An Examination of the Convergent Validity of the ICAR16 and WAIS-IV

Abstract

The construct validity of the International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR) has yet to be investigated using a gold-standard individually administered intelligence battery. The present study used a convenience sample of 97 students to examine the respective relations between the ICAR16 and overall intelligence (g) and the Cattell–Horn–Carroll broad abilities measured by the WAIS-IV. Large correlations were observed between the observed overall scores (rICAR16, full-scale IQ = .81, p < .001) and the CFA-estimated general factors (r = .94, p < .001). Evidence from confirmatory factor models suggests that the ICAR letter–number Series task measures fluid reasoning, while the matrix reasoning, verbal reasoning, and three-dimensional reasoning tasks measure visual–spatial reasoning (Gv). Findings support the ICAR16 as a valid brief measure of nonverbal intelligence; however, replications in larger samples are needed.

Keywords

intelligence/cognition assessment < intelligence/cognition Wechsler tests < intelligence/cognition validity < measurement other intelligence tests < intelligence/cognition

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

R. A.

(1990). Correction formulas for correlations restricted by selection on an unmeasured variable. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(2), 187-189.

Anderson

J. C.

, & Gerbing

D. W.

(1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155-173. doi:10.1007/BF02294170

Chen

Bollen

K. A.

Paxton

Curran

P. J.

, & Kirby

J. B.

(2001). Improper solutions in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 29(4), 468-508. doi:10.1177/0049124101029004003

Condon

D. M.

, & Revelle

(2014). The international cognitive ability resource: Development and initial validation of a public-domain measure. Intelligence, 43(1), 52-64. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2014.01.004

Dworak

E. M.

Revelle

Doebler

, & Condon

D. M.

(2020). Using the international cognitive ability resource as an open source tool to explore individual differences in cognitive ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 109906. Epub ahead of print March 19, 2011. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.109906

Fallows

R. R.

, & Hilsabeck

R. C.

(2012). WAIS-IV visual puzzles in a mixed clinical sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 26(6), 942-950. doi:10.1080/13854046.2012.697193

Keith

T. Z.

(2019). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

McGrew

K. S.

(2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37(1), 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004

Murphy

K. R.

, & Davidshofer

C. O.

(1988). Psychological testing. Principles, and Applications. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

10.

Muthén

, & Muthén

(2012). Mplus statistical modeling software: Release 7.0. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

11.

Salthouse

T. A.

(2014). Evaluating the correspondence of different cognitive batteries. Assessment, 21(2), 131-142. doi:10.1177/1073191113486690

12.

Waschl

N. A.

Nettelbeck

Jackson

S. A.

, & Burns

N. R.

(2016). Dimensionality of the Raven’s advanced progressive matrices: Sex differences and visuospatial ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 100, 157–166. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.008

13.

Wechsler

(2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale–fourth edition technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

14.

Weiss

L. G.

Keith

T. Z.

Zhu

, & Chen

(2013). WAIS-IV and clinical validation of the four- and five-factor interpretative approaches. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(2), 94-113. doi:10.1177/0734282913478030