The structural validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis for a clinical sample of 1,537 students diagnosed with specific learning disabilities (SLD) by school psychologists in two large southwestern school districts. Results indicated that a bifactor model consisting of four first-order domain specific factors and a general intelligence breadth factor fit the data best. Consequently, the structural validity of the WISC-IV for students with SLD was supported by the results of the present study. The general intelligence factor contributed the most information, accounting for 48% of the common variance. Given this structure, it was recommended that score interpretation should emphasize the Full-Scale IQ score because of the marginal contributions of the first-order domain-specific factors and their low precision of measurement independent of the general factor.
BensonN.TaubG. E. (2013). Invariance of Woodcock-Johnson III scores for students with learning disorders and students without learning disorders. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 256–272. doi:10.1037/spq0000028
2.
BodinD.PardiniD. A.BurnsT. G.StevensA. B. (2009). Higher order factor structure of the WISC-IV in a clinical neuropsychological sample. Child Neuropsychology, 15, 417–424. doi:10.1080/09297040802603661
3.
BrunnerM. (2008). No g in education?Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 152–165. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.08.005
4.
BrunnerM.NagyG.WilhelmO. (2012). A tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs. Journal of Personality, 80, 796–846. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00749.x
5.
CanivezG. L. (2014). Construct validity of the WISC-IV with a referred sample: Direct versus indirect hierarchical structures. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 38–51. doi:10.1037/ssq0000032
6.
CanivezG. L.KushJ. C. (2013). WAIS-IV and WISC-IV structural validity: Alternate methods, alternate results. Commentary on Weiss et al. (2013a) and Weiss et al. (2013b). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 157–169. doi:10.1177/0734282913478036
7.
CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W. (1998). Long-term stability of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Third Edition. Psychological Assessment, 10, 285–291. doi:1040-3590/98
8.
CarrollJ. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
9.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.
10.
ChenF. F.WestS. G.SousaK. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189–225.
11.
ChenH.ZhuJ. (2008). Factor invariance between genders of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 260–266. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.008
12.
ChenH.ZhuJ. (2012). Measurement invariance of WISC-IV across normative and clinical samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 161–166. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.006
13.
DeMarsC. E. (2013). A tutorial on interpreting bifactor model scores. International Journal of Testing, 13, 354–378. doi:10.1080/15305058.2013.799067
14.
DevenaS. E.GayC. E.WatkinsM. W. (2013). Confirmatory factor analysis of the WISC-IV in a hospital referral sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0734282913483981
15.
DoornikJ. A.HansenH. (2008). An omnibus test for univariate and multivariate normality. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70, 927–939. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2008.00537.x
16.
DuPaulG. J.GormleyM. J.LaracyS. D. (2013). Comorbidity of LD and ADHD: Implications of DSM-5 for assessment and treatment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 43–51. doi:10.1177/0022219412464351
17.
FastenauP. S.ShenJ.DunnD. W.AustinJ. K. (2008). Academic underachievement among children with epilepsy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 195–207. doi:10.1177/0022219408317548
18.
FlanaganD. P.OrtizS. O.AlfonsoV. C. (2013). How to interpret test data. In KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (Series Ed.), Essentials of cross-battery assessment third edition (3rd ed., pp. 121–226). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
19.
GignacG. (2008). Higher-order models versus direct hierarchical models: g as superordinate or breadth factor?Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 21–43.
20.
GolayP.ReverteI.RossierJ.FavezN.LecerfT. (2013). Further insights on the French WISC-IV factor structure through Bayesian structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 25, 496-508. doi: 10.1037/a0030676
21.
GorsuchR. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
GustafssonJ. E. (2001). On the hierarchical structure of ability and personality. In CollisJ. M.MessickS. (Eds.), Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 25–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
HolzingerK. J.SwinefordF. (1937). The bifactor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41–54.
24.
HuL.-T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
25.
KaplanB. J.WilsonB. N.DeweyD. M.CrawfordS. G. (1998). DCDmaynot be a discrete disorder. Human Movement Science, 17, 471–490.
26.
KeithT. Z.FineJ. G.TaubG. E.ReynoldsM. R.KranzlerJ. H. (2006). Higher order, multisample, confirmatory factor analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition: What does it measure?School Psychology Review, 35, 108–127.
27.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
28.
McGrewK. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed comprehensive Gf-Gc framework. In FlanaganD. P.GenshaftJ. L.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151–179). New York, NY: Guilford.
29.
McGrewK. S. (2005). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 136–181). New York, NY: Guilford.
30.
MessickS. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performance as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749. doi:0003-066X/95
31.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
32.
NakanoS.WatkinsM. W. (2013). Factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children–Fourth Edition among referred Native American students. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 957–968. doi:10.1002/pits.21724
33.
NelsonJ. M.CanivezG. L. (2012). Examination of the structural, convergent, and incremental validity of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS) with a clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 24, 129–140. doi:10.1037/a0024878
34.
ReiseS. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
35.
ReiseS. P.BonifayW. E.HavilandM. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 129–140. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
36.
ReschlyD. J.HospJ. L. (2004). State SLD identification policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197–213.
37.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors on covariance structural analysis. In von EyeA.CloggC. C. (Eds.), Latent variables analysis (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
SchmidJ.LeimanJ. M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53–61.
39.
SchmiedekF.LiS. C. (2004). Toward an alternative representation for disentangling age-associated differences in general and specific cognitive abilities. Psychology and Aging, 19, 40–56.
40.
SijtsmaK. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107–120. doi:10.1007/S11336-008-9101-0
41.
StinnettT. A.HaveyJ. M.Oehler-StinnettJ. (1994). Current test usage by practicing school psychologists: A national survey. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 331–350. doi:10.1177/073428299401200403
42.
ThorndikeR. M.Thorndike-ChristT. M. (2010). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
43.
ThurstoneL. L. (1940). Current issues in factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 37, 189–236.
44.
VriezeS. I. (2012). Model selection and psychological theory: A discussion of the differences between the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Psychological Methods, 17, 228–243. doi:10.1037/a0027127
45.
WatkinsM. W. (2006). Orthogonal higher order structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition. Psychological Assessment, 18, 123–125. doi:1040-3593/06
46.
WatkinsM. W. (2010). Structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition among a national sample of referred students. Psychological Assessment, 22, 782–787. doi:10.1037/a0020043
47.
WatkinsM. W. (2013). Omega [Computer software]. Phoenix, AZ: Ed & Psych Associates.
48.
WatkinsM. W.CanivezG. L.JamesT.JamesK.GoodR. (2013). Construct validity of the WISC-IVUK with a large referred Irish sample. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 1, 102–111. doi:10.1080/21683603.2013.794439
49.
WatkinsM. W.WilsonS. M.KotzK. M.CarboneM. C.BabulaT. (2006). Factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition among referred students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 976–983. doi:10.1177/0013164406288168
50.
WechslerD. (2003a). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
51.
WechslerD. (2003b). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition: Technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
52.
WeissL. G.KeithT. Z.ZhuJ.ChenH. (2013). WISC-IV and clinical validation of the four- and five-factor interpretive approaches. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 114–XXX. doi:10.1177/0734282913478032
53.
YangY.GreenS. B. (2011). Coefficient alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st century?Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 377–392. doi:10.1177/0734282911406668
54.
ZirkelP. A. (2013). The trend in SLD enrollments and the role of RTI. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 473–479. doi:10.1177/0022219413495297
