Practitioners of IQ tests are often taught that patterns of scatter among IQ subtests can lead to noncohesive full-scale IQ (FSIQ) scores. This notion exists despite a lack of empirical support and evidence for the robustness of FSIQ in the presence of scatter. However, to date, no study has directly tested the measurement invariance of groups varying in the amount of subtest scatter. We aimed to use multigroup confirmatory factor analysis to test the measurement invariance of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, fifth Edition (SB-5) for individuals with high vs. low scatter in a clinical sample of 5,352 individuals (ages 2–22) referred for comprehensive evaluations due to concerns for neurodevelopmental conditions. There was overall evidence for non-invariance in our sample, suggesting a limited impact of subtest scatter on the construct validity of IQ as measured by the SB-5. In addition, the explained variance of specific factors was low, even for individuals with high scatter among subtests. This study provides additional support for the robustness of FSIQ, even in cases of high scatter.
AnkenmanK.ElginJ.SullivanK.VincentL.BernierR. (2014). Nonverbal and verbal cognitive discrepancy profiles in autism spectrum disorders: Influence of age and gender. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 119(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-119.1.84
BeckerA. B. C.MaurerJ.DasekingM.PaulsF. (2024). Measurement invariance of the WISC-V across a clinical sample of children and adolescents with ADHD and a matched control group. Journal of Intelligence, 12(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12010006
4.
CanivezG. L. (2008). Orthogonal higher order factor structure of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales—Fifth edition for children and adolescents. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 533–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012884
5.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.
6.
ClementsC. C.SpardingT.SchultzR. T.YerysB. E.WatkinsM. W. (2020). DAS-II cognitive profiles are not diagnostically meaningful for autism: A ROC analysis. Autism Research, 13(12), 2143–2154. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2336
7.
CourvilleT.CoalsonD. L.KaufmanA. S.RaifordS. E. (2016). Does WISC-V scatter matter? In A. S. Kaufman, S. E. Raiford, & D. L. Coalson (Eds.), Intelligent testing with the WISC-V (pp. 209–225). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
8.
DavidovE.MeulemanB.CieciuchJ.SchmidtP.BillietJ. (2014). Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137
9.
DiStefanoC.DombrowskiS. C. (2006). Investigating the theoretical structure of the Stanford-Binet-fifth edition. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282905285244
10.
DombrowskiS. C.CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W. (2018). Factor structure of the 10 WISC-V primary subtests across four standardization age groups. Contemporary School Psychology, 22(1), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-017-0125-2
11.
DombrowskiS. C.WatkinsM. W.McGillR. J.CanivezG. L.HollingueC.PritchardA. E.JacobsonL. A. (2021). Measurement invariance of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition 10-subtest primary battery: Can index scores be compared across age, sex, and diagnostic groups?Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 39(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282920954583
12.
ElliottC. D. (1990). Differential ability scales (1st ed.). The Psychological Corporation.
13.
FlanaganD. P.AlfonsoV. C. (2017). Essentials of WISC-V assessment (2nd ed.). Wiley.
14.
FlanaganD. P.KaufmanA. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment. Wiley.
15.
FrebergM. E.VandiverB. J.WatkinsM. W.CanivezG. L. (2008). Significant factor score variability and the validity of the WISC-III full scale IQ in predicting later academic achievement. Applied Neuropsychology, 15(2), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/09084280802084010
16.
GomezR.VanceA.WatsonS. (2017). Bifactor model of WISC-IV: Applicability and measurement invariance in low and normal IQ groups. Psychological Assessment, 29(7), 902–912. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000369
17.
HuL.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), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
18.
KahanaS. Y.YoungstromE. A.GluttingJ. J. (2002). Factor and subtest discrepancies on the Differential Ability Scales: Examining prevalence and validity in predicting academic achievement. Assessment, 9(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191102009001010
19.
KimS. Y.YoungstromE. A.NorrisM.LevineA.ButterE. M.StephensonK. G. (2025). Identifying latent cognitive profiles in autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder using the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales—5th edition. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911251369977
20.
KuriakoseS. (2014). Concurrent validity of the WISC-IV and DAS-II in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32(4), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913511051
21.
McGillR. J. (2016). Invalidating the Full Scale IQ score in the presence of significant factor score variability: Clinical acumen or clinical illusion?Archives of Assessment Psychology, 6(1). https://nsuworks.nova.edu/psyassessment/vol6/iss1/2
22.
McGillR. J. (2018). Confronting the base rate problem: More ups and downs for cognitive scatter analysis. Contemporary School Psychology, 22(3), 384–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-017-0168-4
23.
NowellK. P.SchandingG. T.Jr.KanneS. M.Goin-KochelR. P. (2015). Cognitive profiles in youth with autism spectrum disorder: An investigation of base rate discrepancies using the Differential Ability Scales—Second Edition. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 1978–1988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2356-7
24.
Onandia-HinchadoI.Pardo-PalenzuelaN.Diaz-OruetaU. (2021). Cognitive characterization of adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder by domains: A systematic review. Journal of Neural Transmission, 128(7), 893–937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-021-02302-6
25.
PutnickD. L.BornsteinM. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
26.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.3.2) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
27.
ReiseS. P.BonifayW. E.HavilandM. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
28.
ReynoldsM. R.IngramP. B.SeeleyJ. S.NewbyK. D. (2013). Investigating the structure and invariance of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales, Fourth Edition in a sample of adults with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(10), 3235–3245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.06.029
29.
ReynoldsM. R.KeithT. Z. (2017). Multi-group and hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition: What does it measure?Intelligence, 62, 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.02.005
30.
Rodríguez-CancinoM.Concha-SalgadoA. (2023). WISC-V measurement invariance according to sex and age: Advancing the understanding of intergroup differences in cognitive performance. Journal of Intelligence, 11(9), 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11090180
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
33.
RyanJ. J.KreinerD. S.BurtonD. B. (2002). Does high scatter affect the predictive validity of WAIS-III IQs?Applied Neuropsychology, 9(3), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324826AN0903_5
34.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192
35.
ScorzaM.GontkovskyS. T.PudduM.CiaramidaroA.TermineC.SimeoniL.MauroM.BenassiE. (2023). Cognitive profile discrepancies among typical university students and those with dyslexia and mixed-type learning disorder. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(22), 7113. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227113
36.
StephensonK. G.BeckJ. S.SouthM.NorrisM.ButterE. (2021). Validity of the WISC-V in youth with autism spectrum disorder: Factor structure and measurement invariance. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 50(5), 669–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2020.1846543
37.
StephensonK. G.LevineA.RussellN. C. C.HorackJ.ButterE. M. (2023). Measuring intelligence in Autism and ADHD: Measurement invariance of the-Binet 5th edition and impact of subtest scatter on abbreviated IQ accuracy. Autism Research, 16(12), 2350–2363. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.3034
38.
SudarshanN. J.BowdenS. C.SaklofskeD. H.WeissL. G. (2016). Age-related invariance of abilities measured with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV. Psychological Assessment, 28(11), 1489–1501. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000290
39.
WatkinsM. W.GluttingJ. J.LeiP.-W. (2007). Validity of the full-scale IQ when there is significant variability among WISC-III and WISC-IV factor scores. Applied Neuropsychology, 14(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09084280701280353
WechslerD. (2014). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth edition (WISC-V). Pearson.
43.
WilliamsT. H.McIntoshD. E.DixonF.NewtonJ. H.YoumanE. (2010). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth edition, with a high-achieving sample. Psychology in the Schools, 47(10), 1071–1083. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20525
44.
WilsonA. C. (2024). Cognitive profile in autism and ADHD: A meta-analysis of performance on the WAIS-IV and WISC-V. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 39(4), 498–515. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acad073
45.
YuH.McCoachD. B.GottfriedA. W.GottfriedA. E. (2018). Stability of intelligence from infancy through adolescence: An autoregressive latent variable model. Intelligence, 69, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.03.011
