Yet he did markedly better on the verbal tasks.
It is actually not that uncommon for neuropsychs to prorate scores, or give partial clusters, as their training encourages cross-battery assessment (to which I have no intrinsic objection; it can be a good approach for some questions). Typically, though, I would see that kind of result presented as an analysis of functional domains, rather than as an actual Index or IQ score. There are two subtest scores missing here: arithmetic or letter number sequencing, and symbol search or cancellation. (I list two options for each because either one could be the second subtest in an Index score.)
The usual reason for prorating is when there are "spoiled", or invalid subtests, and you don't have enough valid ones to derive a regular index score. Sometimes you see prorating when assessment is part of a university study, and they don't need a comprehensive cognitive, just enough for their data to be clean. (E.g., when they need IQ-matched subjects)
I see that she did a number of projective social-emotional measures. Interpretation of these kinds of measures is highly dependent on the clinical skill of the evaluator, as they are rather subjective. Especially projective drawings, including HTP, etc. (Again, not that I don't employ my fair share of them.). I prefer to view these types of tasks as frameworks for clinical conversations, and opportunities for observing task approaches, with less weight placed on the interpretation of figure size, placement, features, etc. I would imagine that these were part of the basis of her emphasis on anxiety as a concern.
