Assessment score explorer

Make scores make sense.

Plot scores, choose how to show them, and explain each one in family words and clinical numbers. Everything runs in your browser. Nothing is stored or sent.

Chart

Overlays

Scores

Sample profile 4 of 8

Pick a composite from the arrow in a score name, or type your own name. Type a score, or drag a marker on the chart. Keep student names out of labels.

    Scores stay in this tab and clear when you reload. Printing and saving create a copy on your device.

    Beyond the scores

    See the whole child

    Scores contribute to a larger picture. Consider the student’s interests, culture, language, everyday abilities, experiences, and opportunities to learn alongside assessment results.

    Follow their interests

    For some neurodivergent learners, meaningful interests can reveal deep knowledge, creative ideas, or sustained engagement. Explore what this particular student enjoys, knows, and does well, and how those strengths might support learning.

    Recognize strengths at every level

    Students of every age and ability, including students with intellectual disability, have strengths worth recognizing. Notice communication, connection, practical skills, preferences, and progress, including abilities that emerge with support.

    Invite the family’s perspective

    You might say:

    “These results help us plan support. I’d also like to hear what your child enjoys, what you see them doing well, and what they would like us to understand about them.”

    Make room for the student’s voice

    When it fits, ask the student what they enjoy, what feels hard, and what helps. Their own words can shape goals and supports.

    Optional reflection prompts. Use what fits your practice.

    1 of 5

    What the abilities mean

    Cognitive abilities (CHC)

    Select an ability to see what it is, how it shows up in school, how it connects to reading, math, and writing, supports that help, and where common batteries sample it.

    Also in the full model

    Use the ability to describe a question, not a label. These descriptions explain task demands. They are not diagnostic signs or a learning-style classification. Connect them with classroom work, observations, and developmental and family information. CHC sources

    A specific source, with its limits intact

    SLD discrepancy reference

    Look up the 2016 New Mexico regression table exactly as published. To mark a value of your own on the main chart, use the Custom line overlay.

    Source: New Mexico Public Education Department, Specific Learning Disability Severe Discrepancy Regression Table (updated 2016). This tool reproduces that table exactly. Standard scores use a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, and comparison values and column assignments follow the source, which covers ability and achievement tests that are not co-normed. Using one documented reference keeps results consistent and lets anyone verify the method. A result shows only whether the scores meet this reference’s numerical criterion. It is not an Arizona or district adoption of the table. Interpretation and eligibility decisions require your state and district procedures, appropriate assessment data, and a comprehensive evaluation. Source and federal framework

    Lookup

    Whole standard scores, M 100 / SD 15. The source’s ability rows run from 71 to 130, and the measure decides the column. Do not substitute an unlisted edition or index.

    All 60 rows of the 2016 table
    Exact source values, including the source’s integer rounding. No interpolation or extrapolation. The row and column follow the lookup above.
    Ability SS.7 column.6 column.5 column

    A table comparison is one piece of evidence. A numerical discrepancy alone does not establish SLD, educational impact, or a need for specially designed instruction, and this page does not run RTI or pattern-of-strengths-and-weaknesses procedures. Federal regulations require public agencies to follow their state’s SLD criteria; see 34 CFR §§ 300.307–300.311.

    Strengths-based wording

    Report language

    Draft sentences built from the scores on the chart. They describe the student, lead with strengths, and keep the numbers accurate. Scores chosen from the composite list in Scores also explain what the skill is, what a strength or need may affect, and what often helps. Edit them to fit the student and the instrument.

    Stays in this tab. Leave it blank to write “the student.”

    Include

    Same position, different scales

    Score conversion table

    Every column is calculated from the same z value under a normal model. These are not publisher conversion tables or eligibility cutoffs.

    Normal-model score equivalents
    zStandard
    M 100 / SD 15
    Scaled
    M 10 / SD 3
    T
    M 50 / SD 10
    Percentile
    normal model
    Descriptor

    Decimal scaled values are positions, not actual subtest scores. A dash marks values outside the usual 1 to 19 scaled range. Use publisher norms for a test’s reported percentiles and score ranges.

    For families, teams, and everyone at the table

    What the picture can’t tell you

    Use the curve to start a conversation, then connect it to the student’s everyday experience.

    01 · Relative position

    A percentile is not a grade.

    A percentile rank compares a student with a test’s same-age norm group. The 16th percentile does not mean 16% correct or 16% of anyone’s potential.

    A standard score of 85 is 1 SD below the mean, about the 16th percentile under a normal model.

    02 · Measurement

    A score is an estimate.

    Use the publisher’s confidence interval and level. A score near a reference line needs careful interpretation. This tool shows the bounds you enter; it does not calculate test-specific intervals.

    A score of 70 with an interval of 65–76 spans both sides of the −2 SD line.

    03 · Context

    Bring the student back in.

    Consider language, culture, opportunity to learn, access needs, test validity, daily functioning, strengths, and support needs. Scores alone cannot describe a student or decide eligibility.

    Ask: “Where do we see this at school and at home, and what support would help?”

    Which chart and explanation should I use?

    Bell curve shows where each score sits in the population, which helps when percentiles are new to a family. Score profile lines scores up side by side on one scale, which makes relative strengths easy to point to. Range bars give each score its own row with its interval, which works well for a few key scores. The info button beside Overlays explains what each overlay shows, and Present opens a clean full-screen view for meetings, where Move below the chart puts the explanation under the chart. Choose a composite from the arrow in a score’s name to add what the skill is and how it shows up day to day. In the Explain panel, Family words gives plain language, Clinical gives the full numbers, Visual shows the position on a ruler and on other scales, and Both puts family words and key numbers together.

    Why can a higher score mean something different on a rating scale?

    Many problem or symptom scales use higher scores for more reported concern, while skill and adaptive scales use higher scores for stronger functioning. Check each scale’s direction and classification ranges. The chart never flips a score’s position. A T score of 70 is +2 SD on a 50/10 scale; it is not equivalent to an intellectual functioning score or an intellectual disability criterion.

    Can I use this chart to identify a specific learning disability?

    The chart can show where academic and cognitive scores fall against their own norms, and the SLD reference section looks up one published numerical criterion. A visible gap does not establish SLD, a statistically significant difference, an unusual difference, or an approved discrepancy result. Those judgments need your state and district procedures, appropriate test data, and a comprehensive evaluation.

    Why might these percentiles differ from a test report?

    The chart applies the standard normal distribution to a z score. Publishers may use empirical norms, discrete score distributions, floors, ceilings, or other methods. Enter a publisher percentile under a score’s details (the arrow at the end of its row in the Scores list) to show it alongside the model estimate, and use the report and manual for interpretation.

    Which descriptor convention should I use?

    Use the convention your instrument and district use. The seven-band convention matches contemporary Wechsler reports. The normative range convention comes from cross-battery assessment, where below 85 is a normative weakness and 85 to 115 is within normal limits. Descriptors here apply only to standard scores; rating and adaptive scales keep their own labels.

    What can I infer when scores or intervals differ?

    You can describe positions and the intervals you entered. You cannot infer a statistically significant difference, rarity, meaningful change, or eligibility from the picture alone. Raters may see different settings, so do not average their scores automatically. Equal positions do not mean equal skills or interchangeable tests.

    What does PDF / print produce?

    Score summary is one page: the chart and a table of the plotted scores with z scores, percentile ranks, descriptors, and any intervals you entered. Summary with references adds the ten CHC definitions in report wording, the SLD lookup if you used it, and the sources. Backgrounds and controls are left off to save ink. Choose “Save as PDF” in the print dialog to keep a copy. For a report or slide, Save image gives you the chart image alone.

    Grounded in the source

    Sources

    The sources separate educational eligibility, diagnostic guidance, publisher terminology, CHC constructs, intervention research, and the source-specific regression table. Sources reviewed October 2026. Definitions, supports, and report wording are original paraphrases; examples are illustrative, and sample profiles use fictional scores.

    An informational score visual. It does not diagnose or make eligibility decisions. Scores are processed in this browser tab.

    CHC model v2.1, Part 1 (Schneider & McGrew, 2012)

    Schneider and McGrew CHC model, version 2.1 Part 1: general, broad, and narrow abilities. The interactive guide on this page summarizes each broad ability.
    Reference illustration © Institute for Applied Psychometrics, 01-03-13. This historic figure uses Gsm and Glr; the guide on this page uses later terminology (Gwm, Gl, Gr). No endorsement by the authors or test publishers is implied.