Search

The latent factor structure of the German Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth edition (German WISC-V) was examined using complementary hierarchical exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) with Schmid and Leiman transformation and confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) for all reported models from the German WISC-V Technical Manual and rival bifactor models using the standardization sample (N = 1,087) correlation matrix of the 15 primary and secondary subtests. EFA results did not support a fifth factor (Fluid Reasoning). A four-factor model with the dominant general intelligence (g) factor resembling the WISC-IV was supported by EFA. CFA results indicated the best representation was a bifactor model with four group factors, complementing EFA results. Present EFA and CFA results replicated other independent assessments of standardization and clinical samples of the United States and international versions of the WISC-V and indicated primary, if not exclusive, interpretation of the Full Scale IQ as an estimate of g. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses conceptual and methodological shortcomings regarding conducting and interpreting intelligence test factor analytic research that appeared in the Decker, S. L., Bridges, R. M., Luedke, J. C., & Eason, M. J. (2020). Dimensional evaluation of cognitive measures: Methodological confounds and theoretical concerns. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. Advance online publication article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Bullying Participant Behavior Questionnaire is a 50 item self-report survey designed to measure engagement in five bullying roles: bully, victim, assistant to the bully, defender of the victim, and outsider. The goal of the current study was to examine the higher-order factor structure of the BPBQ in a large middle school sample of 784 primarily White sixth- through eighth-grade students from the Midwest region of the United States. Analyses suggested that the Victim, Defender, and Outsider items loaded on their theoretically consistent factors and the Bully and Assistant items all loaded on a single factor (Bully/Assistant). Some factor correlations were moderate and suggested the presence of higher-order factor(s). A second-order EFA showed there appear to be two higher-order factors. Factor 1 is a combination of the Bully/Assistant and Outsider dimensions while Factor 2 is a combination of Defender and Victim dimensions. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the best fitting model consisted of the two general factors. There was a Pro-bully factor consisting of the Bully, Assistant, and Outsider group factors and a Pro-victim factor consisting of the Victim and Defender factors. There is support for the use of the BPBQ, but additional refinement of the items is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Independent exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) research with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition (WISC-V) standardization sample has failed to provide support for the five group factors proposed by the publisher, but there have been no independent examinations of the WISC-V structure among clinical samples. The present study examined the latent structure of the 10 WISC-V primary subtests with a large (N = 2,512), bifurcated clinical sample (EFA, n = 1,256; CFA, n = 1,256). EFA did not support five factors as there were no salient subtest factor pattern coefficients on the fifth extracted factor. EFA indicated a four-factor model resembling the WISC-IV with a dominant general factor. A bifactor model with four group factors was supported by CFA as suggested by EFA. Variance estimates from both EFA and CFA found that the general intelligence factor dominated subtest variance and omega-hierarchical coefficients supported interpretation of the general intelligence factor. In both EFA and CFA, group factors explained small portions of common variance and produced low omega-hierarchical subscale coefficients, indicating that the group factors were of poor interpretive value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is inadequate information regarding the factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth UK Edition (WISC‐VUK; Wechsler, 2016a, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children‐Fifth UK Edition, Harcourt Assessment, London, UK) to guide interpretation. Aims and methods: The WISC‐VUK was examined using complementary exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for all models proposed by Wechsler (2016b, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children‐Fifth UK Edition: Administration and scoring manual, Harcourt Assessment, London, UK) as well as rival bifactor models. Sample: The WISC‐VUK standardization sample (N = 415) correlation matrix was used in analyses due to denial of standardization sample raw data. Results: EFA did not support a theoretically posited fifth factor because only one subtest (Matrix Reasoning) had a salient pattern coefficient on the fifth factor. A model with four group factors and a general intelligence factor resembling the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition (WISC‐IV; Wechsler, 2003, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children‐Fourth Edition, Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX, USA) was supported by both EFA and CFA. General intelligence (g) was the dominant source of subtest variance and large omega‐hierarchical coefficients supported interpretation of the Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) score. In contrast, the four group factors accounted for small portions of subtest variance and low omega‐hierarchical subscale coefficients indicated that the four‐factor index scores were of questionable interpretive value independent of g. Present results replicated independent assessments of the Canadian, Spanish, French, and US versions of the WISC‐V (Canivez, Watkins, & Dombrowski, 2016, Psychological Assessment, 28, 975; 2017, Psychological Assessment, 29, 458; Fennollar‐Cortés & Watkins, 2018, International Journal of School & Educational Psychology; Lecerf & Canivez, 2018, Psychological Assessment; Watkins, Dombrowski, & Canivez, 2018, International Journal of School and Educational Psychology). Conclusion: Primary interpretation of the WISC‐VUK should be of the FSIQ as an estimate of general intelligence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When the Differential Ability Scales–Second Edition (DAS-II) was developed, the instrument's content, structure, and theoretical orientation were amended. Despite these changes, the Technical Handbook did not report results from exploratory factor analytic investigations, and confirmatory factor analyses were implemented using selected subtests across the normative age groups from the total battery. To address these omissions, the present study investigated the theoretical structure of the DAS-II using principal axis factoring followed by the Schmid–Leiman procedure with participants from the 5- to 8-year-old age range to determine the degree to which the DAS-II theoretical structure proposed in the Technical Handbook could be replicated. Unlike other age ranges investigated where at most 14 subtests were administered, the entire DAS-II battery was normed on participants aged 5 to 8 years, making it well suited to test the full instrument's alignment with theory. Results suggested a six-factor solution that was essentially consistent with the Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC)-based theoretical structure suggested by the test publisher and simple structure was attained. The only exception involved two subtests (Picture Similarities and Early Number Concepts) that did not saliently load on a group factor. Implications for clinical practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition, Italian adaptation (WISC-IV Itaian; Orsini, Pezzuti, & Picone, 2012; Wechsler, 2012) standardization sample was examined with exploratory factor analytic methods (EFA) not included in the Technical Manual. Principal-axis extraction followed by oblique rotation using five-, four-, three-, and two-factor solutions all produced relatively similar results. None of the extraction criteria supported the retention of four factors, as suggested by the WISC–IV Italian Technical Manual. However, when the four-factor structure was subjected to second-order factor analysis and transformed with the Schmid and Leiman (1957) orthogonalization procedure, the hierarchical g factor accounted for large portions of total and common variance, while the four first-order group factors accounted for small portions of total and common variance, rendering interpretation at the factor index level of questionable value. Clinicians who use the WISC-IV Italian should recognize the strong measurement of general intelligence yielded by the scale and clinical interpretation should avoid the overinterpretation of factor index scores that conflate group factor variance with general intelligence variance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This study examined the factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children‐Fifth Edition (WISC‐V) with four standardization sample age groups (6–8, 9–11, 12–14, 15–16 years) using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), multiple factor extraction criteria, and hierarchical EFA not included in the WISC‐V Technical and Interpretation Manual. Factor extraction criteria suggested that one to four factors might be sufficient despite the publisher‐promoted, five‐factor solution. Forced extraction of five factors resulted in only one WISC‐V subtest obtaining a salient pattern coefficient on the fifth factor in all four groups, rendering it inadequate. Evidence did not support the publisher's desire to split Perceptual Reasoning into separate Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning dimensions. Results indicated that most WISC‐V subtests were properly associated with the four theoretically oriented first‐order factors resembling the WISC‐IV, the g factor accounted for large portions of total and common variance, and the four first‐order group factors accounted for small portions of total and common variance. Results were consistent with EFA of the WISC‐V total standardization sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V; Wechsler 2014a) Technical and Interpretation Manual (Wechsler 2014b) dedicated only a single page to discussing the 10-subtest WISC-V primary battery across the entire 6 to 16 age range. Users are left to extrapolate the structure of the 10-subtest battery from the 16-subtest structure. Essentially, the structure of the 10-subtest WISC-V primary battery remains largely uninvestigated particularly at various points across the developmental period. Using principal axis factoring and the Schmid–Leiman orthogonalization procedure, the 10-subtest WISC-V primary structure was examined across four standardization sample age groups (ages 6–8, 9–11, 12–14, 15–16). Forced extraction of the publisher’s promoted five factors resulted in a trivial fifth factor at all ages except 15–16. At ages 6 to 14, the results suggested that the WISC-V contains the same four first-order factors as the prior WISC-IV (Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, Processing Speed; Wechsler 2003). Results suggest interpretation of the Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning indexes at ages 6 to 14 may be inappropriate due to the fusion of the Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning subtests. At ages 15–16, the five-factor structure was supported. Results also indicated that the WISC-V provides strong measurement of general intelligence and clinical interpretation should reside primarily at that level. Regardless of whether a four- or five-factor index structure is emphasized, the group factors reflecting the WISC-V indices do not account for a sufficient proportion of variance to warrant primary interpretive emphasis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study examined the factor structure of the Differential Ability Scales-Second Edition (DAS-II; Elliott, 2007a) standardization sample using exploratory factor analyses, multiple factor extraction criteria, and hierarchical exploratory factor analyses (Schmid & Leiman, 1957) not included in the DAS-II Introductory and Technical Handbook (Elliott, 2007b). Exploratory factor analyses with multiple factor extraction criteria and hierarchical analyses with the Schmid and Leiman (1957) procedure were conducted with the 3 DAS-II standardization samples (Lower Early Years [Ages 2:6-3:5], Upper Early Years [Ages 3:6-6:11], School-Age [Ages 7:0-17:11]). All factor extraction criteria suggested 1 factor despite the author and publisher recommended and promoted 2 (Ages 2:6-3:5) or 3 (Ages 3:6-6:11, Ages 7:0-17:11) factors. Results indicated that most DAS-II subtests were properly associated with the theoretically proposed first-order factors. Hierarchical exploratory analyses with the Schmid and Leiman procedure, however, found that the hierarchical g factor accounted for large portions of total and common variance, while the 2 or 3 first-order factors accounted for small portions of total and common variance. It was concluded that the DAS-II provides strong measurement of general intelligence but clinical interpretation should be primarily at that level. (PsycINFO Database Record [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As recommended by Carroll, the present study examined the factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition Spanish (WISC-IV Spanish) normative sample using higher order exploratory factor analytic techniques not included in the WISC-IV Spanish Technical Manual. Results indicated that the WISC-IV Spanish subtests were properly aligned with theoretically proposed factors; however, application of the Schmid and Leiman procedure found that the g factor accounted for large portions of total and common variance, whereas the four first-order factors accounted for small portions of total and common variance. Implications for clinical interpretation of the measurement instrument are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The factor structure of the 16 Primary and Secondary subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V; Wechsler, 2014a) standardization sample was examined with exploratory factor analytic methods (EFA) not included in the WISC-V Technical and Interpretive Manual (Wechsler, 2014b). Factor extraction criteria suggested 1 to 4 factors and results favored 4 first-order factors. When this structure was transformed with the Schmid and Leiman (1957) orthogonalization procedure, the hierarchical g-factor accounted for large portions of total and common variance while the 4 first-order factors accounted for small portions of total and common variance; rendering interpretation at the factor index level less appropriate. Although the publisher favored a 5-factor model where the Perceptual Reasoning factor was split into separate Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning dimensions, no evidence for 5 factors was found. It was concluded that the WISC-V provides strong measurement of general intelligence and clinical interpretation should be primarily, if not exclusively, at that level. (PsycINFO Database Record [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite substantial revisions involved in creating the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition (WISC-V; Wechsler, 2014a), the test publisher relied exclusively upon confirmatory factor analytic procedures to determine the instrument's structure and failed to apportion the variance among factors and subtests. To fill this lacuna, the factor structure of the 16 primary and secondary subtests of the WISC-V standardization sample was examined with exploratory bifactor analysis (EBFA). EBFA results provided strong support for a general intelligence ( g ) factor, but nominal evidence for three group factors (i.e., Processing Speed, Working Memory, and Perceptual Reasoning). There was no evidence for distinct verbal, fluid reasoning or visual–spatial factors. The g factor accounted for large portions of total and common subtest variance while the group factors accounted for negligible portions of total and common variance. These results suggest that clinical interpretation of the WISC-V should reside primarily at the global level (i.e., Full Scale IQ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--Fourth Edition (WAISIV; Wechsler, 2008a) with the adolescent participants (ages 16-19 years; N = 400) in the standardization sample was assessed using exploratory factor analysis, multiple factor extraction criteria, and higher-order exploratory factor analyses. Results from exploratory factor analyses were not included in the WAIS-IV Technical and Interpretation Manual (Wechsler, 2008b) and are necessary for determining convergence or divergence with the reported confirmatory factor analyses. As found with the total WAIS-IV standardization sample (Canivez & Watkins, in press), the present results with the adolescent subsample found all WAIS-IV subtests (10- and 15-subtest configurations) were properly associated with their four theoretically proposed first-order factors, but only one factor extraction criterion (standard error of scree) recommended extraction of four factors. Hierarchical exploratory analyses with the Schmid and Leiman (1957) procedure found that the second-order g factor accounted for major portions of total and common variance, while the four first-order factors accounted for small portions of total and common variance. It was concluded that the WAIS-IV provides strong measurement of general intelligence in adolescents and clinical interpretation should be primarily at that level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study examined the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV; D. Wechsler, 2008a) standardization sample using exploratory factor analysis, multiple factor extraction criteria, and higher order exploratory factor analysis (J. Schmid & J. M. Leiman, 1957) not included in the WAIS-IV Technical and Interpretation Manual (D. Wechsler, 2008b). Results indicated that the WAIS-IV subtests were properly associated with the theoretically proposed first-order factors, but all but one factor-extraction criterion recommended extraction of one or two factors. Hierarchical exploratory analyses with the Schmid and Leiman procedure found that the second-order g factor accounted for large portions of total and common variance, whereas the four first-order factors accounted for small portions of total and common variance. It was concluded that the WAIS-IV provides strong measurement of general intelligence, and clinical interpretation should be primarily at that level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The factor structure of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS; [Reynolds, C.R., & Kamphaus, R.W. (2003). Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.]) was investigated with a large (N =1163) independent sample of referred students (ages 6–18). More rigorous factor extraction criteria (viz., Horn''s parallel analysis (HPA); [Horn, J.L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.], and Minimum Average Partial (MAP) analysis; [Velicer, W.F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321–327.]), in addition to those used in RIAS development, were investigated. Exploratory factor analyses using both orthogonal and oblique rotations and higher-order exploratory factor analyses using the Schmid and Leiman [Schmid, J., and Leiman, J.M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53–61.] procedure were conducted. All factor extraction criteria indicated extraction of only one factor. Oblique rotations resulted in different results than orthogonal rotations, and higher-order factor analysis indicated the largest amount of variance was accounted for by the general intelligence factor. The proposed three-factor solution was not supported. Implications for the use of the RIAS with similarly referred students are discussed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Reports an error in "Complementary exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the French WISC-V: Analyses based on the standardization sample" by Thierry Lecerf and Gary L. Canivez (Psychological Assessment, 2018[Jun], Vol 30[6], 793-808). In the original article a production error resulted in the deletion of subtests in the "French WISC-V subtest" column and the misalignment of factor names in the "Eigenvalue" column of Table 1. The corrected table is included in this erratum. The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2017-57791-001.) Interpretation of the French Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (French WISC-V; Wechsler, 2016a) is based on a 5-factor model including Verbal Comprehension (VC), Visual Spatial (VS), Fluid Reasoning (FR), Working Memory (WM), and Processing Speed (PS). Evidence for the French WISC-V factorial structure was established exclusively through confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). However, as recommended by Carroll (1995); Reise (2012), and Brown (2015), factorial structure should derive from both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and CFA. The first goal of this study was to examine the factorial structure of the French WISC-V using EFA. The 15 French WISC-V primary and secondary subtest scaled scores intercorrelation matrix was used and factor extraction criteria suggested from 1 to 4 factors. To disentangle the contribution of first- and second-order factors, the Schmid and Leiman (1957) orthogonalization transformation (SLT) was applied. Overall, no EFA evidence for 5 factors was found. Results indicated that the g factor accounted for about 67% of the common variance and that the contributions of the first-order factors were weak (3.6 to 11.9%). CFA was used to test numerous alternative models. Results indicated that bifactor models produced better fit to these data than higher-order models. Consistent with previous studies, findings suggested dominance of the general intelligence factor and that users should thus emphasize the Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) when interpreting the French WISC-V. (PsycINFO Database Record [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic studies were not reported in the Technical Manual for the Woodcock-Johnson, 4th ed. Cognitive (WJ IV Cognitive; Schrank, McGrew, & Mather, 2014b) Instead, the internal structure of the WJ IV Cognitive was extrapolated from analyses based on the full WJ IV test battery (Schrank, McGrew, & Mather, 2014b). Even if the veracity of extrapolating from the WJ IV full battery were accepted, there were shortcomings in the choices of analyses used and only limited information regarding those analyses was presented in the WJ IV Technical Manual (McGrew, Laforte, & Shrank, 2014). The present study examined the structure of the WJ IV Cognitive using exploratory factor analysis procedures (principal axis factoring with oblique [promax] rotation followed by application of the Schmid-Leiman, 1957, procedure) applied to standardization sample correlation matrices for 2 school age groups (ages 9-13; 14-19). Four factors emerged for both the 9-13 and 14-19 age groups in contrast to the publisher's proposed 7 factors. Results of these analyses indicated a robust manifestation of general intelligence (g) that exceeded the variance attributed to the lower-order factors. Model-based reliability estimates supported interpretation of the higher-order factor (i.e., g). Additional analyses were conducted by forcing extraction of the 7 theoretically posited factors; however, the resulting solution was only partially aligned (i.e., Gs, Gwm) with the theoretical structure promoted in the Technical Manual and suggested the preeminence of the higher-order factor. Results challenge the hypothesized structure of the WJ IV Cognitive and raise concerns about its alignment with Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory. (PsycINFO Database Record [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]