Skip to content
Hayven
Learning CenterChild Assessments

3.6 Interpreting Assessment Results

6 min read

Collecting data is only half the job; interpreting it correctly is what turns raw scores and observations into something clinically useful. Interpretation means synthesizing information across sources -- history, interview, direct observation, and any formal tools used -- rather than reading any single piece in isolation.

A few interpretation principles are worth building as habits from the start. First, always interpret scores or observations relative to appropriate norms -- a child's raw score means very little without knowing what is typical for their age (and, where relevant, their linguistic and cultural background). Second, look for convergence and divergence across your data sources: when caregiver report, direct observation, and any formal testing all point in the same direction, you can be more confident in your conclusion; when they diverge, that divergence itself needs to be explained rather than ignored or resolved by simply picking whichever source seems most convenient.

Third, always consider alternative explanations before settling on a conclusion. If a child performs poorly on a language assessment, ask whether this reflects a genuine language difficulty, or whether it might instead reflect limited exposure to the assessment language, situational anxiety, fatigue, or a tool poorly matched to the child's background (this connects directly back to Module 1.5 on cultural and environmental context). A good interpretation actively rules out plausible alternative explanations rather than jumping to the first plausible one.

Fourth, distinguish between a delay in degree and a difference in kind. A child who is behind peers in vocabulary size is showing a delay in degree; a child who uses language in an unusual way (for example, repeating phrases from videos out of context, known as scripting) may be showing a difference in kind that calls for a different clinical framework altogether, even if both children technically score "below average" on the same test.

Finally, interpretation should always result in a clear clinical formulation -- a short, coherent statement that ties the findings together and points toward next steps (for example: "Findings are consistent with an isolated, mild expressive language delay in the context of typical receptive language, cognitive skills, and social engagement; recommend speech-language referral and re-screening in three months" versus a vague "child seems delayed"). If you cannot summarize your interpretation in a few clear sentences, it usually means the interpretation isn't finished yet.

Practical takeaway: Before finalizing an interpretation, explicitly write out at least one alternative explanation for your main finding and explain why you ruled it out (or didn't). This habit alone substantially reduces interpretation errors.

This guide is general information, not a diagnosis or medical advice. If you're worried about your child, the next step is a conversation with a qualified therapist.