Miller et al. have challenged the findings of our two previous studies, based largely on the assumption that our findings are biased due to the clinical sample used. However, they fail to address the primary tenet of our studies, namely, that clinicians will obtain different scores on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (WAIS-IV) depending on whether Canadian or American norms are used. This reply seeks to provide empirical evidence supporting the existence of such score differences even when nonclinical samples are used, and identifies some of the clinical decisions that are potentially affected by choice of normative data.
FordB. (2014, May). Diagnosing eligibility for college accommodations: MID, BIF, LD and the DSM-5. Presented at the College Committee on Disability Issues Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
3.
FreemanJ. G.HarrisonA. G.HoltermannE. (2012). Navigating the postsecondary landscape. In WongB.ButlerD. L. (Eds.), Learning about learning disabilities (4th ed., pp. 355-372). London, England: Elsevier.
4.
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.
5.
HarrisonA. G.HolmesA. (2012). Easier said than done: Operationalizing the diagnosis of Learning Disability for use at the post-secondary level in Canada. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27(1), 12-34. doi: 10.1177/0829573512437021
6.
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.
7.
HarrisonA. G.HolmesA.SilvestriR.ArmstrongI. T. (2015). Implications for educational classification and psychological diagnoses when using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition with Canadian as opposed to American norms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(4), 299-311. doi:10.1177/0734282915573723
8.
HolmesA.RahemtullaR. (2015, November). Measuring the academic achievement gap between Americans and Canadians using the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition. Poster accepted for presentation at the National Academy of Neuropsychology Annual Conference, Austin, TX.
9.
IversonG.FranzenM. D.LovellM. R. (1999). Normative comparisons for the controlled oral word association test following acute traumatic brain injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 437-441.
10.
IversonG.LangeR. T.ViljoenH. (2006). Comparing the Canadian and American WAIS-III normative system in inpatient neuropsychiatry and forensic psychiatry. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 38, 348-353.
11.
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.
12.
KozeyM.SiegelL. S. (2008). Definitions of learning disabilities in Canadian provinces and territories. Canadian Psychology, 49, 167-171. doi:10.1037/0708-5591.49.2.162
13.
McDermottP.WatkinsM.RhoadA. (2014). Whose IQ is it?—Assessor bias variance in high-stakes psychological assessment. Assessment, 26, 207-214. doi:10.1037/a0034832
14.
MillerJ. L.WeissL. G.BealL.SaklofskeD. H.ZhuJ.HoldnackJ. A. (2015). Intelligent use of intelligence tests: Empirical and clinical support for Canadian WAIS-IV norms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(4), 312-328. doi:10.1177/0734282915578577
