Sample report · synthetic data

Alex's report

Alex is a synthetic 29-year-old who has found numbers hard since before age 12, mostly with prices, bills and budgets, and with clocks and timetables. Alex took all 36 tests, answered the questionnaire and asked about numbers. Below is Alex's full report, exactly as every person receives theirs.

Synthetic person · age 29 · 36 of 36 tests · questionnaire answered · report in English

Start your assessment Download the PDF15 pages · 418 KB

Everything on this page is synthetic data: the person, the answers and the test results. It does not describe a real person and is not a diagnosis.

Sample report · synthetic data Page 1 of 15

100%

Open PDF Download PDF

Tap a page to open it full size.

Page 1 of 15: Neuropsychological Screening Assessment, Your results in brief, Key findings — Page 1 of 15

Page 3 of 15

Page 4 of 15

Page 5 of 15: What your answers and tests show — Page 5 of 15

Page 6 of 15: What your answers and tests show (continued) — Page 6 of 15

Page 7 of 15: When a professional can help, From people with similar experiences — Page 7 of 15

Page 8 of 15: About this assessment — Page 8 of 15

Page 9 of 15: About this assessment (continued) — Page 9 of 15

Page 10 of 15: About this assessment (continued) — Page 10 of 15

Page 11 of 15: About this assessment (continued) — Page 11 of 15

Page 12 of 15: Appendix A. Score table — Page 12 of 15

Page 13 of 15: Appendix A. Score table (continued) — Page 13 of 15

Page 14 of 15: Appendix B. References — Page 14 of 15

Page 15 of 15: Appendix C. How to read this report — Page 15 of 15

Read this report as text15 pages

The same report as text, for screen readers and search. Numbers in brackets link to the references at the end.

Sample report · synthetic data. This sample was generated by the Neuropsych report engine from synthetic test results and questionnaire answers. It does not describe a real person and is not a diagnosis.

Neuropsychological Screening Assessment

Participant ID: Synthetic sample
Age: 29 years
Sex: Not provided
Report language: English
Report date: 20 October 2026
Report ID: NP-34AD1654BE
Questionnaire completed: 28 September 2026
Tests included: 36

This report maps your answers and results onto published diagnostic criteria to show what is and is not supported. It is not a diagnosis.

Tests: Full battery: you completed all 36 tests, so every part of this report draws on your complete profile. A report based on all the tests is more complete and more reliable than one based on some of them.

1Your results in brief

Your answers and results match part of the pattern clinicians look for in dyscalculia. The heart of it is your sense of how big numbers are. Judging which of two amounts is larger without counting, and placing a number on a scale, were both in the lowest 1 in 100 for your age. You also told us that judging quantities is what most gets in your way, which fits. This can make it hard to tell whether a bill, a shopping total or a journey time looks about right. Your thinking with words is a real strength: your speed finding words was in the top 10 in 100. Most of your other thinking skills are in the usual range. Start with Put routine money on autopilot, because you asked for help with bills and budgeting and said managing money is the task you most want to make easier. Then add Build facts from anchors, because you told us you still rebuild facts like 6 × 7 by counting, and anchors give you a quicker route to them. A formal evaluation is worth arranging if you want a diagnosis or workplace or study adjustments.

Testing conditions: no concerns about these results.

2Key findings

Your answers and your number tasks point the same way. You described “I work it out again using steps or counting”, “Judging quantities or which number is bigger” and “I find it hard even after checking”. In testing, your accuracy placing numbers on a line and your sense of quantity were both in the lowest 1 in 100 for your age.
Larger placement errors suggest a less precise mental number line, which can affect estimating, rounding and judging whether an answer is reasonable. “Build facts from anchors” in your plan is built for this.
2 of your 13 tests with age norms were in the low range (below the 9th percentile). 2 of them were below the 2nd percentile.
Some low scores are normal in healthy adults ^[1]. A statistical model of healthy adults estimates that only about 5 in 100 who take this many tests would have 2 or more results below the 2nd percentile, so chance alone is an unlikely explanation.
Your speed finding words was in the top 10 in 100 and your reasoning with word relationships was roughly in the top quarter for your age. These were your strongest results.
Your speed finding words is a strength: try using it by talking a task through or listing options aloud before you choose.

3Your plan

These steps were chosen from your answers and results. Start with the first two, then use the two-week experiment to see what helps.

Start here

Put routine money on autopilot
Practice-based
A common routine that has not been tested on its own.
1. Set up automatic payments for fixed bills such as rent and utilities.
2. Use one budgeting app, or your bank's alerts for a low balance and large payments.
3. Once a week, spend 10 minutes checking what went out.
4. Keep a small buffer in your account so one mistake does not cost you fees.
Why this fits you You asked for help with prices, bills and budgeting, and said managing money is the first task you want to make easier, so taking routine payments out of your hands fits you best. It is a common routine that has not been tested on its own, so judge it by whether it lowers your load.
Two-week check After two weeks, count late payments or surprises on your statement.
Build facts from anchors
Moderate evidence
Studied mainly in children and students ^[2].
1. Learn the anchor facts first: the 2, 5 and 10 times tables and the squares (3x3, 4x4 and so on).
2. Work out their neighbours from them, for example 7x8 = 7x10 - 7x2.
3. Practise 5 minutes a day, saying each step aloud.
Why this fits you You told us you work out facts like 6 × 7 again by counting, and building them from a few facts you already know gives you a shorter route. The evidence is moderate and comes mainly from children and students ^[2], so treat it as a promising method to try rather than a proven one for adults.
Two-week check After two weeks, time yourself on 10 facts you used to rebuild by counting.
Practise only the facts you use
Moderate evidence
Studied mainly in children and students ^{[2, 3]}.
1. List 10 to 20 facts you actually need, such as prices, tips or the times tables you use most.
2. Put them on flashcards, or in a flashcard app that spaces out the reviews.
3. Practise 5 minutes a day: answer from memory before you check.
4. Aim for accuracy first; speed comes later.
Why this fits you Because you rebuild facts by counting, practising only the handful you actually use at work and with money keeps the effort small and useful. Spaced recall practice has moderate support, mainly from children and students ^{[2, 3]}.
Two-week check After two weeks, count how many facts on your list you can answer from memory.
Lower the pressure around numbers
Moderate evidence
Short studies, mainly with students ^{[4, 5]}.
1. Before a number task that worries you, spend 5 to 10 minutes writing freely about the worry.
2. Practise number tasks without a time limit at first.
3. Do small number tasks often, rather than saving them until they pile up.
Why this fits you You told us worry about numbers bites mainly when someone is watching or you are rushed, so lowering the pressure in those moments fits you directly. The evidence comes from short studies, mainly with students ^[4], so see it as a sensible support rather than a sure fix.
Two-week check After two weeks, rate your worry from 1 to 5 before each number task and see how it changes.

Also useful

Estimate, then calculate, then compare
Practice-based
A common routine that has not been tested on its own.
Round each number and write a quick estimate first. For example, 38 + 47 becomes 40 + 50, so the answer should be close to 90. Then calculate with a calculator that shows its history. Compare the two. If they are far apart, check what you typed.

Run a two-week experiment

Moderate evidence^[6]

Pick the top 2 items from your plan. Each day, take 1 minute to rate the situations you want help with from 1 to 5. After two weeks, compare the first week with the second. Keep what worked, drop what did not, and add the next item.

4Your cognitive profile

Your results compared with adults your age

Paced serial addition (PSAT): percentile 38, Average; Reaction time: percentile 46, Average; Digit span (forward): percentile 64, Average; Operation span: percentile 77, High average; Spatial span (Corsi blocks): percentile 50, Average; Visual paired associates: percentile 42, Average; Stop-signal task: percentile 62, Average; Colour-word interference (Stroop): percentile 59, Average; Trail Making (Part B): percentile 15, Low average; Verbal analogies: percentile 89, High average; Word fluency (animals): percentile 95, Above average; Dot comparison: percentile 1, Exceptionally low; Number line estimation: percentile 1, Exceptionally low.

Each dot is a percentile; the bar shows the 90% range expected from measurement error. Shaded bands are the AACN descriptors.

Processing speed

Paced serial addition (PSAT), Reaction time, Symbol coding (DSST)

Your speed for taking in simple information and acting on it is in the usual range. Both your paced mental addition and your reaction speed were in the middle third for your age. This means replying to messages, keeping up in a fast conversation or working to a deadline can go at an ordinary pace for you. So when you plan your week at work, you can budget time for routine tasks as you normally would.

Working memory

Digit span (forward), N-back (2-back), Operation span, Spatial span (Corsi blocks)

Holding information in mind while doing something else is a strength for you. On operation span you were in the top quarter for your age, and your memory for digits and for locations sat in the middle third. This can make it easier to keep one instruction or figure in mind while you deal with the next one, for example during a multi-step task at work. You told us writing each step separately helps you. Lean on this strength by holding the current step in mind while you write down the one before it.

Episodic memory

Visual paired associates, Word list learning

Learning new things and recalling them later is in the usual range for you. Your memory for picture pairs was in the middle third for your age. This means remembering a name with a face, where you left something, or what was said earlier in the day can work as it does for most people. A practical step is to keep important dates, such as when a bill is due, in a phone reminder so you do not have to carry them at all.

Attention and inhibition

Continuous performance test (CPT), Flanker task, Go/No-Go, Stop-signal task

Holding back an action you have already started is in the usual range for you. Your stop-signal result was roughly in the middle third for your age. This means waiting before acting, listening in a meeting or reading a long document can go at an ordinary level for you. For long reading at work, a simple routine such as a short break every half hour can help you keep that level steady.

Executive function

Card sorting (WCST), Colour-word interference (Stroop), Tower of London, Trail Making (Part B)

Switching back and forth between two sequences is a little harder for you than most of your other skills. Your Trail Making Part B result was in the lowest quarter for your age, labelled Low average. Overriding an automatic response is a separate skill, and your colour-word result sat in the middle third for your age. The switching result can make juggling two jobs at once, or flipping between two lists, feel slower than doing one thing at a time. A useful step is to finish one stream of work before starting the next and jot down where you stopped, so switching back costs less.

Reasoning

Matrix reasoning, Mental rotation, Pattern completion, Verbal analogies, Verbal similarities

Reasoning with word relationships is a real strength for you. Your verbal analogies result was roughly in the top quarter for your age. You were also right about four times in five on mental rotation, well above guessing. This can make it easier to learn a new procedure when it is explained in words or to see how a system works. Lean on it by writing your money rules as short sentences, such as "if the bill is higher than last month, check it", rather than relying on numbers alone.

Language and verbal fluency

Vocabulary, Word fluency (animals)

Finding words quickly is one of your clearest strengths. Your speed finding words was in the top 10 in 100 for your age. This can help you explain ideas, ask clear questions and talk through options with ease. Lean on it by talking a task through or listing options aloud before you choose, for example saying each step of a price comparison out loud.

Number processing and calculation

Arithmetic fact retrieval, Arithmetic verification, Counting fluency, Dot comparison, Number comparison, Number dictation, Number line estimation, Place value, Quick quantity recognition (subitizing)

Your sense of how big numbers are is the weak link in your profile. Judging which dot cloud had more, and placing numbers on a line, were both in the lowest 1 in 100 for your age. You told us judging quantities and which number is bigger is what most gets in your way, and that checking an answer stays hard, so your answers and results agree. This can make it hard to sense whether a price, a bill or a time on a timetable looks about right. Start with Build facts from anchors, because you rebuild facts like 6 × 7 by counting, and anchors give you a shorter, more reliable path.

Reading and spelling

Sounding out (phonological choice), Spelling (orthographic choice), Word reading (lexical decision)

Reading and spelling stay an open question in this report: nothing here marks them as either a strength or a difficulty for you. Reading at a steady pace and taking in a page on the first read may feel easy or effortful, and only your own experience can say which. If an important page, such as a contract or a bill, does not sink in the first time, read it once aloud and slowly, which often helps the key points stick.

Pattern across your results

Your results have a clear shape. Your difficulties cluster tightly around number sense: judging quantities and placing numbers on a scale both stand out below your own average. Your strengths sit with words: reasoning with word relationships and finding words quickly stand out above your own average, and holding information while doing something else is also strong. Nearly everything else is in the usual range. Some low scores are normal in healthy adults ^[1], but only about 5 in 100 healthy adults who take this many tests would have 2 or more results this low, so chance is an unlikely explanation. Weaker quantity and number line judgements have been linked to difficulties with maths learning ^{[7, 8]}. Day to day, this means words are your easy route and raw numbers are your hard one, so turning number tasks into words, written steps and tools plays to how you work best.

5What your answers and tests show

This report maps your answers and results onto published diagnostic criteria to show what is and is not supported. It is not a diagnosis.

ADHD (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder)

DSM-5-TR 314.0x (ICD-10-CM F90.x)

Evidence level: Not indicated by current evidence

Your answers and results do not match the pattern clinicians look for in ADHD. Criteria supported by your answers and results: B (several symptoms present before age 12), C (symptoms present in two or more settings) and D (symptoms interfere with or reduce the quality of functioning). Not established here: A (persistent symptoms of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity). Test evidence: attention and executive results were within or above the expected range. Typical test scores do not rule out ADHD, because many adults with ADHD perform normally on these tasks. ^[9]

Criterion	Status	Evidence
A. Persistent symptoms of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity	Cannot be measured here	Not assessed. A formal symptom count (five or more of nine symptoms for adults) needs a validated rating scale such as the ASRS v1.1, or a clinical interview. ^{[9, 10]}
B. Several symptoms present before age 12	Met	You reported first noticing difficulties before age 12. Information from earlier life is available (school reports or earlier assessments).
C. Symptoms present in two or more settings	Met	Difficulties reported in: “Home and daily tasks”, “Work”.
D. Symptoms interfere with or reduce the quality of functioning	Met	You described the difficulty as: “It sometimes gets in the way of what I need to do”.
E. Not better explained by another condition	Needs clinician	Other explanations must be excluded by a clinician. No additional contributing factors were reported. ^[11]

Specific learning disorder with impairment in mathematics (dyscalculia)

DSM-5-TR 315.1 (ICD-10-CM F81.2)

Evidence level: Some features present

Your answers and results match part of the pattern clinicians look for in dyscalculia. The strongest reason is that both halves point the same way. You told us maths stayed unusually hard despite regular teaching, that you noticed this before age 12, and that you still rebuild facts by counting. Your quantity sense and number line placement were both in the lowest 1 in 100 for your age, and weak number sense is central to how dyscalculia is understood ^{[12, 13]}. The strongest reason for caution is that a standardised maths achievement test was not part of this, so how far your everyday maths falls below age expectations is not established. That test, together with the school reports you mentioned, would move this picture most.

Criterion	Status	Evidence
A. Persistent difficulty learning maths skills despite targeted help	Met	You reported that maths stayed difficult or had to be relearned despite clear teaching and practice: “It stayed unusually hard”. Related answers: “Judging quantities or which number is bigger”; “I work it out again using steps or counting”; “I find it hard even after checking”; “The same difficulties remain”. ^{[9, 13]}
B. Skills substantially and measurably below those expected for age	Partially met	Normed number-processing results were low (Dot comparison (percentile 1) and Number line estimation (percentile 1)), but standardised maths achievement was not measured, so how far your maths skills fall below age expectations is not established. ^[14]
C. Difficulties began during school-age years	Met	You reported first noticing difficulties during school years.
D. Not better explained by intellectual, sensory, language, instructional or other factors	Needs clinician	A clinician must exclude other explanations. Supporting: regular teaching in a language you understood; general reasoning within the expected range. ^[14]

6When a professional can help

You can start your plan without a professional. A formal evaluation adds what this report cannot: a diagnosis and documentation for workplace or study adjustments. Consider one if you want either of these, or if your plan has not helped after 6 to 8 weeks. Bring this report, your school records and your two-week log.

See a doctor sooner if difficulties are new or getting worse, or if mood, anxiety, sleep or substances are affecting you.

For numbers. An educational psychologist or neuropsychologist can give standardised maths achievement tests, which this screening does not include, and review your learning history. A formal diagnosis of a specific learning disorder in mathematics can open access to workplace and study adjustments. ^{[13, 14]}

7From people with similar experiences

Shared by people describing their own experience online. These are not research findings or medical advice; try an idea only if it fits your situation.

Check the calendar entry against the invitation. If entering dates or times is error-prone, include a separate confirmation step.
ask her if I have the date and time right
Community member, r/dyscalculia · Source · Matches what you said you want help with: Clocks, durations or timetables

Set a reminder for the preparation. If remembering an event still leaves too little time to prepare, try an earlier reminder for the first action.
send me a notification a week before
Community member, r/dyscalculia · Source · Matches what you said you want help with: Clocks, durations or timetables

Make room for a check at the till. If pressure makes cash transactions harder, plan a brief pause and a way to get help.
if you're unsure call for a manager to assist
Community member, r/dyscalculia · Source · Matches what you said you want help with: Prices, bills or budgeting

8About this assessment

Reason for assessment

Main question: Numbers and everyday maths. Everyday situations you want help with: Prices, bills or budgeting, Clocks, durations or timetables.

Relevant background (self-reported)

Question	Answer
What would you most like help understanding?	Numbers and everyday maths
Which everyday situations would you most like practical help with?	Prices, bills or budgeting; Clocks, durations or timetables
Lately, how much effort or difficulty does this cause you day to day?	It sometimes gets in the way of what I need to do
When did you first notice these difficulties?	Before age 12
Where do you notice difficulties, if anywhere?	Home and daily tasks; Work
Have you ever been assessed by a qualified professional for any of these?	No, never assessed
When you took the tests, did anything make it harder to do as well as you usually would?	None of these
What was your chance to learn basic maths like?	Regular teaching in a language I understood
When a number task is difficult, what most often gets in the way?	Judging quantities or which number is bigger
What usually changes when you can work without a time limit?	The same difficulties remain
With clear teaching and enough practice, how did basic maths go for you?	It stayed unusually hard
How does worry about numbers affect everyday number tasks?	Mainly when someone is watching or I'm rushed
What makes numbers easier for you?	Written steps and worked examples; A calculator, spreadsheet or app
When do these difficulties tend to be most noticeable?	When demands pile up
Is there anything from when you were younger that could help a professional understand your experience?	School reports or earlier assessments
Is there anything else going on that you'd like the report to keep in mind?	Nothing I want to add
As a next step, what would you most like from the report?	A few practical strategies to try
When reading or copying numbers, what tends to happen?	I usually do this accurately
How do you usually check whether a number answer makes sense?	I find it hard even after checking
For simple calculations like 6 × 7, how do you usually get the answer?	I work it out again using steps or counting
When a calculation has several steps, what helps you keep track?	Writing each step separately
Has trouble with numbers affected any choices you wanted to make?	Work tasks or opportunities
Which practical number task would you most like to make easier first?	Managing money

Assessment conditions and validity

No concerns about the validity of these results were identified. You did not report conditions that would make testing harder, and no task showed signs of disengagement.

Tests administered

Show all 36 tests

Test	Domain	What was measured	Comparison
Paced serial addition (PSAT)	Processing speed	share of 60 paced pairs judged correctly, timeouts counted wrong	Age-matched norms
Reaction time	Processing speed	median response time	Age-matched norms
Symbol coding (DSST)	Processing speed	correct substitutions in the time limit	No adult norms (descriptive)
Digit span (forward)	Working memory	longest sequence repeated correctly	Age-matched norms
N-back (2-back)	Working memory	response accuracy	No adult norms (descriptive)
Operation span	Working memory	items recalled in the correct position	Age-matched norms
Spatial span (Corsi blocks)	Working memory	longest sequence reproduced correctly	Age-matched norms
Visual paired associates	Episodic memory	correct partners chosen out of 24	Age-matched norms
Word list learning	Episodic memory	words learned over 3 tries, out of 36 (no adult norms yet)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Continuous performance test (CPT)	Attention and inhibition	missed targets (omission errors)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Flanker task	Attention and inhibition	extra time needed when surrounding arrows conflict (interference)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Go/No-Go	Attention and inhibition	responses made when they should have been withheld (commission errors)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Stop-signal task	Attention and inhibition	estimated stop-signal reaction time	Age-matched norms
Card sorting (WCST)	Executive function	perseverative errors (continuing an old rule)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Colour-word interference (Stroop)	Executive function	correct responses in the colour-word condition	Age-matched norms
Tower of London	Executive function	planning points	No adult norms (descriptive)
Trail Making (Part B)	Executive function	completion time for Part B	Age-matched norms
Matrix reasoning	Reasoning	items correct	No adult norms (descriptive)
Mental rotation	Reasoning	accuracy (no adult norms yet)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Pattern completion	Reasoning	items correct (no adult norms for this form)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Verbal analogies	Reasoning	items correct	Age-matched norms
Verbal similarities	Reasoning	total points	No adult norms (descriptive)
Vocabulary	Language and verbal fluency	items correct (no adult norms for this form)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Word fluency (animals)	Language and verbal fluency	unique correct words	Age-matched norms
Arithmetic fact retrieval	Number processing and calculation	accuracy (no adult norms yet)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Arithmetic verification	Number processing and calculation	accuracy (no adult norms yet)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Counting fluency	Number processing and calculation	items correct (no adult norms yet)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Dot comparison	Number processing and calculation	Weber fraction (lower is more precise)	Age-matched norms
Number comparison	Number processing and calculation	accuracy (no adult norms yet)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Number dictation	Number processing and calculation	items correct (no adult norms yet)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Number line estimation	Number processing and calculation	average placement error (lower is more precise)	Age-matched norms
Place value	Number processing and calculation	items correct (no adult norms yet)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Quick quantity recognition (subitizing)	Number processing and calculation	accuracy on 1 to 4 dots (no adult norms yet)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Sounding out (phonological choice)	Reading and spelling	speed and accuracy combined (inverse efficiency, no adult norms yet)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Spelling (orthographic choice)	Reading and spelling	items correct (no adult norms for the English form; Spanish compared later with OrthoKnow-SP)	No adult norms (descriptive)
Word reading (lexical decision)	Reading and spelling	speed and accuracy combined (inverse efficiency, no adult norms yet)	No adult norms (descriptive)

Limitations

This is a screening assessment completed online without an examiner. It cannot observe effort, mood or behaviour during testing the way an in-person assessment can ^[15].

Browser versions of tasks are compared with published norms from similar, not identical, tests. Screen, device and connection can affect timed tasks ^[16].

Each score contains measurement error. The 90% ranges show how much a score could move on another day; some measures, especially difference scores, are less reliable than others ^[17].

Task performance does not translate directly into everyday functioning. Your own account of daily life carries as much weight as the scores ^[18].

Questionnaire answers are self-reported and were not verified. They were used to organise the interpretation, never to change scores.

The plan is self-directed. Its evidence labels show how strong the research behind each item is; practice-based items have not been tested on their own. The plan does not replace any treatment you already receive.

The section on what your answers and tests show is a screening, not a diagnosis. A diagnosis requires a clinical interview, history from other sources and exclusion of other explanations ^[9].

Appendix A. Score table

Test	Raw score	Standard score	Percentile	90% range	Descriptor
Paced serial addition (PSAT)share of 60 paced pairs judged correctly, timeouts counted wrong	72%	96	38	84-107	Average
Reaction timemedian response time	280	98	46	85-112	Average
Symbol coding (DSST)correct substitutions in the time limit	60		No adult norms (descriptive)
Digit span (forward)longest sequence repeated correctly	7	105	64	93-118	Average
N-back (2-back)response accuracy	82%		No adult norms (descriptive)
Operation spanitems recalled in the correct position	55	111	77	99-123	High average
Spatial span (Corsi blocks)longest sequence reproduced correctly	6	100	50	86-114	Average
Visual paired associatescorrect partners chosen out of 24	16	97	42	84-111	Average
Word list learningwords learned over 3 tries, out of 36 (no adult norms yet)	27		No adult norms (descriptive)
Continuous performance test (CPT)missed targets (omission errors)	3		No adult norms (descriptive)
Flanker taskextra time needed when surrounding arrows conflict (interference)	55		No adult norms (descriptive)
Go/No-Goresponses made when they should have been withheld (commission errors)	4		No adult norms (descriptive)
Stop-signal taskestimated stop-signal reaction time	270	104	62	89-120	Average
Card sorting (WCST)perseverative errors (continuing an old rule)	9		No adult norms (descriptive)
Colour-word interference (Stroop)correct responses in the colour-word condition	48	103	59	91-116	Average
Tower of Londonplanning points	27		No adult norms (descriptive)
Trail Making (Part B)completion time for Part B	52	84	15	72-97	Low average
Matrix reasoningitems correct	19		No adult norms (descriptive)
Mental rotationaccuracy (no adult norms yet)	80%		No adult norms (descriptive)
Pattern completionitems correct (no adult norms for this form)	17		No adult norms (descriptive)
Verbal analogiesitems correct	23	119	89	106-131	High average
Verbal similaritiestotal points	34		No adult norms (descriptive)
Vocabularyitems correct (no adult norms for this form)	28		No adult norms (descriptive)
Word fluency (animals)unique correct words	31	124	95	111-138	Above average
Arithmetic fact retrievalaccuracy (no adult norms yet)	62%		No adult norms (descriptive)
Arithmetic verificationaccuracy (no adult norms yet)	74%		No adult norms (descriptive)
Counting fluencyitems correct (no adult norms yet)	21		No adult norms (descriptive)
Dot comparisonWeber fraction (lower is more precise)	0.375	67	1	51-82	Exceptionally low
Number comparisonaccuracy (no adult norms yet)	80%		No adult norms (descriptive)
Number dictationitems correct (no adult norms yet)	19		No adult norms (descriptive)
Number line estimationaverage placement error (lower is more precise)	0.064	66	1	52-79	Exceptionally low
Place valueitems correct (no adult norms yet)	18		No adult norms (descriptive)
Quick quantity recognition (subitizing)accuracy on 1 to 4 dots (no adult norms yet)	82%		No adult norms (descriptive)
Sounding out (phonological choice)speed and accuracy combined (inverse efficiency, no adult norms yet)	2300		No adult norms (descriptive)
Spelling (orthographic choice)items correct (no adult norms for the English form; Spanish compared later with OrthoKnow-SP)	33		No adult norms (descriptive)
Word reading (lexical decision)speed and accuracy combined (inverse efficiency, no adult norms yet)	900		No adult norms (descriptive)

Paced serial addition (PSAT)share of 60 paced pairs judged correctly, timeouts counted wrong
Average
38
Standard score 96 · 90% range 84-107 · Raw score 72%
Reaction timemedian response time
Average
46
Standard score 98 · 90% range 85-112 · Raw score 280
Symbol coding (DSST)correct substitutions in the time limit
Raw score 60 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Digit span (forward)longest sequence repeated correctly
Average
64
Standard score 105 · 90% range 93-118 · Raw score 7
N-back (2-back)response accuracy
Raw score 82% · No adult norms (descriptive)
Operation spanitems recalled in the correct position
High average
77
Standard score 111 · 90% range 99-123 · Raw score 55
Spatial span (Corsi blocks)longest sequence reproduced correctly
Average
50
Standard score 100 · 90% range 86-114 · Raw score 6
Visual paired associatescorrect partners chosen out of 24
Average
42
Standard score 97 · 90% range 84-111 · Raw score 16
Word list learningwords learned over 3 tries, out of 36 (no adult norms yet)
Raw score 27 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Continuous performance test (CPT)missed targets (omission errors)
Raw score 3 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Flanker taskextra time needed when surrounding arrows conflict (interference)
Raw score 55 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Go/No-Goresponses made when they should have been withheld (commission errors)
Raw score 4 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Stop-signal taskestimated stop-signal reaction time
Average
62
Standard score 104 · 90% range 89-120 · Raw score 270
Card sorting (WCST)perseverative errors (continuing an old rule)
Raw score 9 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Colour-word interference (Stroop)correct responses in the colour-word condition
Average
59
Standard score 103 · 90% range 91-116 · Raw score 48
Tower of Londonplanning points
Raw score 27 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Trail Making (Part B)completion time for Part B
Low average
15
Standard score 84 · 90% range 72-97 · Raw score 52
Matrix reasoningitems correct
Raw score 19 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Mental rotationaccuracy (no adult norms yet)
Raw score 80% · No adult norms (descriptive)
Pattern completionitems correct (no adult norms for this form)
Raw score 17 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Verbal analogiesitems correct
High average
89
Standard score 119 · 90% range 106-131 · Raw score 23
Verbal similaritiestotal points
Raw score 34 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Vocabularyitems correct (no adult norms for this form)
Raw score 28 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Word fluency (animals)unique correct words
Above average
95
Standard score 124 · 90% range 111-138 · Raw score 31
Arithmetic fact retrievalaccuracy (no adult norms yet)
Raw score 62% · No adult norms (descriptive)
Arithmetic verificationaccuracy (no adult norms yet)
Raw score 74% · No adult norms (descriptive)
Counting fluencyitems correct (no adult norms yet)
Raw score 21 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Dot comparisonWeber fraction (lower is more precise)
Exceptionally low
1
Standard score 67 · 90% range 51-82 · Raw score 0.375
Number comparisonaccuracy (no adult norms yet)
Raw score 80% · No adult norms (descriptive)
Number dictationitems correct (no adult norms yet)
Raw score 19 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Number line estimationaverage placement error (lower is more precise)
Exceptionally low
1
Standard score 66 · 90% range 52-79 · Raw score 0.064
Place valueitems correct (no adult norms yet)
Raw score 18 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Quick quantity recognition (subitizing)accuracy on 1 to 4 dots (no adult norms yet)
Raw score 82% · No adult norms (descriptive)
Sounding out (phonological choice)speed and accuracy combined (inverse efficiency, no adult norms yet)
Raw score 2300 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Spelling (orthographic choice)items correct (no adult norms for the English form; Spanish compared later with OrthoKnow-SP)
Raw score 33 · No adult norms (descriptive)
Word reading (lexical decision)speed and accuracy combined (inverse efficiency, no adult norms yet)
Raw score 900 · No adult norms (descriptive)

Descriptor: Exceptionally low · Below average · Low average · Average · High average · Above average · Exceptionally high.

Appendix B. References

Binder, L. M., Iverson, G. L., & Brooks, B. L. (2009). To err is human: "Abnormal" neuropsychological scores and variability are common in healthy adults. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24(1), 31-46.
Codding, R. S., Burns, M. K., & Lukito, G. (2011). Meta-analysis of mathematic basic-fact fluency interventions: A component analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(1), 36-47. doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00323.x
Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Park, D., Ramirez, G., & Beilock, S. L. (2014). The role of expressive writing in math anxiety. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(2), 103-111. doi.org/10.1037/xap0000013
Ashcraft, M. H., & Moore, A. M. (2009). Mathematics anxiety and the affective drop in performance. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3), 197-205.
Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., et al. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 198-229. doi.org/10.1037/bul0000025
Mazzocco, M. M. M., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2011). Impaired acuity of the approximate number system underlies mathematical learning disability (dyscalculia). Child Development, 82(4), 1224-1237.
Schneider, M., Merz, S., Stricker, J., et al. (2018). Associations of number line estimation with mathematical competence: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 89(5), 1467-1484.
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Publishing.
Kessler, R. C., Adler, L., Ames, M., et al. (2005). The World Health Organization Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS): A short screening scale for use in the general population. Psychological Medicine, 35(2), 245-256.
Snyder, H. R., Miyake, A., & Hankin, B. L. (2015). Advancing understanding of executive function impairments and psychopathology: Bridging the gap between clinical and cognitive approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 328.
Butterworth, B. (2010). Foundational numerical capacities and the origins of dyscalculia. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(12), 534-541.
Kaufmann, L., Mazzocco, M. M., Dowker, A., et al. (2013). Dyscalculia from a developmental and differential perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 516.
Haberstroh, S., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2019). The diagnosis and treatment of dyscalculia. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 116(7), 107-114. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6440373/
Bauer, R. M., Iverson, G. L., Cernich, A. N., Binder, L. M., Ruff, R. M., & Naugle, R. I. (2012). Computerized neuropsychological assessment devices: Joint position paper of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology and the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27(3), 362-373.
Germine, L., Reinecke, K., & Chaytor, N. S. (2019). Digital neuropsychology: Challenges and opportunities at the intersection of science and software. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 33(2), 271-286.
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1166-1186.
Chaytor, N., & Schmitter-Edgecombe, M. (2003). The ecological validity of neuropsychological tests: A review of the literature on everyday cognitive skills. Neuropsychology Review, 13(4), 181-197.
Guilmette, T. J., Sweet, J. J., Hebben, N., Koltai, D., Mahone, E. M., Spiegler, B. J., Stucky, K., Westerveld, M., & Conference Participants. (2020). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology consensus conference statement on uniform labeling of performance test scores. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 34(3), 437-453. doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2020.1722244

Appendix C. How to read this report

Percentile: The percentage of adults your age who scored at or below your score. The 50th percentile is exactly average.
Positions in words: Phrases such as "in the lowest 7 in 100 for your age" restate your percentile in words. "Roughly" means the 90% range for that test is wide, so the position could shift on another day.
Standard score: A score on a scale where 100 is average and 15 points is one standard deviation. About two thirds of adults score between 85 and 115.
90% range: Because no test is perfectly reliable, your true level is likely to fall within this range nine times out of ten.
Descriptors: Exceptionally low (below the 2nd percentile), Below average (2nd to 8th), Low average (9th to 24th), Average (25th to 75th), High average (76th to 90th), Above average (91st to 97th), Exceptionally high (98th and above). These follow the AACN consensus ^[19].
Descriptive results: Some tasks do not yet have adult norms. Their raw scores are shown but not compared with other people.
Base rate: An estimate, from a statistical model of healthy adults, of how often they would obtain the same number of low scores when taking the same number of tests. Some low scores are normal ^[1].
Evidence labels: Strong: supported by meta-analyses or several randomised trials. Moderate: part of a tested programme, or studied in the general population or in children. Practice-based: a common routine without its own trials.

How this sample was made

Alex's answers and test scores were chosen by hand to show one clear case, then scored by the same norms that score every report. The English and Spanish reports were generated separately, each in its own language.

The engine computed the results, the evidence levels, the key findings and the plan. The report model wrote the prose around them, and the engine's checks and a second model review passed it. The text is the engine's own; wording may change as the engine improves.

How scoring works →