Revisiting the Factor Structure of the WAIS-R

Abstract

Past attempts to model via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) intersubtest covariation have used an oblique factor or a higher order modeling approach. The attempts have failed to yield adequate model fit, based on current CFA recommendations. Using the WAIS-R standardization data, it is demonstrated that the WAIS-R can be better conceptualized as measuring a first-order general factor and three orthogonal group-level factors. The results are discussed in relation to Verbal and Performance Intelligence scoring and failed attempts to find relationships between VIQ/PIQ difference scores and external criteria. Because Arithmetic and Digit Span did not share any variance with the other VIQ subtests, independent of General Intelligence, clinicians should reconsider interpreting a VIQ score that includes information from Arithmetic and Digit Span in nonclinical populations. Researchers are encouraged to model intelligence factors as nested factor models, considering their superior model fit, and the increased clarity in the interpretations of relationships between IQ indices and criteria.

Keywords

WAIS-R factor structure bi-factor model nested factor model

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashton, M. C. , Lee, K. , & Vernon, P. A. (2001). Which is the real intelligence? A reply to Robinson (1999). Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 1353-1359.

Bentler, P. M. , & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

Bollen, K. A. (2000). Modeling strategies: In search of the Holy Grail. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(1), 74-81.

Burton, D. B. , Ryan, J. J. , Paolo, A. M. , & Mittenberg, W. (1994). Structural equation analysis of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised in a normal elderly sample. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 380-385.

Chen, F. , Bollen, K. A. , Paxton, P. , Curran, P. J. , & Kirby, J. B. (2001). Improper solutions in structural equation models: Causes, consequences, and strategies. Sociological Methods and Research, 29(4), 468-508.

Crawford, J. R. , Deary, I. J. , Allan, K. M. , & Gustafsson, J-E. (1998). Evaluating competing models of the relationship between inspection time and psychometric intelligence. Intelligence, 26(1), 27-42.

Detterman, D. K. , & Daniel, M. H. (1989). Correlation of mental tests with each other and with cognitive variables are highest for low-IQ groups. Intelligence, 13, 349-159.

Fogarty, G. J. , & Stankov, L. (1995). Challenging the “law of diminishing returns.” Intelligence, 21, 157-174.

Gignac, G. E. (2004). Determining the dimensionality of a self-report emotional intelligence inventory (SUEIT) and testing its unique factorial validity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne.

10.

Gignac, G. E. (2005). The dimensionality of the WAIS-III: Extensions using the bi-factor model. Manuscript submitted for publication.

11.

Gignac, G. E. (in press). Examining the factor structure of the MAB via nested factor modeling. Educational and Psychological Measurement.

12.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis: Its role in item analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(3), 532-560.

13.

Gustafsson, J-E. , & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28(4), 407-434.

14.

Holzinger, K. J. , & Swineford, F. (1937). The bi-factor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41-54.

15.

Hu, L. , & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

16.

Jackson, D. N. (1984). Multidimensional Aptitude Battery manual. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.

17.

Kaufman, A. S. , & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2002). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

18.

Marsh, H. W. , & Hocevar, D. (1983). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 231-248.

19.

Moffit, T. E. , & Silva, P. A. (1987). Neuropsychological deficit and self-report delinquency in an unselected birth cohort. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 233-240.

20.

Mulaik, S. A. , & Quartetti, D. A. (1997). First order or higher order general factor? Structural Equation Modeling, 4(3), 193-211.

21.

O’Grady, K. E. (1983). A confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis of the WAIS-R. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(6), 826-831.

22.

Steiger, J. H. , Shapiro, A. , & Browne, M. W. (1985). On the multivariate asymptotic distribution of sequential chi-square statistics. Psychometrika, 50, 253-264.

23.

Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 10-39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

24.

Taub, G. E. (2001). A confirmatory analysis of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition: Is the verbal/performance discrepancy justified? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(22). Retrieved from http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=7&n=22

25.

Vandenberg, R. J. , & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70.

26.

Waller, N. G. , & Waldman, I. D. (1990). A reexamination of the WAIS-R factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 2(2), 139-144.

27.

Ward, L. C. , Ryan, J. J. , & Axelrod, B. N. (2000). Confirmatory factor analyses of the WAIS-III standardization sample. Psychological Assessment, 12, 341-345.

28.

Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.

29.

Widaman, K. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1-26.