Student: [Student]
DOB: [redacted]
Assessment Date: [redacted] 2026
School: [redacted] Elementary School
Evaluator: [Evaluator] and Lisa Murphy, M.Ed.
Pine State Learning, LLC Brunswick, Maine
Age: 10.1
Grade: 5

This is a sample report. The student is a composite; all names, dates, scores, and details are fictional.

Academic Skills Assessment

General Concerns:
[Student]'s parents sought this academic evaluation to determine whether an underlying reading disability called dyslexia is impacting his acquisition of reading and spelling skills.

Assessments Administered:
Gray Oral Reading Test-Fifth Edition, Form A (GORT-5)
Gray Silent Reading Test, Form A (GSRT)
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Second Edition Form B (TOWRE-2)
Test of Orthographic Competence-Second Edition (TOC-2)
Feifer Assessment of Reading, selected subtests (FAR)
Feifer Assessment of Writing, selected subtests (FAW)
KeyMath-3, Form A

Background Information:
[Student] is a 10 year old student who is a rising fifth grade student at [redacted] Elementary School. He lives in midcoast Maine with his older sister and parents. He is left-handed. He wears corrective lenses for distance. He is identified as a student eligible for Special Education services under the category of Specific Learning Disability.

At his most recent IEP meeting, special education services were designated for reading at approximately 90 minutes per week, writing approximately 60 minutes per week, and consultation with the classroom teacher monthly.

Evaluation History
[Student] was administered a neuropsychological assessment in the spring of his second grade year. He was diagnosed with dyslexia.

[Student] was re-evaluated eighteen months later. Prior findings were corroborated with testing revealing weaknesses in foundational reading and writing skills, specifically phonological processing, orthographic awareness, and automaticity. Additionally, evidence supported a diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, predominantly inattentive presentation (ADHD).

Behavioral Observation:
[Student] arrived on time with his father for his 4 hour evaluation session. He warmed up slowly and established comfortable rapport with the evaluator by the second subtest. Some conversation was prompted by test items. [Student] was able to follow directions and make eye contact. He showed fatigue after the midpoint of the session and stretched or stood briefly between subtests. This did not negatively impact his scores. Breaks for snacks and the bathroom were provided. He worked steadily and did not ask to stop. He persevered even when tasks were challenging for him, occasionally remarking that a word was "tricky" before attempting it. He was cooperative and easily redirected to task on the few occasions he was off task. Thus, the results are considered valid.

Performance Summary:
Absolute strengths and weaknesses refer to skills/subtests with a standard score that is one standard deviation above or below the average score of 100. Absolute Strengths reflect standard scores at or above 115, and Absolute Weaknesses reflect standard scores at or below 85. These skills are highlighted in a pattern of strengths and weaknesses because they point to skills used to compensate and bolster academic performances, as well as skills underlying the challenge the student is experiencing.

Please see the attached score sheet for complete score information.

Academic Skills:

Oral Reading Fluency and Comprehension
[Student] read the first six stories on the GORT-5, a measure of reading fluency and comprehension. He achieved a basal level on the second passage. His accuracy was adequate on the first two passages, and his rate dropped noticeably beginning with passage three. He reached his ceiling score with passages five and six, meaning his accuracy and rate scores were low and testing was discontinued. Errors he made while reading included substituting small words (was for saw, then for when), dropping word endings, adding words, and repeating phrases. Word reading errors he made included house for horse, present for parent, thought for through, and clam for calm. His word reading for two syllable words was often segmented, such as win–ter, gar–d–en.

[Student] answered most literal comprehension questions on the early passages but missed inferential questions as the passages grew longer. On four of the thirty questions he was asked, he responded that he could not remember. His oral reading fluency is an absolute weakness across his reading profile; his comprehension is stronger when passages are read to him.

Oral Reading Fluency and Comprehension
Reading Accuracy:          Scaled Score of 4/Poor
Reading Rate:          Scaled Score of 5/Poor
Reading Fluency:          Scaled Score of 4/Poor
Comprehension:          Scaled Score of 7/Below Average
Oral Reading Index Standard Score of 74/Poor

Word Recognition and Fluency
[Student] was administered the TOWRE-2 Sight Word subtest. He scored a standard score of 72 in the Poor range. He read forty-four words correctly of the forty-nine attempted words. His errors included reading form for from, quite for quiet, and though for through. This skill is an absolute weakness across his reading profile.

Non-Word Decoding and Fluency
[Student] was administered the TOWRE-2 Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest. He scored a standard score of 67 in the Very Poor range. He read eleven words correctly of the nineteen attempted words. The skill is an absolute weakness across his reading profile.

Silent Reading Comprehension
On the Gray Silent Reading Test, [Student] scored a standard score of 92 in the average range. He read five passages before he reached his ceiling level. This skill is considered to be developing in line with his same aged peers.

Math
[Student]'s math skills were assessed using selected subtests from the KeyMath-3. His performance across the Numeration, Algebra, Geometry, Measurement, and Data Analysis/Probability subtests fell in the average range (scaled scores of 9 to 12), as did his performance on the Addition/Subtraction and Multiplication/Division computation subtests (scaled scores of 9 and 10). He established basal and ceiling levels appropriately on each subtest. These skills have developed in line with his same age peers, and math was not assessed further.

Underlying Sensory-Cognitive Processes that Support Reading:

Phonological Processing
Phonologically related subtests tap into a student's ability to sound out unfamiliar words in print independently and to sequence multiple sounds together to recognize a specific word accurately. Phonological processing skills support speech production, decoding and spelling. His Phonological Processing was assessed using the Feifer Assessment of Reading.

On the Phonemic Awareness subtest on the FAR, [Student] scored a standard score of 91 in the average range. This subtest requires the student to complete four tasks in increasingly more sophisticated phonemic and processing skills. [Student] was asked to determine whether word pairs sounded the same or different, say the correct word after listening to syllables presented orally at a rate of one syllable per second, repeat words while tapping out the individual syllables, and repeat a spoken word while adding, deleting or substituting a specific sound within it. He was observed to whisper prompt words to assist with his thinking about sounds. He was often not automatic with his responses. These were laborious tasks. This skill is developing in line with same-grade peers.

On the Positioning of Sounds subtest on the FAR, [Student] scored a standard score of 90 in the average range. This subtest is a phonemic-localization task that requires the student to determine the missing sound(s) in an incomplete printed word. The student listens to a spoken word and is asked to produce the missing sound that would be represented by the missing printed letters on the page. Understanding the sequence and representation of sounds is a precursor to developing the ability to decode words in print. This skill is developing in line with his same-grade peers.

Orthographic Processing
Orthographic-related assessments measure a student's reading speed and rapid recognition of printed words. These tests consider a student's orthographic processing, or the ability of a student to store and quickly retrieve words for fluent reading and spell words from memory, speed (or automaticity), verbal processing, and irregular word reading. It is an assessment of the student's ability to process the visual aspect of the text. When this skill is developed in a student's profile, it translates into fluency in reading and correct spelling. [Student]'s orthographic processing was assessed using the Feifer Assessment of Reading and the Test of Orthographic Competence.

[Student]'s Orthographic Processing subtest standard score on the FAR is 84 and is in the below average range. This subtest required him to recall the letter or group of letters in a target word after being presented with the word for 1 second. This task measures the ability to hold and retain a visual-spatial image of the printed word form to determine which group of letters are in the word. Orthographic processing is an essential cognitive attribute to access when words do not follow a predictable letter-sound pattern. Readers rely on recognizing the shape of the word to read fluently. This skill is an absolute weakness across his profile.

On the Rapid Automatic Naming subtest on the FAR, [Student] scored a standard score of 86 in the below average range. This subtest measures the ability to name a string of pictured objects or letter stencils rapidly, and it taps into the speed of retrieval with memory and requires attention skills. While this score is in the below average range, it is high enough to be considered a skill that has developed in line with his same-grade peers.

On the Verbal Fluency subtest on the FAR, [Student] scored a standard score of 112 in the above average range. This is a timed subtest. It measures retrieval speed from long-term memory using a language-based cue. This score indicates that he has developed verbal skills that will facilitate passage comprehension once he can access word reading accuracy and fluency. He named category items at roughly a 2 to 1 ratio over the letter-prompted items. [Student] will likely benefit from developing morphological (meaningful word parts, such as swim+ing) skills in his reading instruction. This skill is a relative strength across his profile.

[Student]'s Orthographic Knowledge was assessed using the Test of Orthographic Competence 2 (TOC-2). His overall Orthographic Knowledge index score is 78, which is in the poor range. This skill is an absolute weakness across his profile.

On the Conventions Composite of the TOC-2, [Student] scored a standard score of 92 in the average range. This composite is derived from the Abbreviations and Punctuation subtests. The composite captures non-spelling aspects of writing that contribute to meaningful reading and writing. Overall, this skill is developing in line with same grade-level peers.

On the Spelling Accuracy Composite of the TOC-2, [Student] scored a standard score of 71 in the poor range. This composite is derived from the Sight Spelling and Homophone Spelling subtests. These are untimed tests. The composite captures a student's ability to recognize the spelling of words. This skill is an absolute weakness across his profile.

On the Spelling Fluency Composite of the TOC-2, [Student] scored a standard score of 80 in the below average range. This composite is derived from the Word Scramble and Letter Choice subtests. These subtests are timed. The composite captures a student's ability to unscramble letters to form common words and recognize similar letters (b,p,d,q). This skill is an absolute weakness across his profile.

On the Spelling Efficiency Composite of the TOC-2, [Student] scored a standard score of 74 in the poor range. This composite is derived from Sight Spelling, Homophone Spelling, Word Scramble, and Letter Choice subtests. This skill is an absolute weakness across his profile.

Analysis:
Readers become proficient when they are adequately able to access the underlying auditory and visual structure of language. When they are able to do so and have adequate oral language skills, they can make meaning of what they read, and reading becomes an automatic process. Conversely, weaker processing in phonological (decoding) or orthographic skills (fluent word recognition) is consistently associated with deficits in reading fluency and spelling, and weaker oral language skills are associated with difficulties in reading comprehension. This evaluation examined those areas in order to determine which underlying processes are interfering with [Student]'s reading processes.

[Student] demonstrates solid cognitive abilities. However, his reading skills continue to be significantly below expectations relative to both his cognitive potential and same-age, same-grade peers. His oral reading performance falls one to two standard deviations below his cognitive abilities (GORT-5 Oral Reading Index = 74; TOWRE-2 Total Word Reading Efficiency composite [timed] = 68; prior word reading testing [untimed] = 83).

[Student] has made meaningful progress in developing foundational phonological skills, and these gains are reflected in his documented reading growth. Previous evaluations identified weaknesses in phonological and orthographic processing, accompanied by low reading and spelling achievement scores. Current assessment results indicate that his phonological awareness skills are largely remediated when assessed independently of print. However, when these skills are applied to printed text and written language tasks, he continues to demonstrate weak orthographic processing and non-word decoding.

These weaknesses are most evident in decoding unfamiliar words and in spelling across a variety of tasks, including spelling homophones, spelling words from scrambled letters, and completing words by supplying missing letters. This pattern suggests ongoing difficulty developing and accessing accurate orthographic representations of words.

For the purpose of determining appropriate academic interventions, [Student]'s learning profile is most consistent with a reading disability characterized by weaknesses in both phonological application to print and orthographic (visual word form) processing, commonly referred to as mixed dyslexia. This profile indicates a need for continued, targeted intervention focused on strengthening decoding, orthographic knowledge, accurate word recognition, spelling, and the development of automatic reading skills.

[Student]'s math achievement levels are in the average range. No further testing was administered. No recommendations are warranted at this time.

Recommendations:
Dyslexia requires prescriptive/diagnostic, individualized, and multisensory instruction that addresses advanced phonic patterns for multi-syllable words, spelling patterns, and fluency to make oral reading fluency gains. This instruction is needed to address underlying sensory-cognitive deficits in orthographic mapping, decoding, and spelling.

Scope/Frequency of Instruction: It is recommended that [Student] be provided with an intensive, structured, multisensory literacy program that meets for at least 30-45 minutes a day to address word accuracy/fluency and spelling. An additional 10-15 minutes a day is recommended for passage level fluency instruction and practice. Once he has developed an independent application of taught reading and spelling strategies and has demonstrated mastery of reading and spelling common grade-level words, a re-evaluation of his intervention schedule may be considered. This requires weekly/bi-monthly data collection from the reading program and progress reporting every month.

Given [Student]'s profile, this specialized intervention requires one-to-one or a small group of up to three students for instruction so that he can be provided quick corrective feedback on errors.

Specific Instructional Methods: For reading accuracy, the methodology(s) chosen specifically needs to address the hierarchy of reading skills: phonological awareness, phoneme recognition (may progress to affixes), decoding, word recognition, reading fluency, and encoding by targeting phonological awareness and orthographic mapping connected to print.

Specific Program Recommendations: Instruction should be carried out by professionals with specific training or certification in the program and experience utilizing them with students who have similar profiles. The programs recommended below are effective and research-validated when carried out with fidelity, in the method and with the frequency and instructional techniques that the publishers specify.

1) Specific recommendations for increased decoding, reading, and spelling: Multisensory, structured, and individualized literacy intervention is the key to literacy acquisition for students with dyslexia. Instruction that is individualized, diagnostic, prescriptive, and targeted is paramount to any single curriculum.

A) The Seeing Stars Program, by Lindamood-Bell, explicitly teaches decoding and word recognition with multisensory techniques designed to target phonological and orthographic skills. This curriculum requires specific training and experience to implement successfully.

B) The Orton-Gillingham methodology. The Learning Disability Association of America has extensive publications on what is required to teach Orton Gillingham effectively. Examples of programs aligned with OG methods are Wilson Reading Systems, All About Reading, and Sonday. Tutors certified to implement Orton Gillingham are represented by the IDA, ALTA, AOGPE, or IMSLEC. The extensive training allows tutors to teach prescriptively and with fidelity.

2) For increased reading fluency: Fluency practice should be layered into the programming at every skill once accuracy is established. Once he builds fluency at the letter and single word level, fluency work can address phrases and, eventually, passage level fluency. There are many options for effective fluency programming. Targeted work utilizing the Phyllis Fisher Speed Drills, Great Leaps Program, the fluency component of Read Naturally, or SOPRIS West in coordination with the direct instruction mentioned above is highly recommended. Fluency should only be layered into [Student]'s programming once accuracy is established. For example, if he becomes accurate with long vowel sounds, long vowel fluency should be the next objective.

Progress Monitoring: Progress monitoring is essential. It will help guide the school team in making timely adjustments so that he can build fluency at the word and passage level, and acquire spelling skills that are at grade level. Progress monitoring data should be shared with the parents every 20-25 hours of instruction.

Phonological Processing (in multi-syllable words)
    Phoneme Isolation at the syllable level
    Phoneme Deletion and Addition at the syllable level
    Phoneme Manipulation at the syllable level
Phoneme Recognition
Decoding
Word Recognition
Prefix/Suffix recognition
Oral reading fluency

Closing:
It was a pleasure to work with [Student]. He has many strengths and interests that will serve him in his academic journey and increasing reading skills. This report is designed to identify academic learning disabilities and aid [Student]'s parents in designing an effective school work plan. Please do not hesitate to reach out with questions or for additional clarifications.

Sincerely,

[Evaluator]
Lisa Murphy, M.S. Ed.
Pine State Learning, LLC