Search

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children's (WISC) factorial\theoretical structure has undergone numerous substantive changes since it was first developed, and each of these changes has subsequently been questioned by assessment experts. Given remaining questions about the structure of the latest revision, the WISC-V, the present study used three different exploratory factor analytic techniques to investigate the factor structure of the 10 primary subtests in a large clinical sample (N = 5359). Results revealed that the WISC-V likely contains four factors (e.g., Gc, Gwm, Gs, and either Gv (via exploratory bifactor analysis) or a complexly determined perceptual reasoning factor (via the Schmid-Leiman procedure and oblique/higher-order factor analysis)), "not" the five factors proposed by the test publisher. Variance apportionment and omega estimates indicate that only secondary interpretive emphasis should be placed upon group factors, but only when there is structural validity support. This study suggests that the WISC-V measures four, not five, factors, although the four-factor configuration may be different than previously reported in the technical literature.

Although the field of school psychology has made progress toward the use of tests and assessment practices with empirical support over the past 20 years, many school psychology practitioners still engage in what can be described as low-value value assessment practices that lack compelling scientific support potentially taking time and resources away from practices that have a demonstrated evidence-base. Why do school psychologists engage in questionable assessment and interpretive practices despite decades of discrediting scientific evidence? This article critically examines several plausible explanations for the perpetuation of low-value practices in school psychology assessment. It also underscores the importance of critical thinking when evaluating assessment and interpretation practices, and discusses practical recommendations to assist in advancing evidence-based assessment in school psychology training and practice as the field progresses well-into the 21st century.

It is often assumed that children with learning disabilities (LD) exhibit unique profiles of ability scores that reflect idiosyncratic cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Interpretation of cognitive ability profiles initially focused on visual inspection of subtest scores followed by statistical comparisons to identify significant cognitive strengths and weaknesses. However, subsequent research demonstrated that these subtest profiles lacked sufficient reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility. Profile research typically utilized variable-centered methods, but person-centered methods might be more appropriate. The present study utilized latent profile analysis (LPA), a person-centered method that is model-based and flexible, with 1,830 school-identified students with LD and 2,200 simulated normative participants. Four broad ability score profiles distinguished by level rather than shape emerged. Thus, this latent mixture model analysis found no mixture of subpopulations, suggesting that WISC-IV score variation was due to underlying continuous latent factors rather than a typology unique to LD.

IQ tests provide numerous scores, but valid interpretation of those scores is dependent on how precisely each score reflects its intended construct and whether it provides unique information independent of other constructs. Thus, IQ scores must be evaluated for their reliability and dimensionality to determine their psychometric utility. As a tutorial, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Fifth Edition (WISC-V) scores were evaluated and it was demonstrated that the WISC-V is multidimensional, but only the Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) was found to be sufficiently reliable for clinical use. WISC-V group "factors" were not well defined and WISC-V index (i.e., factor) scores were contaminated with variance from other constructs and insufficiently reliable for clinical decisions. Clinicians were encouraged to go beyond structural goodness of fit and evaluate IQ test scores in terms of their reliability and ability to provide information that is not available from the general ability score as well their predictive and treatment validity. Software was provided to assist in that evaluation.

The Behavior Assessment System for Children-Third Edition (BASC-3) is the most recent edition and the Teacher Rating Scales (TRS) was reported to be the most frequently used test in school psychology practice. Despite its popularity, there is a lack of independent empirical research regarding psychometric properties. The BASC-3 "Manual," while quite detailed in many respects, lacks important details in reporting TRS item- and scale-level factor analyses limiting confidence in construct validity based on internal structure. The present study examined the latent factor structure of the BASC-3 TRS Preschool, Child, and Adolescent Clinical and Adaptive scales using best practices in exploratory factor analysis (EFA). EFA was conducted with the Clinical "and" Adaptive scales jointly, and with the Clinical scales separately, to aid interpretive clarity. Results indicated theoretically consistent alignment of the BASC-3 TRS Clinical scales to their specified factors (Externalizing, Internalizing, and School Problems) and an additional factor (Social Disengagement) was identified, suggesting a possible new latent construct for a composite scale score containing the Withdrawal and Atypicality scales. Variance partitioning applied to second-order EFA and model-based validity statistics, however, indicated that the composite scales (Externalizing, Internalizing, School Problems, and Social Disengagement) appear to lack sufficient unique variance for confident clinical interpretation in isolation.

Surveys reveal that many school psychologists continue to employ cognitive profile analysis despite the long-standing history of negative research results from this class of practice. This begets the question: why do questionable assessment practices persist in school psychology? To provide insight on this dilemma, this article presents the results of a content analyses of available interpretive resources in the clinical assessment literature that may shed insight on this issue. Although previous reviews have evaluated the content of individual assessment courses, this is the first systematic review of pedagogical resources frequently adopted in reading lists by course instructors. The interpretive guidance offered across tests within these texts was largely homogenous emphasizing the primary interpretation of subscale scores, de-emphasizing interpretation of global composites (i.e., FSIQ), and advocating for the use of some variant of profile analysis to interpret scores and score profiles. Implications for advancing evidence-based assessment in school psychology training and guarding against unwarranted unsupported claims in clinical assessment is discussed.

Measurement invariance of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V) 10 subtest primary battery was evaluated across sex, age (6-8, 9-11, 12-14, and 15-16 year-olds), and three diagnostic (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, and encephalopathy) groups within a large clinical sample (N = 5359) referred to a children's specialty hospital. Competing models were tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and a five-factor oblique model corresponding to the publisher's hypothesized first-order measurement model (e.g., verbal comprehension, fluid reasoning, visual-spatial, working memory, and processing speed) was found to have the best model fit. Multigroup CFA was subsequently used to evaluate progressively more restrictive constraints on the measurement model. Results indicated that full metric invariance was attained across the three groups studied. Full scalar invariance was attained for sex and diagnostic groups. Partial scalar invariance was attained for age-group. The results of this study provide support for the first-order scoring structure of the five WISC-V factors in the 10 subtest primary battery with this large clinical sample.

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.

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.

This study utilized confirmatory factor analyses to examine the latent factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Fourth Edition, Italian adaptation (WISC-IV Italian) standardization sample. One through five, oblique first-order factor models and higher-order as well as bifactor models were examined and compared using CFA. The bifactor model provided the best explanation of the scale's factor structure. Across all models, general intelligence accounted for the largest amount of explained common variance, with group factors accounting for nonsignificant and trivial amounts of explained common variance. Omega-hierarchical subscale coefficients indicated that unit-weighted composites that would be generated by group factors would contain miniscule unique variance and therefore be of little clinical utility. Results are consistent with numerous empirical studies examining other European adaptations of the instrument and are at odds with the model put forward by the publisher. Clinicians who use the WISC-IV Italian adaptation are warned against attempting to interpret factor index scores independent of general intelligence.

The intentional and sustained actions to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in school psychology science and scholarship, will have reciprocal and dynamic influences on graduate preparation and practice. Herein, the School Psychology Review leadership team provides reflections on several of our intentional efforts, to date, to advocate for and advance DEI in school psychology scholarship, and the associated implications for graduate preparation and practice. Contemporary actions of the School Psychology Review leadership team have included; (a) establishing commitments to advocating for and advancing DEI as the foundation of our scholarship; (b) diversifying journal leadership and editorial board members to reflect the diverse student body school psychologists serve; (c) preparing future diverse journal leadership through mentored editorial fellowship programs, and a student editorial board with members from diverse backgrounds; (d) featuring special topics relevant to further understanding and supporting diverse and minoritized children, youth, families, and school communities; (e) providing professional-development opportunities and resources; (f) implementation of Open Science opportunities in the journal, (g) implementing triple anonymous peer review to reduce bias, and (h) implementing a journal action plan focused on advancing DEI. Collectively these efforts are aimed to influence positive change in advancing and sustaining DEI efforts in school psychology science, scholarship, graduate preparation and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study examined the factor structure of the Differential Ability Scales--Second Edition (DAS-II) core subtests from the standardization sample via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using methods (bifactor modeling and variance partitioning) and procedures (robust model estimation due to nonnormal subtest score distributions) recommended but not included in the DAS-II "Introductory and Technical Handbook." CFAs were conducted with the three DAS-II standardization sample age groups (lower early years [age = 2:6-3:5 years], upper early years [age = 3:6-6:11 years], school age [7:0-17:11 years]) using standardization sample raw data provided by NCS Pearson, Inc. Although most DAS-II core subtests were properly associated with the theoretically proposed group factors, both the higher order and bifactor models indicated that the g factor accounted for large portions of total and common variance, whereas the group factors (Verbal, Nonverbal, Spatial) accounted for small portions of total and common variance. The DAS-II core battery provides strong measurement of general intelligence, and clinical interpretation should be primarily, if not exclusively, at that level.

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) is the most widely used intelligence test in the world. Now in its fifth edition, the WISC-V has been translated and adapted for use in nearly a dozen countries. Despite its popularity, numerous concerns have been raised about some of the procedures used to develop and validate translated and adapted versions of the test around the world. The purpose of this article is to survey the most salient of those methodological and statistical limitations. In particular, empirical data are presented that call into question the equating procedures used to validate the WISC-V Spanish, suggesting cautious use of that instrument. It is believed that the issues raised in the present article will be instructive for school psychologists engaged in the clinical assessment of intelligence with the WISC-V Spanish and with other translated and adapted versions around the world.

Evidence-based assessment (EBA) and evidence-based practice are gaining attention and application in clinical psychology (Hunsley and Mash, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 3:29-51, 2007; Youngstrom and VanMeter, Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 23:327-347, 2016) and recently in school psychology. This commentary explores EBA in school psychology with implications for research, training, and clinical practice. Fundamental measurement principles and psychometric knowledge and application are essential for school psychologists to ethically practice and are core elements for EBA. It is hoped that there will be a dramatic increase in diagnostic and treatment utility studies reported in the peer-reviewed literature to help guide EBA in school psychology practice and that school psychology will be substantively guided by EBA despite challenges of inconsistently or inadequately defined disabilities.

Background: There is inadequate information regarding the factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children -- Fifth UK Edition (WISC-V[superscript UK]; Wechsler, 2016a, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth UK Edition, Harcourt Assessment, London, UK) to guide interpretation. Aims and methods: The WISC-V[superscript UK] 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-V[superscript UK] 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.

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.

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.

The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) taxonomy of cognitive abilities married John Horn and Raymond Cattell's Extended Gf-Gc theory with John Carroll's Three-Stratum Theory. While there are some similarities in arrangements or classifications of tasks (observed variables) within similar broad or narrow dimensions, other salient theoretical features and statistical methods used for examining and supporting them are in direct opposition. In this article, the theoretical disagreements between Carroll and Cattell-Horn and theoretical incongruencies between their models are delineated, which raises substantive challenges to CHC. Additionally, there are practical and substantial measurement obstacles that further threaten "practical" application of CHC. We conclude that the problems are due to some fundamental differences that likely will not change, so call for an annulment of this arranged but unhappy marriage.

Although most students regularly complete homework, the extent to which race and gender influence teacher perceptions of homework performance has been largely unstudied. However, individual characteristics, such as race and gender, have been shown to meaningfully influence many aspects of students' educational experiences and outcomes, and it is plausible that race and gender differences may exist in teacher perceptions of homework performance. This study used analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine student gender and race differences in teacher ratings of three dimensions of homework performance (student competence, parent support, and homework completion). Findings indicated that teachers rated girls and White students as having greater homework competence (ability to complete homework assignments) than boys and racial minority (Black and Latino) students. No significant race or gender differences in teacher ratings of parent support for homework or in rates of homework completion were found. The examination of race and gender differences in homework performance has the potential to contribute to our understanding of race and gender gaps in academic achievement. As such, replication and further study of these differences are warranted.

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.

The Woodcock-Johnson (fourth edition; WJ IV; Schrank, McGrew, & Mather, 2014a) was recently redeveloped and retains its linkage to Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory (CHC). Independent reviews (e.g., Canivez, 2017) and investigations (Dombrowski, McGill, & Canivez, 2017) of the structure of the WJ IV full test battery and WJ IV Cognitive have suggested the need for additional factor analytic exploration. Accordingly, the present study used principal axis factoring (PAF) followed by the Schmid and Leiman (SL; Schmid & Leiman, 1957) procedure with the 2 school-aged correlation matrices from the normative sample to determine the degree to which the WJ IV total battery structure could be replicated. Although 7 factors emerged across the 9 to 19 age range, the pattern of subtests loadings did not fully cohere with the structure presented in the "Technical Manual," most notably for the academic fluency subtests. Also, the Fluid Reasoning (Gf) and Quantitative Reasoning (Gq) subtests coalesced to form a combined factor rather than 2 separate factors and the Long Term Retrieval (Gltr) subtests aligned with a variety of different factors. The results of this study indicated that the general intelligence factor variance far exceeded the variance attributed to the lower-order CHC factors. The combination of subtest migration and nominal total/common variance of the CHC lower-order factors suggests caution when interpreting the myriad CHC-related indices when making high stakes decisions. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.

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.

Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM) was used to investigate the latent structure of the Differential Ability Scales-Second Edition core battery using the standardization sample normative data for ages 7-17. Results revealed plausibility of a three-factor model, consistent with publisher theory, expressed as either a higher-order (HO) or a bifactor (BF) model. The results also revealed an alternative structure with the best model fit, a two-factor BF model with Matrices (MA) and Sequential and Quantitative Reasoning (SQ) loading on g only with no respective group factor loading. This was only the second study to use BSEM to investigate the structure of a commercial ability test and the first to use a large normative sample and the specification of both approximate zero cross-loadings and correlated residual terms. It is believed that the results produced from the current study will advance the field's understanding of not only the factor structure of the DAS-II core battery but also the potential utility of BSEM in psychometric investigations of intelligence test structures.

The reliability and factorial validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Fifth Edition: Canadian (WISC-V[superscript CDN]) was investigated. The higher-order model preferred by Wechsler (2014b) contained five group factors but lacked discriminant validity. An alternative bifactor model with four group factors and one general factor, akin to the traditional Wechsler model, exhibited the best global fit. The general factor accounted for 33.8% of the total variance and 67.6% of the common variance, but none of the group factors accounted for substantial portions of variance. All together, the general and group factors accounted for 50% of the total variance. Omega reliability coefficients demonstrated that reliable variance of WISC-V[superscript CDN] factor index scores was primarily due to the general factor, not the group factors. It was concluded that the cumulative weight of reliability and validity evidence suggests that psychologists should focus their interpretive efforts at the general factor level and exercise extreme caution when using group factor scores to make decisions about individuals.

The present study examined the factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition, Spanish (WISC-IV Spanish, Wechsler, 2005a) with normative sample participants aged 6-16 years (N = 500) using confirmatory factor analytic techniques not reported in the WISC-IV Spanish Manual (Wechsler, 2005b). For the 10 core subtest configuration, 1 through 4, first-order factor models, and higher-order versus bifactor models were compared using confirmatory factor analyses. The correlated four-factor Wechsler model provided good fit to these data, but the bifactor model showed statistically significant improvement over the higher-order model and correlated four-factor model. For the 14 core "and" supplemental subtest configuration, an alternative five-factor model based upon Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC; as per Weiss, et al., 2013b) configuration was also estimated. Results indicated that for the 14 subtest configuration, the alternative CHC model was preferred to the four-factor Wechsler model and the bifactor version of the CHC model also fit these data best. Across both configurations, variance apportionment and model-based reliability estimates illustrate well the dominance of the general intelligence factor when compared to the influence of the various combinations of group factors. Implications for clinical interpretation and the anticipated revision of the measurement instrument are discussed.

Background: Irish educational psychologists frequently use the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth UK Edition (WISC-IV[superscript UK]; Wechsler, 2004, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth UK Edition, London, UK, Harcourt Assessment) in clinical assessments of children with learning difficulties. Unfortunately, reliability and validity studies of the WISC-IV[superscript UK] standardization sample have not yet been reported. Watkins "et al." (2013, "International Journal of School and Educational Psychology," 1, 102) found support for a bifactor structure with a large sample (N = 794) of Irish children who were administered the 10 WISC-IV[superscript UK] core subtests in clinical assessments of learning difficulties and dominance of general intelligence. Because only 10 subtests were available, Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC; McGrew, 1997, 2005, Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues, New York, NY: Guilford; Schneider & McGrew, 2012, Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues, New York, NY, Guilford Press) models could not be tested and compared. Aim, Sample and Method: The present study utilized confirmatory factor analyses to test the latent factor structure of the WISC-IV[superscript UK] with a sample of 245 Irish children administered all 15 WISC-IV[superscript UK] subtests in evaluations assessing learning difficulties in order to examine CHC- and Wechsler-based models. One through five, oblique first-order factor models and higher order versus bifactor models were examined and compared using CFA. Results: Meaningful differences in fit statistics were not observed between the Wechsler and CHC representations of higher-order or bifactor models. In all four structures, general intelligence accounted for the largest portions of explained common variance, whereas group factors accounted for small to miniscule portions of explained common variance. Omega-hierarchical subscale coefficients indicated that unit-weighted composites that would be generated by WISC-IV[superscript UK] group factors (Wechsler or CHC) would contain little unique variance and thus be of little value. Conclusion: These results were similar to those from other investigations, further demonstrating the replication of the WISC-IV factor structure across cultures and the importance of focusing primary interpretation on the FSIQ.

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.

Background: Subtest and factor scores have typically provided little incremental predictive validity beyond the omnibus IQ score. Aims: This study examined the incremental validity of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth UK Edition (WISC-IV[superscript UK]; Wechsler, 2004a, "Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth UK Edition", Harcourt Assessment, London, UK) and factor index scores in predicting academic achievement on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Second UK Edition (WIAT-II[superscript UK]; Wechsler, 2005a, "Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Second UK Edition", Pearson, London, UK), beyond that predicted by the WISC-IV[superscript UK] FSIQ. Sample: The sample included 1,014 Irish children (ages 6-0 to 16-9) who were referred for evaluation of learning difficulties. Method: Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used with the WISC-IV[superscript UK] FSIQ (Block 1) and factor index scores (Block 2) as predictors and WIAT-II[superscript UK] subtest and composite scores as dependent variables. Results: The WISC-IV[superscript UK] FSIQ accounted for statistically significant and generally large portions of WIAT-II[superscript UK] subtest and composite score variance. WISC-IV[superscript UK] factor index scores combined to provide statistically significant increments in prediction of most WIAT-II[superscript UK] subtest and composite scores over and above the FSIQ; however, the effect sizes were mostly small as previously observed (i.e., Canivez, 2013a, "Psychol. Assess.", 25, 484; Glutting "et al.", 2006, "J. Spec. Educ.", 40, 103; Nelson "et al.", 2013, "Psychol. Assess.", 25, 618). Individually, the WISC-IV[superscript UK] factor index scores provided small "unique" contributions to predicting WIAT-II[superscript UK] scores. Conclusion: This, in combination with studies of apportioned variance from bifactor confirmatory factor analysis (Watkins et al., 2013, "Int. J. Sch. Educ. Psychol.", 1, 102), indicated that the WISC-IV[superscript UK] FSIQ should retain the greatest weight in WISC-IV[superscript UK] interpretation.

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) is one of the most frequently used intelligence tests in clinical assessments of children with learning difficulties. Construct validity studies of the WISC-IV have generally supported the higher order structure with four correlated first-order factors and one higher-order general intelligence factor, but recent studies have supported an alternate model in which general intelligence is conceptualized as a breadth factor rather than a superordinate factor (M. W. Watkins, 2010, Structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition among a national sample of referred students, "Psychological Assessment," Vol. 22, pp. 782-787; M. W. Watkins, G. L. Canivez, T. James, K. & R. Good, in press, Construct validity of the WISC-IVUK with a large referred Irish sample, "International Journal of School and Educational Psychology"). WISC-IV core subtest data obtained from evaluations to assess learning difficulties in 345 children (224 boys, 121 girls) were examined. One through four, first order factor models "and" indirect versus direct hierarchical models were compared using confirmatory factor analyses. The correlated four-factor Wechsler model provided good fit to these data, but the direct hierarchical model showed statistically significant improvement over the indirect hierarchical model "and" correlated four-factor model. The direct hierarchical model was judged the best explanation of the WISC-IV factor structure, with the general factor accounting for 71.6% of the common variance while the first order factors accounted for 2.4-10.3% of the common variance. Thus, the results with the present sample of referred children were similar to those from other investigations (G. E. Gignac, 2005, Revisiting the factor structure of the WAIS-R: Insights through nested factor modeling, "Assessment," Vol. 12, pp. 320-329; G. E. Gignac, 2006, The WAIS-III as a nested factors model: A useful alternative to the more conventional oblique and higher-order models, "Journal of Individual Differences," Vol. 27, pp. 73-86; P. Golay, I. Reverte, J. Rossier, N. Favez, & T. Lecerf, 2012, Further insights on the French WISC-IV factor structure through Bayesian structural equation modeling. "Psychological Assessment," advance online publication; M. W. Watkins, 2010, Structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition among a national sample of referred students, "Psychological Assessment," Vol. 22, pp. 782-787; M. W. Watkins, G. L. Canivez, T. James, K. & R. Good, in press, Construct validity of the WISC-IVUK with a large referred Irish sample, "International Journal of School and Educational Psychology") supporting primary interpretation of the Full Scale IQ rather than the factor index scores.

Homework is a requirement for most school-age children, but research on the benefits and drawbacks of homework is limited by lack of psychometrically sound measurement of homework performance. This study examined the structural and convergent validity of scores from the newly developed Homework Performance Questionnaire -- Teacher Scale (HPQ-T). Participants were 112 teachers of 224 students in six Illinois school districts. Common factor analysis with principal axis extraction and promax rotation was used for data analysis. Results revealed three salient factors: Parent support, student competence and homework completion. Subsequently, convergent validity of HPQ-T subscale scores with subscale scores from the Learning Behaviours Scale was examined. Findings suggest that the HPQ-T may potentially be a useful tool for improving research on homework and identifying strengths and weaknesses in student homework performance. However, modifications are recommended to optimise the utility of the scores.

Weiss, Keith, Zhu, and Chen (2013a) and Weiss, Keith, Zhu, and Chen (2013b), this issue, report examinations of the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), respectively; comparing Wechsler Hierarchical Model (W-HM) and Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Model (CHC-HM), subtest cross-loadings, and factorial invariance between clinical and normative groups from the respective standardizations. Both studies suffer from a number of theoretical, methodological, and practical problems that significantly limit conclusions and recommendations for practitioner interpretations of these instruments. Additional analyses and research are required to better inform practitioners for WAIS-IV and WISC-IV use. (Contains 2 figures.)

Whereas sexual objectification has most commonly been studied among women, recent calls by counseling psychologists have urged for an extension of objectification research to more fully include men (e.g., Heimerdinger-Edwards, Vogel, & Hammer, 2011). The present study examined the factor structure of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale (ISOS; Kozee, Tylka, Augustus-Horvath, & Denchik, 2007) with men. Specifically, analyses included exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a sample of 287 college men and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with an independent sample of 221 college men. A correlated 3-factor structure was suggested by multiple criteria in EFA and was further confirmed by CFA with a bifactor model illustrating the most item variance associated with a general interpersonal sexual objectification dimension for men. (Contains 5 tables and 3 figures.)

Irish educational psychologists frequently use the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth U.K. Edition (WISC-IV[superscript UK]) in clinical assessments of children with learning difficulties. Unfortunately, reliability and validity studies of the WISC-IV[superscript UK] have not yet been reported. This study examined the construct validity of WISC-IV[superscript UK] core subtest scores obtained from evaluations to assess learning difficulties in 794 Irish children (494 boys and 300 girls). One through four first-order factor models and indirect (higher-order) versus direct (bi-factor) hierarchical models were examined and compared using confirmatory factor analyses. The oblique four-factor Wechsler model provided the best fit to these data, but meaningful differences in fit statistics were not observed between this oblique four-factor model and rival indirect hierarchical and direct hierarchical models. For theoretical reasons, the direct (bi-factor) hierarchical model provided the best explanation of the WISC-IV[superscript UK] factor structure. The general factor accounted for 63.7% of the common variance, whereas first-order factors each accounted for 8.6% to 9.6% of the common variance. Thus, the results with referred Irish children were similar to those from other investigations, further demonstrating the replication of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition factor structure across cultures and the importance of focusing primary interpretation on the Full Scale Intelligence Quotient.

One important aspect of construct validity is structural validity. Structural validity refers to the degree to which scores of a psychological test are a reflection of the dimensionality of the construct being measured. A factor analysis, which assumes that unobserved latent variables are responsible for the covariation among observed test scores, has traditionally been employed to provide structural validity evidence. Factor analytic studies have variously suggested either four or five dimensions for the WISC–V and it is unlikely that any new factor analytic study will resolve this dimensional dilemma. Unlike a factor analysis, an exploratory graph analysis (EGA) does not assume a common latent cause of covariances between test scores. Rather, an EGA identifies dimensions by locating strongly connected sets of scores that form coherent sub-networks within the overall network. Accordingly, the present study employed a bootstrap EGA technique to investigate the structure of the 10 WISC–V primary subtests using a large clinical sample (N = 7149) with a mean age of 10.7 years and a standard deviation of 2.8 years. The resulting structure was composed of four sub-networks that paralleled the first-order factor structure reported in many studies where the fluid reasoning and visual–spatial dimensions merged into a single dimension. These results suggest that discrepant construct and scoring structures exist for the WISC–V that potentially raise serious concerns about the test interpretations of psychologists who employ the test structure preferred by the publisher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Youth violence represents a serious problem affecting individuals, communities, and the larger society. Greater efforts aimed at the eradication of youth violence are necessary, and work in this field could be enhanced by psychometrically strong measures. The present study examined the factor structure of the Attitudes Toward Violence Scale (ATV) using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a sample of 359 high school students. A three-factor structure was identified. The three factors were invariant across sex, however, males obtained significantly higher scores on the three ATV factors and on the ATV total score showing generally moderate effect sizes. Directions for future research with the ATV are discussed. (Contains 4 tables.)

Empirical examination of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS; C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus, 2003a) has produced mixed results regarding its internal structure and convergent validity. Various aspects of validity of RIAS scores with a sample (N = 521) of adolescents and adults seeking psychological evaluations at a university-based clinic were examined. Results from exploratory factor analysis indicated only 1 factor, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that the 1-factor model was a good fit and a better fit than the 2-factor model. Hierarchical factor analysis indicated the higher order, general intelligence factor accounted for the largest amount of variance. Correlations with other measures of verbal/crystallized and nonverbal/fluid intelligence were supportive of the convergent validity of the Verbal Intelligence Index but not the Nonverbal Intelligence Index. Joint CFA with these additional measures resulted in a superior fit of the 2-factor model compared with the 1-factor model, although the Odd-Item-Out subtest was found to be a poor measure of nonverbal/fluid intelligence. Incremental validity analyses indicated that the Composite Intelligence Index explained a medium to large portion of academic achievement variance; the NIX and VIX explained a small amount of remaining variance. Implications regarding interpretation of the RIAS when assessing similar individuals are discussed. (Contains 6 tables and 2 figures.)

Orthogonal higher-order factor structure of the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS; Naglieri & Das, 1997a) for the 5-7 and 8-17 age groups in the CAS standardization sample is reported. Following the same procedure as recent studies of other prominent intelligence tests (Dombrowski, Watkins, & Brogan, 2009; Canivez, 2008; Canivez & Watkins, 2010a, 2010b; Nelson & Canivez, 2011; Nelson, Canivez, Lindstrom, & Hatt, 2007; Watkins, 2006; Watkins, Wilson, Kotz, Carbone, & Babula, 2006), three- and four-factor CAS exploratory factor extractions were analyzed with the Schmid and Leiman (1957) procedure using MacOrtho (Watkins, 2004) to assess the hierarchical factor structure by sequentially partitioning variance to the second- and first- order dimensions as recommended by Carroll (1993, 1995). Results showed that greater portions of total and common variance were accounted for by the second-order, global factor, but compared to other tests of intelligence CAS subtests measured less second-order variance and greater first-order Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS) factor variance. (Contains 4 tables.)

The factor structure of the Learning Behaviors Scale (LBS) was examined with a sample of 393 randomly selected Canadian youths in a large western city. An identical four-factor structure was observed for the Canadian sample as was obtained in the standardization sample of U.S. youths and with another American sample. Principal axis exploratory factor analysis with equamax rotations produced factor structure coefficients that were very similar to those from the standardization sample, and factor invariance estimates corresponded to estimates from the standardization sample. Also, LBS raw scores from the Canadian sample did not meaningfully differ from the U.S. standardization sample raw scores. (Contains 1 figure and 4 tables.)

The factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV; 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. (Contains 3 tables and 2 figures.)

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. (Contains 3 figures and 4 tables.)

Considerable debate exists regarding the accuracy of intelligence tests with members of different groups. This study investigated differential predictive validity of the "Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition". Participants from the WISC-IV--WIAT-II standardization linking sample (N = 550) ranged in age from 6 through 16 years (M = 11.6, SD = 3.2) and varied by the demographic variables of gender, race/ethnicity (Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic), and parent education level (8-11, 12, 13-15, and 16 years). Full Scale IQ and General Ability Index scores from the WISC-IV were used to predict scores on Mathematics, Oral Language, Reading, Written Language, and the total composite on the "Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Second Edition". Differences in prediction were evaluated between demographic subgroups via Potthoff's technique. Of the 30 simultaneous tests, 25 revealed no statistically significant between group differences. The remaining statistically significant differences were found to have little practical or clinical influence when effect size estimates were considered. Results are discussed in the context of other ability measures that were previously investigated for differential validity as well as educational implications for clinicians. (Contains 2 tables.)