appears to suggest that STUDENT’s ability with numbers and numerical problems solving and seeing spatial orientations or the whole picture among pieces of visual information are more developed than his reasoning abilities with new or novel situations. STUDENT obtained a score of 66 on the Knowledge Index, which was within the Mildly Impaired range and was ranked at the 1st percentile. A 95% confidence interval suggests that his true score falls within the range of 61-77. The Knowledge Index measured his accumulated fund of general information that would be acquired from home or school. It involves learned material such as vocabulary that had been acquired and stored in long-term memory. STUDENT’s performance suggests that he will likely struggle with understanding the meaning of words, producing verbal answers, relating parts to the whole, and to rapidly retrieve words and explanations. STUDENT’s area of weakness in this area was seen in both the verbal and non-verbal domain. STUDENT obtained a score of 94 on the Quantitative Reasoning Index which was within the Average range and ranked at the 34th percentile. A 95% confidence interval suggests that his true score falls within the range of 86-102. Quantitative Reasoning measured his ability to understand numbers and numerical problem solving. This index was measured in both the verbal and nonverbal domain. STUDENT scored significantly higher on the nonverbal Quantitative Reasoning tasks than the verbal tasks. This suggests that STUDENT’s understanding of mathematical knowledge and abilities and numerical concepts is more developed when relying on pictured relationships than with word problems. The difference between STUDENT’s performance on the Quantitative Reasoning was significantly higher than his abilities in Knowledge and Fluid Reasoning. STUDENT obtained a score of 85 on the Visual-Spatial Processing Index which was within the Low Average range and was ranked at the 16th percentile. A 95% confidence interval suggests that his true score falls within the range of 78-94. Visual-Spatial Processing measured his ability to see patterns, relationships, spatial orientations, and the whole among parts of a visual display. STUDENT’s performance in the Visual-Spatial Processing Index was significantly higher than his Fluid Reasoning and Knowledge Indexes. His performance appeared to be equally developed between the verbal and nonverbal domains. STUDENT will have abilities that are similar to his peers in his spatial relations and ability to visualize information. He may have difficulty with organizing pieces to form a whole, or gestalt. STUDENT obtained a score of 77 on the Working Memory Index, which was within the Borderline Impaired range and was ranked at the 6th percentile. A 95% confidence interval suggests that his true score falls within the range of 71-87. Working Memory measures his ability to store diverse information in short-term memory and was then sorted or transformed. STUDENT’s performance in this area may not be the best representation of his working memory skills as he appeared to not understand the directions in higher levels of the tasks. STUDENT’s ability to remember verbal information appeared to be a personal strength compared to his ability to attend to visual cues. This may suggest some difficulty with distractibility and retention span of information as well as his difficulty in understanding verbal instructions.



Here
is a
valid and reliable measure of intelligence for individuals ages 2 through 85+. Index scores have an average of 100; scores between 90-110 are considered to fall within the Average range. Subtests have an average of 10 and scores between 7-13 are considered to fall within the Average range. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales- 5th Edition (SB5) includes 10 subtests, 5 within a verbal domain and 5 within the non-verbal domain. STUDENT obtained a Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) score of 74 and was within the Borderline Impaired range. His score was ranked at the 4th percentile. This means STUDENT’s abilities were as well developed as or better than 4% of his same-aged peers included in the standardization sample. A 95% confidence interval suggests that his true score falls within the range of 71-79. STUDENT also obtained a Nonverbal IQ score of 77 which was within the Borderline Impaired range and was ranked at the 6th percentile. The nonverbal domain requires less language abilities and little or no verbal response. He also obtained a Verbal IQ score of 73, which was within the Borderline Impaired range and was ranked at the 4th percentile. The verbal domain requires expressive language or some degree of reading on some items. There was not a statistically significant difference between STUDENT’s nonverbal versus verbal abilities; which suggests that his nonverbal and verbal reasoning skills are fairly evenly developed. A more detailed interpretation of the five Factor Indexes that make up the SB5 revealed some variance among the different types of cognitive abilities. STUDENT obtained a score of 65 on the Fluid Reasoning Index, which was within the Mildly Impaired range and was ranked at the 1st percentile. A 95% confidence interval suggests that his true score falls within the range of 61-77. Fluid Reasoning is the ability to solve problems using reasoning skills which required him to reason from the parts to a whole, or specific to general, and to infer a conclusion or implication from general information. STUDENT’s performance suggests that he will likely struggle recognizing visual clues or patterns, have difficulty concentrating for long periods of time, and discriminating visual information. He may also have difficulty with rapidly retrieving words or explanations and mentally reviewing potential answers. His abilities with Fluid Reasoning and Knowledge were significantly lower than his Quantitative Reasoning and Visual-Spatial Processing abilities. This appears to suggest that STUDENT’s ability with numbers and numerical problems solving and seeing spatial orientations or the whole picture among pieces of visual information are more developed than his reasoning abilities with new or novel situations. STUDENT obtained a score of 66 on the Knowledge Index, which was within the Mildly Impaired range and was ranked at the 1st percentile. A 95% confidence interval suggests that his true score falls within the range of 61-77. The Knowledge Index measured his accumulated fund of general information that would be acquired from home or school. It involves learned material such as vocabulary that had been acquired and stored in long-term memory. STUDENT’s performance suggests that he will likely struggle with understanding the meaning of words, producing verbal answers, relating parts to the whole, and to rapidly retrieve words and explanations. STUDENT’s area of weakness in this area was seen in both the verbal and non-verbal domain. STUDENT obtained a score of 94 on the Quantitative Reasoning Index which was within the Average range and ranked at the 34th percentile. A 95% confidence interval suggests that his true score falls within the range of 86-102. Quantitative Reasoning measured his ability to understand numbers and numerical problem solving. This index was measured in both the verbal and nonverbal domain. STUDENT scored significantly higher on the nonverbal Quantitative Reasoning tasks than the verbal tasks. This suggests that STUDENT’s understanding of mathematical knowledge and abilities and numerical concepts is more developed when relying on pictured relationships than with word problems. The difference between STUDENT’s performance on the Quantitative Reasoning was significantly higher than his abilities in Knowledge and Fluid Reasoning. STUDENT obtained a score of 85 on the Visual-Spatial Processing Index which was within the Low Average range and was ranked at the 16th percentile. A 95% confidence interval suggests that his true score falls within the range of 78-94. Visual-Spatial Processing measured his ability to see patterns, relationships, spatial orientations, and the whole among parts of a visual display. STUDENT’s performance in the Visual-Spatial Processing Index was significantly higher than his Fluid Reasoning and Knowledge Indexes. His performance appeared to be equally developed between the verbal and nonverbal domains. STUDENT will have abilities that are similar to his peers in his spatial relations and ability to visualize information. He may have difficulty with organizing pieces to form a whole, or gestalt. STUDENT obtained a score of 77 on the Working Memory Index, which was within the Borderline Impaired range and was ranked at the 6th percentile. A 95% confidence interval suggests that his true score falls within the range of 71-87. Working Memory measures his ability to store diverse information in short-term memory and was then sorted or transformed. STUDENT’s performance in this area may not be the best representation of his working memory skills as he appeared to not understand the directions in higher levels of the tasks. STUDENT’s ability to remember verbal information appeared to be a personal strength compared to his ability to attend to visual cues. This may suggest some difficulty with distractibility and retention span of information as well as his difficulty in understanding verbal instructions.