An IQ test report example you can read page by page

0 The short answer

The two public IQ test report examples worth reading side by side are Pearson's sample WAIS-5 score report, which runs 10 pages and prints every score with its comparison group and its error, and the example reports that ACIS publishes for its Quick, Optimized and Full Scale forms. A report reads well from the most precise score to the least: the Full Scale IQ and its 95 percent confidence interval first, then each index, then each subtest, then the comparisons between them. ACIS is one concrete option, at 15, 30 or 50 dollars one time for about 45, 110 or 175 minutes (prices read on October 29, 2026), and it is online, unsupervised, not clinical and in English only. The decisive limit is that a score report is numbers and charts, and the meaning of the pattern is a judgment that the report does not make for you.

1 What Is in an IQ Test Report, and Which Real Examples Can You Open?

An IQ test report is a record of how one person performed on timed tasks, expressed as scores that each carry a comparison group and a margin of error, and two complete examples are public: Pearson's sample score report for the WAIS-5 and the example reports on the ACIS home page. The phrase covers three different documents, and mixing them up is the usual reason a sample disappoints. The score report is the output a scoring system prints: tables of scores, intervals and comparisons, with little prose. The written evaluation is what a psychologist composes from that output plus a history, an interview and observations. The consumer dashboard is the screen or PDF an online test returns to the person who took it. This page covers the first and the third, because those are the two a reader can open before deciding.

Pearson publishes its sample WAIS-5 score report as a 10 page PDF for an invented examinee, with a test date of September 16, 2024, and we opened it on October 29, 2026. It is the output a licensed examiner receives from the publisher's scoring platform. Pearson also publishes a score report with demographically referenced scores, dated March 24, 2026, which runs to 11 pages. The page on what the WAIS-5 is and the page on the 20 WAIS-5 subtests cover the test itself. The question here is narrower: what does the report that comes out of it contain, and how is each part meant to be read?

The ACIS example reports are the second public example, and they are not a PDF. The home page draws them in the browser when you open one of three links, one per form, so a plain web fetch shows nothing. We read what each section is from the code that draws the report on October 29, 2026, and this page describes sections and labels only. It never presents the numbers on an example as a real result, because every example carries a banner saying it is an example of the score report and does not reflect your score. The buyer's checklist for any report is on the page about what a detailed IQ test result should contain, and this page is the walk through that the checklist assumes.

2 Which Options Produce an IQ Test Report, and What Does Each One Return?

Only a norm referenced battery returns a report whose scores mean something, and the options differ less in how many pages they print than in whether each score names its comparison group and its error. The table sets the real routes side by side, with every price and fact read on October 29, 2026.

The psychologist row is the benchmark, and its price has two parts: the clinic's fee for the evaluation, and the publisher's fee for the scoring report, which the examiner pays. On the publisher's WAIS-5 product page the digital score report is listed at 3.00 dollars and the version with demographically referenced scores at 4.70 dollars. The clinic's fee has no single published price, and the page on what an IQ test costs covers the range, while the page on every way to take an IQ test covers the routes.

The free row says what a free result is. The 123test free IQ test page we opened states that completing a free test returns an IQ score estimate or the number of questions answered correctly, and it lists two paid professional versions at 12.99 dollars each. It does not describe the contents of a paid report, so we do not either. The page on free versus paid online IQ tests compares what norms and reports each price buys, and the page on the best online IQ tests compares the normed ones. A practice test for job screening prepares you for an employer's assessment and returns no IQ report. For a first look at a normed battery, the page on a free IQ test with a profile describes the ACIS free trial.

3 What Does Each Page of the Pearson Sample WAIS-5 Report Show?

The Pearson sample is built as a funnel, from the person and the 20 subtests, to six composite scores, to the comparisons between them, to process details, and it ends on page 10 without a single paragraph of interpretation. The table lists the sections as the file prints them, in the publisher's own capitals.

The first page shows what a report depends on. It records the date of birth and the age at testing, the years of education, the primary language and whether the session was a retest, and each of those facts bears on how the scores should be read. The warning at the bottom says the report contains copyrighted material and trade secrets, and that a qualified licensee may excerpt the minimum text necessary to describe core conclusions in a written evaluation. The PDF is a working document for a professional, not a finished explanation for the examinee.

The second sample follows the same order and adds an education-referenced score summary at the end, where each score appears twice, once age-referenced and once education-referenced (a T score with a percentile rank). The lesson is the principle and not the numbers: the same performance can sit at different percentile ranks depending on the group it is compared with, which is why every score in a good report names its reference group.

4 How Do You Read Composite Scores, Percentile Ranks and Confidence Intervals?

A composite score tells you where a performance sits among adults on a scale with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, the percentile rank tells you how many people it exceeds, and the confidence interval tells you how far the underlying value could plausibly sit from the number printed. Page 4 of the Pearson sample prints all three for six composites. The headline is a Full Scale IQ of 111 for the invented examinee, a percentile rank of 77, a 95 percent confidence interval of 106 to 116, a qualitative description of "Above average" and a standard error of measurement of 3.00. The page on what a Full Scale IQ is explains how that number is built, and the page on why the standard deviation is 15 explains the scale.

The five primary indices show the same structure. Verbal comprehension is 124 (percentile rank 95, interval 115 to 130), visual spatial 103 (96 to 110), fluid reasoning 105 (98 to 111), working memory 97 (90 to 104) and processing speed 108 (99 to 116). A line above the table notes that the confidence intervals are calculated using the Standard Error of Estimation. Each composite has its own standard error of measurement, from 3.00 to 5.61 among the six (our reading of the column).

Three habits make this table readable. First, keep the two scales apart. A score of 124 is a standard score and a percentile rank of 95 is a position in a ranking. They are connected by the normal curve but are not interchangeable, and averaging percentiles gives wrong answers, which the page on the difference between an IQ score and a percentile explains. The page on how IQ scores are normed describes where a reference group comes from.

Second, read the width of the interval before the score. In the sample the Full Scale interval spans 10 points, and the five index intervals span 13 to 17 (our arithmetic on the printed bounds): working memory and visual spatial 14, fluid reasoning 13, verbal comprehension 15 and processing speed 17. This is the pattern the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA and NCME, 2014) ask test makers to make visible. Standard 2.3 says that for each total score, subscore or combination of scores that is to be interpreted, estimates of reliability and precision should be reported, and its comment adds that reporting them only for total scores is not sufficient when subscores are also interpreted. The more specific the score, the wider the band, and the page on reliability and validity explains why a score can be consistent without being meaningful.

Third, notice that the bands are not always centered on the number. Verbal comprehension of 124 reaches 9 points below it and 6 above, and processing speed of 108 reaches 9 below and 8 above (our arithmetic). The report names its method, and we do not reproduce the formula, because the sample does not and the publisher's technical documentation is the place to look. The printed bounds are the answer, and mental arithmetic around the point score is not.

Standard 6.10 states what a report should do for its reader. It says that interpretations should describe in simple language what the test covers, what scores represent, the precision and reliability of the scores, and how scores are intended to be used, and its comment says that score precision might be depicted by error bands or likely score ranges. A report that prints a single IQ number with no band makes a weaker claim than it appears to. If your question is whether a score clears a threshold, as with a gifted test for adults, the interval says whether the answer is firm or sits near the boundary.

5 How Do You Read Subtest Scaled Scores and the Profile Chart?

A subtest scaled score is the most granular number in a report, and the printed standard error beside it is the reason to read it as a clue about the profile and never as a verdict about an ability. Page 2 of the Pearson sample has seven columns: the domain, the subtest name, the total raw score, the scaled score, the percentile rank, the reference group scaled score and the standard error of measurement. A line above the table says that subtests used to derive the Full Scale IQ are bolded and that secondary subtests are in parentheses. In the sample, 10 of the 20 subtests are primary and the other 10 are secondary. The publisher's product page tells the same story: the Full Scale IQ rests on seven subtests, the primary indices on ten, and ten secondary subtests are provided to expand the clinical utility.

Scaled scores use a different ruler from composites. The chart on page 3 plots them from 1 to 19, and the table pairs each with a percentile rank: in the sample a scaled score of 10 sits at the 50th percentile, 12 at the 75th, 14 at the 91st and 7 at the 16th. The standard errors in the last column range from 0.67 to 1.47 scaled score points (our reading of the column), so a single subtest can move a point or two from one sitting to another. That is why a subtest sits inside a larger score.

The column that confuses first time readers is the reference group scaled score. A note explains that it is based on examinees aged 20:0 to 34:11 and refers to Chapter 6 of the WAIS-5 Technical and Interpretive Manual. In practical terms the report prints a second scaled score for each subtest, computed against a fixed group of young adults, and it does not explain why in its own text. A professional report assumes a professional reader, and a reader who sees two numbers for one subtest should look for a note like this before assuming a mistake.

A caution about names applies to any pair of reports. The sample lists Coding and Symbol Search under processing speed, and Similarities and Vocabulary under verbal comprehension, as the ACIS reports do. A shared name tells you the family of task, never that the items, time limits or scoring are the same, so a scaled score on one battery is not a scaled score on another. The chart on page 3 shows scatter at a glance: whether scores within a domain sit close together, and whether one outlier pulls a composite. The page on what the cognitive domains are names the domains, the page on the processing speed test shows how a speed index is built, and the page on the CHC model explains the abilities under each. A domain whose subtests agree is a firm result, and one whose subtests split deserves a second look.

6 How Do the Strengths, Weaknesses and Pairwise Comparisons on Pages 6 to 8 Work?

These pages answer two different questions about every gap between scores, whether the gap is larger than measurement error and whether it is common, and a gap can pass one test and fail the other. Page 6 opens with three notes. The comparison score is the mean of the five index scores. Statistical significance, reported as a critical value, is set at the .05 level. Base rates are reported by ability level. Each table then follows one column logic: the score, the comparison score, the difference, the critical value, a flag and a base rate.

The first table, Index Level Strengths and Weaknesses, compares each index with the examinee's own index mean of 107.4. Verbal comprehension at 124 sits 16.6 points above it, against a critical value of 10.37, and is flagged S with a base rate of 5 percent or less. Working memory at 97 sits 10.4 points below, against a critical value of 10.37, and is flagged W with a base rate of 25 percent or less. The other three indices carry no flag. A flag is a threshold, not a size: the working memory difference exceeds its critical value by less than a tenth of a point (our arithmetic), and a base rate of 25 percent or less means a gap this size is not rare. The Standards ask for evidence for exactly this move. Standard 1.14 asks that when interpretation of subscores, score differences or profiles is suggested, the rationale and relevant evidence be provided, and its comment adds that evidence for two separate scores would not necessarily justify an interpretation of the difference between them.

The second table tests every pair of the five indices. Five indices make 10 pairs, six would make 15 and twenty subtests would make 190 (our arithmetic). In the sample, four of the 10 pairs are marked significant, and all four involve verbal comprehension: against visual spatial (21 points, critical value 12.81, base rate 10 percent or less), fluid reasoning (19, 10.60, 10 percent or less), working memory (27, 12.47, 5 percent or less) and processing speed (16, 14.10, 25 percent or less). Standard 2.4 asks that when an interpretation emphasizes differences between two observed scores, precision data including standard errors be provided for those differences. The critical value is that provision, and each pair has its own.

Page 7 repeats the structure for subtests, with the mean of the ten primary subtest scores, 11.4, as the comparison. Vocabulary at 15 sits 3.6 above it against a critical value of 2.34 and is flagged as a strength, while Similarities at 14 sits 2.6 above against 3.50 and is not flagged. Page 8 shows that the two questions are independent. General ability against cognitive proficiency is an 11 point difference marked significant with a base rate above 25 percent, so it is statistically significant and also common. General ability against the Full Scale IQ is a 4 point difference marked not significant, with a base rate of 15 percent or less. The page on the General Ability Index explains why those composites exist.

Base rates matter because a difference can exceed error and still be ordinary. Carroll's 2011 abstract for the National Academy of Neuropsychology, Rates of Apparently Abnormal WAIS-4 Patterns in the Normal Population, used Monte Carlo simulations based on correlations from the WAIS-IV standardization sample and reports that about 49 percent of normal individuals had at least one 15 point difference between index scores, about 35 percent a 20 point difference and 16 percent a 25 point difference. It concludes that such discrepancies are common when many comparisons are made. That is a conference abstract about the WAIS-IV, so we cite only the figures it prints. Binder, Iverson and Brooks, in To Err is Human, reviewed normative studies of healthy adults on neuropsychological batteries, and their abstract reports that in batteries of 20 or more measures most healthy participants had one or more scores flagged as abnormal at a cutoff of one standard deviation below the mean. The subject is neuropsychological testing, and we cite it for the principle: the more scores a report compares, the more unusual looking results an ordinary person shows. The page on index score differences works this out for each size of gap, and the page on IQ profile tests covers how to judge a profile.

The research on what to do with a pattern is more cautious than the layout suggests. Gary Canivez's 2013 study, published in Psychological Assessment, asked whether WAIS-IV index scores predict achievement beyond the Full Scale IQ. Its abstract reports that the indices together added statistically significant explained variance for most achievement measures, with effects from trivial to medium, that each index alone added only trivial to small unique prediction, and that the Full Scale IQ should keep the heaviest weight. McGill, Dombrowski and Canivez reviewed cognitive profile analysis in a 2018 article in the Journal of School Psychology, whose abstract describes methods that use strengths and weaknesses in score profiles to guide diagnostic or treatment decisions and reviews evidence that raises continuing concerns about them in school psychology practice. We read only the abstracts, and both samples differ from an adult reading a consumer report, so they are context and not a rule.

7 What Do the Ancillary and Process Pages Add, and What Does the Sample Leave to the Examiner?

The last pages add specialist detail, and the thing most readers want, a sentence on what the pattern means for this person, is the one thing the sample does not print. The 15 ancillary indices on page 4 are additional composites built from predefined sets of subtests, each with its own interval, among them Verbal (Expanded Crystallized), Verbal Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, Motor-Reduced Processing Speed, Nonverbal, General Ability and Cognitive Proficiency. They answer narrower questions, such as how much a speed score depends on motor demands.

The process analysis on pages 9 and 10 is the most specialized part. It converts raw scores on variations of a task, such as a block task without time bonus, into scaled process scores, compares them with their parent scores, and converts counts such as the longest sequence recalled or the number of errors into base rates by age group. A reader without clinical training should not try to interpret it, and the report offers no guidance on doing so.

What the 10 pages leave out is the narrative. The Comments field on page 1 is empty, no page contains a paragraph of interpretation, none records how the person behaved during the session and none recommends anything. This matches how professionals describe the work. The American Psychological Association's Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation (2020) say that psychologists typically deliver assessment results through a written report, often enhanced by oral explanation, and that such reports typically include a summary section that integrates key elements of the findings in relation to the purpose of the assessment. The comment on Standard 6.10 says that reports should include discussion of any administrative variations or behavioral observations in clinical settings that may affect results. Neither lives in the score report. A person who watched the session adds them.

That division of labor is the most useful thing a shopper can learn from the sample. When an online test returns pages of interpretation written by software, the software is doing what the Pearson sample leaves to a human, and Standard 6.11 sets the condition: when automatically generated interpretations of test performance are reported, the sources, rationale and empirical basis should be available and their limitations described, and generated interpretations may not take the individual's context into account. That applies to every online report, including ours. The page on the adult IQ testing process covers how the professional route turns a score report into a written one, and if a pattern prompts a question about learning, attention or giftedness alongside difficulty, the page on twice exceptional adults explains why one score cannot settle it.

8 What Do the ACIS Example Reports Show, Section by Section?

The three ACIS example reports render the same report in three sizes: what changes between them is which indices and sections the form can produce, while the layout stays the same. The home page offers one link per form: Quick, Optimized and Full Scale. Each opens the report screen with a banner saying it is an example of that form's score report and does not reflect your score. The browser draws the report from the page's own script, so the table lists the sections and labels that the script renders when we read it on October 29, 2026, and quotes no number from an example.

Two details repay a close look. First, a short form does not hide what it lacks. The code draws every composite card in every form and prints a dash on those the form cannot compute, so the Quick example shows which indices it returns by what is missing. Quick covers three domains, Optimized five and Full Scale six. Second, the Composite Scores cards carry rows labeled g-Loading and Reliability, so this page quotes none of those values, and the technical manual is the place for method. Small information icons beside the headings open short definitions, and the one on Percentile calls it a rank, not a frequency.

The Primary Analysis panels deserve the closest comparison with the Pearson sample. They list the three subtests furthest above the person's own mean scaled score and the three furthest below, then the same for the indices and advanced composites, each with a difference from that mean. The on-page definition states that every profile produces a top three and a bottom three, including a completely flat one, and that a gap should be read as meaningful only when it exceeds the expected measurement error and makes construct sense. That is honest, and it marks a difference in kind. The Pearson sample tests each gap against a critical value and attaches a base rate. The ACIS example, in the sections we could read, ranks entries against the person's own average and leaves the judgment about error to the reader. Pairwise tables with critical values, base rates and process scores are not among the sections it renders.

9 How Do the Two Reports Compare, and What Should a Reader Conclude?

The two reports agree on the core of a report, a Full Scale IQ with an interval, indices, subtest scores and a comparison group, and they differ in what follows the numbers: the Pearson sample adds significance tests, base rates and process detail for a professional, and the ACIS example adds labels, a profile chart and a written analysis for the person who took the test.

Three conclusions follow. No report is better because it is longer: the Pearson sample is 10 pages because it serves a clinician who needs tests of significance, and an adult reading for personal interest gets most of the value from pages 2 to 5. The sections you cannot find are as informative as the ones you can: a report that prints a single IQ and no interval, or an index with no stated comparison group, is not following the practice the Standards describe, whatever its length. And every report depends on the test behind it. The page on what counts as a scientific IQ test takes up the test behind the report, and a good looking report from a weak test is still weak.

Readers who want a report quickly will find the page on IQ tests with instant results useful, because speed of delivery is a separate question from the quality of what is delivered. Readers whose question is whether a score reaches a threshold should read the page on the top 5 percent of IQ scores and then look at the interval on any report before treating a point score as a pass or a fail.

10 How Should You Read Any IQ Test Report, Step by Step?

Read a report from the most precise score to the least precise, test every gap against both its error and its base rate, and write down what the report cannot know before you decide what it means. The steps are ours, built from the Pearson sample, the Standards and the research above, and they are not a protocol from any test manual. They work on a clinician's score report, on the ACIS dashboard and on the result of a free IQ test with a report.

Steps 1 to 4 use the scales the report prints: standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 for the Full Scale IQ and the indices, and scaled scores from 1 to 19 for subtests. A reader who wants to know how unusual a score is can use the IQ rarity calculator, and should remember that rarity is relative to the reference group the score names. Steps 5 and 6 rest on the base rate logic above.

Step 7 is where an unsupervised session differs from a supervised one. The comment on Standard 3.4 says that unproctored administrations, where standardization cannot be ensured, could provide an advantage to some test takers, and that in these situations test results should be interpreted with caution. It adds that examinees on older or slower equipment may be unfairly disadvantaged. A speed score is the one most exposed, so sit the speed subtests on a device that responds without lag, in a quiet room, with working sound for any audio subtest.

A free IQ test with a report deserves its own short test. The report is worth reading if it names the comparison group, prints an interval or error band, says how many questions or subtests sit behind each score and states its limits. The free result the 123test page describes, an IQ score estimate or the number of questions answered correctly, is a useful screen and not a report in the sense of this page.

11 What Can an IQ Test Report Not Tell You?

A report describes performance on sampled tasks, on one occasion, against a reference group, and it cannot diagnose a condition, certify a score for an institution, predict a career or replace a professional's judgment. On diagnosis, the sample WAIS-5 report is a licensed examiner's working document, and the APA guidelines place competence in interpretation, integration of findings and communication of results with the psychologist who writes the evaluation. A pattern of scores is one input to that work, and a consumer report that ends in a label has skipped the part that gives a label meaning. ACIS is not a clinical or diagnostic instrument, and group statistics about any condition are never a diagnosis of an individual.

On consequential decisions, Standard 12.10 says that in educational settings a decision or characterization that will have major impact on a student should take into consideration not just scores from a single test but other relevant information. The principle is sensible for adults too: school records, work samples, earlier assessments and observations are evidence a single report is not. On certification, ACIS is not for hiring, school accommodations or admission to high IQ societies, and the page on IQ test certificates explains why no institution accepts an online one.

On precision, every score carries error and a good report makes the error visible. A point score read without its interval overstates what the test knows, and even with the interval a result is a snapshot that sleep, noise, a slow device or a distracting day can move. A low index is a result on a sample of tasks, in one session, with a band around it, and a person is more than the lowest bar on a chart. The descriptive words printed beside scores, such as Average, Above average or Very high, are conventions for naming a range, not traits.

12 Where ACIS Sits, and What a Buyer Should Do

ACIS is a normed online battery that returns a Full Scale IQ with its 95 percent confidence interval and up to six indices for adult personal use, and its strengths and its limits are the same fact: it is online, unsupervised, not clinical and in English only, so it is a fair way to see a report like the ones above for yourself and the wrong tool for documentation, hiring, school accommodations or a high IQ society. The facts below were read on the ACIS home page on October 29, 2026, and prices can change. ACIS has 20 subtests in six domains, with forms at 15, 30 and 50 dollars one time, no subscription, breaks allowed, progress saved between subtests and 30 days to finish. A free trial needs no card. Scores are on the standard scale with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, with scaled subtest scores from 1 to 19, percentiles and a 95 percent confidence interval, and adult norms cover ages 16 to 90. The Custom Test costs 5 dollars per subtest, any domain you complete returns its full index score, and the Full Scale IQ needs the Full Scale battery. The guarantee reads: "Full refund within 5 days if the report does not deliver the features described at checkout or a technical issue prevents you from accessing your results." That is a conditional guarantee, and this page does not describe it as anything broader.

The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA and NCME, 2014) supply the reading rules this page has used. Standard 2.3 asks for reliability and precision for each score that is interpreted, Standard 2.4 for each difference, Standard 6.10 that reports describe what the test covers, what scores represent and how precise they are, and Standard 6.11 that automatically generated interpretations come with their sources, rationale and limitations. The APA's Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation (2020) add that errors in reporting assessment results can include overinterpretation, inconsistent interpretation and selective interpretation. Apply all of it to any report, ours included. ACIS documents its instrument in the technical manual, which also says that verbal and knowledge tasks are affected by English proficiency and educational exposure, and this page quotes no statistic from it.

The example reports let a buyer check, before paying, that each score has its interval, that the form returns the domains wanted and that the profile and composite sections look usable. Primary Analysis and Insights belong to the Full Scale form, and the other two forms show a locked message in their place. A buyer should do four things. Open the example report for the form under consideration and check each section against the table above. Pick the form that covers the indices you want, using the prices and minutes above. Write down the one comparison you care about before opening any gap. Then start the free trial, which needs no card, and read the report as a description of one session, not a verdict.

13 Sources Behind This Page

Every third party fact and figure on this page comes from the documents below, opened or verified on October 29, 2026, and any figure we calculated ourselves is labeled in the text as our arithmetic. Where we read only an abstract, the text says so. The price and description of one free online screener were read on its own page on the same date and are stated as market facts. Prices and policies on commercial pages change, so check the page before you pay.

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: AERA. Standards 1.14, 2.3, 2.4, 3.4, 6.10, 6.11 and 12.10 and their comments. Open access edition: https://www.testingstandards.net/open-access-files.html
2. American Psychological Association (2020). APA Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation. Approved by the APA Council of Representatives, March 2020. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-psychological-assessment-evaluation.pdf
3. Pearson (2024). WAIS-5 Score Report, sample report for a sample examinee, test date September 16, 2024, 10 pages. Opened October 29, 2026. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/wais-5/wais-5-sample-score-report.pdf
4. Pearson (2026). WAIS-5 Score Report with Demographically Referenced Scores, sample report, test date March 24, 2026, 11 pages. Opened October 29, 2026. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/wais-5/wais-5-sample-score-report-with-demographically-referenced-scores.pdf
5. Pearson. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale | Fifth Edition (WAIS-5), product page with age range, completion times, report options and prices. Read on October 29, 2026. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/en/usd/p/P100071002
6. Carroll, C. (2011). Rates of apparently abnormal WAIS-4 patterns in the normal population. Conference abstract, 31st Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Neuropsychology, Marco Island, FL, November 16 to 19, 2011. Read on the NSU Works page on October 29, 2026. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cps_facpresentations/1607
7. Binder, L. M., Iverson, G. L., and Brooks, B. L. (2009). To err is human: "Abnormal" neuropsychological scores and variability are common in healthy adults. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24(1), 31 to 46. Abstract read through the Europe PMC record (PMID 19395355). https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acn001
8. Canivez, G. L. (2013). Incremental criterion validity of WAIS-IV factor index scores: Relationships with WIAT-II and WIAT-III subtest and composite scores. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 484 to 495. Abstract read through the Europe PMC record (PMID 23647042); full text not opened. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032092
9. McGill, R. J., Dombrowski, S. C., and Canivez, G. L. (2018). Cognitive profile analysis in school psychology: History, issues, and continued concerns. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 108 to 121. Abstract read through the Europe PMC record (PMID 30463666); full text not opened. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.007

14 Frequently Asked Questions