One interesting area to note is how his scores jumped from 5/99 to 5/00 This was after almost a year of ABA.

Area of Assessment	Method of assessment	Date & Age of Child	Findings
General Knowledge General Knowledge	Brigance Brigance	5/21/99 4.8yrs 5/00 5.8yrs	4 yrs on 5 subskills no score given on 6 subskills 5.6 years (wh discrim problems)
Basic Math Basic Math	Brigance Brigance	5/21/99 4.8yrs 5/00 5.8yrs	No response 6.4yrs
Fine Motor Fine Motor	Brigance Brigance	5/21/99 4.8yrs 5/00 5.8yrs	2.4 YRS 5.2 yrs
Self-Help	Brigance	5/21/99 4.8yrs	4.0 yrs
Social/Emotional Social/Emotional	Brigance Brigance	5/21/99 4.8yrs 5/00 5.8yrs	3.1 yrs 5.1 yrs
Occupational Therapy	VMI	5/99 4.8yrs	Delays in fine motor and hand skills
Speech	CELF	2/99 4.5yrs	Noncompliant, test invlaid.
Receptive/Expressive language	Preschool Language Scale – 3	10/14/99 5.1yrs	Within normal limits- receptive SS-109 73% SS-93 32%
Articulation	Speech Sample	10/99 5.1yrs	Mild delay with w/l
Pragmatic Language Pragmatic Language	TOPL TOPL	10/99 5.1yrs 5/01 6.8yrs	Moderate to severe delay Percentile Rank- 3 Quotient - 70 Can’t find scores but was testing “low normal”

NEWEST SPEECH EVALUATIONS DONE IN MAY 2002

Test of auditory Comprehension of Language Third Edition	Vocabulary: 75^th percentile Standard score 12 Grammatical Morphemes 63^rd percentile standard score 11 Elaborated phrases & Sentences percentile 75 standard score 12 Total standard score quotient 111
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test- 3^rd Edition	Raw Score 145 Percentile rank 99% standard score 133

**** Spontanous Speech and Language Sample was done for 20 minutes. Utterances were of appropriate length. Grammatical inflections were mastered. Multiple complex syntactic structures were present. One could easily understand Lukas’ spontaneous speech. Topics were verbalized at length, without immediate context. Lukas maintained good attention to tasks and one could easily direct his attention. Infrequently, He missed subtle conversational etiquette cues, for example,he occasionally monopolized too much of the conversation or at other times, would go into unneeded level of detail. These instances were only occasional and were easily remedied via direct feedback from the listener (that’s too much information. I just wondered if you liked it.) Lukas responded well to feedback and adjusted. There very appropriate SS/SL skills were consistent with the results of the standardized measures. It is the clinical impression of this clinician that Lukas’ reading assisted his language development. There are several observations that lead to this impression. One is Lukas’ exceptional vocabulary skills and another is descriptions of how Lukas’ conversational skills and themes developed. This is a phenomenon that is sometimes learned.