A FIGURE A.7 in .NET

Render code-128c in .NET A FIGURE A.7
APPENDIX A FIGURE A.7
Develop code 128b in .net
generate, create code 128 none on .net projects
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO INTERPRETING THE WAIS-III
Code 128 Code Set C barcode library with .net
Using Barcode scanner for .net framework Control to read, scan read, scan image in .net framework applications.
Illustration of Step 7 from the WAIS-III Interpretive Worksheet using Aim e L. s profile of scores (see Aim e s case report in 12, pages 501 507).
Print bar code on .net
generate, create barcode none on .net projects
STEP 7 (Optional). Conduct Planned Clinical Comparisons There are six possible clinical comparisons. Either conduct all six or select the comparisons that are most appropriate for a given individual based on the referral questions and assessment results. Step 7a. Determine whether each clinical cluster is unitary. Using the tables below, record the scaled scores for each relevant subtest. Subtract the lowest from the highest scaled score to compute the difference. If the difference equals or exceeds 5 points, the clinical cluster is not unitary and cannot be used to conduct clinical comparisons. If the difference is less than 5 points, the clinical cluster is unitary and clinical comparisons may be made only if both clusters comprising the comparison have been determined to be unitary.
Bar Code decoder for .net
Using Barcode reader for .net vs 2010 Control to read, scan read, scan image in .net vs 2010 applications.
Subtest MR PA Arith BD PC Sim Comp Voc Info LNSeq DSpan
Control code 128 size with visual c#.net
barcode code 128 size for visual c#.net
SS 14 11 14 12 15 12 14 19 14 14 10
Control code 128 code set c size for .net
to get code128b and code 128 code set a data, size, image with .net barcode sdk
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Cluster Matrix Reasoning + Picture Arrangement + Arithmetic 14 Highest Visual Processing (Gv) Cluster Block Design + Picture Completion 15 Highest Nonverbal Fluid Reasoning (Gf-nonverbal) Cluster Matrix Reasoning + Picture Arrangement 14 Highest Verbal Fluid Reasoning (Gf-verbal) Cluster Similarities + Comprehension 14 Highest Lexical Knowledge (Gc-VL) Cluster Vocabulary + Similarities 19 Highest General Information (Gc-K0) Cluster Comprehension + Information 14 Highest Long-Term Memory (Gc-LTM) Cluster Vocabulary + Information 19 Highest 14 Lowest = 14 Lowest = 0 Difference
Control code 128b image in visual basic.net
using .net tocompose code 128 code set c with asp.net web,windows application
Not interpretable
Visual Studio .NET bar code implementation with .net
using .net framework toattach bar code on asp.net web,windows application
11 Lowest
Gs1 Datamatrix Barcode encoding in .net
generate, create data matrix barcode none with .net projects
3 Difference
.net Framework Crystal bar code implement with .net
use visual studio .net crystal bar code integration toget bar code with .net
12 Lowest
Barcode printer with .net
use vs .net bar code creation toprint barcode with .net
3 Difference
.net Vs 2010 ean8 drawer in .net
using .net framework toproduce european article number 8 with asp.net web,windows application
11 Lowest
UCC.EAN - 128 barcode library on word
generate, create ean / ucc - 14 none on office word projects
3 Difference
Bar Code creator in java
generate, create bar code none for java projects
12 Lowest
Control qr code image on java
using barcode implement for java control to generate, create qrcode image in java applications.
2 Difference
Barcode 39 barcode library in excel spreadsheets
generate, create code 39 full ascii none in excel spreadsheets projects
Not interpretable
Bar Code encoder for java
using java touse barcode with asp.net web,windows application
12 Lowest
Control gs1 - 13 data on visual c#
european article number 13 data with visual c#.net
7 Difference
Control pdf417 2d barcode size with word
pdf417 size in word documents
5 Difference
Control gs1-128 size for .net
ucc - 12 size in .net
(Continues)
APPENDIX A FIGURE A.7
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO INTERPRETING THE WAIS-III
(Continued)
Short-Term Memory (Gsm-MW) Cluster Letter-Number Sequencing + Digit Span 14 Highest 10 Lowest = 4 Difference
Step 7b. For unitary clusters only, calculate the clinical cluster by summing the scaled scores for the two subtests that comprise the clinical cluster and converting the sum to a clinical cluster score using Appendix C.
14 + MR
11 PA 12 BD 14 MR 12 Sim
15 Arith
40 Sum of Scaled Scores
Gf Cluster
15 PC
27 Sum of Scaled Scores
Gv Cluster
11 PA
25 Sum of Scaled Scores
Gf-nonverbal Cluster
14 Comp
26 Sum of Scaled Scores
Gf-verbal Cluster
+ Voc 14 Comp + Voc 14 LNSeq + Info 10 DSpan + Sim 14 Info
= Sum of Scaled Scores = 28 Sum of Scaled Scores = Sum of Scaled Scores = 24 Sum of Scaled Scores
= Not Interpretable Gc-VL Cluster
Gc-K0 Cluster
= Not Interpretable Gc-LTM Cluster
Gsm-MW Cluster
Step 7c. Conduct planned clinical comparisons. To do this, calculate the difference between the clusters in the comparison. If the size of the difference is equal to or greater than the value reported in the table below, then the difference is Uncommon (U). (Continues)
APPENDIX A FIGURE A.7
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO INTERPRETING THE WAIS-III
(Continued)
If the size of the difference between the two clusters in the comparison is less than the table value, then the difference is Not Uncommon (NU). Clinical Comparison Gf versus Gv Gf-nonverbal versus Gv Gf-nonverbal versus Gf-verbal Gc-VL versus Gc-K0 Gc-LTM versus Gsm-MW Gc-LTM versus Gf-verbal Difference Score (use values from Step 7b) 120 120 = 0 120 114 = 6 116 114 = 2 Gc-VL is not interpretable Gc-LTM is not interpretable Gc-LTM is not interpretable Critical Value 21 24 24 17 24 17 Uncommon (U) or Not Uncommon (NU) NU NU NU
NOTE: Difference scores that exceed the critical value listed in column 3 should be denoted as Uncommon.
Step 7d. Describe results of Planned Clinical Comparisons Regardless of the outcome of Step 7c, review the information in Table A.6 and in 12 of this book (especially pp. 479 496) to help develop interpretive statements that appropriately describe the results of the person s clinical cluster comparisons. (Additional information may also be found in Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004, 4.)
1. The size of the difference between the two interpretable clinical clusters is uncommon in the normative population. 2. The size of the difference between the two interpretable clinical clusters is not uncommon in the normative population. Step 7d. Regardless of the outcome of Step 7c, describe the results of the Planned Clinical Comparisons. Figure A.6 provides a summary of the analyses of WAIS-III Indexes for Aim e, the 26-year-old woman with memory concerns. The examiner s clinical notes shown in Figure A.6 indicate several Planned Clinical Comparisons that might be suitable to conduct in light of Aim e s Index profile and her reason for referral. Figure A.7 shows a filled-out interpretive worksheet of Step 7 for Aim e. As is evident from Step 7a in Figure A.7,
two clinical clusters could not be meaningfully interpreted for Aim e (Lexical Knowledge and Long-Term Memory) because of an unusual amount of variability in her scaled scores on the subtests that compose those clusters. Even though comparisons involving those clusters would have been of clinical interest for Aim e (see Figure A.6), additional test data would be needed to follow up those hypotheses. Of the comparisons that could be conducted for Aim e, none produced differences of uncommon magnitude. Step 7, therefore, provided little additional interpretive information for Aim e. However, Step 7 sometimes offers valuable insight into an individual s Wechsler profile, as discussed in detail for the illustrative WISC-IV case of Ryan (Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004, 4). In any case, regardless of the outcome of Step 7c, review the information in Table A.6 and in 12 of this book (especially pp. 479 496) to help develop in-