CLD Cognitive Battery Guide — KABC-II, Batería IV, WISC-V, WPPSI-IV, WJ-V

Student / Evaluation Factor	KABC-II	Batería IV	WISC-V	WPPSI-IV	WJ-V COG
Language Profile
Spanish-dominant EB — Spanish stronger language	MPI/NVI; pair w/ Batería ACH	Primary choice	NVI only; limit verbal tasks	NVI if K–1; limit verbal	NV battery (coming soon)
Bilingual — roughly balanced, English emerging	MPI preferred; reduces Gc confound	Consider if Spanish norms better fit	GAI or NVI; avoid FSIQ	NVI or Gf if K–1	Gc clusters separable
English-dominant — adequate conversational English		Normed on Spanish speakers	FSIQ appropriate; GAI if Gc low	If K–1
Non-Spanish L1 (e.g., Vietnamese, Arabic, Amharic)	NVI or MPI — best fit	Spanish norms don't apply	NVI preferred	NVI if K–1	Nonverbal clusters only until NV released
Language dominance unclear / WMLS CLI inconclusive	MPI minimizes language load	Only if Spanish is clearly stronger	NVI; document rationale	NVI if K–1	Minimize verbal clusters
Age & Grade
Kindergarten or 1st grade (ages 5:0–7:7)	Usable; WPPSI-IV often better clinical fit	Batería IV starts at 5; check norms	WISC-V starts 6:0; WPPSI-IV preferred	Best fit; NVI & Gf subtests for CLD	WJ-V starts at 2; floor effects less concern
Ages 6–16 (typical SLD age range)				WPPSI-IV tops out at 7:7; use WISC-V after
Ages 17–18+ (transition, older reevals)	Norms extend to 18:11	Check upper age norms	Norms to 16:11; WAIS-IV for 17+	Not appropriate above 7:7	Norms to 90+
Evaluation Purpose
SLD identification — C-SEP / PSW approach	Fully supports C-SEP; MPI for EB	CHC clusters align with C-SEP	Index scores map to CHC/C-SEP	Supports C-SEP for K–1 SLD	Strong CHC alignment
Intellectual Disability (ID) evaluation	FCI + adaptive; MPI if language confound	Pair with ABAS-3 Spanish or Vineland-3	FSIQ primary; NVI supplemental	Age-appropriate but limited floor for severe ID	GIA primary
Student with significant language disorder (SI)	NVI — removes language demands entirely	Some subtests still require verbal response	NVI; note verbal subtest limitations	Avoid verbal composites	Select nonverbal clusters
Autism (AU) evaluation — communication limitations	NVI — most language-reduced option	Verbal demands may be a confound	NVI or select index; note limits	NVI if K–1	Nonverbal clusters
CLD-Specific Considerations
Minimal verbal response required	NVI uses only nonverbal subtests	Some subtests are nonverbal; others require Spanish	NVI achievable	NVI achievable	Select nonverbal clusters; NV battery coming
Crystallized knowledge (Gc) likely suppressed by limited exposure	Luria/MPI excludes Gc entirely	Gc normed on Spanish-speaking sample	Use GAI (excludes WMI/PSI) or NVI; avoid FSIQ	Avoid VCI composites; use Gf or NVI	Gc clusters reported separately; interpret selectively
Pairs with Spanish achievement battery	Pairs well with Batería IV ACH; cross-battery interpretation needed	Designed to pair with Batería IV ACH	Not designed as a pair	Not designed as a pair	Batería IV COG is the Spanish WJ-V equivalent
C-SEP documentation — language difference vs. disorder	MPI + NVI discrepancy helps isolate language from ability	Spanish norms strongest for ruling out language difference	NVI useful; document selection reasoning	NVI useful; document rationale	Selective cluster interpretation; document

✅ Strong fit / primary choice ◑ Conditional — see note — Not recommended / not applicable

🧠

KABC-II

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd Ed.

Ages 3–18:11

Composites SS · M=100

Subtests Scaled · M=10

CLD Advantage

Luria model (MPI) completely excludes the Knowledge/Gc scale — the most common language and culture-loaded cluster. NVI uses only nonverbal subtests. Best all-around choice for CLD students across most evaluation scenarios.

Key Composites for CLD

MPI (Luria) NVI FCI (CHC)

FIE Model Selection Note

Model must be selected before testing and documented in the FIE. For most CLD and EB students, MPI is the recommended primary composite.

Primary CLD battery Fully wired in FIE Report Writer. See KABC-II Reference ↗

🌎

Batería IV COG

Batería IV Woodcock-Muñoz — Pruebas de Habilidades Cognitivas

Ages 2–90+

Clusters SS · M=100

Subtests W-score based

CLD Advantage

Normed on native Spanish speakers — the only CHC-aligned cognitive battery with a Spanish-language normative sample. Designed to pair with Batería IV ACH for a complete Spanish-language evaluation.

Key Clusters

GIA BIA Gc · Gf · Gwm · Gs · Gl · Gv

When to Use

Spanish-dominant EB student whose language dominance is clearly Spanish per WMLS-R CLI (≥15 pt difference). Strongest choice for ruling out language difference vs. disorder in Spanish speakers.

Spanish-dominant EB Wired in FIE Report Writer. Pair with Batería IV ACH for achievement. See Bilingual Hub ↗

📐

WISC-V

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 5th Ed.

Ages 6:0–16:11

Index scores SS · M=100

Subtests Scaled · M=10

CLD Approach

FSIQ is rarely the right primary composite for CLD students. Use NVI (nonverbal subtests only) when verbal demands are a confound, or GAI (excludes WMI and PSI) when Gc exposure suppresses the full-scale score. Document composite selection rationale in the FIE.

CLD-Relevant Composites

NVI GAI VSI FRI

Limitation

No Spanish normative sample. Normed on U.S. English-speaking population. VCI and Gc-loaded subtests should be interpreted cautiously or excluded for language-minority students.

Use NVI or GAI for CLD Wired in FIE Report Writer. Avoid FSIQ as primary for Spanish-dominant EB students.

🌱

WPPSI-IV

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, 4th Ed.

Ages 2:6–7:7

Index scores SS · M=100

Subtests Scaled · M=10

CLD Advantage for K–1

Better developmental calibration than WISC-V for kindergarten and 1st grade — especially when assessing SLD in young students. NVI removes verbal demands entirely. Gf subtests (Matrix Reasoning, Picture Concepts) are less language-loaded than VCI tasks.

CLD-Relevant Composites

NVI FRI (ages 4–7:7) VSI

K–1 SLD Use Case

For CLD students in kindergarten or 1st grade being assessed for SLD — especially dyslexia — WPPSI-IV is the better clinical fit over WISC-V. NVI or Gf composites provide the ability estimate; pair with CTOPP-2, TOWRE-2, and achievement data.

K–1 SLD evaluations Wired in FIE Report Writer. See WPPSI-IV Reference ↗

🔬

WJ-V COG

Woodcock-Johnson V Tests of Cognitive Abilities

Ages 2–90+

Clusters SS · M=100

Subtests W-score based

Current CLD Use

The full WJ-V COG provides strong CHC cluster separation — Gc clusters (Comprehension-Knowledge) can be interpreted selectively or excluded from the ability estimate when language exposure is a confound. Not a primary CLD battery in its current form.

Nonverbal Battery — Coming Summer 2026

Riverside is releasing a dedicated WJ-V Nonverbal battery. When available, this will provide a fully language-free ability estimate within the WJ-V CHC framework — a significant addition for CLD and language-disordered evaluations.

CLD-Relevant Clusters (Current)

Gf (Fluid Reasoning) Gv (Visual Processing) Gwm (Working Memory)

📝

Documenting Battery Selection Rationale

The FIE must document why a specific battery or composite was selected — especially when departing from the default instrument (e.g., selecting MPI over FCI, or choosing NVI over FSIQ). This is part of the §89.1040 ruling-out requirement for EB students.

"The KABC-II was administered using the Luria model (MPI) because [Student] is an emergent bilingual student whose English language proficiency may affect performance on tasks that measure crystallized knowledge accumulated through English language educational experiences. The MPI provides a more linguistically equitable estimate of [pronoun] cognitive processing abilities."

🌎

Ruling Out Language Difference vs. Disorder

For EB students, §89.1040 requires the ARD to rule out that the educational need is primarily the result of limited English proficiency. The FIE must address this directly using assessment data — not just state that it was considered.

Strongest evidence pattern: Batería IV COG (Spanish norms) + Batería IV ACH showing consistent weakness in both languages → not attributable to language difference alone.

Supporting evidence: WMLS-R CLI confirming dominant language; TELPAS data; performance consistency across language contexts; developmental and academic history in L1.

⚖️

Which Composite to Report for Eligibility

KABC-II: Report MPI as primary for EB/CLD students. FCI may be reported as secondary. NVI can be noted as a supplemental data point when verbal demands are a significant confound.

WISC-V: For CLD students, report NVI or GAI as primary; note limitations of FSIQ. Document which composite is being used for eligibility decision-making.

Batería IV COG: Report GIA or BIA as primary. Gc clusters should be interpreted in the context of Spanish language educational exposure — not treated as pure ability estimates.

WPPSI-IV: For K–1 CLD students, NVI or FRI is appropriate as the primary ability estimate in an SLD evaluation.

🗣️ Language Dominance & Proficiency

Determine dominant language via WMLS-R CLI before selecting battery — ≥15 point difference = dominant; below = inconclusive

Spanish-dominant → Batería IV COG is the primary option; KABC-II MPI/NVI is a strong secondary

Non-Spanish L1 → KABC-II NVI or WISC-V NVI; no normed Spanish option is appropriate

Unclear dominance → document in FIE; use most language-reduced composite available

📅 Age & Grade Level

K–1 (ages 5–7:7): WPPSI-IV is the best clinical fit regardless of CLD status — better floor, better developmental norms

Ages 6–16: full range of options; KABC-II, WISC-V, Batería IV, WJ-V all appropriate

Ages 17+: WISC-V tops out at 16:11; use KABC-II (to 18:11), WJ-V, or WAIS-IV for older students

🎯 Evaluation Question

SLD/dyslexia: any battery works if composite is linguistically appropriate; pair COG with CTOPP-2/TOWRE-2/reading achievement

ID: full-scale composite needed (FCI, GIA, or FSIQ); adaptive behavior required alongside

Language disorder ruling out: Batería IV COG (both languages weak) provides strongest evidence

C-SEP documentation: all five batteries support C-SEP; KABC-II and WJ-V have strongest CHC cluster alignment

🔇 Verbal Response Demands

Student with significant language disorder (SI) or limited verbal output → prioritize NVI (KABC-II or WISC-V/WPPSI-IV)

AU students with communication limitations → KABC-II NVI is the most language-reduced option

Selective mutism or anxiety → NVI; document behavioral context in FIE

WJ-V Nonverbal (coming Summer 2026) will add a CHC-aligned fully nonverbal option

If the student is non-verbal AND has significant fine motor limitations that prevent interaction with manipulatives, even NVI options may not be feasible — see Motor & Physical Access Barriers below

📚 Gc Exposure & Cultural Loading

Limited U.S. schooling → Gc clusters (VCI, Comprehension-Knowledge) will underestimate ability; exclude or report separately

KABC-II MPI excludes Gc entirely — the cleanest solution for students with limited English academic exposure

WISC-V GAI excludes WMI and PSI but still includes VCI — a partial solution, not a complete fix

Batería IV Gc is normed on Spanish speakers — appropriate if the student's L1 is Spanish and schooling has been in Spanish

✋ Motor & Physical Access Barriers

All five batteries require some degree of motor response — pointing, placing manipulatives, or producing hand gestures; NVI reduces verbal demands but does not eliminate physical access demands

Student who is non-verbal AND has significant fine motor limitations (e.g., cannot interact with manipulatives or complete required hand movements for subtests like KABC-II Hand Movements) — no standard norm-referenced cognitive battery may be feasible to administer

In these cases, the DP-4 (Developmental Profile 4) can serve as a substitute data source: parent and teacher questionnaires capture information about cognitive, adaptive, and developmental functioning without requiring direct motor or verbal response from the student

DP-4 does not yield a norm-referenced cognitive composite — it provides developmental and functional data; document clearly in the FIE that it is being used as supplemental information about processing, not as an ability estimate

FIE must document: (1) why standard cognitive testing was not feasible, (2) what accommodations or alternatives were considered and ruled out, and (3) how DP-4 data was used alongside other evaluation sources to inform eligibility — this supports the §89.1040 requirement for appropriate assessment procedures

📋 C-SEP & §89.1040 Documentation

Battery selection rationale must be documented in the FIE — not just the results

For EB students: ruling out language difference as primary cause requires data from both languages when possible

WMLS-R CLI, TELPAS, and developmental history in L1 all support the ruling-out documentation

See Bilingual Hub for full C-SEP framework and §89.1040 language