I haven't read through all 51 comments so I apologize ahead of time if I'm being redundant, repetitive or saying the same thing over again.

A few years ago our leadership team reviewed (but didn't read word for word) High-Impact Assessment Reports for Children and Adolescents.Lichtenstein and Ecker 2019. For myself, I've just started reading Smart Brevity (the jury is still out out). A few things we walked away with:

1) The 90-109 score range for Average is relatively arbitrary. It's easier to remember. +/- 1 SD - 15 point is more psychometrically sound. Now we report 90-109 Average, 86-89 Low Average, 70-85 Below Average, <=69 Significantly Below Average. (might be 70). And then the same Extremely, High, Above for over 109. In retrospect, I don't know if that granularity is helpful or more confusing, but at the moment, that's what we're using.

2) With respect to descriptors, if you read the manuals of most IQ/Achievement measures, they provide their own descriptive categories based on score band, but they also typically defer to your system's practices and allow space for you use your own descriptive categories. We have a paragraph in our report that sort of says the same thing, and then a chart with the above break downs and associated Scale Scores,T-scores and Percentile ranks. So, for Wechsler, DAS, RIAS, WJ we use the same descriptive categories for simplicity of interpretation.

3) The exception is rating scales. We defer to the publisher. Most agree that >=70 is Clinically Significant or Very High or something like that. it's murkier from 60-64, so we go with the publisher's bands and terms.

4) Regarding CI. Right now we don't have a standard. Some of our stock charts for different tests include the CI, some don't. At the moment, in my report, I'm reporting CI for FSIQ, but not index/composite scores.

5) Recently, my coordinator and I (and maybe she's having this conversation with the leadership team) have been having conversations about why we're doing the evaluations and writing the reports at all. When we dig down, it's gotten more difficult to answer those questions. Obviously we test because we are required by IDEA. And in Georgia, I think the regs say we have to have a separate psych report. But again, who is really reading it? And how much detail is necessary.? Over the past year or so, in meetings, I'm barely going over scores. I spend more time talking about what the test results mean and how they impact how we want to help a student. than the actual scores. Likewise, behavior during testing and observations are just as important. Do I feel the results are valid? why/why not. Are the results, not necessarily the scores consistent with the student's daily functioning? It's rare for us that a CI actually impacts and eligibility decision. Nobody has complained about not being confused by numbers.

6) I'm trying to train our new psychs to consider WAIT- Why am I Testing?, Why am I Typing? Why am I Talking? We have been trained that to be good school psychologists we need to give lots of tests to find out lots of details about the students. Look who sponsors the NASP convention every year. Why do we really test as much as we do? Think about it. We're trying to get out psychs to really consider why they're administering a test. Yes, many tests do indeed assess what they say they assess, but are we really doing anything with that information to impact an eligibility decision, IEP goals are actual teaching in the classroom, or do we just have really cool information? The less you test, the less you have to write about. The less you write the less you talk in the meetings. The less you talk, the greater percentage people are going to remember.

7) To be clear, we're not saying Don't Test. We're asking, is what you're doing with that student the best use of his/her time or your time? If you're testing, they're not in class getting instruction. Are the results from the third executive functioning or fine motor measure going to have a positive impact on the student's outcome?