Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The present study examined the factor structure of the Differential Ability Scales–Second Edition (DAS-II) core subtests from the standardization sample via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using methods (bifactor modeling and variance partitioning) and procedures (robust model estimation due to nonnormal subtest score distributions) recommended but not included in the DAS-II Introductory and Technical Handbook. CFAs were conducted with the three DAS-II standardization sample age groups (lower early years [age = 2:6–3:5 years], upper early years [age = 3:6–6:11 years], school age [7:0–17:11 years]) using standardization sample raw data provided by NCS Pearson, Inc. Although most DAS-II core subtests were properly associated with the theoretically proposed group factors, both the higher order and bifactor models indicated that the g factor accounted for large portions of total and common variance, whereas the group factors (Verbal, Nonverbal, Spatial) accounted for small portions of total and common variance. The DAS-II core battery provides strong measurement of general intelligence, and clinical interpretation should be primarily, if not exclusively, at that level.

Keywords

DAS-II confirmatory factor analysis higher order structure bifactor structure structural validity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.

Beaujean

A. A.

(2015). John Carroll’s views on intelligence: Bi-factor vs. higher-order models. Journal of Intelligence, 3, 121–136. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3040121

Bentler

P. M.

E. J. C.

(2016). EQS for Windows. Multivariate Software, Inc.

Bodin

Pardini

D. A.

Burns

T. G.

Stevens

A. B.

(2009). Higher order factor structure of the WISC–IV in a clinical neuropsychological sample. Child Neuropsychology, 15, 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297040802603661

Bonifay

Lane

S. P.

Reise

S. P.

(2017). Three concerns with applying a bifactor model as a structure of psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 5, 184–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702616657069

Brown

T. A.

(2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford.

Brunner

Nagy

Wilhelm

(2012). A tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs. Journal of Personality, 80, 796–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00749.x

Burnham

K. P.

Anderson

D. R.

(2004). Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33, 261–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644

Byrne

B. M.

(2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Cain

M. K.

Zhang

Yuan

K.-H.

(2017). Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1716–1735. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0814-1

11.

Canivez

G. L.

(2008). Orthogonal higher-order factor structure of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales-Fifth Edition for children and adolescents. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 533–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012884

12.

Canivez

G. L.

(2013a). Incremental validity of WAIS-IV factor index scores: Relationships with WIAT–II and WIAT–III subtest and composite scores. Psychological Assessment, 25, 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032092

13.

Canivez

G. L.

(2013b). Psychometric versus actuarial interpretation of intelligence and related aptitude batteries. In Saklofske

D. H.

Reynolds

C. R.

Schwean

V. L.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of child psychological assessments (pp. 84–112). Oxford University Press.

14.

Canivez

G. L.

(2014). Construct validity of the WISC–IV with a referred sample: Direct versus indirect hierarchical structures. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000032

15.

Canivez

G. L.

(2016). Bifactor modeling in construct validation of multifactored tests: Implications for understanding multidimensional constructs and test interpretation. In Schweizer

DiStefano

(Eds.), Principles and methods of test construction: Standards and recent advancements (pp. 247–271). Hogrefe.

16.

Canivez

G. L.

Konold

T. R.

Collins

J. M.

Wilson

(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. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0018030

17.

Canivez

G. L.

McGill

R. J.

(2016). Factor structure of the Differential Ability Scales–Second Edition: Exploratory and hierarchical factor analyses with the core subtests. Psychological Assessment, 28, 1475–1488. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000279

18.

Canivez

G. L.

McGill

R. J.

Dombrowski

S. C.

Watkins

M. W.

Pritchard

A. E.

Jacobson

L. A.

(2020). Construct validity of the WISC–V in clinical cases: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the 10 primary subtests. Assessment, 27, 274–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118811609

19.

Canivez

G. L.

Watkins

M. W.

(2010a). Investigation of the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV): Exploratory and higher order factor analyses. Psychological Assessment, 22, 827–836. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020429

20.

Canivez

G. L.

Watkins

M. W.

(2010b). Exploratory and higher-order factor analyses of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) adolescent subsample. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022046

21.

Canivez

G. L.

Watkins

M. W.

Dombrowski

S. C.

(2016). Factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition: Exploratory factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Psychological Assessment, 28, 975–986. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000238

22.

Canivez

G. L.

Watkins

M. W.

Dombrowski

S. C.

(2017). Structural validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition: Confirmatory factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Psychological Assessment, 29, 458–472. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000358

23.

Canivez

G. L.

Watkins

M. W.

James

Good

(2014). Incremental validity of WISC–IV^UK factor index scores with a referred Irish sample: Predicting performance on the WIAT–IIUK. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12056

24.

Canivez

G. L.

Youngstrom

E. A.

(2019). Challenges to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory: Empirical, clinical, and policy implications. Applied Measurement in Education, 32, 232–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2019.1619562

25.

Carretta

T. R.

Ree

J. J.

(2001). Pitfalls of ability research. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00184

26.

Carroll

J. B.

(1993). Human cognitive abilities. Cambridge University Press.

27.

Carroll

J. B.

(1995). On methodology in the study of cognitive abilities. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 429–452. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3003_6

28.

Carroll

J. B.

(2003). The higher-stratum structure of cognitive abilities: Current evidence supports g and about ten broad factors. In Nyborg

(Ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (pp. 5–21). Pergamon Press.

29.

Cattell

R. B.

(1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. Plenum Press.

30.

Cattell

R. B.

Horn

J. L.

(1978). A check on the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence with description of new subtest designs. Journal of Educational Measurement, 15, 139–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1978.tb00065.x

31.

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

32.

Chen

F. F.

Hayes

Carver

C. S.

Laurenceau

J.-P.

Zhang

(2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality, 80, 219–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x

33.

Chen

F. F.

West

S. G.

Sousa

K. H.

(2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5

34.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

35.

Crawford

A. V.

Green

S. B.

Levy

W.-J.

Scott

Svetina

Thompson

M. S.

(2010). Evaluation of parallel analysis methods for determining the number of factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 885–901. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410379332

36.

Cucina

J. M.

Byle

(2017). The bifactor model fits better than the higher-order model in more than 90% of comparisons for mental abilities test batteries. Journal of Intelligence, 5, 27–48. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5030027

37.

Cucina

J. M.

Howardson

G. N.

(2017). 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000389

38.

Deary

I. J.

(2013). Intelligence. Current Biology, 23, 673–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.07.021

39.

DiStefano

Dombrowski

S. C.

(2006). Investigating the theoretical structure of the Stanford-Binet-Fifth Edition. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282905285244

40.

Dombrowski

S. C.

(2013). Investigating the structure of the WJ–III Cognitive at school age. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000010

41.

Dombrowski

S. C.

(2014a). Exploratory bifactor analysis of the WJ–III Cognitive in adulthood via the Schmid-Leiman procedure. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32, 330–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913508243

42.

Dombrowski

S. C.

(2014b). Investigating the structure of the WJ–III Cognitive in early school age through two exploratory bifactor analysis procedures. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32, 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914530838

43.

Dombrowski

S. C.

Canivez

G. L.

Watkins

M. W.

(2017). Factor structure of the 10 WISC–V primary subtests across four standardization age groups. Contemporary School Psychology, 22, 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-017-0125-2

44.

Dombrowski

S. C.

Golay

McGill

R. J.

Canivez

G. L.

(2018). Investigating the theoretical structure of the DAS-II core battery at school age using Bayesian structural equation modeling. Psychology in the Schools, 55, 190–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22096

45.

Dombrowski

S. C.

McGill

R. J.

Canivez

G. L.

(2017). Exploratory and hierarchical factor analysis of the WJ IV Cognitive at school age. Psychological Assessment, 29, 394–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000350

46.

Dombrowski

S. C.

McGill

R. J.

Canivez

G. L.

(2018a). An alternative conceptualization of the theoretical structure of the WJ IV Cognitive at school age: A confirmatory factor analytic investigation. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000039

47.

Dombrowski

S. C.

McGill

R. J.

Canivez

G. L.

(2018b). Hierarchical exploratory factor analyses of the Woodcock-Johnson IV Full Test Battery: Implications for CHC application in school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 33, 235–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000221

48.

Dombrowski

S. C.

McGill

R. J.

Canivez

G. L.

Peterson

C. H.

(2019). Investigating the theoretical structure of the Differential Ability Scales–Second Edition through hierarchical exploratory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37, 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282918760724

49.

Dombrowski

S. C.

McGill

R. J.

Morgan

G. B.

(2019). Monte Carlo modeling of contemporary intelligence test (IQ) factor structure: Implications for IQ assessment, interpretation, and theory. Assessment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119869828

50.

Dombrowski

S. C.

Watkins

M. W.

(2013). Exploratory and higher order factor analysis of the WJ–III full test battery: A school aged analysis. Psychological Assessment, 25, 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031335

51.

Dombrowski

S. C.

Watkins

M. W.

Brogan

M. J.

(2009). An exploratory investigation of the factor structure of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 494–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282909333179

52.

Elliott

C. D.

(1990). Differential Ability Scales. The Psychological Corp.

53.

Elliott

C. D.

(2007a). Differential Ability Scales–Second Edition. Harcourt Assessment.

54.

Elliott

C. D.

(2007b). Differential Ability Scales–Second Edition: Introductory and technical handbook. Harcourt Assessment.

55.

Elliott

C. D.

Murray

D. J.

Pearson

L. S.

(1979). British Ability Scales. National Foundation for Educational Research.

56.

Frisby

C. L.

Beaujean

A. A.

(2015). Testing Spearman’s hypotheses using a bi-factor model with WAIS–IV/WMS–IV standardization data. Intelligence, 51, 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.04.007

57.

Gignac

G. E.

(2006). The WAIS–III as a nested factors model: A useful alternative to the more conventional oblique and higher-order models. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.27.2.73

58.

Gignac

G. E.

(2008). Higher-order models versus direct hierarchical models: g as superordinate or breadth factor? Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 21–43.

59.

Gignac

G. E.

Watkins

M. W.

(2013). Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS–IV. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 639–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2013.804398

60.

Glutting

J. J.

Watkins

M. W.

Konold

T. R.

McDermott

P. A.

(2006). Distinctions without a difference: The utility of observed versus latent factors from the WISC–IV in estimating reading and math achievement on the WIAI–II. Journal of Special Education, 40, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400020101

61.

Glutting

J. J.

Watkins

M. W.

Youngstrom

E. A.

(2003). Multifactored and cross–battery assessments: Are they worth the effort? In Reynolds

C. R.

Kamphaus

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Intelligence, aptitude, and achievement (2nd ed., pp. 343–376). Guilford.

62.

Gottfredson

L. S.

(2008). Of what value is intelligence? In Prifitera

Saklofske

Weiss

L. G.

(Eds.), WISC–IV clinical assessment and intervention (2nd ed., pp. 545–564). Elsevier.

63.

Gottfredson

L. S.

(2016). A g theorist on why Kovacs and Conway’s Process Overlap Theory amplifies, not opposes, g theory. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 210–217. http://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1203232

64.

Gustafsson

J.-E.

Balke

(1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2804_2

65.

Hancock

G. R.

Mueller

R. O.

(2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In Cudeck

Du Toit

Sorbom

(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future (pp. 195–216). Scientific Software International.

66.

Holzinger

K. J.

Swineford

(1937). The bi-factor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287965

67.

Horn

J. L.

(1991). Measurement of intellectual capabilities: A review of theory. In McGrew

K. S.

Werder

J. K.

Woodcock

R. W.

(Eds.), Woodcock-Johnson technical manual (Rev. ed., pp. 197–232). Riverside.

68.

Horn

J. L.

Blankson

(2005). Foundations for better understanding of cognitive abilities. In Flanagan

D. P.

Harrison

P. L.

(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 41–68). Guilford.

69.

Horn

J. L.

Noll

(1997). Human cognitive capabilities: Gf–Gc theory. In Flanagan

D. P.

Genshaft

J. L.

Harrison

P. L.

(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 53–91). Guilford.

70.

L.-T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

71.

Jensen

A. R.

(1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Praeger.

72.

Keith

T. Z.

(2005). Using confirmatory factor analysis to aid in understanding the constructs measured by intelligence tests. In Flanagan

D. P.

Harrison

P. L.

(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 581–614). Guilford.

73.

Keith

T. Z.

Kranzler

J. H.

(1999). The absence of structural fidelity precludes construct validity: Rejoinder to Naglieri on what the Cognitive Assessment System does and does not measure. School Psychology Review, 28, 303–321.

74.

Keith

T. Z.

Low

J. A.

Reynolds

M. R.

Patel

P. G.

Ridley

K. P.

(2010). Higher-order factor structure of the Differential Ability Scales–II: Consistency across ages 4 to 17. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 676–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20498

75.

Kell

H. J.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2013). Who rises to the top? Early indicators. Psychological Science, 24, 648–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457784

76.

Kell

H. J.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Steiger

J. H.

(2013). Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychological Science, 24, 1831–1836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613478615

77.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford.

78.

Kotz

K. M.

Watkins

M. W.

McDermott

P. A.

(2008). Validity of the general conceptual ability score from the Differential Ability Scales as a function of significant and rare interfactor variability. School Psychology Review, 37, 261–278.

79.

Kovacs

Conway

A. R. A.

(2016). Process overlap theory: A unified account of the general factor of intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 151–177. http://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1153946

80.

Kovacs

Conway

A. R. A.

(2019a). A unified cognitive/differential approach to human intelligence: Implicaitons for IQ testing. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8, 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.05.003

81.

Kovacs

Conway

A. R. A.

(2019b). What is IQ? Life beyond“general intelligence.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 189–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721419827275

82.

Kranzler

J. H.

Benson

Floyd

R. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000119

83.

Little

T. D.

Lindenberger

Nesselroade

J. R.

(1999). On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: When “good” indicators are bad and “bad” indicators are good. Psychological Methods, 4, 192–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.2.192

84.

Lubinski

(2000). Scientific and social significance of assessing individual differences: “Sinking shafts at a few critical points.” Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 405–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.405

85.

Lubinski

(2016). From Terman to today: A century of findings on intellectual precocity. Review of Educational Research, 86, 900–944. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675476

86.

Macmann

G. M.

Barnett

D. W.

(1997). Myth of the master detective: Reliability of interpretations for Kaufman’s “Intelligent Testing” approach to the WISC–III. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 197–234.

87.

Makel

M. C.

Kell

H. J.

Lubinski

Putallaz

Benbow

C. P.

(2016). When lightning strikes twice: Profoundly gifted, profoundly accomplished. Psychological Science, 27, 1004–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616644735

88.

Mardia

K. V.

(1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519

89.

Marley

S. C.

Levin

J. R.

(2011). When are prescriptive statements in educational research justified? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9154-y

90.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K.-T.

Wen

(2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis- testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2

91.

McDermott

P. A.

Fantuzzo

J. W.

Glutting

J. J.

(1990). Just say no to subtest analysis: A critique on Wechsler theory and practice. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299000800307

92.

McDermott

P. A.

Fantuzzo

J. W.

Glutting

J. J.

Watkins

M. W.

Baggaley

A. R.

(1992). Illusions of meaning in the ipsative assessment of children’s ability. The Journal of Special Education, 25, 504–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699202500407

93.

McDermott

P. A.

Glutting

J. J.

(1997). Informing stylistic learning behavior, disposition, and achievement through ability subtests—Or, more illusions of meaning? School Psychology Review, 26, 163–176.

94.

McDonald

R. P.

(2010). Structural models and the art of approximation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 675–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610388766

95.

McGill

R. J.

(2015). Incremental criterion validity of the WJ-III COG clinical clusters: Marginal predictive effects beyond the general factor. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 30, 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573514560529

96.

McGill

R. J.

Dombrowski

S. C.

(2018). Factor structure of the CHC model for the KABC-II: Exploratory factor analyses with the 16 core and supplemental subtests. Contemporary School Psychology, 22, 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-017-0152-z

97.

McGill

R. J.

Dombrowski

S. C.

Canivez

G. L.

(2018). Cognitive profile analysis in school psychology: History, issues, and continued concerns. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 108–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.007

98.

McGrew

K. S.

(2018, April 12). Dr. Kevin McGrew and Updates to CHC Theory [Video webcast]. Invited podcast presentation for School Psyched! Podcast presented 12 April 2018. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-64-dr-kevin-mcgrew-and-updates-to-chc-theory/id1090744241?i=1000408728620&mt=2

99.

Miciak

Fletcher

J. M.

Stuebing

K. K.

Vaughn

Tolar

T. D.

(2014). Patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses: Identification rates, agreement, and validity for learning disabilities identification. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000037

100.

Murray

A. L.

Johnson

(2013). The limitations of model fit in comparing bi-factor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure. Intelligence, 41, 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.06.004

101.

Nelson

J. M.

Canivez

G. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024878

102.

Nelson

J. M.

Canivez

G. L.

Lindstrom

Hatt

(2007). Higher-order exploratory factor analysis of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales with a referred sample. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.03.003

103.

Nelson

J. M.

Canivez

G. L.

Watkins

M. W.

(2013). Structural and incremental validity of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV) with a clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 25, 618–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032086

104.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Daniel

L. G.

(2002). Uses and misuses of the correlation coefficient. Research in the Schools, 9, 73–90.

105.

Ree

M. J.

Carretta

T. R.

Green

M. T.

(2003). The ubiquitous role of g in training. In Nyborg

(Ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (pp. 262–274). Pergamon Press.

106.

Reise

S. P.

(2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555

107.

Reise

S. P.

Bonifay

W. E.

Haviland

M. G.

(2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437

108.

Reise

S. P.

Moore

T. M.

Haviland

M. G.

(2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.496477

109.

Reynolds

M. R.

Hajovsky

D. B.

Niileksela

C. R.

Keith

T. Z.

(2011). Spearman’s law of diminishing returns and the DAS-II: Do g effects on subtest scores depend on the level of g? School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 275–289.

110.

Reynolds

M. R.

Keith

T. Z.

(2013). Measurement and statistical issues in child assessment research. In Saklofske

D. H.

Schwean

V. L.

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of child psychological assessment (pp. 48–83). Oxford University Press.

111.

Rodriguez

Reise

S. P.

Haviland

M. G.

(2016a). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249f

112.

Rodriguez

Reise

S. P.

Haviland

M. G.

(2016b). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045

113.

Satorra

Bentler

P. M.

(2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192

114.

Schmid

Leiman

J. M.

(1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289209

115.

Schneider

W. J.

McGrew

K. S.

(2018). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In Flanagan

D. P.

McDounough

E. M.

(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed., pp. 73–163). Guilford.

116.

Spearman

(1927). The abilities of man. Cambridge University Press.

117.

Strickland

Watkins

M. W.

Caterino

L. C.

(2015). Structure of the Woodcock-Johnson III cognitive tests in a referral sample of elementary school students. Psychological Assessment, 27, 689–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000052

118.

Watkins

M. W.

(2000). Cognitive profile analysis: A shared professional myth. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088802

119.

Watkins

M. W.

(2006). Orthogonal higher order structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition. Psychological Assessment, 18, 123–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.1.123

120.

Watkins

M. W.

(2010). Structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition among a national sample of referred students. Psychological Assessment, 22, 782–787. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020043

121.

Watkins

M. W.

(2013). Omega [Computer software]. Ed & Psych Associates.

122.

Watkins

M. W.

(2017). The reliability of multidimensional neuropsychological measures: From alpha to omega. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31, 1113–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1317364

123.

Watkins

M. W.

Beaujean

A. A.

(2014). Bifactor structure of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Fourth edition. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000038

124.

Watkins

M. W.

Canivez

G. L.

(2004). Temporal stability of WISC–III subtest composite strengths and weaknesses. Psychological Assessment, 16, 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040–3590.16.2.133

125.

Watkins

M. W.

Glutting

J. J.

Lei

(2007). Validity of the full-scale IQ when there is significant variability among WISC-III and WISC-IV factor scores. Applied Neuropsychology, 14, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09084280701280353

126.

Watkins

M. W.

Canivez

G. L.

James

Good

James

(2013). Construct validity of the WISC-IV-UK with a large referred Irish sample. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 1, 102–111. http://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2013.794439

127.

Watkins

M. W.

Wilson

S. M.

Kotz

K. M.

Carbone

M. C.

Babula

(2006). Factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition among referred students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 975–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406288168

128.

Weiner

I. B.

(1989). On competence and ethicality in psychodiagnostic assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 827–831. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5304_18

129.

West

S. G.

Finch

J. F.

Curran

P. J.

(1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). SAGE.

130.

Youngstrom

E. A.

Kogos

J. L.

Glutting

J. J.

(1999). Incremental efficacy of Differential Ability Scales factor scores in predicting individual achievement criteria. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088996

131.

Zinbarg

R. E.

Revelle

Yovel

(2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ωh: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70, 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7

132.

Zinbarg

R. E.

Yovel

Revelle

McDonald

R. P.

(2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621605278814

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.

0.00 MB

0.37 MB

Factor Structure of the Differential Ability Scales–Second Edition Core Subtests: Standardization Sample Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material