The purpose of this study was to determine the constructs measured by the WISC-IV and the consistency of measurement across large normative and clinical samples. Competing higher order four- and five-factor models were analyzed using the WISC-IV normative sample and clinical subjects. The four-factor solution is the model published with the test manual. In the five-factor model, the POI differentiated into a visual-spatial factor (consisting of Block Design and Picture Completion) and a fluid reasoning factor (consisting of Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts, with and Arithmetic). The five-factor solution included Inductive Reasoning (IR), consisting of Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts, as a narrow ability subsumed under the FRI (Gf). When all 15 WISC-IV subtests were considered, both four- and five-factor models were suitable and showed close model-data fit. Further, both models generally demonstrated full factorial invariance between clinical and nonclinical samples. Interpretation of the fifth factor is discussed.
BensonN.HulacD. M.KranzlerJ. H. (2010). Independent examination of Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV): What does the WAIS-IV measure?Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 121-130.
2.
BentlerP. M.BonettD. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
3.
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.
4.
BowdenS. C.SaklofskeD. H.WeissL. G. (2011). Invariance of the measurement model underlying the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV in the United States and Canada. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 186-199.
5.
BowdenS. C.WeissL. G.HoldnackJ. A.LloydD. (2006). Age-related invariance of abilities measured with the Wechsler Adults Intelligence Scale-III. Psychological Assessment, 18, 334-339.
6.
ByrneB. M.StewartS. M. (2006). The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: A walk through the process. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 287-321.
7.
CarrollJ. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
8.
ChenH.ZhuJ. (2012). Measurement invariance of WISC-IV across normative and clinical samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 161-166.
9.
ChenH.KeithT.ChenY.ChangB. (2009). What does the WISC-IV measure? Validation of the scoring and CHC-based interpretative approaches. Journal of Research in Education Sciences,54(3), 85-108.
10.
ChenH.KeithT.WeissL.ZhuJ.LiY. (2010). Testing for multigroup invariance of second-order WISC-IV structure across China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 677-682.
11.
ChenF. F.SousaK. H.WestS. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 471-492.
12.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
13.
ConwayA. R. A.CowanN.BuntingM. F.TherriaultD. J.MinkoffS. R. B. (2002). A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 30, 163-183.
14.
de JoneP. F.Das-SmaalE. A. (1995). Attention and intelligence: The validity of the star counting test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 80-92.
15.
DrasgowF. (1984). Scrutinizing psychological tests: Measurement equivalence and equivalent relations with external variables are central issues. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 134-135.
16.
DrasgowF. (1987). Study of the measurement bias of two standardized psychological tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 19-29.
17.
Engel de AbreuP. M. J.ConwayA. R. A.GathercoleS. E. (2010). Working memory and fluid intelligence in young children. Intelligence, 38, 552-561.
18.
EngleR. W.TuholskiS. W.LaughlinJ. E.ConwayA. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309-331.
19.
FlanaganD. P.KaufmanA. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
20.
FryA. F.HaleS. (1996). Processing speed, working memory, and fluid intelligence: Evidence for a developmental cascade. Psychological Science, 7, 237-241.
21.
FryA. F.HaleS. (2000). Relationships among processing speed, working memory, and fluid intelligence in children. Biological Psychology, 54, 1-34.
22.
HornJ. L.McArdleJ. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3), 117-144.
23.
HoyleR. H.PanterA. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
24.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
25.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
KaneM. J.HambrickD. Z.ConwayA. R. A. (2005). Working memory capacity and fluid intelligence are strongly related constructs: Comment on AcKerman, Beier, and Boyle (2005). Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 66-71.
KeithT. Z.ReynoldsM. R. (2012). Using confirmatory factor analysis to aid in understanding the constructs measured by intelligence tests. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 758-799). New York, NY: Guilford.
30.
KeithT. Z.FineJ. G.TaubG.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(1), 108-127.
31.
KlineR. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
32.
LecerfT.RossierJ.FavezN.ReverteI.ColeauxL. (2010). The four versus alternative six factor structure of the French WISC-IV : Comparisons using confirmatory factor analyses. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69, 221-232.
33.
LoehlinJ. C. (2004). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis (4th rev. ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
MarshH. W.BallaJ. R.McDonaldR. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
35.
McDonaldR. P.HoM. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64-82.
PhelpsL.McGrewK. S.KnopikS. N.FordL. (2005). The general (g), broad, and narrow CHC stratum characteristics of the WJ III and WISC-III tests: A confirmatory cross-battery investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 20(1), 66-88.
38.
PrifiteraA.WeissL. G.SaklofskeD. H.RolfhusE. (2005). The WISC-IV in the clinical assessment context. In PrifiteraA.SaklofskeD. H.WeissL. G. (Eds.). WISC-IV clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 3-32). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
39.
RabinL. A.BarrW. B.BurtonL. A. (2005). Assessment practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada: A survey of INS, NAN, and APA division 40 members. Archives of Clinical Psychology, 20, 33-65.
40.
VandenbergR. J.LanceC. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-69.
41.
WardL. C.BergmanM. A.HerbertK. R. (2011). WAIS-IV subtest covariance structure: Conceptual and statistical considerations. Psychological Assessment, Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0025614
42.
WatkinsM. W. (2006). Orthogonal higher order structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition. Psychological Assessment, 18(1), 123-125.
43.
WatkinsM. W.WilsonS. M.KotzK. M.CarboneM. C.BabulaT. (2006). Factor structure of the WISC-IV among referred students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 975-983.
44.
WechslerD. (2012). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence – Fourth Edition technical and interpretive Manual. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
45.
WechslerD. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edition technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
46.
WeissL. G.KeithT.ZhuJ.ChenH. (2013). WAIS-IV and Clinical Validation of the Four- and Five-Factor Interpretative Approaches. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 94-113.
47.
WeissL G.SaklofskeD. H.CoalsonD.RaifordS. E. (Eds.) (2010). WAIS-IV clinical use and interpretation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
48.
WeissL. G.SaklofskeD. H.SchwartzD. M.PrifiteraA.CourvilleT. (2006). Advanced clinical interpretation of the WISC-IV index scores. In WeissL. G.SaklofskeD. H.PrifiteraA.HoldnackJ. A. (Eds.), WISC-IV advanced clinical interpretation (pp. 140-181). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
49.
WestS. G.FinchJ. P.CurranP. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
50.
WidamanK. F.ReiseS. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In BryantK. J.WindleM.WestS. G. (Eds.), The science of prevention (pp. 281-324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
