Sign Up
Login
Try for Free
Login
The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) is the standard adult intelligence battery for ages 16 to 90: the WAIS-5 (2024) is the current edition, and the WAIS-IV (2008) remains in use during the transition. Psychologists and neuropsychologists use it in diagnostic, disability, accommodation, and forensic evaluations. This page covers how to write up WAIS results, with a fictional sample and the errors reviewers flag.
Psychologists and neuropsychologists; publisher qualification level C
Referring physicians and psychiatrists, disability adjudicators, courts and attorneys, testing-accommodation reviewers, schools and employers
500 to 900 words for the results section · administration 45 to 90 minutes by edition and battery
Norm-referenced cognitive battery
Adult cognitive and neuropsychological referrals: ADHD and learning-disability documentation, intellectual-disability determinations, capacity and forensic questions, cognitive-decline workups
Published by NCS Pearson (WAIS-5, 2024; WAIS-IV, 2008); described here for write-up purposes; no test content reproduced
The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) is an individually administered, norm-referenced intelligence battery for ages 16:0 to 90:11, published by NCS Pearson in a lineage that runs from the original WAIS of 1955 through the WAIS-IV (2008) to the current WAIS-5 (2024). The WAIS-5 yields five primary index scores, Verbal Comprehension, Visual Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed, plus a Full Scale IQ derived from seven subtests and 15 ancillary indexes including the General Ability Index (GAI), Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI), and new Nonverbal, Nonmotor, and Motor-Reduced Processing Speed accessibility indexes. Composites have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, subtest scaled scores a mean of 10, and the battery was normed in 2023 and 2024 on 2,020 examinees, co-normed with the Wechsler Memory Scale, Fifth Edition (WMS-5, 2025) for ability-memory comparison. Administration is paper or digital via Q-interactive, with scoring by hand, on Q-global, or on Q-interactive, at publisher qualification level C. The 7-subtest FSIQ takes about 45 minutes; the 10 primary index subtests take about 60.
The load-bearing fact for write-ups, as of July 2026, is that two editions are legitimately in circulation and they are not interchangeable. The WAIS-5 restructured the battery: the WAIS-IV's Perceptual Reasoning Index was split into separate Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning indexes, the FSIQ went from ten subtests to seven, five subtests are new, and Picture Completion and Cancellation are gone. The score reports changed too: WAIS-IV confidence intervals are built on the standard error of measurement, while the WAIS-5 report states "Confidence intervals are calculated using the Standard Error of Estimation," and the descriptor vocabulary was rewritten, with Borderline, Superior, and Very Superior retired in favor of terms like Above average and Very high. Pearson still sells the WAIS-IV, whose product page now carries a "WAIS-5 - is now available!" banner, and no discontinuation date has been published. A defensible modern WAIS write-up therefore names the edition, the norm set, and, during the transition, the reason for the choice, the same discipline that governs the WISC-V as its own next edition approaches. A WAIS score is evidence, not a verdict: eligibility and legal determinations belong to the agencies and courts that read the whole evaluation, and the results section's job is to feed them calibrated, honestly bounded numbers.
Clinical and counseling psychologists write up WAIS results inside adult psychological evaluation reports for diagnostic clarification, ADHD and learning-disability documentation, and testing-accommodation requests; neuropsychologists fold it into a neuropsychological report as the cognitive core alongside memory (often the co-normed WMS-5), executive, and performance-validity measures; and forensic psychologists carry it into capacity, disability, and Atkins intellectual-disability evaluations, where the write-up faces cross-examination. It also supplies the IQ evidence in Social Security adult disability claims under Listing 12.05. Age drives instrument choice at one edge: at the 16-year overlap, convention favors the WISC-V when lower ability is suspected (better floor) and the WAIS-5 for high-ability adolescents (better ceiling). When only an estimate is needed, the WASI-2 screens general ability but does not substitute for a full battery in high-stakes determinations, and brief repeatable batteries such as the RBANS serve serial neurocognitive tracking rather than full ability measurement. In Canada, administration runs through provincially regulated psychologists with a live norms question this page covers below; in Australia and New Zealand, the released A&NZ standardised edition carries local norms.
No statute, payer, or publisher mandates a results-section format. The sequence below is the convention experienced evaluators converge on because it survives review: it names the measurement conditions before the numbers, presents composites in a table and meaning in prose, and makes the two genuinely contested moves in adult cognitive reporting, the edition choice and the FSIQ-versus-GAI decision, explicit stated decisions instead of silent ones. Each section carries the pitfall that most often undermines it.
Measures, edition, norms, and format. Name the instrument and edition (WAIS-5 or WAIS-IV), the norm set (US, Canadian for the WAIS-IV, or Australian and New Zealand standardised), which subtests were administered, the administration format (paper or Q-interactive), and the scoring platform. During the transition, add the one-sentence rationale for the edition used. Pitfall: writing "the Wechsler" or "the WAIS" with no edition. Two editions are legitimately in circulation as of July 2026, Canadian administrations on US norms carry Pearson's own "clinically appropriate" caveat that belongs in the report, and an edition-less score set is ambiguous at re-evaluation.
Behavioral observations and validity. Describe effort, engagement, language and sensory considerations, breaks, and anything that departed from standardized procedure, then state plainly whether the results are valid estimates of current functioning. In medico-legal, disability, and accommodation contexts, document that performance validity was formally considered. Pitfall: boilerplate that contradicts the interpretation. "Effort was excellent" followed by scores you then attribute to disengagement hands a reviewer two incompatible reports in one document.
Composite summary table. Report each composite with its standard score, confidence interval, and percentile rank, and give the qualitative descriptor exactly as your scoring platform prints it, from one edition-correct vocabulary. State the interval convention once: the WAIS-5 report calculates confidence intervals "using the Standard Error of Estimation" and prints a 95% column, while WAIS-IV intervals are SEM-based. Pitfall: bare standard scores. A score without its interval and percentile invites over-precision, and threshold readers (SSA, courts, accommodation reviewers) are exactly the audiences that need the error band; NCBE's guidelines specifically require age-based standard scores, with percentiles alone insufficient.
Index-by-index results in prose. Move through Verbal Comprehension, Visual Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed (or the WAIS-IV's four indexes), and spend the prose on what each result means functionally for this adult, in work, study, or daily life, not on re-reading the table aloud. Pitfall: the score dump. A paragraph per subtest in administration order documents that testing occurred; it does not answer the referral question, and it drifts toward the subtest-level interpretation the measurement literature warns against.
FSIQ, GAI, and the interpretive decision. The WAIS-5 FSIQ comes from seven subtests, and the independent factor-analytic literature finds general ability the best-measured thing on the test. When working memory or processing speed depress the composite, convention offers the General Ability Index, with the Cognitive Proficiency Index as its paired contrast. Whatever you foreground, report both scores and state the choice and the reason. Pitfall: silent substitution. Which score you use changes outcomes at cutoffs (159 versus 196 children meeting an intellectual-disability threshold in one published sample), so an unexplained GAI, or an FSIQ quietly dropped for scatter, reads as score-shopping.
Premorbid estimate and change, where the question is decline. In neurocognitive referrals, frame current scores against expected prior ability using a word-reading estimate or demographic prediction, and treat cross-edition comparisons to old records as different measurements, not the same ruler. Pitfall: reading an Average score as "no decline" for a person whose premorbid estimate was well above average, or comparing a WAIS-5 score to a 2015 WAIS-IV score point-for-point when the editions differ in structure, norms vintage, and interval convention.
Interpretive summary and referral linkage. Answer the referral question directly, state what the cognitive data do and do not establish, and place the WAIS explicitly as one source among several: SSA's intellectual-disorder listing pairs the IQ criterion with adaptive-functioning deficits, and no accommodation or eligibility framework reads an IQ score alone. Pitfall: a verdict from a score. Determinations belong to the agencies, teams, and courts applying their criteria; the results section supplies calibrated evidence, including its error bands.
Recommendations linkage. Tie each recommendation to a specific finding, and for accommodation requests give the functional-impact rationale reviewers ask for: what the limitation is, how it shows under standard conditions, and why each requested accommodation addresses it. Pitfall: recommendations that could follow any profile. USMLE's guidance asks for a clear rationale for why each recommended accommodation is necessary; extended time that does not trace back to the processing-speed and working-memory findings is an assertion, not an argument.
MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATION Instrument/edition: [WAIS-5 / WAIS-IV] Norms: [US / CDN (IV) / A&NZ] Edition rationale (transition): [current norms / longitudinal comparison / local-norms availability] Subtests given: [7 FSIQ / 10 primary / list ancillary] Format: [paper / Q-interactive] Scoring: [Q-global / manual] BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS AND VALIDITY [Effort, engagement, language/sensory factors, breaks, departures from standard procedure; performance validity addressed; statement that results are valid estimates, or the stated limitation if not] COMPOSITE SUMMARY (table) [Composite | standard score | CI (state SEE or SEM basis) | percentile | platform descriptor, one edition-correct vocabulary throughout] INDEX-BY-INDEX RESULTS (prose, functional meaning) Verbal Comprehension: [score context + what it means here] Visual Spatial / Fluid Reasoning: [same] Working Memory / Processing Speed: [same] FSIQ / GAI INTERPRETIVE DECISION [FSIQ with CI; if indexes diverge, the ability estimate you are using, WITH the stated rationale; GAI-CPI contrast described qualitatively, no reproduced base-rate tables] PREMORBID ESTIMATE AND CHANGE (decline referrals) [Estimate basis; current-vs-expected framing; cross-edition comparisons treated as different measurements] INTERPRETIVE SUMMARY (answer the referral question) [What the data establish and what they do not; single-measure limits; measurement error acknowledged] RECOMMENDATIONS LINKAGE [Each recommendation tied to a finding; functional-impact rationale for any requested accommodation] 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: a 27-year-old law graduate seeks updated documentation of longstanding ADHD to support a bar-examination testing-accommodation request. The profile splits, average-or-better reasoning over notably lower working memory and processing speed, the shape that forces the FSIQ-versus-GAI decision and the functional-impact argument accommodation reviewers read for. This is the WAIS-5 results section only, condensed but structurally complete. All details are fictional.
Client: R.T., 27 · Referral: updated ADHD documentation for a bar-examination accommodation request, coordinated with treating psychiatrist · Evaluator: L. Okafor, PsyD, Licensed Psychologist · Testing date: 07/08/2026 · Report date: 07/16/2026
Measures and administration: The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition (WAIS-5) was administered via Q-interactive as part of a comprehensive evaluation that also included achievement testing, self- and observer-report ADHD ratings, and academic record review, reported in their own sections. All ten primary subtests were given and scored against the United States normative sample (2023 to 2024 norms), yielding the Full Scale IQ (FSIQ), the five primary index scores, and, given the pattern below, the General Ability Index (GAI) and Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI). The WAIS-5 is used as the current edition for this new evaluation. Composites have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 and are reported with the WAIS-5 report's 95% confidence intervals, which are calculated on the Standard Error of Estimation; qualitative descriptors follow the WAIS-5 report vocabulary in the narrative below.
Behavioral observations and validity: R.T. arrived on time, was cooperative and candid, and worked with visible investment across the session. She engaged quickly with reasoning tasks, often elaborating on her answers; on timed clerical tasks her pace was slow and effortful, with frequent re-checking, a pattern consistent across tasks rather than tied to any single lapse of attention. Performance validity was formally assessed and was intact, and embedded indicators were consistent with adequate effort. Administration followed standardized procedures, and the results below are considered valid estimates of current cognitive functioning.
| Composite | Standard score | 95% CI | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verbal Comprehension (VCI) | 111 | 105-116 | 77 |
| Visual Spatial (VSI) | 104 | 97-110 | 61 |
| Fluid Reasoning (FRI) | 108 | 101-114 | 70 |
| Working Memory (WMI) | 85 | 80-92 | 16 |
| Processing Speed (PSI) | 83 | 76-92 | 13 |
| Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) | 96 | 92-101 | 39 |
| General Ability (GAI) | 109 | 103-114 | 73 |
| Cognitive Proficiency (CPI) | 82 | 77-90 | 12 |
Index results: R.T.'s verbal reasoning is a relative strength. Her Verbal Comprehension score of 111 (77th percentile, described as Above average on the WAIS-5) indicates well-developed word knowledge and verbal concept formation, consistent with her academic record. Visual Spatial (104) and Fluid Reasoning (108) scores fall in the Average range: she analyzes visual material and reasons through novel patterns at an age-typical level, and she solved untimed reasoning items methodically and well. In contrast, her Working Memory score of 85 (16th percentile) falls below the Average range, reflecting difficulty holding and mentally reworking spoken information such as number sequences, and her Processing Speed score of 83 (13th percentile) reflects slow performance on simple timed visual-clerical tasks even with accurate work. Functionally, this is the profile of an adult who reasons at or above the level of her peers but loses long spoken instructions, re-reads under time pressure, and does not finish timed sections despite mastery of the content, which matches her educational history and current report.
Overall ability and the interpretive decision: The FSIQ of 96 (CI 92 to 101, 39th percentile, Average range) is reported for completeness, but it averages across abilities that differ sharply and so describes no single ability R.T. actually shows. The contrast between her General Ability Index of 109 (73rd percentile, reasoning-focused) and her Cognitive Proficiency Index of 82 (12th percentile, working memory and processing speed) is large and uncommon relative to her overall level. For the functional questions in this evaluation, the GAI is used as the estimate of reasoning ability, because the referral question is whether cognitive efficiency limits her demonstration of that ability under standard conditions, and the FSIQ would fold the areas of difficulty into the expectation itself. This is a stated interpretive choice, not a substitution: both scores are reported above, and the FSIQ remains the more broadly validated summary score.
Functional impact: The cognitive findings converge with the history documented elsewhere in this evaluation: childhood diagnosis with school accommodations from age 10, extended time throughout law school, timed practice-examination scores well below untimed performance on the same material, and current observer ratings. The specific accommodation of extended testing time addresses the identified limitations directly: processing speed at the 13th percentile and working memory at the 16th percentile constrain timed retrieval and response recording, not knowledge or reasoning, which are Average to Above average.
Summary: Cognitive testing shows Above average verbal reasoning and Average visual-spatial and fluid reasoning over notably lower working memory and processing speed, with a large gap between reasoning (GAI 109) and cognitive efficiency (CPI 82). This pattern is consistent with, though not by itself diagnostic of, the ADHD documented in the diagnostic section of this evaluation; no single measure carries that conclusion alone. All scores are estimates that carry measurement error, describe current performance rather than fixed capacity, and are reported with the edition, norms, and format stated so they remain interpretable at any future re-evaluation.
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 person or record.
Writing these after every session? BastionGPT drafts complete notes from bullets, dictation, or a transcript.
Generate a note from bulletsWrite the results section knowing which decision framework will read it, and label each requirement's strength honestly. In capital litigation the framework is constitutional law: Atkins v. Virginia (2002) bars executing persons with intellectual disability, Hall v. Florida (2014) holds that "intellectual disability is a condition, not a number" and that a defendant whose IQ score falls within the test's margin of error must be allowed to present adaptive-deficit evidence, and Moore v. Texas (2017) requires courts to be informed by current medical standards, reading a score of 74 as the range 69 to 79 once measurement error is applied. How courts should weigh multiple IQ scores remains genuinely unsettled: the Supreme Court took the question up twice in Hamm v. Smith, then dismissed the case as improvidently granted on May 21, 2026, so the write-up convention of reporting every score with its error band, dates, and edition is what fills the gap. Capital and other forensic write-ups are specialist work; follow your board's forensic guidelines and coordinate with counsel. For Social Security, adult Listing 12.05B keys on a "full scale (or comparable) IQ score of 70 or below," or 71 to 75 with a part score of 70 or below, on an individually administered standardized test, paired with significant adaptive-functioning deficits and evidence the disorder began before age 22; SSA requires a qualified specialist licensed at the independent level to administer, and if an assistant administered the test, a supervisory specialist must interpret and co-sign (20 CFR 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, 12.00H). For testing accommodations, agency policy is the framework: NCBE's documentation guidelines require "Age-based standard scores" for all normed measures, state that "Percentiles alone are not sufficient," ask for a comprehensive battery that relies on no single test, and in most cases want evaluation within the past five years, while USMLE asks for comprehensive documentation with a functional-limitations rationale tied to each requested accommodation. Payer billing for testing time runs under the psychological and neuropsychological testing code families (96130 through 96139) with the evaluation services personally performed rather than delegated, and at least one Medicare contractor describes technician administration as requiring direct supervision (A57481); the billing mechanics belong to the parent report pages, the psychological evaluation report and neuropsychological report.
Edition and norms currency is the WAIS's live defensibility question, and it has a quantified core. Default to the WAIS-5 for new US evaluations: the norms are current (2023 to 2024), APA Ethics Standard 9.08 tells psychologists not to base decisions on obsolete measures or outdated results, and Pearson reports that most practitioners transition within the first year after a release. No statute or board sets a hard switch deadline, so the WAIS-IV remains defensible with a stated reason: longitudinal comparison to prior WAIS-IV data, or a jurisdiction whose local norms have not released. Canada is that jurisdiction as of July 2026: the WAIS-5 Canadian edition is still in standardization, and Pearson's own Canadian materials state the US version is available "when the examiner determines that U.S. norms are clinically appropriate," a determination that belongs in the report, not just the file. Australia and New Zealand have a released A&NZ standardised edition with 2023 to 2024 norms; note that Australian public funding is narrow, with no general MBS item for standalone adult cognitive assessment on a July 2026 search of the schedule. Norms aging is measurable: the classic Flynn-effect estimate is about 3 points per decade, but the WAIS-5 counterbalanced standardization studies found "a dramatic, unexpected Flynn effect of 1.2 IQ points per decade" (Winter, Trudel & Kaufman, Journal of Intelligence, 2024), whose analysis also concludes WAIS-IV scores now run about five points high and that retest practice gains shrank from roughly 4.5 to 5 points on the WAIS-IV to 3.7 on the WAIS-5 for most adult ages. Where a Flynn or practice-effect adjustment matters, name the edition-specific evidence rather than applying the historical rule reflexively, and treat scores from different editions as different measurements: structure, norms vintage, descriptor vocabulary, and even the confidence-interval basis (SEM on the WAIS-IV, SEE on the WAIS-5) all changed. Access boundaries are the publisher's: qualification level C restricts purchase and administration to doctorally trained or equivalently credentialed professionals, and Pearson's own equivalence study (Q-interactive Technical Report 16, 2024) supports treating digital and paper formats as comparable, with Spatial Addition's digital norms equated, while the write-up convention remains to name the format used.
WAIS is a trademark, in the US and other countries, of Pearson plc; the WAIS-5 and WAIS-IV are published by NCS Pearson, Inc. 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 cognitive write-ups; the accountability literature here is psychometric and forensic, and right now it is unusually active. The WAIS-IV was reviewed in the Buros Center's 18th Mental Measurements Yearbook; the WAIS-5 has no Buros review yet, and the first independent factor analysis of its standardization sample, published in Assessment in February 2026, reported that its results "did not support the purported WAIS-5 structure," finding four factors and a dominant general factor instead of the five marketed indexes. Meanwhile the edition transition is producing a new error class entirely, and even agencies lag it: NCBE's learning-disability documentation guidelines still name the WAIS-IV among their example measures. The BastionGPT Clinical Advisory Board sees the same errors most often in WAIS report 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.
Three score types do the work. Composites (the FSIQ and the index scores) are standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15; subtest scaled scores have a mean of 10, with roughly 8 to 12 typical; and every composite carries a percentile rank and a confidence interval. Read the interval by edition: the WAIS-5 report states its intervals are "calculated using the Standard Error of Estimation" and prints a 95% column, while WAIS-IV intervals are SEM-based. Descriptors are edition-specific too: the WAIS-5 vocabulary uses terms like Average, Above average, and Very high, and the WAIS-IV terms Borderline, Superior, and Very Superior are retired. Write scores as estimates: interval and percentile belong next to every composite, and a descriptor should never appear without the number it describes.
Default to the WAIS-5 for new US evaluations: it is the current edition (2024) with 2023 to 2024 norms, APA Ethics Standard 9.08 tells psychologists not to base decisions on obsolete measures or outdated results, and Pearson reports most practitioners transition within the first year after a release. No statute or board sets a hard deadline, so the WAIS-IV stays defensible with a stated reason: longitudinal comparison to prior WAIS-IV data, or a jurisdiction without released local norms. Canada is the live example, with the WAIS 5-CDN still in standardization and Pearson's Canadian materials offering the US version "when the examiner determines that U.S. norms are clinically appropriate"; Australia and New Zealand already have a released A&NZ standardised edition. Whichever edition you use, name it, name the norms, and give the transition rationale in one sentence.
No. The editions differ in structure (Perceptual Reasoning split into Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning, a 7-subtest FSIQ, five new subtests), norms vintage (2007 to 2008 versus 2023 to 2024), descriptor vocabulary, and even the confidence-interval basis. The quantitative gap is now measured: the WAIS-5 counterbalanced standardization studies found "a dramatic, unexpected Flynn effect of 1.2 IQ points per decade," far below the roughly 3 points per decade of the classic literature, and the same analysis concludes the WAIS-IV now yields scores about five points high (Winter, Trudel & Kaufman, 2024). Retest practice gains also shrank, from roughly 4.5 to 5 FSIQ points on the WAIS-IV to about 3.7 on the WAIS-5 for most adult ages. Treat cross-edition comparisons as different measurements, describe change qualitatively with the edition difference named, and cite edition-specific evidence for any score adjustment.
No authority mandates the FSIQ by name; SSA's listing keys on a "full scale (or comparable) IQ score," and the or-comparable wording admits an equivalent composite. Convention still favors reporting it, and the psychometric case is strong: the first independent factor analysis of the WAIS-5 standardization sample found measurement dominated by general ability, the quantity the FSIQ estimates. The GAI belongs when working memory or processing speed depress the composite and the referral question concerns reasoning ability: report both scores, state which one anchors your conclusions, and give the reason. The choice has teeth at cutoffs: in a published pediatric sample, using the GAI instead of the FSIQ changed intellectual-disability classification from 196 children to 159. Silent substitution in either direction is the error; a stated, reasoned choice is the convention.
No instrument is named anywhere in the framework. SSA's adult intellectual-disorder listing requires a "full scale (or comparable) IQ score of 70 or below," or 71 to 75 with a part score of 70 or below, on an individually administered standardized test, together with significant adaptive-functioning deficits and evidence of onset before age 22 (Listing 12.05B); SSA also requires a qualified specialist licensed at the independent level, with a supervisory specialist interpreting and co-signing if an assistant administered. In court, the constitutional line runs through Atkins, Hall v. Florida ("intellectual disability is a condition, not a number," with scores read through their margin of error), and Moore v. Texas, and the method for weighing multiple IQ scores is genuinely unsettled: the Supreme Court dismissed Hamm v. Smith without deciding it in May 2026. The practical rule: report every score with its interval, date, edition, and norms, and let the adaptive-functioning evidence do its half of the work.
Full standard scores, a comprehensive battery, recent testing, and a functional argument. NCBE's documentation guidelines require age-based standard scores for all normed measures and state flatly that "Percentiles alone are not sufficient," ask that the assessment "not rely on any single test or subtest," and in most cases want evaluation within the past five years; their example measures even still name the WAIS-IV, a reminder that agency lists lag editions and your report should name the edition used. USMLE asks for comprehensive documentation with a description of current functional limitations and "a clear rationale" for each requested accommodation. What carries approvals is the linkage: scores, history, and real-world timed-versus-untimed evidence converging on the specific accommodation requested, which is exactly how the sample on this page argues it.
Both cover the overlap (the WISC-V runs to 16:11, the WAIS-5 starts at 16:0), so the choice is about measurement room. Convention follows floor-and-ceiling logic: choose the WISC-V when lower ability is suspected, because a test built for children has more items at the low end to differentiate with, and choose the WAIS-5 for a high-ability 16-year-old who would hit the WISC-V's ceiling. Practical factors count too: if re-evaluation will happen in adulthood, starting the adult battery avoids an instrument switch, and if ability-memory analysis is coming, the WAIS-5's co-norming with the WMS-5 argues for the adult pair. Whichever you choose, say why in one sentence; reviewers read instrument selection at boundary ages as a marker of care.
No. Test items, stimuli, and record forms are protected test materials: access is restricted to qualified professionals (the WAIS-5 is Pearson qualification level C), psychologists are ethically obligated to protect test security under APA Ethics Standard 9.11 and their publisher agreements, and Pearson's own score reports carry trade-secret notices limiting what may be excerpted. Item exposure also damages the test itself, because norms assume examinees have not rehearsed the tasks. Reports should carry scores, descriptors, and interpretation, never item content, and records requests that touch raw protocols route through your test-security obligations rather than reflexive printing. What clients and reviewers can get is better anyway: the scores with a plain-language explanation of what each index means and what follows from it.
Yes. Paste your composite summary (scores, confidence intervals, percentiles) and it drafts the results-section narrative for your review: organized index by index, functional meaning in prose, the FSIQ-GAI decision framed with a stated rationale, and descriptor language kept to one edition-correct vocabulary. It can also cross-check a draft you wrote for score-versus-narrative mismatches, WAIS-IV terms in a WAIS-5 report, and unstated interpretive choices, and produce a plain-language summary of the findings for the client or referral source. BastionGPT is HIPAA-compliant with a signed BAA on every plan, your data is never used to train models, and drafting from scores you paste means no protocol or item content ever needs to leave your records.
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.