Sign Up
Login
Try for Free
Login
The NEPSY-II (2007) is a developmental neuropsychological battery for ages 3 to 16 that yields subtest-level scores across six domains, with no overall composite by design. Psychologists and school psychologists use it to profile attention, language, memory, sensorimotor, social perception, and visuospatial skills in pediatric evaluations. This page covers how to write up NEPSY-II results, with a fictional sample and free templates.
Psychologists, pediatric neuropsychologists, and school psychologists; publisher qualification level C
IEP teams and school evaluation committees, referring pediatricians and pediatric specialists, intervention therapists, payers, parents
300 to 700 words for the NEPSY-II section · administration 45 minutes to 3 hours by battery
Norm-referenced developmental neuropsychological battery
Pediatric neuropsychological and psychoeducational evaluations, autism and ADHD referrals, language and learning differentials, injury and medical follow-up
Published by Pearson (2007, current edition as of July 2026); described here for write-up purposes, no test content reproduced
The NEPSY-II (NEPSY Second Edition, subtitled A Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment) is a norm-referenced pediatric neuropsychological battery by Marit Korkman, Ursula Kirk, and Sally Kemp, published in 2007 by Harcourt Assessment and sold today by Pearson. It revised the original 1998 NEPSY, extended the age range to 3 years 0 months through 16 years 11 months, and added a Social Perception domain built for autism-related referrals. The battery holds 32 stand-alone subtests and four delayed tasks organized into six theoretically derived domains: Attention and Executive Functioning, Language, Memory and Learning, Sensorimotor, Social Perception, and Visuospatial Processing. Clinicians rarely give all of it; the manual describes General, Diagnostic, Selective, and Full assessment approaches, plus eight referral batteries offered as guidelines for common questions such as ADHD, reading and language disorders, autism spectrum disorder, and mild intellectual disability. Two facts date every write-up: the normative data were collected in 2005 and 2006, stratified to October 2003 US census targets, and as of July 2026 no third edition has been announced, so the 2007 edition and its roughly two-decade-old norms remain the current published instrument.
The load-bearing fact for write-ups: the NEPSY-II produces no overall composite and no domain scores, by design. The manual dropped domain-level scores "in favor of the more clinically sensitive subtest-level scores" and states plainly that domain scores are not derived, because subtests within a domain measure different constructs and a global number can mask the specific deficit a referral question is asking about. Any report, template, or scoring description that mentions a "NEPSY-II composite score" or averages subtests into a domain index is describing something the instrument does not produce. That makes the NEPSY-II the structural opposite of an IQ measure: it is built to profile specific neuropsychological processes, not to summarize general ability, and it is meant to supplement a cognitive measure such as the WISC-V rather than duplicate it. A defensible results section therefore stands on subtest-level reporting, grouped by domain and referral question, in the pattern of a neuropsychological report.
Psychologists, pediatric neuropsychologists, and school psychologists administer and interpret the NEPSY-II (Pearson sells it at qualification level C, its highest tier), and the write-up travels far beyond the testing room: IEP teams and school eligibility committees, referring pediatricians and pediatric neurologists, speech-language pathologists and occupational therapists planning intervention, payers reviewing medical necessity, and parents deciding what happens next. The battery appears wherever a referral question needs process-level detail rather than a single ability number: autism evaluations that pair Affect Recognition and Theory of Mind with the ADOS-2, SRS-2, and adaptive measures such as the Vineland-3; ADHD referrals weighted toward the Attention and Executive Functioning subtests; language-disorder differentials cross-referenced with speech-language testing; and medical or injury follow-up where sensorimotor and memory subtests document specific consequences. Its selective, referral-driven administration model is the draw: on Q-interactive, examiners can even combine selected NEPSY-II subtests with WISC-V subtests in one custom battery. For executive functioning in older adolescents and adults, the D-KEFS (ages 8 through 89) picks up where the NEPSY-II's age range ends; below age 8, the NEPSY-II's executive subtests are the option. The write-up conventions here sit inside a full neuropsychological report or psychoeducational evaluation, which carry the background, history, and diagnostic reasoning this instrument section feeds.
Measures and battery rationale. Open by naming the instrument and edition (NEPSY-II, 2007), the assessment approach (General, Diagnostic, Selective, or Full), the subtests administered, and why those subtests answer the referral question; the manual's referral batteries are guidelines, not a fixed battery, so the rationale is yours to state. Anchor the norm base in one sentence: normative data collected 2005 to 2006. Pitfall: listing subtests with no stated rationale, which reads as reflexive full-battery testing and invites a medical-necessity question.
Behavioral observations during testing. The NEPSY-II treats observed behaviors as scorable data recorded against the standardization sample, reported as cumulative percentages, so write observations as findings (what occurred, how often, and how common that is for age) rather than color commentary. Pitfall: anecdotal observations that never connect to the scores they explain.
Subtest results, organized by domain and referral question. Report each administered subtest at the subtest level: scaled score (mean of 10, standard deviation of 3), percentile rank or percentile range where that is what the score yields, and the publisher's printed classification term. Group them under the six domains for readability, but interpret patterns across subtests, not domain averages. Pitfall: computing or implying a domain score or composite; the instrument does not produce one, and an averaged number has no norms behind it.
Process, contrast, and error detail. Where they change the interpretation, add the process-level findings: which component of the task broke down, what the contrast score says about a higher-level skill once the lower-level skill is controlled, and what error patterns showed. This is the analytic layer the battery was built for. Pitfall: reporting a contrast score as if it were an ability score, or reading a percentile-range score as a precise percentile.
Low-score framing. Before interpreting any low score as impairment, state the frame: having some low scores is common in healthy children, and the count that is unremarkable is higher on a longer battery, so the question is whether the pattern converges with history, observation, and other measures. Name the reliability caution where it applies, especially at the youngest and oldest age bands. Pitfall: a single Borderline score carrying a diagnostic conclusion on its own.
Social Perception, cross-referenced. If Affect Recognition and Theory of Mind were administered, report them as two related but separate findings and integrate them with the autism-specific evidence (observation instruments, rating scales, adaptive and developmental history). Pitfall: writing the two subtests as one social composite or treating them as standalone autism markers; independent factor analyses could not recover a Social Perception dimension.
Interpretive summary and recommendations linkage. Close the section by answering the referral question in plain language, integrating the NEPSY-II profile with the rest of the evaluation, and tie every recommendation to a documented finding, including any re-evaluation plan. State the norm-date limitation here or in a limitations paragraph. Pitfall: a summary that restates scores without saying what they mean for the referral question, and recommendations that appear from nowhere.
MEASURES AND BATTERY RATIONALE Instrument/edition: NEPSY-II (2007) Norms collected: 2005-2006 Assessment approach: [General / Diagnostic / Selective / Full] Subtests administered and rationale (referral question): [subtest list + one line on why] BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS DURING TESTING [Scorable observations: what occurred, how often, how common for age; connect to the scores they explain] SUBTEST RESULTS BY DOMAIN [Domain]: [subtest], scaled score [ ], percentile [rank/range], classification [publisher's printed term] Process / contrast / error detail where it changes interpretation: [ ] LOW-SCORE FRAMING [Base-rate statement; subtest reliability; whether the pattern converges with history, observation, and other measures] SOCIAL PERCEPTION (IF ADMINISTERED) [Affect Recognition and Theory of Mind reported separately; cross-referenced with observation, rating-scale, and adaptive evidence; no standalone diagnostic claims] INTERPRETIVE SUMMARY [Answer the referral question; integrate with the rest of the evaluation; no composite language] RECOMMENDATIONS LINKAGE [Each recommendation tied to a documented finding; re-evaluation plan if indicated] LIMITATIONS [Norm date 2005-2006; age-band reliability cautions; battery coverage] Evaluator signature / credentials: Date:
Free to use and share, no signup. The PDF includes a one-page cheat sheet with section-by-section pitfalls and a pre-sign checklist; the DOCX is the blank results-section skeleton, ready to adapt.
Scenario: an 8-year-old boy referred by his pediatrician for social-communication concerns, evaluated as part of a broader autism evaluation that also included the ADOS-2, SRS-2, Vineland-3, and WISC-V. A Selective NEPSY-II battery targets the social-perception, language, and memory questions, the profile shape where subtest-level reporting and base-rate framing do the defensible work. This is the NEPSY-II section of the larger evaluation report only, condensed but structurally complete. All details are fictional.
Client: L.M., 8 · Referral: social-communication concerns, autism evaluation · Evaluator: J. Whitfield, PhD, Licensed Psychologist · Testing dates: 07/08/2026 and 07/10/2026 · Report date: 07/16/2026
Measures and battery rationale: The NEPSY-II (2007) was administered using a Selective assessment approach chosen for the referral question. Subtests sampled language (Comprehension of Instructions, Speeded Naming, Word Generation), attention and executive functioning (Auditory Attention and Response Set, Inhibition), memory and learning (Narrative Memory, Memory for Faces with delayed condition), visuospatial processing (Design Copying), and social perception (Affect Recognition, Theory of Mind). The NEPSY-II yields subtest-level scores only; no domain or composite scores exist for this instrument, and none are reported. Normative data were collected in 2005 and 2006, which is noted as a limitation below. General cognitive ability (WISC-V), autism-specific observation (ADOS-2), informant ratings (SRS-2), and adaptive functioning (Vineland-3) are reported in their own sections of this evaluation.
Behavioral observations during testing: L.M. separated readily, worked cooperatively across both sessions, and responded well to visual structure. He asked for instruction repetition on two language subtests, looked away from the examiner during conversational openings between tasks, and rarely referenced the examiner's face when uncertain, a pattern the examiner recorded as infrequent among same-age children. Observed effort was adequate on all subtests administered, and results are considered a valid estimate of current functioning.
Language, attention, and executive functioning: Language subtests fell At Expected Level: Comprehension of Instructions scaled score 10 (50th percentile), Speeded Naming 9 (37th percentile), and Word Generation 11 (63rd percentile). Auditory Attention scaled score 10 and the Response Set condition 9 indicate age-appropriate selective and shifting auditory attention, and the Inhibition combined scaled score of 9 reflects age-typical inhibitory control with self-corrections noted on the switching condition. Structural language and regulated attention are not the locus of the referral concern.
Memory, learning, and visuospatial processing: Narrative Memory fell At Expected Level (scaled score 10, 50th percentile) and Design Copying At Expected Level (scaled score 11, 63rd percentile). Memory for Faces fell in the Borderline range (scaled score 6, 9th percentile) with the delayed condition also Borderline (scaled score 6), and errors were distributed across immediate and delayed conditions rather than concentrated after delay, indicating weak initial encoding of faces rather than forgetting.
Social perception: Affect Recognition fell Below Expected Level (scaled score 4, 2nd percentile), with errors spread across several emotion categories rather than confined to one. Theory of Mind also fell Below Expected Level (scaled score 5, 5th percentile), with errors on items requiring inference about others' beliefs and intentions. These are reported as two separate findings: the NEPSY-II provides no social-perception composite, and independent factor-analytic work has not supported treating these subtests as one dimension.
| NEPSY-II subtest (fictional scores) | Scaled score | Classification |
|---|---|---|
| Comprehension of Instructions | 10 | At Expected Level |
| Speeded Naming | 9 | At Expected Level |
| Word Generation | 11 | At Expected Level |
| Narrative Memory | 10 | At Expected Level |
| Memory for Faces | 6 | Borderline |
| Affect Recognition | 4 | Below Expected Level |
| Theory of Mind | 5 | Below Expected Level |
Low-score framing and integration: Some low scores are common in healthy children, so isolated low results are interpreted cautiously. Here the three low scores are not isolated: they cluster in socially loaded tasks (face memory, affect recognition, social inference), match the behavioral observations recorded during testing, and converge with the ADOS-2 observation findings, elevated SRS-2 parent and teacher ratings, and the relative socialization weakness on the Vineland-3 reported elsewhere in this evaluation. Diagnostic conclusions rest on that full pattern, not on any NEPSY-II subtest alone.
Summary and recommendations linkage: The NEPSY-II profile shows age-appropriate language, attention, executive, and visuospatial functioning alongside specific weaknesses in face memory, affect recognition, and social inference. Each recommendation traces to a documented finding: social-communication intervention targets (Affect Recognition and Theory of Mind findings, with ADOS-2 and SRS-2 convergence) offered as input to the school evaluation team; speech-language pathology consultation focused on pragmatic language (behavioral observations and Theory of Mind errors); and structured teaching of face-name associations with visual supports (Memory for Faces findings). Limitations: NEPSY-II normative data were collected in 2005 and 2006, and results are interpreted at the subtest level against that norm base alongside more recently normed measures in this battery.
This sample is fictional and for educational purposes. It does not describe a real client or record, and the scores are invented for illustration and correspond to no real child or record.
Writing these after every session? BastionGPT drafts complete notes from bullets, dictation, or a transcript.
Generate a note from bulletsWrite the NEPSY-II section knowing which decision it will feed, because the surrounding rules differ by lane. In US schools, the LAW is IDEA's evaluation framework: under 34 CFR 300.304, a team must "not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion" for eligibility, so NEPSY-II findings contribute evidence toward categories such as autism, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, or other health impairment, and the write-up's job is to show how the subtest profile converges with everything else. On the payer side, the POLICY is coding convention: neuropsychological testing evaluation is billed under 96132 and 96133, psychological testing evaluation under 96130 and 96131, administration and scoring under 96136 through 96139, single automated instruments under 96146, and developmental testing under 96112 and 96113. Medicare's billing article A57780 describes the neuropsychological family as testing intended to "diagnose and characterize the neurocognitive effects of medical disorders", which is why the developmental-versus-neuropsychological code choice matters and why the report should document the medical or neurodevelopmental question the testing answered. Whether a school district, hospital program, or private payer funds the evaluation at all is CONVENTION and local policy, not statute, so state the referral question and medical necessity chain explicitly.
Edition and norm currency is the second live question. The NEPSY-II's normative data were collected in 2005 and 2006, the edition itself dates to 2007, and as of July 2026 no third edition has been announced, so the norms are roughly two decades old and there is nothing newer to switch to. The manual itself notes that seven subtests (Design Fluency, Imitating Hand Positions, List Memory, Manual Motor Sequences, Oromotor Sequences, Repetition of Nonsense Words, and Route Finding) were carried over unchanged from the 1998 NEPSY with the original norms reprinted, which pushes their norm base back further still. Defensible practice, especially in medico-legal, eligibility, and re-evaluation contexts, is to name the edition and norm date in the report, use the battery for the process-level questions it answers well, and cross-reference measures with more current norms where general ability or achievement is at issue. The qualification boundary is the publisher's: Pearson sells the NEPSY-II at qualification level C, and purchase eligibility does not equal interpretive competence; interpretation remains a professional act governed by licensing boards. Outside the US, funding pathways change the write-up's audience. In Canada, there is no fee-for-service testing pathway equivalent to CPT billing; pediatric neuropsychological assessment typically runs through hospital and provincial programs, school boards, or private pay, and school-eligibility expectations vary by province and board, so confirm what the receiving team needs before finalizing. In Australia, no MBS item rebates standardized test administration itself; the relevant LAW-adjacent structure is the complex neurodevelopmental disorder pathway, where a consultant paediatrician (item 135) or psychiatrist (item 289) refers patients under 25, each item claimable once per lifetime, and the MBS explanatory notes cap the allied-health side at "a total of 8 allied health assessment services per patient per lifetime", with a practitioner able to provide up to 4 services before a review by the referring practitioner and up to 20 treatment services per lifetime after diagnosis, per the official MBS guidance. A NEPSY-II write-up feeding that pathway should make the diagnostic contribution of each assessment service explicit.
NEPSY and NEPSY-II are trademarks, in the US and other countries, of Pearson plc. BastionGPT is not affiliated with, or endorsed by, the publisher. This page reproduces no test items, stimuli, norms, or scoring materials.
There is no payer audit series for instrument write-ups; the accountability record here is psychometric, and for the NEPSY-II it cuts unusually deep. The instrument's own standardization data show that having some low subtest scores is common in healthy children, and the count that qualifies as uncommon is higher on a longer battery (Brooks, Sherman, and Iverson, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 2010), so an isolated low score is an expected event, not automatic evidence of impairment. Two decades after publication, independent factor analyses of the norming sample arrived at the same caution from another direction: a 2024 exploratory analysis reported that only about 80 percent of reliability estimates exceed the 0.70 level considered marginal for a clinical instrument, could not locate a Social Perception dimension at all, and warned against using those subtests for "speculation about Autism" (McGill and colleagues, Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology, 2024), while a 2025 confirmatory analysis of 600 children ages 7 to 12 supported domain-organized subtest reporting but found most general-factor loadings below .50 (Singh and colleagues, Child Neuropsychology, 2025). Those facts predict the failures below. The BastionGPT Clinical Advisory Board sees the same errors most often in NEPSY-II write-up reviews:
BastionGPT is specifically trained, tuned, and clinically tested on psychological and neuropsychological evaluation reports.
See how clinicians use it day to day on the AI therapy notes page.
Many BastionGPT users report saving more than 90 minutes per day on documentation.
HIPAA-compliant with a signed BAA on every plan. Your data is never used to train models. BastionGPT drafts, you review and sign.
Most NEPSY-II primary and process scores are scaled scores with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3, or percentile ranks. Some scores report as percentile ranges or cumulative percentages instead, because error scores and behavioral observations have skewed distributions where a precise percentile would overstate precision. The battery also yields process scores (which component of a task broke down), contrast scores (scaled comparisons of two abilities within or between subtests), and behavioral observations recorded against the standardization sample. Pearson's score reports print classification terms such as At Expected Level, Borderline, and Below Expected Level, and a defensible write-up uses those printed terms consistently. There is deliberately no composite or domain score to report.
No, and this is the most common error in NEPSY-II write-ups. The manual dropped domain-level scores "in favor of the more clinically sensitive subtest-level scores" and states that domain scores are not derived, because subtests within a domain measure different constructs and a global number can mask the specific deficit the referral question asks about. Descriptions that mention a "NEPSY-II composite score", including some research summaries and third-party scoring guides, describe something the instrument does not produce. Report and interpret at the subtest level, grouped by domain and referral question; a 2025 confirmatory factor analysis of the norming sample likewise supported the authors' emphasis on subtest-level rather than composite-level interpretation.
More than most reports acknowledge. Brooks, Sherman, and Iverson analyzed the 1,200-child NEPSY-II standardization sample (Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 2010) using scores at or below the 10th percentile as "low", and found that having some low scores is common in healthy children ages 3 to 16. In their analysis, what counted as uncommon was three or more low scores for ages 3 to 6, and for ages 7 to 16 four or more on a one-hour battery or five or more on a two-hour battery, so the longer the battery, the more low scores remain unremarkable. The write-up rule: interpret a low score against that base-rate reality and the subtest's reliability, and let patterns plus converging evidence, not one number, carry any conclusion.
They are old, and the defensible move is to say so in the report rather than hope nobody asks. The normative data were collected in 2005 and 2006 for the 2007 edition, and seven subtests (Design Fluency, Imitating Hand Positions, List Memory, Manual Motor Sequences, Oromotor Sequences, Repetition of Nonsense Words, and Route Finding) carry reprinted 1998 NEPSY norms. As of July 2026 no third edition has been announced, so there is no newer NEPSY to switch to. Reliability also varies by subtest and age band: independent analysis found only about 80 percent of reliability estimates exceed .70, a level "considered marginal for a clinical instrument" (McGill and colleagues, 2024). Defensible practice: name the edition and norm dates, use the battery for the process-level questions it answers well, and cross-reference measures with more current norms for ability and achievement.
No law or diagnostic system names it. In US schools the governing rule runs the other way: under IDEA's evaluation procedures, teams must not use any single measure as the sole criterion for eligibility, so the NEPSY-II can contribute evidence toward categories such as autism, speech or language impairment, or traumatic brain injury, but never establishes one alone. Payer coverage is policy, not statute, and turns on the medical or neurodevelopmental question the testing answers. For autism specifically, the diagnostic weight sits with observation and interview instruments, informant ratings, and adaptive measures, the territory of the ADOS-2, SRS-2, and Vineland-3, with the NEPSY-II adding process-level cognitive detail. Which battery to use is professional convention, chosen by referral question.
No. The Social Perception domain was created for the NEPSY-II to strengthen assessment in autism-related referrals, but the current independent evidence says to keep the claims modest: factor analyses of the norming sample could not locate a Social Perception latent dimension in either analyzable age group, and McGill and colleagues explicitly caution against using these subtests for "speculation about Autism" (Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology, 2024). Report Affect Recognition and Theory of Mind as two separate findings, not a social composite, and let the ADOS-2, SRS-2, developmental history, and adaptive data carry the diagnostic conclusion. Low scores on these subtests are converging evidence at most.
Choose by age and construct, not habit. The D-KEFS (2001) is an executive-function battery of nine stand-alone tests for ages 8 through 89, so for executive questions below age 8 the NEPSY-II's Attention and Executive Functioning subtests are the option, while older adolescents needing deeper executive profiling can move to the D-KEFS. The WISC-V measures general cognitive ability; the NEPSY-II deliberately is not an IQ test and covers what the WISC-V does not (language processing, sensorimotor skills, social perception, and memory and executive process scores), so use it to supplement rather than duplicate. On Q-interactive, examiners can combine selected NEPSY-II subtests with WISC-V subtests in one custom battery, which is the practical answer to redundancy: administer the minimum set that answers the referral question.
Not here, and not on any legitimate page. Test items, stimuli, record forms, scoring keys, and norms tables are publisher-controlled materials sold at qualification level C, and professional ethics codes (including APA Ethics Code Standard 9.11 on maintaining test security) obligate psychologists to protect them; reproducing them would also compromise the validity of every future administration. Pearson posts official sample score reports on its product page, which show report formats without exposing test content. This page describes structure, score types, and write-up conventions only, and reproduces no items, stimuli, norms, or scoring materials.
Yes, as a drafting and checking partner with you as the clinician of record. Paste your subtest-level score summary and BastionGPT drafts the results-section narrative organized by domain and referral question, with the no-composite discipline, base-rate framing, and norm-date limitation built into the draft. It can also audit a finished section for the errors reviewers flag, including composite language, score-versus-descriptor mismatches, and social-perception over-reach, and translate findings into a parent-friendly summary. It is clinically tested on psychological and neuropsychological evaluation reports, and HIPAA-compliant, so score data stays protected. You review, edit, and sign; see the template library for the full set of report guides.
The instrument facts and compliance claims on this page trace to these sources, last verified July 2026:
Educational content, not legal or billing advice. Sample notes are fictional. Follow your organization's policies and your board, payer, and jurisdiction requirements.