Missed a few things that I caught on the re-reading.
Don’t be offended by the “to see if he still qualifies” language.
That is a paraphrase of the law requiring re-evaluations. In fact, my disclosures on the permission to re-evaluate forms are about a page and a half. I check about 5 boxes and write about 6 sentences myself. The rest is all prewritten legal crap required by the law.
Also, the way the tests are given in predetermined by the publisher. Diagnostic tests are not the same as a classroom or state tests. By design, valid scores can only be created by following the directions exactly the manual says.
We can deviate and call it “testing the limits”, but we cannot present the resulting scores as valid. We will often do this when the scores are making it tough to get a confidant conclusion. If we are thinking, “Is this an issue with A or B?” we can pay around with the two issues and see how performance is affected. Completely acceptable, but we have to either not report the score or give it an asterisk with explanation.
Also, a WISC and WIAT alone are inadequate for addressing ADHD.
And… whether they follow procedure properly or not, does not necessarily mean they did a good job.
I have seen State compliance bureaucrats ding a psychologist for forgetting the “valid and reliable for the purposes used” statement in a report where the psychologist did everything in a valid and reliable way when a psychologist who made numerous mistakes got a perfect compliance score because they checked all the correct boxes.