A psychological assessment report is the psychologist’s written answer to a referral question: what was tested, what the results show, what they mean, and what should happen next. Copy the free template, see a university student assessed for a reading disorder and ADHD and an adult assessed after a stress leave, and learn to write each section for the person who will read it.
Blank psychological assessment report template
FreePSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT Confidential Client: [Full name, date of birth, age at testing] Dates of assessment: [Testing dates and total hours of direct contact] Date of report: [Date] Assessed by: [Psychologist name, credentials, registration or license number] Supervised by: [Name and credentials, or not applicable] Referral source: [Physician, school, self, lawyer, employer, or other] REFERRAL QUESTION Questions to answer: [Each question the assessment must answer, as the referrer framed it] Why now: [The event or concern that prompted the referral] Intended use: [Diagnosis, treatment planning, accommodations, or another decision the report will inform] CONSENT AND REPORT RECIPIENTS Informed consent: [Purpose, procedures, fees, and limits of confidentiality explained; date consent was signed] Report recipients: [Who receives the full report and who receives a summary letter, with written consent for each] Feedback: [Date of the feedback session, and who attended] SOURCES OF INFORMATION Interviews: [Client, and each informant with consent and their relationship] Records reviewed: [Report cards, earlier assessments, medical or work records] Tests administered: [Each test by full name and edition, with the date given] BACKGROUND Presenting concerns: [The problems as the client describes them, with onset and course] Developmental history: [Pregnancy, birth, milestones, early concerns, or not known] Educational history: [Schools, grades, learning support, earlier testing, highest level completed] Medical history: [Conditions, medications, vision, hearing, sleep, head injury] Psychiatric history: [Earlier diagnoses, therapy, medication, hospital stays] Family history: [Learning, attention, mood, and substance use problems in relatives] Social and occupational: [Household, relationships, work or study, culture and first language] Substance use: [Alcohol, cannabis, other drugs, and caffeine or medication on testing days] BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS AND VALIDITY Presentation: [Appearance, rapport, speech, mood, and affect during testing] Test-taking behavior: [Effort, attention, pace, frustration, and strategies you saw] Testing conditions: [Language of testing, glasses or hearing aids, breaks, and any departure from standard procedure] Validity: [Performance and symptom validity results, and whether the scores fairly estimate current functioning] RESULTS Score ranges used: [The descriptive scheme applied to every test, such as standard scores of 90 to 109 called average] Intellectual functioning: [Test, index scores, percentile ranks, and descriptive ranges] Academic achievement: [Test, composites and subtests, standard scores, percentile ranks, and ranges] Attention and executive functioning: [Self and observer rating scales as T-scores, and any performance tasks] Memory and processing: [Tests and scores, or not assessed] Emotional and personality functioning: [Inventories and screens: validity scales, then clinical elevations] INTEGRATED INTERPRETATION Findings by question: [What scores, history, and observations show together, grouped under each referral question] Strengths: [Abilities and resources the client can build on] Where sources disagree: [Any conflict between tests, informants, or history, and how you weighed it] DIAGNOSTIC CONCLUSIONS Diagnoses: [Each diagnosis with specifiers and severity, and the code where you use codes] Basis: [How each diagnostic requirement is met, summarized in your own words] Considered and ruled out: [Other conditions, and why they explain the findings less well] Answers to the referral questions: [A direct yes, no, or partly to each question] RECOMMENDATIONS Treatment: [Therapy, medication review, or other care, and who provides it] Accommodations: [Each accommodation at school or work, tied to the finding that supports it] Strategies and supports: [Skills training, technology, coaching, or community services] Follow-up: [Reassessment if needed, and when] SUMMARY FOR THE CLIENT Plain-language summary: [What we looked at, what we found, what it means for you, and what happens next] Signed: [Psychologist name, credentials, registration or license number, date]
Use it for
Each one follows the template. Use them to judge how much detail every part needs.
Private psychology practice, psychoeducational assessment of a university student, three sessions
Maya Lindqvist, born March 2, 2007, age 19, second-year history student. Assessed October 13, 16, and 20, 2026; 9 hours of direct contact. Report finalized November 6. Self-referred on the advice of her university’s accessibility services office after she failed two timed midterms last year while earning As and Bs on take-home essays. Questions: does she have a learning disorder or ADHD, and which accommodations would help?
Purpose, procedures, fees, and limits of confidentiality explained; consent signed October 13. Full report to Maya. With her written consent, a copy to accessibility services, and a one-page letter to her family physician about the attention findings. Feedback session November 4 with Maya; her mother joined for the last 20 minutes at Maya’s request.
Tutored for slow, effortful reading in grades 2 to 4; never formally tested. Report cards, grades 1 to 9: “reads slowly,” “careless errors,” “often daydreams,” “needs reminders to start work.” Her mother confirms this and read textbook chapters aloud to her through high school. Born at term, normal milestones. Eye exam 6 months ago: glasses, vision corrected; hearing normal. No head injury, medications, or earlier mental health care. Sleeps 7 to 8 hours. Her father struggled with reading at school; a cousin has ADHD. English is her only language. Lives with two roommates; works 10 hours a week at a café. 2 or 3 drinks a week, no cannabis; one coffee each testing morning.
Friendly and cooperative. Read aloud slowly, sounding out longer words, self-correcting often, and tracking lines with her finger. Asked for instructions to be repeated twice on longer tasks; shifted in her chair and checked the clock, more in the afternoon. Effort good throughout. Tested in English, wearing her glasses, with a break every 50 minutes. TOMM within expected limits; CAARS 2 validity indicators normal. Scores are a valid estimate of her current functioning.
WAIS-5; WIAT-4; CTOPP-2; Nelson-Denny Reading Test; CAARS 2, self-report and observer form completed by her mother; TOMM; PHQ-9; GAD-7. Clinical interview with Maya, interview with her mother by phone, and review of report cards.
Ranges used: standard scores 110 to 119 high average, 90 to 109 average, 80 to 89 low average, 70 to 79 very low; T-scores 65 to 69 elevated, 70 and above very elevated. WAIS-5: Verbal Comprehension 112, 79th percentile, high average; Visual Spatial 106, 66th, average; Fluid Reasoning 110, 75th, high average; Working Memory 94, 34th, average; Processing Speed 86, 18th, low average; Full Scale IQ 105, 63rd, average; General Ability 111, 77th, high average. WIAT-4: Word Reading 82, 12th, low average; Pseudoword Decoding 76, 5th, very low; Oral Reading Fluency 74, 4th, very low; Reading Comprehension 93, 32nd, average; Spelling 81, 10th, low average; Essay Composition 99, 47th, average; Math Problem Solving 104, 61st, average. CTOPP-2: Phonological Awareness 82, 12th; Rapid Symbolic Naming 76, 5th. Nelson-Denny comprehension: 9th percentile in standard time, 46th with extended time. CAARS 2 inattention and executive dysfunction: self T 76, mother T 72, both very elevated; hyperactivity and impulsivity T 55 to 61, not elevated. PHQ-9 6. GAD-7 9.
Maya reasons well, with high average verbal and reasoning skills. Against that, her word reading, decoding, reading speed, and spelling are low average to very low, with weak phonological awareness and slow rapid naming: the pattern of dyslexia. It has been present since grade 2 and persisted despite three years of tutoring. Her comprehension holds up only with time, rising from the 9th to the 46th percentile. Separately, she and her mother describe inattention since early school at home, in class, and at work, with very elevated ratings from both and no hyperactivity. Slow processing speed and inattention add to the reading load in timed exams. Her exam worry is real, but it followed years of reading difficulty and doesn’t explain the pattern.
1. Specific learning disorder with impairment in reading: word reading accuracy and reading rate or fluency; moderate. F81.0. Reading skills well below the level expected for her age on standardized tests, since early school years, persisting despite targeted help, and interfering with her studies; not explained by intellectual ability, vision, hearing, lack of teaching, or language. 2. ADHD, predominantly inattentive presentation, moderate. F90.0. 7 of 9 inattentive symptoms over the past 6 months, several before age 12 by report cards and her mother, in at least two settings, with clear impact. Ruled out: generalized anxiety disorder, as worry is limited to exams; depression, with no episode and PHQ-9 of 6. Answers: yes to both questions; accommodations follow.
Accommodations, each tied to a finding: 50% extra time on tests and exams, for reading fluency at the 4th percentile and slow processing speed; a separate, low-distraction room, for inattention; text-to-speech software and readings in accessible digital formats, for slow decoding; lecture recordings, for lapses in attention during long lectures; spelling not marked down on timed in-class writing unless spelling is being tested. Treatment: a review of ADHD treatment options with her family physician. Supports: sessions with the campus learning strategist on planning and assistive technology; a reduced course load in heavy-reading terms if she chooses. Retesting isn’t needed unless her needs change.
Maya, your reasoning and verbal skills are strong. Reading words quickly and accurately has always been hard for you: that is dyslexia, the common name for a learning disorder in reading. You also have ADHD, mostly the inattentive kind, which makes it hard to stay focused and get started. Neither has anything to do with how bright you are. With extra time, a quiet room, and text-to-speech, your exam marks should come closer to your essay marks. Next steps: take this report to accessibility services, and book a visit with your doctor to talk about ADHD treatment.
Outpatient psychology clinic, referral from a family physician, two sessions
Daniel Okafor, born June 18, 1981, age 45, operations manager at a food distribution company; married, two teenage children. Assessed October 22 and 29, 2026; 6 hours of direct contact. Referred by Dr. Ines Marquez, family physician. On leave since September 8, after a heated meeting with his new director and a poor performance review. Questions: is this depression or burnout; are personality factors behind his repeated conflicts at work; and what treatment would help him return?
Consent signed October 22, after explaining purpose, fees, and limits of confidentiality. Full report to Mr. Okafor and Dr. Marquez. His disability insurer asked for the report; at his request, they receive a one-page letter instead, with the diagnosis, current limits, the treatment plan, and an expected return date, and no test scores or history. Feedback session November 5.
Low mood, waking at 4 a.m., fatigue, poor concentration, guilt about “letting the team down,” loss of interest in cycling and his church choir, and 8 kg weight loss since June, when a restructuring doubled his team. Worked 60-hour weeks and rewrote his staff’s reports himself. Three earlier conflicts with managers in 15 years, each over “cutting corners.” His wife, interviewed by phone with his consent, describes him as “the most reliable person I know, and impossible to help.” Treated hypertension. Bloodwork, including thyroid, normal in September. Started sertraline 50 mg daily from Dr. Marquez 5 weeks ago; sleep slightly better. No earlier mental health care. Father had untreated depression. Two beers most evenings since the leave, up from weekends only; no other drugs.
Arrived early, formally dressed, polite. Speech slow and soft. Mood “drained”; affect constricted, tearful describing the meeting with his director. Took 75 minutes over the PAI, rereading items to be sure of each answer. Effort good. PAI validity: ICN 54, INF 47, NIM 63, PIM 38, all within acceptable limits. NIM is modestly raised, as is common in depression, and doesn’t suggest exaggeration. Scores are a valid estimate of his current functioning.
SCID-5-CV for mood, anxiety, and substance use; SCID-5-PD; PAI; BDI-II; GAD-7; C-SSRS screen. Clinical interview with Mr. Okafor, phone interview with his wife, and review of Dr. Marquez’s referral and bloodwork.
BDI-II 27, moderate range. GAD-7 12, moderate. C-SSRS screen: passive wish to be dead in the past month; no active thoughts, plan, intent, or behavior. PAI T-scores, mean 50, with 70 and above clinically significant: DEP 76, physiological subscale highest at 77; ARD obsessive-compulsive subscale 72; STR 71; ANX 69; SUI 61; BOR 57; ALC 52; ANT 42; RXR 31, a low score that signals motivation for treatment. SCID-5-CV: current major depressive episode; no manic or hypomanic episodes; no separate anxiety disorder; alcohol use below the threshold for a disorder. SCID-5-PD: 3 of the 8 obsessive-compulsive personality criteria at a clinical level, one short of the 4 needed; no other personality disorder.
His account, his wife’s, the interview, and the inventories agree on a major depressive episode that began in June with the restructuring. It is more than burnout: he has lost interest outside work, sleeps badly even on leave, and has lost weight. His high standards, need for control, and difficulty delegating are lifelong, by his and his wife’s accounts. They drove both his success and his three earlier conflicts. They fall short of a personality disorder, but they keep the depression going: he works longer to meet standards no one could meet, then reads each shortfall as failure. Evening drinking worsens his sleep. His motivation for treatment is a clear strength.
Major depressive disorder, single episode, moderate. F32.1. Depressed mood and loss of interest most days for over 4 months, with early waking, weight loss, fatigue, guilt, and poor concentration; clear impact on work and home; not caused by a medical condition, medication, or alcohol. Not diagnosed: obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, 3 of 8 criteria; generalized anxiety disorder, as his worry began with the episode; alcohol use disorder. Noted for treatment: perfectionistic, overcontrolled personality traits. Answers: depression, not burnout alone; personality traits contribute but are not a disorder; treatment as below.
Weekly CBT for depression, 16 to 20 sessions, adding work on perfectionism and delegation once his mood lifts. Ask Dr. Marquez to review the sertraline dose, as his response at 5 weeks is partial. Keep alcohol to weekends, and recheck at 4 weeks. Graded return to work in about 6 weeks if his BDI-II falls below 20: half days for 2 weeks with set hours and a written list of priorities agreed with his director, then full duties over the next 2 weeks. Passive thoughts of death reviewed at each session; crisis line 988, call or text, or the nearest emergency department. BDI-II and GAD-7 every 4 weeks.
Daniel, the assessment shows you have depression, of moderate severity. It started when your workload doubled in June, and it is very treatable: most people recover with therapy, medication, or both. You hold yourself to very high standards. That has served you well, and it isn’t a disorder, but right now it pushes you to work longer and blame yourself for things you can’t control. Therapy will work on both. We’ll plan your return to work together, step by step.
The questions the assessment exists to answer. Every later section should lead back to them, and the conclusions should answer each one by name.
Avoid: “Psychological assessment requested” as the question. Ask the referrer what decision depends on your answer, and write that down.
What the client agreed to, and who will read the report. Settle this before testing: the reader decides how you write.
Avoid: Sending everything to the referrer by default. A school, employer, or insurer usually needs the conclusions and recommendations, not the history or the scores.
The history the results are read against. For a learning or attention question, early school history matters most; for a mood question, the course of the episode.
Avoid: Pages of history the question doesn’t need. Keep what helps answer it, and leave the rest in your notes.
How the client took the tests, and whether the scores can be trusted.
Avoid: Leaving validity out. If the report doesn’t mention it, the reader can’t tell whether it was checked.
The scores, laid out so a psychologist can check them and anyone can follow them.
Avoid: Raw scores, or a score with no percentile or range. Never copy test items or a publisher’s norm tables into the report.
What the results mean together, read against the history and your observations.
Avoid: Building a conclusion on one low subtest. Look for a pattern that more than one test and the real-life history confirm.
Each diagnosis, its evidence, what was ruled out, and an answer to each question.
Avoid: Hedging when the evidence is clear. If the findings support a diagnosis, say so; if not, say what does explain the problems.
What should happen next, specific enough that the reader can act on it.
Avoid: “Extra time” with no reason. “50% extra time, because reading speed is at the 4th percentile” is harder to refuse.
A plain-language account written to the client. Many clients read only this part.
Avoid: Scores and jargon. Write it the way you explained it at the feedback session.
A paragraph for every test leaves the reader to put the findings together. Organize the interpretation around the referral questions, and bring the scores, history, and observations to each one.
“Processing Speed 86” tells a professor nothing. Add the percentile and range, then what it means: she works more slowly than about 4 in 5 people her age.
If effort or honest reporting is in doubt, so is every score that follows. Report performance and symptom validity, and say whether the results can be trusted.
A list of 20 standard accommodations is easy to ignore. Tie each one to a finding, so an accessibility office or employer can see why it is needed.
Employers and insurers rarely need test scores or family history. With the client’s consent, send a short letter with the diagnosis, limits, and recommendations, and keep the full report for the client and treating clinicians.
Vero Scribe writes the report in your template from the interview, with the client’s consent, or from your dictation after scoring. You review and edit every section, then copy it into your record or export it to Word or PDF. Vero works in 60+ languages.
Start from the referral question and write every section toward answering it. Give the background and observations the results depend on, report each score with its percentile and range, then interpret the findings by question rather than test by test. End with the diagnoses, a direct answer to each question, recommendations tied to findings, and a plain-language summary. Write for the person who will act on it: a professor, a physician, or the client.
Identifying information, the referral question, consent and who receives the report, sources of information and tests given, background history, behavioral observations and validity, results, an integrated interpretation, diagnostic conclusions, recommendations, and a summary for the client. The template follows that order.
A psychoeducational assessment looks at learning: intellectual ability, academic skills such as reading, writing, and math, and often attention, to diagnose learning disorders and plan support at school, college, or university. A psychological assessment is broader and can cover mood, personality, trauma, or diagnostic questions with no link to learning. Both use the same report structure.
Give standard scores, which have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, with percentile ranks and a descriptive range such as average or low average. Rating scales and personality inventories usually use T-scores, with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Name the descriptive scheme once and use it throughout. Leave out raw scores, test items, and norm tables.
Yes. Copy it, or download it as a Word or text file. No account needed.
One psychotherapy session: focus, interventions, client response, risk, and progress toward goals.
A CBT session in its own order: mood check, agenda, homework review, thought or exposure work, new homework, and feedback.
An EMDR session by phase: target, negative and positive cognitions, SUD and VOC, bilateral sets, closure, and reevaluation.
Data, Assessment, Plan: the three-part session note, with the line between facts and judgment made clear.
Goal, Intervention, Response, Plan: a progress note that opens with the treatment plan goal.
Interviews, feedback sessions, and reports, drafted for your review.
The psychiatric assessment of an adult referred for ADHD, with the checks before medication.
Common codes for learning disorders, ADHD, depression, and other diagnoses in your conclusions.
Notes, documents, and follow-up in one workspace.
Vero writes your notes and letters in the templates you choose, so you review instead of type.
No credit card required. 10 free actions every month.