Maths cognition (dyscalculia) assessment report template for speech and language therapists

A maths cognition assessment report is the document a speech and language therapist sends to the referring doctor after assessing a patient's number sense, calculation and reasoning. In France the profession is orthophoniste, in Belgium logopède. The report sets out the concern, the results by domain, the therapist's diagnostic conclusion and the therapy plan, in language the doctor, the parents and the school can follow.

The rules in France, Belgium and Switzerland

France: what the NGAP says

The NGAP in force on 1 January 2026 (French national health insurance, title IV, chapter II, article 2) lists the act as « Bilan de la cognition mathématique (troubles du calcul, troubles du raisonnement logico-mathématique…) 34 AMO ». It sits under « Bilans avec compte rendu écrit obligatoire » (assessments with a mandatory written report), which adds that a renewal assessment is rated 30% lower. The value of the AMO key letter published by ameli is €2.60 in mainland France and €2.72 overseas since 26 January 2024. For billing rules, see our French page on AMO and NGAP coding.

The NGAP also sets the minimum content. After the assessment, a report stating the speech therapy diagnosis is sent to the prescriber; if therapy sessions are needed, it includes the goals of therapy and the number and type of sessions the orthophoniste decides. For an assessment-only referral, the report comes with the therapist's proposals.

For school support, the French personalised support plan (PAP) requires the opinion of the Education Ministry doctor, who relies on the psychological and allied health reports passed on to them (Mon Parcours Handicap). Precise recommendations in your report make that step easier.

Belgium: article 36 and the approved test list

For a logopède, dyscalculia falls under article 36, § 2, b), 3° of the INAMI nomenclature: dyslexia, dysorthographia and/or dyscalculia in children up to their 14th birthday who have attended primary or secondary school for at least 6 months in the language of treatment. The disorder must be shown by tests giving two scores at or below the criterion values; the tests and criterion values must match the child's school year and appear on the approved list. The text then requires the assessment to report:

• the level of accuracy and/or speed (automation);
• phonological development (only for dyslexia and dysorthographia, so not for dyscalculia alone);
• compensation behaviours, negative attitudes, increased effort;
• the help already given at school and at home.

Section 4, 5° adds that the initial assessment, kept in the patient's file, gives raw scores, the normative interpretation (standard deviation, percentile, delay) and the interpretation of qualitative and quantitative data. It must also name the disorder in the nomenclature's terms and propose treatment (content, plan, start date, frequency, duration, place). See our pages on the article 36 nomenclature and the INAMI test lists.

Switzerland

We found no single federal text setting the content of this report. We advise keeping the same structure and checking the expected format and deadlines with the body funding the treatment.

Summary by country

• France (orthophoniste): medical prescription; NGAP « 34 AMO »; written report to the prescriber with the speech therapy diagnosis; goals, number and type of sessions if therapy follows.
• Belgium (logopède): article 36, § 2, b), 3°; child up to 14; two scores at or below criterion values on an approved test; article 36 features to report; raw scores and normative interpretation.
• Switzerland (logopédiste): format to check with the funding body; same structure advised.

Domains to assess and report

Readers should find each domain under its own heading, with what the child does well, what fails and how they go about it. Strategies matter as much as scores: a correct sum reached by finger counting does not mean the same as a fact retrieved from memory.

• Number and place value: counting, comparing quantities and numbers, number sequence, understanding of base ten (units, tens, hundreds).
• Transcoding: reading, dictation and writing of numbers; note the error type (lexical, such as 6 for 7, or syntactic, such as 30012 for 312).
• Calculation: arithmetic facts, mental calculation, written procedures; accuracy and speed reported separately.
• Problem solving: understanding the wording, representing the situation, choosing the operation, checking the answer.
• Logical reasoning: conservation, seriation, classification, inclusion.
• Estimation: orders of magnitude, number line placement, approximate quantities.
• Visuospatial aspects: setting out and aligning sums, reading tables, telling the time, geometry.

Also note what may explain a low score without being part of the disorder: fatigue late in testing, maths anxiety, language comprehension, attention. These notes guide your proposals for further assessments.

Tests named in this article

The INAMI approved list of maths tests (in force since 1 March 2025) includes TEDI-MATH (ECPA, 2001), TEDI-MATH GRANDS (ECPA, 2015), EXAMATH 5-8 (Happyneuron, 2021), EXAMATH 8-15 (Happyneuron, 2016) and ZAREKI-R (ECPA, 2005), each with its criterion value (for example the 10th percentile or below for EXAMATH 8-15). In France no official list imposes a test; we advise stating the test name, edition, norms used and testing date in the report.

Complete report template to copy

Replace the brackets. Delete headings that do not apply, but keep the order, so the doctor finds the information in the same place from one report to the next.

Header

Maths cognition assessment report. [Initial assessment / renewal assessment]. Patient: [surname, first name], born [date], school year: [year], school: [name]. Referring doctor: [Dr …], prescription dated [date]. Testing dates: [dates]. Therapist (orthophoniste in France, logopède in Belgium): [name, address, registration number].

1. Reason for referral

[Who is asking, why, since when. Quote the concern in the words of the family and the teacher.]

2. History

• Development, health, hearing, vision: [relevant points].
• Schooling: [history, repeated year, support in class, support at home].
• Previous assessments and therapy: [speech therapy, psychomotor therapy, psychological assessment, dates].
• Relationship with maths: [avoidance, anxiety, enjoyment].

3. Clinical observations

[Attitude, attention, fatigue, spontaneous strategies, use of fingers or materials, self-correction.]

4. Results by domain

Tests used: [name, edition, norms]. For each domain: tasks, result (percentile or standard deviation), then one plain sentence.

• Number and place value: [results]; [plain sentence].
• Transcoding: [results, error types]; [plain sentence].
• Calculation: [accuracy, speed, strategies]; [plain sentence].
• Problem solving: [results]; [plain sentence].
• Logical reasoning: [results]; [plain sentence].
• Estimation: [results]; [plain sentence].
• Visuospatial aspects: [results]; [plain sentence].

5. Summary

[Three to six lines: strengths, impaired domains, consistency with the concern and history, impact at school and in daily life.]

6. Speech therapy diagnosis

[Wording chosen by the therapist, severity, associated difficulties to explore. Proposed further assessments.]

7. Therapy plan

[Goals, number and type of sessions, frequency, format, review date. Or: no indication for therapy, advice given.]

8. School recommendations

• [Adjustment 1, concrete and visible in class.]
• [Adjustment 2.]
• [Adjustment 3.]

9. Belgium only

[Place of assessment. Disorder named in the nomenclature's terms (dyscalculie). Approved test matching the school year, raw scores and normative interpretation. Level of accuracy and speed. Compensation behaviours, negative attitudes, increased effort. Help already given at school and at home. Treatment proposal with start date, frequency, duration and place. Use « logopède » and « bilan logopédique » throughout.]

Signature

[Town], [date]. [Name, title, signature.] Report sent to Dr [name]; copy given to the family.

Fully completed fictional example

An invented case. Fictional first name, fictional results, no link to any real patient. In a real report, name the test and its edition.

Header: initial assessment. Lina (fictional name), 9 years 4 months, CM1 (Year 5 equivalent). Referred by Dr X, family doctor. Two testing sessions.

Reason for referral: since the previous year the teacher has noticed very slow calculation and errors when writing large numbers. The parents describe long, tense maths homework.

History: unremarkable development, hearing and vision checked in 2026. Fluent reading according to the school. Small-group maths support last year. No previous assessment. Lina says she is « useless at maths ».

Observations: cooperative, attentive at first, slower after forty minutes. Counts on her fingers for simple additions. Rarely self-corrects.

Results by domain (fictional values):

• Number and place value: number comparison at the 25th percentile; base ten fragile above 1,000 (10th percentile). Lina compares small numbers well but loses the value of digits in large ones.
• Transcoding: number dictation at the 5th percentile, syntactic errors (« two thousand and thirty » written 200030). She writes the number piece by piece, as it sounds.
• Calculation: addition facts correct but slow (5th percentile for speed); times tables poorly available; written procedures correct. She can calculate, but nothing is automatic.
• Problem solving: 20th percentile; errors mostly due to calculation, not to understanding the wording.
• Logical reasoning: within norms (50th percentile).
• Estimation: imprecise placement on a 0 to 1,000 number line (-1.5 standard deviations).
• Visuospatial aspects: sums correctly aligned.

Summary: reasoning and problem understanding preserved. Marked weakness in transcoding and base ten, arithmetic facts not automated, imprecise estimation. These explain the slowness reported in class.

Speech therapy diagnosis: maths cognition disorder affecting transcoding, place value and automation of calculation, moderate in the therapist's judgement. No evidence of a reasoning disorder.

Therapy plan: weekly therapy, 30 sessions. Goals: base ten structure, transcoding up to one million, memorising addition then multiplication facts, estimation. Review at the end of the series.

School recommendations: place value chart and times tables available; extra time or fewer items in calculation; assess reasoning separately from calculation; read problem wording aloud if needed.

Common mistakes

• Scores with no sentence: doctors and parents cannot read « P5 ». Always say what it means for the child.
• A vague diagnosis: « struggles with maths » does not meet the NGAP, which expects the speech therapy diagnosis.
• Accuracy and speed mixed: a child who is right but slow has a different profile from a fast child who makes errors. In Belgium, article 36 requires accuracy and speed to be reported.
• Vague recommendations: « support the child » does not help a teacher. Write a concrete adjustment.

Checklist before sending

To the referring doctor

• Patient identity, prescription date, prescriber's name.
• Initial or renewal assessment stated.
• Tests named with edition and norms; testing dates.
• Results by domain, each followed by a plain sentence.
• Speech therapy diagnosis written in full.
• Goals, number and type of sessions, or no indication for therapy.
• Further assessments proposed, if any.
• In Belgium: approved test, raw scores, normative interpretation, article 36 features, dated treatment proposal.

To the parents

• A summary they can read without knowing the tests.
• The child's strengths, not only the weaknesses.
• School recommendations they can pass on for a PAP.
• A feedback appointment offered. For UK-style reports, see our speech and language therapy report guide.

Why Delta fits this report

Delta writes your assessment reports in your own vocabulary and structure, learned from your existing reports. You dictate your observations after testing, or add your written notes and results, and it produces the report heading by heading. It does not calculate scores or code acts: percentiles, analysis and the diagnosis stay yours. The patient record then keeps the memory of the follow-up, which helps at the renewal assessment. Data stays in Europe, in France, on infrastructure certified for health data, and the patient's name is pseudonymised before the AI. For other templates, see our clinical document templates and our stuttering assessment report template.

Sources

• Assurance Maladie, NGAP, version in force on 01/01/2026, title IV, chapter II, article 2 (French)
• ameli.fr, agreed fees for speech therapists (from 26 January 2024, French)
• INAMI, article 36 of the nomenclature, consolidated text (French)
• INAMI, approved list of maths tests (01/03/2025, French)
• Mon Parcours Handicap, the personalised support plan (updated 10/07/2026, French)