On the WAIS-R, [Client] obtained a Verbal Scale IQ of 81, a Performance Scale IQ of 78, and a Full Scale IQ of 78. With such, global cognitive functioning falls within the range of Borderline Intellectual Functioning to the lower parameters of the Average Range, at approximately the 7th to 10th percentile when compared with a similar aged U.S. population. While a degree of intrascale scatter was evidenced, score patterning revealed a relatively equal efficiency between overall performances on tasks of language comprehension and use and those of a nonverbal, manipulative nature. Present findings indicated age capacities in verbal concept formation, in arithmetic reasoning as related to everyday problem solving situations, and in nonverbal reasoning. Mild to moderate restrictions were evidenced in general information and functional language skills development. [Client's] social awareness skills were somewhat impaired. [Client] demonstrated a limited alertness to environment details and immaturity in understanding of the reasoning and nuances underlying commonplace social actions as well as a restricted capacity to anticipate and plan a socially appropriate course of social action.

First, the vocabulary is overly complex. For example, the psychologist could just as easily have said:

"Her overall cognitive ability is in the Borderline to Low Average range"

instead of

"With such, global cognitive functioning falls within the range of Borderline Intellectual Functioning to the lower parameters of the Average Range"

Most readers will not know what "intrascale scatter" is or "score patterning." Most won't have a clue what tests "of a nonverbal, manipulative nature" entail either.

Second, the psychologist interprets several low scores in terms of stable deficits in global concepts like social awareness and language skills development. For the WISC III, the subscales are at most about 25% s and the rest is g. I don't think you can draw these kinds of global conclusions from the subscale scores, much less from a single subscale score. Further, there is no reference to the way this concept was assessed, and thus no latitude in changing expectations for the child in different settings. These global deficits may exist, but other factors could have lowered the scores too. Consider:

"Mild to moderate restrictions were evidenced in general information and functional language skills development. "
or
Her concentration and attention were moderately impaired.

compared to

He displayed mild to moderate deficiencies in school-based learning. He showed moderate deficiencies in his fund of general information about the broader world around him. His vocabulary skills, measured by his ability to define the meanings of words, fell in the mildly deficient range.
and
His scores on tests of concentration and attention were in the impaired range. However, as noted earlier, he showed signs of anxiety during testing that may have impacted his performance.

Third, I'm careful to say the client showed some level or performance, or that the scores fell in a certain range, as opposed to saying the client has a certain level of ability. When I extrapolate to ability, I explain the context or couch it more tentatively. While the psychologist who wrote this made efforts to do this, this is undercut by words like "immaturity" and "restricted capacity" that comes so far in the sentence after the "demonstrated" qualifier. Consider:

"[Client] demonstrated a limited alertness to environment details and immaturity in understanding of the reasoning and nuances underlying commonplace social actions as well as a restricted capacity to anticipate and plan a socially appropriate course of social action."

as opposed to

[Client] showed poorer attention to details in presented pictures. She then had difficulty using details to arrange pictures to tell a story representing common social interactions. This may reflect difficulties in planning and predicting the outcomes of her actions.

See what I mean? We will also discuss the actual lack of validity for this interpretation as well when we talk about the WISC later on in the semester.

Here's another good example of a bad write up:

"His poor ability to process information within this domain is diminished by an inability to retain information over a long period of time for recall when needed, poor ability to form, retain, and apply verbal abstract concepts to the solution of new problems, poor ability to reason and think in logical terms because of a lack of stored experiences in which to make appropriate judgments. "

What's so wrong? Above is a 65 word sentence with three clauses that are not even punctuated correctly.

How about this line from the same report regarding the Freedom from Distractibility Index (this is the children's test version of the Working Memory Index):

"Behavior observed during testing lends credence to previous observations that a significant deficit in attention is present."

as opposed to

"This score is consistent with the poor attention he showed here."

What's so wrong? Overly complex language isn't needed.

The summary contained this sentence:

"Ability to process information through the verbal auditory channels is extremely limited and is impacted by a plethora of deficits within the verbal domain."

The parent who gave me this report had circled "plethora," looked it up, and written in the definition in the margin of the report.