WISC-IV and Clinical Validation of the Four- and Five-Factor Interpretative Approaches

The purpose of this study was to determine the constructs measured by the WISC-IV and the consistency of measurement across large normative and clinical samples. Competing higher order four- and five-factor models were analyzed using the WISC-IV normative sample and clinical subjects. The four-facto...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of psychoeducational assessment 2013-04, Vol.31 (2), p.114-131
Main Authors: Weiss, Lawrence G., Keith, Timothy Z., Zhu, Jianjun, Chen, Hsinyi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescents
Arithmetic
Children
Factor Analysis
Factor Structure
Intelligence Tests
Learning Disabilities
Logical Thinking
Measures (Individuals)
Pictorial Stimuli
Spatial Ability
Validity
Visual Perception
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The purpose of this study was to determine the constructs measured by the WISC-IV and the consistency of measurement across large normative and clinical samples. Competing higher order four- and five-factor models were analyzed using the WISC-IV normative sample and clinical subjects. The four-factor solution is the model published with the test manual. In the five-factor model, the POI differentiated into a visual-spatial factor (consisting of Block Design and Picture Completion) and a fluid reasoning factor (consisting of Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts, with and Arithmetic). The five-factor solution included Inductive Reasoning (IR), consisting of Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts, as a narrow ability subsumed under the FRI (Gf). When all 15 WISC-IV subtests were considered, both four- and five-factor models were suitable and showed close model-data fit. Further, both models generally demonstrated full factorial invariance between clinical and nonclinical samples. Interpretation of the fifth factor is discussed.
ISSN:0734-2829
1557-5144
DOI:10.1177/0734282913478032