WJ results are more interpretable when standard scores are provided. I am generally leery of using the age/grade-equivalent scores (professional test interpretation standards call for avoiding age/grade equivalents, except in very specific circumstances, with tests designed for that purpose--which the WJ is not). Based on my experience with the instrument, I will say that these scores appear to be generally age-appropriate. Also, I would be extremely cautious about any institution that claims to use the WJ (any version of it; the current one is WJIV) as a pre-/post-test for an intervention or tutoring regimen. These kinds of tests are not designed for that use (indeed, they are not designed for any kind of administration at intervals of less than six months, if achievement tests, and at intervals of less than two years, if cognitive tests), and thus, due to test/retest effects, they are highly likely to result in higher scores on the second administration regardless of the real-life effectiveness of the intervention or tutoring.
Yes, most of her testing is comfortably average, both cognitively and academically, though at the cluster level, this is not extremely unusual variation in testing results compared to her prior testing. I do see a couple of inconsistencies with regard to reading: phonological processing is somewhat inconsistent, with phoneme isolation mildly low, oral reading rate is low, and a moderately sizable difference was obtained between reading and listening comprehension, of over a standard deviation. At the same time, some of her other decoding and word calling skills are at or above age-expectation. I believe we discussed some of her internal variation in your earlier thread regarding the WPPSI/WRAT data.
Perhaps you could clarify the KBIT2 results. Is the composite score a standard score or percentile? Are the "unexpectednesses" the verbal and nonverbal scores from the KBIT2?
