Does Following Student Question & Answer Guide (With Explanation)

This type of question evaluates analytical and critical thinking skills.

What This Question Is About

This question relates to does following student and requires a structured academic response.

How to Approach This Question

Use appropriate theories and support your answer with clear reasoning.

Key Explanation

This topic involves does following student. A strong answer should include explanation, application, and examples.

Original Question

Does the following student qualify for special education services under IDEA. Student’s Name: Steven Spielberg Grade: 3 School: Happy Hours Elementary School Ethnic Origin: African Am/Hispanic Age: 9 years, 10 months Parent/Guardian: Ms. Mom Reason for Referral: Happy Hours Elementary School proposed conducting a psychological evaluation to determine if Steven Spielberg a 3rd grade student meets eligibility as a student with a disability, the educational placement, and providing Steven with a free and appropriate public education. This evaluation will assess the extent to which behaviors may interfere with the educational process and assist with educational programming. Background Information: Steven is an only child living with both parents. His mother had a normal pregnancy with no complications, although he was delivered via C-section at 35 weeks. At birth, Steven weighed 4 pounds 11 ounces. He met developmental milestones on time, such as crawling at 6-7 months, walking at 1.2 years, speaking his first words between 7-8 months, forming phrases at 1.5 years, and being toilet trained at 1.8 years. Steven was hospitalized at age 6 after a fall, which resulted in a broken arm and a minor head injury, but no lasting effects were reported. He has no chronic health issues or frequent illnesses, but he is allergic to peanuts and dust. Both of Steven’s parents hold full-time jobs with long hours, so he attends after-care until 6:00 PM. He plays with neighborhood friends and enjoys weekends with his cousins. Steven recently experienced the trauma of losing his maternal grandmother to cancer six months ago. His parents underwent a brief separation for 2-3 months but have since reconciled. Physical (Vision, Hearing, Health, Motor Abilities) Steven’s vision test showed he has slightly reduced vision in his right eye (20/25) compared to his left (20/20), but overall normal eyesight without glasses. His hearing is within normal limits. No difficulties with fine or gross motor skills have been reported at this time. Teacher Input Steven attends Happy Hour Elementary School and is in the third grade. According to his records, he had been retained in the first grade. Kindergarten Reporting Cycle In Kindergarten Steven’s performance improved from “Unsatisfactory” in the first period to “Satisfactory” in the third and fourth periods after showing “Minimal Progress” in the second period. In the area of Language Arts Reading progress is inconsistent, ranging from “Satisfactory” in the first two periods to “Minimal Progress” in the third and improving to “Good” in the fourth period. In the area of Math Steven started with “Unsatisfactory” and showed gradual improvement to “Satisfactory” by the fourth period. In the Science Steven’s performance varied with “Minimal Progress” observed in periods one and three, moving to “Satisfactory” in the second period and improving to “Good” in the fourth period. In Social Studies Steven showed steady improvement, beginning with “Minimal Progress,” reaching “Satisfactory” in the second period, and consistently achieving “Good” in the last two periods. In Physical Education and Conduct Steven maintained a consistent performance of “Satisfactory” across all periods in both subjects. Grade 1 Reporting Cycle In 1st grade Steven’s performance in Language Arts shows consistently received an F in periods 1, 2, and 3, but improved to a B (Language Arts) and a C (Language Arts Rd) in period 4. In the area of Math Steven maintained an F through periods 1, 2, and 3, but improved to a C in period 4. In the area of Science Steven received a consistent B in periods 1, 2, and 3, then dropped to a C in period 4. In the area of Social Studies Steven started with a C in period 1 and improved to a B for periods 2, 3, and 4. In the area of Physical Education Steven performed well, with an A in periods 1 and 3, a C in period 2, and a B in period 4. Overall, Steven shows areas of improvement, particularly in Language Arts and Math, by the fourth period, while maintaining a strong performance in Physical Education. Science performance slightly decreased in period 4. Grade 1 Reporting Cycle Steven repeated the 1st grade the following is a summary of his grades. In Language Arts Steven shows consistent performance with a grade of D in all periods. In the area of Language Arts Reading Steven also showed a consistent grade of D in all periods. In the area of Math Steven starts with a D in Periods 1 and 2, then improves to a C in Periods 3 and 4. In the area of Science Steven achieved a B in Periods 1, 2, and 3, but dropped to a C in Period 4. In the area of Social Studies Steven obtained a grade of C in Period 1, improving to a B in Periods 2, 3, and 4. In the area of Physical Education Steven starts with an A in Period 1, drops to C in Period 2, returns to A in Period 3, and ends with a B in Period 4. He showed improvements in Math and some fluctuation in Science, Social Studies, and Physical Education. Language Arts grades remain steady. Grade 2 Reporting Cycle In the 2nd grade in the area of Language Arts Steven received an F in all periods. In the area of Language Arts Reading Steven received an F in all periods. In the area of Math Steven received an F in all periods. In the area of Science Steven received an F in all periods. In the area of Social Studies Steven received an F in all periods. In the area of Music Steven’s grades range from a B in Period 1 to an A in Periods 2, 3, and 4. In the area of Physical Education Steven obtained a B in Period 1, and a C in Periods 2, 3, and 4. In the area of Art Steven did not receive a grade in Period 1, received an A in Periods 2, 3, and 4. Grade 3 Reporting Cycle In the 3rd grade Steven’s grades across different class periods show a concerning pattern of struggles in most academic subjects, with some consistency in performance in non-core classes. In the area of Language Arts Reading Steven obtained failing grades in all periods. In the area of Language Arts Steven failed in Periods 2 and 3, with a D in Period 1. In the area of Math Steven failed all periods. In the area of Science Steven failed in Periods 2 and 3, with a D in Period 1. In the area of Social Studies Steven failed in Periods 2 and 3, with a D in Period 1. In the area of Art Steven consistently received a B in all periods. In the area of Physical Education Steven improved from a C in Period 1 to an A in Periods 2 and 3. Steven showed strong performance in Art and Physical Education, but significant difficulties in core academic subjects, especially Language Arts Reading and Math. The following behaviors were checked off as occurring often. In the area of Attention/Executive Functioning Behaviors Steven often displays a short attention span, is easily distracted and requires redirection, appears to daydream, and seems overactive. He tends not to complete tasks or turn in homework, have difficulty following directions, and may become fixated on a single activity. In the area of Externalizing Behaviors Steven frequently calls out in class and becomes easily frustrated. In the area of Internalizing Behaviors Steven tends not to participate in class activities. Overall, these behaviors suggest challenges with attention, task completion, and both external and internal forms of engagement in the classroom setting. DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENTS FOR OVERALL READING PERFORMANCE The i-Ready Current Diagnostic assessment indicates that Steven has tested out of phonological awareness and is performing at a kindergarten level in phonics, high-frequency words, vocabulary, literature comprehension, and informational text comprehension. DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENTS FOR OVERALL MATH PERFORMANCE ON I-READY Steven is performing at a Kindergarten level in most areas, with the exception of Algebra & Algebraic Thinking, where he is performing at a Grade 1 level. Test(s) Administered Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V) Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-4th Edition (WJ-IV) Vineland Adaptive Scale-Third Edition Results: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V) is an individually administered, comprehensive clinical instrument for assessing the intelligence of children ages 6 years 0 months through 16 years 11 months. Incorporating new research on intelligence, cognitive development, neurodevelopment, cognitive neuroscience, and processes important to learning, the WISC-V provides primary index scores that represent intellectual functioning in specified cognitive areas (i.e., Verbal Comprehension Index, Visual Spatial Index, Fluid Reasoning Index, Working Memory Index, and Processing Speed Index), a composite score that represents a child’s general intellectual ability (i.e., Full Scale IQ), as well as ancillary index scores that represent the cognitive abilities in different groupings based on clinical needs (i.e., Nonverbal Index, General Ability Index) and complementary index scores that measure additional cognitive abilities related to academic achievement and learning-related issues and disorders (i.e., Naming Speed Index). It should be noted, that while intelligence measures, such as the WISC-V, can be good indicators of future learning and academic success; IQ tests measure only a portion of what comprises intelligence. Linguistic proficiency, cultural experiences, as well as significant life trauma can impact an individual’s intellectual abilities. The WISC-V consists of 21 subtests; seven subtests are combined to provide FSIQ, and an additional three subtests are used to provide Primary Index Scales; the remaining eleven subtests are used to provide Ancillary and Complementary Index Scales. Combinations of subtests scores may give valuable information about learning style and cognitive abilities. When compared with other individuals in the same age group, these scores may provide an indication of an individual’s strengths and weaknesses. Below is a brief description of the subtests used to determine the Primary Index Scales and FSIQ: Similarities: the child is read two words that represent common objects or concepts and describes how they are similar. The subtest is designed to measure verbal concept formation and abstract reasoning and involves crystallized intelligence, word knowledge, cognitive flexibility, auditory comprehension, long-term memory, associative and categorical thinking, distinction between nonessential and essential features, and verbal expression. Vocabulary: the child defines a word that is read aloud (for younger children, the child names a depicted object). This subtest is designed to measure word knowledge and verbal concept formation and involves crystallized intelligence, fund of knowledge, learning ability, verbal expression, long-term memory, and degree of vocabulary development. Information: the child answers questions about a broad range of general-knowledge topics. This subtest is designed to measure verbal reasoning and conceptualization, verbal comprehension and expression, the ability to evaluate and use past experience, and the ability to demonstrate practical knowledge; it involves crystallized intelligence, long-term memory, and the ability to retain and retrieve knowledge from the environment and/or formal instruction. Comprehension: the child answers questions based on his/her understanding of general principles and social situation; this measures verbal reasoning and conceptualization, verbal comprehension and expression, the ability to evaluate and use past experience, and the ability to demonstrate practical knowledge and judgment; this involves crystallized intelligence, knowledge of conventional standard of behavior, social judgment, long-term memory, and common sense. Block Design: working within a specified time limit, the child views a model and/or a picture and uses two-color blocks to re-create the design. This subtest is designed to measure the ability to analyze and synthesize abstract visual stimuli and involves nonverbal concept formation and reasoning, broad visual intelligence, visual perception and organization, simultaneous processing, visual-motor coordination, learning, and the ability to separate figure-ground in visual stimuli. Visual Puzzles: working within a specified time limit, the child views a completed puzzle and selects three response options that, when combined, reconstruct the puzzle. This subtest is designed to measure mental, non-motor construction ability, which requires visual and spatial reasoning, mental rotation, visual working memory, understating part-whole relationships, and the ability to analyze and synthesize abstract visual stimuli. Matrix Reasoning: the child views an incomplete matrix or series and selects the response option that completes the matrix or series. The task requires the child to use visual-spatial information to identify the underlying conceptual rule that links all the stimuli and then apply the underlying concept to select the correct response. This subtest is designed to measure fluid intelligence, broad visual intelligence, classification and spatial ability, knowledge of part-whole relationships, and simultaneous processing, as well as attention to visual detail and working memory. Figure Weights: within a specified time, limit, the child views a scale with missing weight(s) and selects the response option that keeps the scale balanced. This task requires the child to apply the quantitative concept of equality to understand the relationship among objects and apply6 the concepts of matching, Picture Concepts: the child views two or three rows of pictures and selects one picture from each row to form a group with a common characteristic. This requires the child to sue the semantic representations of nameable objects to identify the underlying conceptual relationship among the objects and to apply that concept to select the correct answers. This is designed to measures fluid and inductive reasoning, visual-perceptual recognition and processing, and conceptual thinking. Arithmetic: the child mentally solves arithmetic problems within a specified time limits. This involves mental manipulations, concentration, brief focused attention, working memory, short-and long-term memory, numerical reasoning ability, applied computational ability, and mental alertness. Digit Span: the child is read a sequence of numbers and recalls the numbers in the same order, reverse order, and ascending order; requires cognitive flexibility and mental alertness Forward: auditory short-term memory, rote learning skills, auditory processing, sequencing skills, attention and concentration. Backwards: rote learning, manipulation of information in short term memory, attention, concentration encoding and auditory processing. Sequencing: sequencing, mental manipulation, attention, short-term auditory memory, visuo spatial imaging and processing speed. Picture Span: the child views a stimulus page with one or more pictures of namable objects for a specified time and then selects the picture(s) (in sequential order, if possible) from options on a response page. This task measures visual working memory and working memory capacity. Letter-Number Sequencing: the child is read a sequence of numbers and letters and recalls the numbers in ascending order and then the letters in alphabetical order. This requires basic cognitive processes: auditory discrimination, brief focused attention, concentration, registrations, and auditory rehearsal. , additionally, alphabetic principles, working memory capacity, cognitive flexibility, and mental manipulation. Coding: the child works within a specified time limit and uses a key to copy symbols that correspond with simple geometric shapes or numbers. This task measures processing speed, short term visual memory, procedural and incidental learning ability, psychomotor speed, visual perception, visual motor coordination, visual scanning ability cognitive flexibility, attention, concentration, and motivation. Symbol Search: the child scans search groups and indicates whether target symbols are present, while working within a specified time limit. This task measures visual-perceptual and decision-making speed, short term visual memory, visual-motor coordination, inhibitory control, visual discrimination, psychomotor speed, sustained attention, and concentration. Cancellation: the child scans two arrangements of objects and marks target objects within a specified time limit. This measures rate of test taking, speed of visual-perceptual processing and decision making, visual scanning ability, and visual-perceptual recognition and discrimination. Complementary Index: not a measure of intelligence, rather a measure of cognitive processes that may be interfering with academic learning. Naming Speed Literacy: the child names elements as quickly as possible. This task paradigm has shown sensitivity to reading and written expression skills and to specific learning disorders in reading and written expression, as well as associated with reading and spelling skill development, with reading achievement, and with a number of variables related to reading and spelling; measuring cognitive processes related to learning difficulties. Naming Speed Quantity: the child names a quantity of squares inside a series of boxed as quickly as possible. This task measures naming facility, and storage and retrieval fluency; measuring cognitive processes related to learning difficulties. Immediate Symbol Translation: the student learns visual-verbal pairs and then translates symbol strings into phrases or sentences; the child recalls information related to a specific visual cue. This task is designed to measure verbal-visual associative memory or paired associates learning, storage and retrieval fluency and accuracy, and immediate recall. Delayed Symbol Translation: the student translates symbols into words, phrases, or sentences using recalled visual-verbal pairs from Immediate Symbol Translation; this task measures verbal-visual associative memory or paired associates learning, storage and retrieval fluency and accuracy, and delayed recall; this is administered after a 20-30-minute delay. Recognition Symbol Translation: the student views a symbol and selects the correct translation from response options the examiner reads aloud, using recalled visual-verbal pairs from Immediate Symbol Translation; this task measures verbal-visual associative memory or paired associates learning, storage and retrieval fluency and accuracy, and delayed recognition; this is administered directly following Delayed Symbol Translation. Index scores are presented in composite scores with 100 being average and numbers between 90 and 109 fall within the Average range. Individual subtest results are presented in scaled scores with 10 being average and scaled scores ranging between 8 and 12 falling within the average range. All of the composites and subtest information is presented in percentile form. Percentiles of 50 are average with scores falling between 25 and 75 considered to be within the average range. Cognitive strengths and weaknesses were measured using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition (WISC-V). Steven was administered ten subtests of the WISC-V from which his index scores were derived. The Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) is derived from a combination of seven subtest scores and is usually considered the most representative estimate of global intellectual functioning. The scores obtained on the WISC-V reflect Steven’s true abilities combined with some degree of measurement error. His true score is more accurately represented by a confidence interval (CI), which is a range of scores within which his true score is likely to fall. Primary composite scores are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to ensure greater accuracy when interpreting test scores. For each primary composite score reported for Steven, there is a 95% certainty that his true score falls within the listed range. This indicates that his FSIQ (74) is valid, however a more specific analysis of each subtest area may provide a more comprehensive representation of Steven’s ability levels and relative strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, each of Steven’s scores will be discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. Verbal Comprehension Steven scored in the Extremely Low range on the Verbal Comprehension Index (SS=68). The Verbal Comprehension Index measures the ability to access and apply acquired word knowledge. The application of this knowledge involves verbal concept formation, reasoning, and expression. Specifically, this score reflects Steven’s ability to verbalize meaningful concepts, think about verbal information, and express himself using words. High scores in this area indicate a under-developed verbal reasoning system with low word knowledge acquisition, ineffective information retrieval, poor ability to reason and solve verbal problems, and ineffective communication of knowledge. With regard to individual subtests within the VCI, Similarities (SI) required Steven to describe a similarity between two words that represent a common object or concept, while Vocabulary (VC) required him to define words that were read aloud. He generally performed consistently across the subtests in the VCI. This performance suggests that his abstract verbal reasoning skills are comparable to his word knowledge at this time and, overall, his language skills fall in the extremely low range expected for his age. This was Steven’s weakest area. Visual-Spatial For the Visual Spatial Index, Steven scored in the Very Low range (SS=78). His performance across the subtests within the index was inconsistent. The Visual Spatial Index measures the ability to evaluate visual details and to understand visual spatial relationships to construct visual designs from a model. Constructing these designs requires visual spatial reasoning, integration/synthesis of part-whole relationships, attentiveness to detail and visual-motor integration. The VSI is derived from two subtests. During Block Design (BD), Steven viewed a model and/or picture and used two-colored blocks to recreate the design. Visual Puzzles (VP) required him to view a completed puzzle and select three response options that together would reconstruct the puzzle. His performance in Block Design fell in the lower end of the average range. However, his performance on Visual Puzzles was significantly weaker, falling in the very low range. These findings suggest that Steven appears to be stronger with hands-on and three-dimensional visual spatial reasoning opposed to two-dimensional. Overall, Steven’s visual-spatial reasoning abilities are in the very low range that would be expected for a student his age. Fluid Reasoning Steven’s Fluid Reasoning Index score fell within the Average range (SS=91). The subtests within the Fluid Reasoning Index measure the ability to detect the underlying conceptual relationship among visual objects and to use reasoning to identify and apply rules. In other words, fluid reasoning is related to the ability to draw inferences, solve abstract problems, transfer and generalize information and solve unfamiliar problems. The identification and application of conceptual relationships for this Index requires inductive and quantitative reasoning, broad visual intelligence, simultaneous processing, and abstract thinking. The FRI is derived from two subtests: Matrix Reasoning (MR) and Figure Weights (FW). Matrix Reasoning required Steven to view an incomplete matrix or series and select the response option that completed the matrix or series. On Figure Weights, he viewed a scale with a missing weight(s) and identified the response option that would keep the scale balanced. His performance was generally consistent across tasks. He demonstrated a solid performance on Matrix Reasoning and Figure Weights, with performance falling solidly in the average range. These findings suggest that his quantitative reasoning skills are comparable to his perceptual organization skills at this time, and both fall within age-expectations. This was Steven’s greatest area of strengths on the WISC-V. Working Memory For the Working Memory Index, Steven obtained scores that placed him in the Very Low range (SS=76). The Working Memory Index (WMI) measured Steven’s ability to register, maintain, and manipulate visual and auditory information in conscious awareness, which requires attention and concentration, as well as visual and auditory discrimination. Steven recalled and sequenced a series of pictures and lists of numbers at a lower level than was average for his age. Within the WMI, Picture Span (PS) required Steven to memorize one or more pictures presented on a stimulus page and then identify the correct pictures (in sequential order, if possible) from options on a response page. On Digit Span (DS), he listened to sequences of numbers read aloud and recalled them in the same order (represents basic capacity in the phonological loop), reverse order (represents ability to mentally manipulate the information before responding), and ascending order (requires sequencing digits according to value, invoking quantitative knowledge in addition to working memory). His performance was inconsistent across these two subtests. His performance was significantly stronger on Digit Span, falling in the average range, whereas Picture Memory fell in the very low range. These findings suggest that Steven’s auditory memory is much stronger than his visual memory. In other words, he can hold to information for a short period of time more easily if he can hear it versus seeing it. Overall, Steven’s working memory fell in the Very Low range that would be expected for a student his age. Processing Speed 69 extremely low Finally, Steven scored in the Extremely Low range on the Processing Speed Index (SS=69). Processing speed, sometimes termed “mental quickness,” is the ability to fluently and automatically perform cognitive tasks, especially when under pressure to maintain focused attention and concentration. Steven’s processing speed was measured by subtests that tested his ability to scan, sequence, and discriminate simple visual information. Additionally, these subtests measured Steven’s short-term visual memory, attention, and visual-motor coordination. Steven did not score within the expected range for his age on the Coding subtest, on which he was asked to quickly draw symbols next to their corresponding numbers. Similarly, he did not score within the expected range for his age on the Symbol Search subtest, on which he was asked to identify if a specific image was present within a series of several images. It is important to note that the Processing Speed subtests on the WISC-V require a fine-motor component, especially the Coding task. Students with visual- motor integration or fine-motor control weaknesses often have difficulty with the Coding subtest that has nothing to do with the speed at which one processes information mentally. Steven’s score on the Processing Speed Index, overall, suggests that he does not have an age-appropriate ability to quickly discriminate visual information, maintain concentration, and make quick decisions. Steven’s pace was not on par with other students his age, and he made many errors. This was also one of Steven’s weaknesses. In summary, Steven’s cognitive ability scores are not within the expected range for his age. He produced a Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) standard score of 74. This suggests that his thinking and problem-solving abilities are not generally as developed as other students his age. Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement Form A and Extended The Woodcock-Johnson IV-Tests of Achievement (WJ-IV ACH) is a comprehensive set of individually administered tests to measure educational achievement in the areas of reading, mathematics, written language, oral language, academic skills, fluency and applications. Steven was administered Form A of the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, Fourth Edition (WJ IV Ach). The WJ IV Ach is an individually administered, norm-referenced assessment of academic achievement levels appropriate for use with individuals between the ages of 3 through 90 years. Scores are reported in the form of Standard Scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Descriptive ranges for scores are as follows: 69 or lower = very low, 70-79 = low, 80-89 = below average, 90-110 = average, 111-120 = high average, 121-130 = superior, and 131 or higher = very superior. The results are presented below: Reading Cluster Basic Reading: The Basic Reading cluster is a measure of sight vocabulary, phonics and the ability to use familiar word parts (base words, prefixes, and suffixes) to discover the meaning of unfamiliar words. This cluster is made up of the Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack subtests. Reading Comprehension: The Reading Comprehension cluster is a measure of the ability to read text, process it and understand the meaning. This cluster is made up of the Passage Comprehension. Test 1: Letter Word Identification measured Steven’s word identification skills. The initial items required him to identify letters that appear in large type. The remaining items required Steven to read aloud individual words correctly. He was not required to know the meanings of the words. Steven had a difficult time reading words his standard score was a 55 which is in the very low range. Test 4: Passage Comprehension measures the ability to use syntactic and semantic cues to identify a missing word in text. The initial passage comprehension items involve symbolic learning, or the ability to match a rebus (pictograph representation of a word) with an actual picture of the object. The next items are presented in a multiple-choice format and required Steven to point to the picture represented by a phrase. The remaining items required her to read a short passage and identify a missing key word that made sense in the context of that passage (a cloze approach to reading comprehension assessment.) Stevens standard score was 65 which is in the low range. Test 7: Word Attack measured Steven’s ability to apply phonic and structural analysis skills to the pronunciation of unfamiliar printed words. The initial items required him to produce the sounds for single letters. The remaining items required Steven to read aloud letter combinations that are phonically consistent or are regular patterns in English spelling but are nonsense or low-frequency words. The items become more difficult as the complexity of the nonsense words increases. Steven obtained a standard score of 58 which is in the very low range. Math Clusters: Math Calculation: The Math Calculation Cluster is a measure of computational skills (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) and the automaticity of these skills in order to solve basic math problems. This cluster is made up of the Calculation subtest. Math Problem Solving: The Math Problem Solving cluster is a measure of mathematical knowledge and reasoning. It requires the use of problem solving, analysis and reasoning. This cluster is made up of the Applied Problems subtest. Test 2: Applied problems required Steven to analyze and solve math problems, a quantitative knowledge ability. To solve the problems, he needed to listen to the problem, recognize the procedure to be followed, and then perform relatively simple calculations. Because many of the problems include extra unnecessary information, Steven needed to decide not only the appropriate mathematical operations to use but also which numbers to include in the calculation. Steven’s standard score was a 75 which is in the Low range. Test 5: Calculation is a test of math achievement measuring the ability to perform mathematical computations, a quantitative knowledge ability. The initial items in Calculation require the individual to write single numbers. The remaining items require the person to perform addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and combinations of these basic

******CLICK ORDER NOW BELOW AND OUR WRITERS WILL WRITE AN ANSWER TO THIS ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT, DISCUSSION, ESSAY, HOMEWORK OR QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. OUR PAPERS ARE PLAGIARISM FREE*******."