2003 - SSAAM

Guidelines for Cognitive Evaluation
June, 2003
Verbal-Performance TQ Score Discrepancies
Particularly in the case of significant Verbal-Performance skill discrepancies, judgment
becomes paramount since the Full Scale IQ likely does not reflect the child's reality in the
school system. Generally speaking, a discrepancy in favour of the student's Performance
skills (e.g., VIQ = 46 to 58; PIQ = 78 to 84; FSIQ = 69 to 73) supports the diagnosis of a
significant cognitive disability within the context of the school system, as verbal ability is
highly correlated with academic success.
A significant V-P discrepancy favouring the student's Verbal skills (e.g., VIQ = 78 to 84;
PIQ = 46 to 58; FSIQ = 69 to 73) suggests a greater possibility of academic success with
appropriate program accommodations. Nevertheless, a careful examination of the impact
of this child's difficulties on his or her academic functioning may support a diagnosis of
significant cognitive disability if supported by an appropriate evaluation of adaptive
functioning. Other remediable difficulties in such areas as vision, visual-motor
integration, fine motor skills etc. need to be examined as part of the adaptive evaluation.
"Significant Cognitive Disability" and "TVT" Course Designation
The term "significant cognitive disability" is one that is not derived from the
psychological or psychiatric nosology. It has created a great deal of confusion among both
school and clinical staff. This term originated out of the Manitoba Education, Training
and Youth guidelines for "M" (i.e., modified) course designation and applied to senior
years students only (see 1995 document entitled Towards Inclusion: A Handbook for
Modified Course Designation, Senior 1-4). In this document, the M course designation
is intended to be used "only with those students with special needs who have
significant cognitive disabilities that necessitate modifications in curriculum goals
and objectives or outcomes of 50 per cent or more to accommodate their special
learning requirements" (p. 2). In follow-up workshops to inservice school staff and
clinicians on the new M designation document (specific dates unknown), significant
cognitive disability was defined as follows:
"Current practice defines significant cognitive disability in terms of limitations in both
intellectual skills and adaptive functioning.
• The student will have significantly sub average general intellectual functioning and;
• Limitations in adaptive functioning - how an individual copes with common life
demands and how well he/she meets the standards of personal independence expected
of someone in his/her age group, sociocultural background and community setting."
The M course designation was not intended for:
• Students without significant cognitive disabilities who may be considered as having
special needs (e.g., physically disabled, emotionally/behaviourally disordered,
learning disabled, visually impaired or hearing impaired);