BeaujeanA. A. (2017). Commentary on “strengths and weaknesses in the intellectual profile of different subtypes of specific learning disorder”. Clinical Psychological Science, 5, 874–877.
2.
GignacG. E. (2016). The higher-order model imposes a proportionality constraint: That is why the bifactor model tends to fit better. Intelligence, 55, 57–68. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2016.01.006
3.
GignacG. E.KretzschmarA. (2017). Evaluating dimensional distinctness with correlated-factor models: Limitations and suggestions. Intelligence, 62, 138–147. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.04.001
4.
GiofrèD.ToffaliniE.AltoèG.CornoldiC. (2017). Intelligence measures as diagnostic tools for children with specific learning disabilities. Intelligence, 61, 140–145. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.01.014
5.
KazdinA. E. (1999). The meanings and measurement of clinical significance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 332–339. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.3.332
6.
MolenaarD. (2016). On the distortion of model fit in comparing the bifactor model and the higher-order factor model. Intelligence, 57, 60–63. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2016.03.007
7.
MurrayA. L.JohnsonW. (2013). The limitations of model fit in comparing the bi-factor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure. Intelligence, 41, 407–422. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.06.004.
8.
SilversteinA. B. (1989). Reliability and abnormality of scaled-score ranges. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 926–929. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198911)45:6<926::AID-JCLP2270450615>3.0.CO;2-O
9.
StyckK. M.WatkinsM. W. (2016). Structural validity of the WISC-IV for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 216–224. doi:10.1177/0022219414539565
10.
ToffaliniE.GiofrèD.CornoldiC. (2017). Strengths and weaknesses in the intellectual profile of different subtypes of specific learning disorder. Clinical Psychological Science, 5, 402–409. doi:10.1177/2167702616672038
