The Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS) measures general intelligence and its two main components, verbal and nonverbal intelligence, each comprising of two subtests. The RIAS has been recently standardized in Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, and Spain. Using the standardization samples of the U.S. (n = 2,438), Danish (n = 983), German (n = 2,103), and Spanish (n = 1,933) versions of the RIAS, this study examined measurement invariance across these four language groups for a single-factor structure, an oblique two-factor structure with a verbal and nonverbal factor, and a bifactor structure with a general, a verbal, and a nonverbal factor. Single-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the oblique two-factor and bifactor structure for each language group but not the single-factor structure. The bifactor analysis revealed that the general factor accounted for the largest proportion of common variance in each language group, while the amount of variance accounted for by the two specific factors was small and their reliabilities low. Multiple-group CFA supported scalar invariance in both, the oblique two-factor and bifactor structure.
AndrewsJ. J. W. (2007). Review of RIAS: Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 402-408.
2.
BeaujeanA. A. (2015). John Carroll’s views on intelligence: Bi-factor vs. higher-order models. Journal of Intelligence, 3, 121-136. doi:10.3390/jintelligence3040121
3.
BeaujeanA. A.FirminM. W.MichonskiJ. D.BerryT.JohnsonC. (2010). A multitrait—Multimethod examination of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales in a college sample. Assessment, 17, 347-360. doi:10.1177/1073191109356865
4.
BeaujeanA. A.FreemanM. J.YoungstromE.CarlsonG. (2012). The structure of cognitive abilities in youths with manic symptoms: A factorial invariance study. Assessment, 19, 462-471. doi:10.1177/1073191111399037
5.
BeaujeanA. A.McGlaughlinS. M. (2014). Invariance in the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales for Black and White referred students. Psychological Assessment, 26, 1394-1399. doi:10.1037/pas0000029
6.
BeaujeanA. A.McGlaughlinS. M.MarguliesA. S. (2009). Factorial validity of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales for referred students. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 932-950. doi:10.1002/pits.20435
7.
BensonN. (2007). Cattell—Horn—Carroll cognitive abilities and reading achievement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 27-41.
8.
BensonN.BeaujeanA. A.TaubG. E. (2015). Using score equating and measurement invariance to examine the Flynn effect in the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 398-415. doi:10.1080/00273171.2015.1022642
9.
BensonN.HulacD.KranzlerJ. (2010). Independent examination of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV): What does the WAIS-IV measure?Psychological Assessment, 22, 121-130. doi:10.1037/a0017767
10.
BialerI. R. V. (1974). Raw versus standardized intelligence test scores: I—IS Throne’s position valid?The British Journal of Mental Subnormality, 20, 93-96. doi:10.1179/bjms.1974.017
11.
CanivezG. L. (2016). Bifactor modeling in construct validation of multifactored tests: Implications for understanding multidimensional constructs and test interpretation. In SchweizerK.DiStefanoC. (Eds.), Principles and methods of test construction: Standards and recent advancements (pp. 247-271). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe Publishers.
12.
CanivezG. L.KonoldT. R.CollinsJ. M.WilsonG. (2009). Construct validity of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence and Wide Range Intelligence Test: Convergent and structural validity. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 252-265. doi:10.1037/a0018030
13.
CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W. (2016). Review of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition: Critique, commentary, and independent analyses. In KaufmanA. S.RaifordS. E.CoalsonD. L. (Eds.), Intelligent testing with the WISC-V (pp. 683-702). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
14.
CarrollJ. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15.
CarrollJ. B. (2003). The higher-stratum structure of cognitive abilities: Current evidence supports g and about ten broad factors. In NyborgH. (Ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (pp. 5-21). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
16.
ChenF. F.SousaK. H.WestS. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 471-492.
17.
CucinaJ. M.HowardsonG. N. (2016). Woodcock-Johnson-III, Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT), Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC), and Differential Ability Scales (DAS) support Carroll but not Cattell-Horn. Psychological Assessment, 29, 1001-1015. doi:10.1037/pas0000389
18.
CudeckR. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 317-327.
19.
DeShonR. P. (2004). Measures are not invariant across groups without error variance homogeneity. Psychology Science, 46, 137-149.
20.
DombrowskiS. C.MrazikM. (2008). Test review: Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23, 223-230.
21.
DombrowskiS. C.WatkinsM. W.BroganM. J. (2009). An exploratory investigation of the factor structure of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 494-507. doi:10.1177/0734282909333179
22.
EdwardsO. W.PaulinR. V. (2007). Referred students’ performance on the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 334-340. doi:10.1177/0734282907300453
23.
ElliotR. W. (2004). Test review: Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 325-328.
GoldsteinS.PrinciottaD.NaglieriJ. A. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of intelligence: Evolutionary theory, historical perspective, and current concepts. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-1562-0
HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In CudeckR.du ToitS.SorbomD. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future (pp. 195-216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
28.
HartmannP.AndresenJ. (2011). Dokumentation af den danske standardisering af RIAS [Documentation for the Danish standardization of RIAS]. Virum, Denmark: Hogrefe Psykologisk.
29.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
30.
KimJ.-O.FerreeG. D. (1981). Standardization in causal analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 10, 187-210.
31.
KrachS. K.LoeS. A.JonesW. P.FarrallyA. (2009). Convergent validity of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS) using the Woodcock—Johnson tests of cognitive ability, third edition (WJ-III) with university students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 355-365. doi:10.1177/0734282909331749
32.
KranzlerJ. H.BensonN.FloydR. G. (2015). Using estimated factor scores from a bifactor analysis to examine the unique effects of the latent variables measured by the WAIS-IV on academic achievement. Psychological Assessment, 27, 1402-1416. doi:10.1037/pas0000119
33.
KranzlerJ. H.FloydR. G.BensonN.ZaboskiB.ThibodauxL. (2016). Classification agreement analysis of Cross-Battery assessment in the identification of specific learning disorders in children and youth. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 43, 124-136.
34.
LeeS.HershbergerS. (1990). A simple rule for generating equivalent models in covariance structure modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 313-334. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2503_4
35.
McDonaldR. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
MeadeA. W.JohnsonE. C.BraddyP. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 568-592. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568
MilfontT. L.FischerR. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 111-130.
39.
NaglieriJ. A.TaddeiS.WilliamsK. M. (2013). Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis of U.S. and Italian children’s performance on the PASS theory of intelligence as measured by the cognitive assessment system. Psychological Assessment, 25, 157-166. doi:10.1037/a0029828
40.
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
41.
NelsonJ. M.CanivezG. L.LindstromW.HattC. V. (2007). Higher-order exploratory factor analysis of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales with a referred sample. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 439-456. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.03.003
42.
ReiseS. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667-696. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
43.
ReynoldsC. R.KamphausR. W. (2003). Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
44.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36.
45.
SantamaríaP.Fernández PintoI. (2009). RIAS Escalas de Inteligencia de Reynolds y RIST Test de Inteligencia Breve de Reynolds Manual: Adaptación Española [RIAS Reynolds Intelligence Scales and RIST Reynolds Brief Intelligence Test Manual: Spanish adaptation]. Madrid, Spain: TEA Ediciones.
46.
SattlerJ. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications. La Mesa, CA: Author.
47.
SchmidJ.LeimanJ. M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53-61. doi:10.1007/BF02289209
48.
SteenkampJ. B. E.BaumgartnerH. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-107. doi:10.1086/209528
49.
TaubG. E.BensonN. (2013). Matters of consequence: An empirical investigation of the WAIS-III and WAIS-IV and implications for addressing the Atkins intelligence criterion. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13, 27-48.
50.
Ten BergeJ. M. F.SočanG. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69, 613-625. doi:10.1007/BF02289858
Van De SchootR.SchmidtP.De BeuckelaerA.LekK.Zondervan-ZwijnenburgM. (2015). Editorial: Measurement invariance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1064. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01064
53.
WatkinsM. W. (2013). Omega [Computer software]. Phoenix, AZ: Ed & Psych Associates.
54.
WatkinsM. W. (2017). The reliability of multidimensional neuropsychological measures: From alpha to omega. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31, 1113-1126. doi:10.1080/13854046.2017.1317364
55.
WidamanK. F.ReiseS. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In BryantK.WindleM.WestS. (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281-324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
