Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2015-7
Implications for Educational Classification and Psychological Diagnoses Using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition With Canadian Versus American Norms
Building on a recent work of Harrison, Armstrong, Harrison, Iverson and Lange which suggested that Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) scores might systematically overestimate the severity of intellectual impairments if Canadian norms are used, the present study examined differences between Canadian and American derived WAIS-IV scores from 861 postsecondary students attending school across the province of Ontario, Canada. This broader data set confirmed a trend whereby individuals’ raw scores systematically produced lower standardized scores through the use of Canadian as opposed to American norms. The differences do not appear to be due to cultural, educational, or population differences, as participants acted as their own controls. The ramifications of utilizing the different norms were examined with regard to psychoeducational assessments and educational placement decisions particularly with respect to the diagnoses of Learning Disability and Intellectual Disability.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
2.
BealA. L. (1988). Canadian content in the WISC-R: Bias or jingoism. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 20, 154-166. doi:10.1037/h0079921
3.
BealA. L.DumontR.CruseC. L.BrancheA. H. (1996). Practical implications of differences between the American and Canadian norms for WISC-III and a short form for children with learning disabilities. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 12(1), 7-14. doi:10.1177/082957359601200103
4.
BergeronR.FloydR. G.ShandsE. I. (2008). State eligibility guidelines for mental retardation: An update and consideration of part scores and unreliability of IQs. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 123-131.
5.
BowdenS.SaklofskeD. H.WeissL. G. (2011a). Augmenting the core battery with supplementary subtests: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV measurement invariance across the United States and Canada. Assessment, 18, 133-140.
6.
BowdenS.SaklofskeD. H.WeissL. G. (2011b). 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.
7.
CaniveyG. 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(2), 157-169.
8.
FlanaganD. P.AlfonsoV. C.MascoloJ. T. (2011). A CHC-based operational definition of SLD: Integrating multiple data sources and multiple data gathering methods. In FlanaganD. P.AlfonsoV. C. (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 233-298). New York, NY: John Wiley.
9.
GrégoireJ. (2013). Measuring components of intelligence: Mission impossible?Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(2), 138-147.
10.
GrossU. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge Falmer. (Original work published 1993)
11.
HarrisonA. G.ArmstrongI. T.HarrisonL. E.LangeR. T.IversonG. L. (2014). Comparing Canadian and American Normative scores on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 29, 737-746.
12.
HarrisonA. G.HolmesA. (2014). Mild intellectual disability at the postsecondary level: Results of a survey of disability service offices. Exceptionality Education International, 23(1), 22-39.
13.
IversonG. L.LangeR. T.ViljoenH. (2006). Comparing the Canadian and American WAIS-III normative systems in inpatient neuropsychiatry and forensic psychiatry. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 38, 348-353.
14.
JohnsenS. K. (2004). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
15.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Macmillan.
16.
KamphausR.WorrellF. C.HarrisonP. (2005). Principles for evaluation and eligibility determination for specific learning disabilities: A report of the ad hoc committee of division 16. The School Psychologist, 59, 157-159.
17.
KaplanR. M.SaccuzzoD. P. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
18.
LarrabeeG. J. (2012). Performance validity and symptom validity in neuropsychological assessment. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18, 625-630.
19.
McDermottP.WatkinsM.RhoadA. (2014). Whose IQ is it?—Assessor bias variance in high-stakes psychological assessment. Assessment, 26, 207-214. doi:10.1037/a0034832
20.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2014). Identification of and program planning for students with learning disabilities (Policy/Program memorandum No. 8). Toronto, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/ppm8.pdf
WechslerD. (2008b). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition: Technical and Interpretive Manual. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
33.
WechslerD.NaglieriJ. A. (2006). Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment. doi:10.1177/0734282908329108
34.
WeissL.KeithT.ZhuJ.ChenH. (2013). WAIS-IV and clinical validation of the four- and five-factor interpretative approaches. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(2), 94-113.
35.
World Health Organization. (2010). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
36.
ZacharyR. A.GorsuchR. L. (1985). Continuous norming: Implications for the WAIS-R. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 86-94.
37.
ZhuJ.ChenH. (2011). Utility of inferential norming with smaller sample sizes. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 570-580. doi:10.1177/0734282910396323
