School Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2000, pp.

3-29

Seven Questions About the WAIS-III Regarding Differences in Abilities Across the 16 to 89 Year Life Span
Alan S. Kaufman

Yale University School of Medicine

Data from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III) manual and data provided by the test publisher were analyzed to address seven questions about differences in human cognitive abilities as they are measured by the WAIS-III across the 1689-year age span. Educational attainment was controlled to remove one of the main contaminants in the interpretation of cross-sectional data across a wide age span. All seven questions were of a practical, clinical nature, although the answers were usually relevant to Horn's Gf-Gc theory. Questions concerned the validity of the norms for ages 1619 years, differences in the age-by-age patterns of scores on the four Factor Indexes, and differences in the age-by-age patterns of scaled scores on the subtests composing each Index.

The publication of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III; The Psychological Corporation, 1997; Wechsler, 1997) across the expanded age range of 16 to 89 years raises interesting questions about differences in human cognitive abilities across the life span. The previous edition, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R; Wechsler, 1981), spanned the 16-74 year age range and yielded valuable data for understanding the aging process, especially in terms of the Horn-Cattell (Cattell, 1963; Horn & Cattell, 1966, 1967) theory of fluid (Gf) and crystallized (Gc) intelligence, as well as Horn's (1985, 1989, 1991) expansion of Gf-Gc theory (Kaufman, 1990; Kaufman, Reynolds, & McLean, 1989).

The author gratefully acknowledges Aurelio Prifitera and David Tulsky of The Psychological Corporation for generously making pertinent WAIS-III data available for this study; Cindi L. Kreiman, also of The Psychological Corporation, for conducting the requested data analyses with speed and accuracy; Jason Cole, for developing the figures; and Jim McLean, for conducting data analyses needed for an earlier draft of this article. This article includes portions of the data presented as part of an invited address (Senior Scientist Award, Division 16) at the 1998 American Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco, CA. Address correspondence to Alan S. Kaufman, Clinical Professor of Psychology, Yale University, Child Study Center, 230 S. Frontage Rd., Box 207900, New Haven, CT 06520-7900. 3

KAUFMAN

Publication of a revised instrument with a new sample of adults tested in the mid-1990s raises the immediate question of whether the changes in abilities that have been observed on Wechsler's adult scales for previous generations apply to changes for the present generation. But the WAIS-III has been modified structurally in important ways, which raises additional questions apart from generational differences. For example, a new subtest, Matrix Reasoning, was developed and included as part of the Performance Scale, replacing the traditional Object Assembly subtest. Matrix Reasoning, patterned after Raven's familiar matrices, is sometimes considered a prototypical measure of Horn's Gf ability (Horn & Hofer, 1992), whereas Object Assembly measures both Gf and Gv (Broad Visualization) according to Horn (1989) and, perhaps, measures Gv only and Gf not at all (Woodcock, 1990). This subtest substitution, therefore, raises the possibility that what Performance IQ measures may be different from the WAIS-R to the WAIS-III, especially across the life span. A logical question is whether the new Matrix Reasoning subtest and the old Object Assembly subtest display similar or different patterns of mean scores across the 16-17 to 85-89 year age range. From a theoretical standpoint, Horn's expansion and refinement of the Horn-Cattell Gf-Gc theory (Horn, 1989; Horn & Hofer, 1992; Horn & Noll, 1997) is emphasized in the interpretation of the present WAIS-III data. The primary reason for this decision concerns the large body of previous research on aging across the life span, much of which has been interpreted within the context of Gf and Gc abilities (see Chapter 7, Kaufman, 1990; Matarazzo, 1972). Much of this accumulated literature has involved the WAIS and WAIS-R, such that emphasis on Horn's theory provides continuity of interpretation from the past to the present. Nonetheless, other theories, notably Carroll's (1993, 1997) three-stratum model of cognitive abilities and Naglieri's (1999) Luria-based PASS model, are also relied on to facilitate interpretation of the WAIS-III data. Furthermore, it must be recognized that no one theoretical perspective is the correct one, and that the choice of theory depends in large part on a researcher's personal orientation. My goal here is to answer seven questions about differences in human cognitive abilities across the life span. With one exception (the first question), the questions focus on the four Factor Indexes and the 14 component subtests. Issues involving aging patterns on the three IQs, featuring comparisons to data obtained on the WAIS, WAIS-R, and other cognitive tests for adults, are addressed elsewhere (Kaufman, 1998,1999; Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 1999). The seven questions are listed below, with a brief discussion of why each is important. 1. Are the WAIS-III norms for ages 16-19 years valid? For the WAIS-R, the norms for ages 16 through 19 years were suspect (Kaufman, 1983, 1990). Even though individuals ages 1819 have substantially more formal education than those ages 16-17, and IQ relates substantially to educational attainment, the two age groups (16-17 and 1819) earned nearly identical scores on the WAIS-R. Furthermore, both groups scored strikingly lower than did the group of young adults ages 20-24, and much lower than would be anticipated from previous research on aging

WAIS-III ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

and IQ, including data obtained on the WAIS (Wechsler, 1955). The problem with the WAIS-R norms for ages 16-19 occurred for unknown reasons, probably associated with some type of sampling bias; it is of practical significance to determine whether the WAIS-III norms for those younger than age 20 also display questionable validity. 2. Do the four WAIS-III Factor Indexes display similar or different patterns of mean scores across the 16-17 to 85-89year range? Like the WISC-III (Wechsler, 1991), but unlike previous versions of Wechsler's adult scales, the WAIS-III offers standard scores, called Indexes, on four Factors. On the WAIS-III, these Indexes are named as follows: Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Perceptual Organization Index (POI), Working Memory Index (WMI), and Processing Speed Index (PSI). The VCI includes three subtests (differing from the WISC-III VCI by the exclusion of Comprehension), all of which seem to measure Horn's Gc (crystallized) ability. POI also comprises three subtests, which seem to measure either Gv (Picture Completion), Gf (Matrix Reasoning), or an amalgam of Gv and Gf (Block Design). The WMI includes three subtests, Digit Span and Arithmetic, which form the Freedom from Distractibility Index (FDI) on the WISC-III, plus the new Letter-Number Sequencing subtest. The FDI is seen by Horn (1989) as a measure of Short-Term Apprehension and Retrieval (SAR), or short-term memory. Finally, like the WISC-III Processing Speed Index, the WAIS-III PSI comprises two highly speeded subtests, Digit Symbol/Coding and the new WAIS-III Symbol Search. From Horn's theory, this factor measures Broad Speediness or Gs. The four WAIS-III Factor Indexes are hypothesized to measure Gc, Gf/Gv, SAR, and Gs, respectively. Gc is a an ability that is maintained throughout most of the adult life span, whereas the other three abilities are vulnerable to the effects of aging (Horn & Hofer, 1992). It is instructive and of clinical and theoretical importance to examine mean differences among the four WAIS-III Factor Indexes across the broad age range. 3. Do the three WAIS-III Perceptual Organization subtests display similar or different patterns of mean scores across the 1617 to 8589 year range, especially in view ofits inclusion of Matrix Reasoning, which is probably a measure of fluid ability? On the WAIS-R, Picture Completion, Picture Arrangement, Block Design, and Object Assembly all displayed remarkably similar patterns of education-adjusted mean scores between ages 20 and 74 years (see Figure 7.5, Kaufman, 1990). These comparable results occurred despite the fact that neither Picture Completion nor Picture Arrangement awards bonus points for speed, and the likelihood that Picture Arrangement depends more on temporal sequencing than visual-spatial ability. It is of great interest to determine whether the similar age-by-age patterns emerge once more for the WAIS-III, particularly since Matrix Reasoning, the new member of the Performance Scale and the Perceptual Organization Index (POI), is generally considered to be an excellent measure of Gf ability (Horn, 1989), whereas Wechsler's more traditional Perceptual Organization (PO) subtests are believed to measure either an amalgam of Gf and Gv (Horn & Hofer, 1992; Kaufman, 1994) or just Gv alone (McGrew, 1997; Woodcock, 1990).

KAUFMAN

4. Are the mean scaled scores across the 16-89year age range similar or different for Object Assembly and the new Matrix Reasoning subtest? This question resembles the previous question from a theoretical standpoint, but it has an additional practical application because Matrix Reasoning has replaced Object Assembly on the Performance Scale as a regular subtest for computing Performance IQ and Full Scale IQ. The two subtests are likely measures of somewhat different Horn abilities (Gf and a combination of Gf and Gv, respectively). They also differ greatly in their reliance on speeded performance. Object Assembly allows three bonus points for each item; Matrix Reasoningunlike all other Performance subtests throughout historydoes not even have time limits. Therefore, the substitution of the new subtest for the old one may have considerable ramifications for what Performance IQ measures, a potential problem for the continuity of research from previous Wechsler adult scales to the WAIS-III in areas such as brain damage (e.g., the effect of brain damage to the right hemisphere on an adult's Performance IQ). Although much research is needed to assess the full impact of the replacement of Object Assembly with Matrix Reasoning, a first analysis of interest is to determine whether the subtests have similar or different relationships to age from late adolescence to old age. 5. Are the mean scaled scores across the 1689year age range similar or different for Digit Symbol/Coding and the new Symbol Search subtest? From factor analysis (see Table 4.21, The Psychological Corporation, 1997), both subtests emerged as good measures of the PSI from ages 16 to 74 years (the PSI and POI were merged into a single factor for ages 7589). However, Digit Symbol/Coding (formerly called just Digit Symbol on earlier forms of Wechsler's adult scales) measures psychomotor speed, whereas Symbol Search is more a measure of mental processing speed. From Carroll's (1993, 1997) three-stratum model of cognitive abilities, the two tasks seem to measure different aspects of his Broad (Stratum II) abilities. The Digit Symbol task measures perceptual speed, an aspect of Carroll's Broad Cognitive Speediness; Symbol Search seems to be more a measure of Processing Speed (related to decision-making speed). It is reasonable to interpret data from the present study in terms of both the Horn-Cattell and Carroll models because the two models are quite complementary. Both feature Fluid Intelligence and Crystallized Intelligence as key cognitive abilities and both approaches have tried to provide empirical validation for essentially the same set of cognitive abilities. The array of 8 to 10 abilities that comprise Horn's (1989,1991) expansion and refinement of the original Horn-Cattell model coincide fairly closely with the 8 abilities that define Carroll's (1993, 1997) Stratum II of Broad abilities (although they use different labels for several of the same abilities). However, the two models also differ in important ways, most notably in Carroll's inclusion of "g" at the apex of his factor hierarchy, occupying Stratum III (General); by contrast, Horn (1985,1989) has no use for the g concept in his theory. Therefore, it is Carroll's approach, and not Horn's, that provides a second important reason for asking question 2, namely Digit Symbol/Coding and Symbol Search differ greatly in terms of their measurement of g (and their measurement of Perfor-

WAIS-III ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

mance IQ). Across all ages, Symbol Search correlated .66 with the Full Scale and .69 with the Performance Scale (see Table 4.12, The Psychological Corporation, 1997). Corresponding values for Digit Symbol/Coding were .53 and .50 (removing the contamination because of overlap ofthis subtest with its scales). Among Performance subtests, Symbol Search tied with Block Design for second place, with both slightly trailing Matrix Reasoning (.69), as correlates of the Full Scale (a measure ofg). As a correlate of the Performance Scale, Symbol Search had no peer; it ranked first. In contrast, Digit Symbol/Coding had the lowest correlation with Full Scale among all 14 WAIS-III subtests, and its correlation with the Performance Scale was lower than the values for all other Performance subtests and for six of the seven Verbal subtests (Digit Span correlated .47). In view of these substantial differences between the two PSI subtests regarding Carroll's Stratum II and Stratum III, it is of interest to evaluate the similarity or difference in their relationship to age level. 6. Do the three WAIS-III Verbal Comprehension subtests display similar or different patterns of mean scores across the 16-17 to 8589 year range, especially in view of Similarities 'possible fluid component? Horn's Gc ability has been shown in much previous research to increase from adolescence through young adulthood, maintain throughout the bulk of the life span, and then decline to some extent in old age (see Chapter 7 in Kaufman, 1990). Peak performance on Gc abilities has typically occurred during the 60s (Horn, 1985, 1989; Kaufman et al., 1989) or 50s (Kaufman & Horn, 1996; Wang & Kaufman, 1993), depending on the instrument and the date of data collection. Similarities is the one Verbal subtest that seems to require a certain degree of Gf, along with Gc, to solve the items (Horn & Hofer, 1992). On the WAIS-R, Similarities was the only Verbal Comprehension (VC) subtest to yield an education-controlled "peak" mean scaled score at about age 50, in contrast to peaks at about age 60 or 65 for Information, Comprehension, and Vocabulary (see Figure 7.4 in Kaufman, 1990). That early peak for Similarities, and accompanying decline at ages 55 and older, probably reflects a Gf component because fluid abilities peak and decline much earlier than crystallized abilities. It was therefore of theoretical interest to compare the age-by-age patterns for WAIS-III Similarities to the patterns for the other VC subtests (Information, Vocabulary) and for the subtest that invariably loads on VC factors (Comprehension; see Chapter 8 in Kaufman, 1990). 7. How does the age-by-agepattern of meansfor new Letter-Number Sequencing subtest differ from the patterns for the other WMI subtests? For the new Letter-Number Sequencing subtest, the examiner reads a series of alternating letters and numbers; the adult's task is to recite the numbers in ascending order and then to recite the letters in alphabetical order. Though included on the Verbal Scale, this task does not measure Gc because it is not intuitively related either to education or acculturation. As a short-term memory task, it must assess SAR to some extent, as do the other WMI subtests (Arithmetic, Digit Span) (Horn, 1989; Horn & Hofer, 1992). But as a novel subtest (unlike anything in most people's experience), and as a learning test (adults undoubtedly develop strategies to cope with the cognitive de-

KAUFMAN

mands of the task as the series start short and keep getting longer), Letter-Number Sequencing may measure Gf to a considerable extent. Additionally, if the visualization strategies that are believed to be so helpful for success on Digits Backward (Costa, 1975) are commonly used to aid recall on Letter-Number Sequencing, as seems likely from a common-sense perspective, then this new subtest may also be a measure of Gv. Indeed, the likely application of strategies to respond efficiently to Letter-Number Sequencing items, especially when the series increase in length, suggests planning ability, as defined inNaglieri's (1999) PASS model. The essence of planning abilitydetermining, selecting, applying, and evaluating solutions to problems (Naglieri, 1999, pp. 12-15)relates closely to the essence of fluid intelligence. Therefore, it is of interest to determine whether the pattern of mean scores by age level more Closely resembles the pattern for SAR ability (gradual decline with increasing age) or Gf and Gv abilities (rapid decline). METHOD Instrument The newest member of the Wechsler family of tests is the WAIS-III (The Psychological Corporation, 1997; Wechsler, 1997), for adults from ages 16 to 89 years. The new WAIS-III was formatted to be similar to the WISC-III and includes Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQs and Indexes on four factors (VCI, POI, WMI, and PSI, as described previously), all with a mean of 100 and SD of 15, and scaled scores on 14 subtests (mean = 10, SD = 3), seven Verbal and seven Performance. The WAIS-III was standardized on 2,450 adult participants selected according to 1995 U.S. Census data, and stratified according to age, gender, race and ethnicity, geographic region, and education level. Participants were divided into 13 age groups between 16-17 and 85-89, with each age group including 100 to 200 people. Average split-half reliability coefficients across the 13 age groups were .97 for Verbal IQ, .94 for Performance IQ, and .98 for Full Scale IQ. The average value for the Processing Speed Index was .87 (a test-retest coefficient because split-half is not applicable for highly speeded tasks), with the split-half coefficients averaging .93 to .96 for the other three Indexes. The average individual subtest reliabilities ranged from .93 (Vocabulary) to .70 (Object Assembly), with a median coefficient of .85. Stability coefficients based on 394 adults from four broad age groups tested twice (interval averaging about 5 weeks) were: Verbal IQ (.94-.97), Performance IQ (.88-.92), Full Scale IQ (.95-.97), VCI (.92-.96), POI (.83-.92), WMI (.87-.93), and PSI (. 84-.90). Average test-retest coefficients for subtests ranged from .69 for Picture Arrangement to .94 for Information; median coefficients across age groups were .83 for the seven Verbal subtests and .79 for the seven Performance subtests. The WAIS-III technical manual (The Psychological Corporation, 1997) reports that numerous factor-analytic studies (exploratory and confirmatory) supported the underlying four-factor structure of the WAIS-III for ages 16 to 74 years, thereby offering construct validity support for these ages. For ages 75-89, however, the Per-

WAIS-III ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

ceptual Organization factor was meager (only Matrix Reasoning had a loading above .40), with most Performance subtests joining the Processing Speed Index. Participants The WAIS-III standardization sample of 2,450 individuals at ages 16 to 89 years composed the sample. The group was subdivided into 13 separate subsamples between ages 16-17 and 85-89. Each of the 11 subsamples from 16-17 through 75-79 was composed of 200 individuals; ages 80-84 had N= 150 and ages 85-89 had TV= 100. The number of males and females was equal through age group 55-64, but matched Census proportions at ages 65 and older, where females are more numerous. The sample was also stratified on the variables of race and ethnicity, geographic region, and educational attainment (The Psychological Corporation, 1997, pp. 1939). Procedure For the WAIS-R and previous versions of Wechsler's adult scales, scaled scores were obtained for every age group based on reference group norms for ages 2034 years. Separate IQ tables were then developed for each age group to ensure that every age had mean =100 and SD =15. The WAIS-III departed from tradition, and followed the method used for Wechsler's children's scales with separate scaled score norm tables for each age group and a single IQ conversion table for all ages. The method used for the WAIS-III is sensible and has many advantages for the clinician (e.g., ensuring that each scaled score has a mean of 10 and SD of 3 for each age group). However, the current method prevents easy comparison of the mean scores earned by different age groups based on a common yardstick (i.e., the reference group norms). The WAIS-III manuals (The Psychological Corporation, 1997; Wechsler, 1997) do not directly provide any age-related data to permit comparisons among age groups. However, The Psychological Corporation generously provided mean scaled scores, for each age on the 14 WAIS-III subtests, based on the reference group of 400 adults ages 20-34 years. These data permit direct comparisons across the 16- to 89-year age range on all subtests, Factor Indexes, and IQs. Comparisons of mean scores by age, even on the common metric of reference-group scaled scores, is confounded by cohort effects. The one cohort effect that is large, pervasive, and capable of being controlled is educational attainment. Table 1 shows the percent of participants at each age with different educational backgrounds. As indicated, sizable differences exist for the cross-sectional age groups for educational background. For example, about half of the adults in their 80s failed to complete high school (< 11 years of schooling) versus about one-third of adults ages 6579 and about 15% of adults ages 20-34. Analogously, about one-fourth of adults ages 2534 graduated college (16+ years of schooling), compared with about 14% of those ages 6579. Because educational attainment is strongly related to IQs on Wechsler's adult IQ scales, correlating about .60-.70 on the WAIS (Wechsler, 1955) and about .45-.60 on the WAIS-R (Reynolds,

10

KAUFMAN

TABLE 1. Percentage of Adults with Different Amounts of Formal Education, by Age Group, for the WAIS-III Standardization Sample
Age Group (years) 16-17 18-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 N 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 150 100 0-11 years (14.5) (16.0) 15.0 14.0 14.0 9.5 17.5 26.5 32.0 31.5 34.0 49.3 5O0 12 years (35.5) (32.0) 34.0 36.5 33.5 34.0 33.5 38.0 38.0 39.5 37.0 28.7 TL0 1315 years (31.0) (34.0) 40.0 26.0 29.5 27.5 24.0 17.5 16.0 15.0 15.5 10.7 1L0 16+Years (19.0) (18.0) 11.0 23.5 23.0 29.0 25.0 18.0 14.0 14.0 13.5 11.3 12.0

Note. Data are adapted from Table 2.6 in the WAIS-1II/WMS-I1I Technical Manual (The Psychological Corporation, 1997). Values in parentheses denote parents' educational attainment.

Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987; Wechsler, 1958), it is evident that any mean differences in intelligence displayed by different age groups may be merely a reflection of educational differences from group to group. Therefore, control of educational attainment was essential. In their cross-sectional analysis of aging and IQ on the WAIS-R, Kaufman and colleagues (1989) controlled for education by equating all age groups within the 20-74 year range on this key variable. They accomplished equating the age groups by weighting each group in accordance with the educational attainment of the most educated WAIS-R age group, ages 2534 years. First, they computed the mean test scores earned by adults with different amounts of formal education (that is, 0-8, 911, 12, 1315, and 16+ years of schooling) separately by age group. Then they weighted each mean by the percent of adults at ages 25-34 who completed the pertinent years of schooling, so that all age groups in effect had the same proportions of adults in each education category as the target age group of 25-34. To conduct the same type of analysis with the WAIS-III data, it was necessary to know the mean test scores earned by adults in each of the five educational categories for every WAIS-III age group. Again, these age x education data were provided by The Psychological Corporation. For the WAIS-R, ages 25-34 was selected as the target because that group was the most educated. From Table 1, it is evident that the most educated group on the WAIS-III is ages 3 5 ^ 4 , with 29% college graduates and less than 10% as high school dropouts. Nonetheless, to be comparable to the procedure used in the WAIS-R study, ages 25-34 were used in the present WAIS-III study as the target.

WAIS-III ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

11

In the WAIS-III technical manual (see Table 2.6, The Psychological Corporation, 1997), percents of adults in each educational category are provided separately for ages 2529 and 30-34. The midpoint of these percents was used to determine the percents for ages 2534. These percents are as follows: 0-8 years of schooling (4.5%), 9-11 years (9.5%), 12 years (35.0%), 13-15 years (27.75%), and 16+ years (23.25%). For each age group between 20-24 and 85-89 years, the pertinent mean scorewhether subtest scaled score or Factor Indexwas weighted by the target percent for that educational category. (Scores for ages 16-19 were not equated for educational attainment, because only parents' education was provided, and because many of these older adolescents had not yet completed their formal education.) For example, consider ages 20-24: The mean score earned by young adults with 0-8 years of schooling was weighted by 4.5; the mean score earned by those with 911 years of schooling was weighted by 9.5; the mean score earned by those with 12 years of schooling was weighted by 35.0; the mean score earned by those with 1315 years of schooling was weighted by 27.75; and the mean score earned by those with 16+ years of schooling was weighted by 23.25. This education-weighting procedure was applied for each scaled score and Index at each age, producing a set of scores that equated the mean scores obtained by each age group to the educational attainment of adults ages 2534. These education-controlled scores permitted the meaningful comparison of scaled scores and Factor Indexes for the 11 age groups between 20-24 and 8589, removing the confounding because of different levels of educational attainment. The more the educational attainment of an age group deviated from the target age of 25-34 (e.g., ages 80-84 and 8589), the greater the amount of adjustment to obtained values. Thus, adults ages 8589, for example, included 50% high school dropouts and 12% college graduates (see Table 1); when adjusted for education, they earned mean scores as if they included 14% dropouts and 23.25% college graduates, the same percents as adults ages 20-34. Education-adjusted scaled scores and Factor Indexes were needed to answer questions 2 through 7; question 1 was able to be answered with unadjusted values. It was not possible to conduct ANOVA or multiple regression analyses, similar to the ones conducted by Kaufman et al. (1989) for the WAIS-R, because data were provided in the form of pertinent means and standard deviations, not separately for individual cases. RESULTS Question 1: Are the WAIS-III Norms for Ages 16 to 19 Years Valid? Table 2 presents the mean sums of scaled scores on the WAIS, WAIS-R, and WAIS-III Verbal, Performance, and Full Scales for each age group between 16-17 and 2529; these values are unadjusted for education. All mean sums of scaled scores are based on scaled scores derived from norms for the reference group, ages 20-34. Values for adults older than 29 are excluded from this table, because the only ages of interest to answer question 1 are ages 16-19 and the adult ages closest to the older adolescent years.

TABLE 2. Mean Sums of Scaled Scores on the Verbal, Performance, and Full Scales (Based on the Reference Group of Performance Scale WAIS-HI 55.6 58.5 58.1 604 5L4 49J? 509 50.6 51.1 50.4 49.4 46.9 50.8 48.8 47.4 50.2 WAIS WAIS-R WAIS-HI WAIS 103.4 106.7 110.1 H3J? Full Scale WAIS-R 98.1 98.6 109.8 HL3 WAIS-HI 105.8 109.3 108.5 111.3

20-34-Year-Olds) for Representative Samples of Adults Ages 16-17 to 25-29 on the WAIS, WAIS-R, and WAIS-HI

Age Group (years)

Verbal Scale

WAIS

WAIS-R

16-17

54.6

50.7

18-19

57.3

51.7

12

20-24

59.5

58.6

25-29

623

6L4

Note. The value on the WAIS for ages 25-29 is from data provided by Matarazzo (1972, Table 10.4). Values for the WAIS-R for ages 25-29 are based on Wechsler's (1981) data for a combined sample of 2534-year-olds. Standardization data from the WechslerAdult Intelligence Scale, 3rd ed. 1997 by The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

WAIS-III ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

13

For the WAIS, note that the mean sums of scaled scores for ages 1617, 1819, 20-24, and 25-29 increased steadily on all three IQ scales with increasing age (e.g., about 55,57,59, and 62 on the Verbal Scale), as one would predict from the different levels of education for the four age groups. For the WAIS-R, the 16-17-year-olds did not differ meaningfully from the 1819-year-olds, and both scored well below ages 20-24 and 25-29 (e.g., values of about 51,52,59, and 61 on the Verbal Scale), which is not the anticipated systematic progression and raises questions about the validity of the WAIS-R norms for ages 16 to 19 years (Kaufman, 1983, 1990). For the WAIS-III, there is a systematic increase in Verbal sums from ages 16-17 to 1819 (about 57 to 59), but there is no increase at all from ages 1819 to 20-24. The lack of an increase is contrary to expectations in view of college attendance of many more individuals at ages 20-24 than 18-19, which again raises questions about the norms for the youngest age groups in the standardization sample. Question 2: Do the Four WAIS-III Factor Indexes Display Similar or Different Patterns of Mean Scores Across the 16-17 to 85-89 Year Range? Table 3 presents mean Factor Indexes, by age, for the 13 age groups between 16-17 and 8589 years; obtained values and education-adjusted means are shown. Figure 1 shows graphs of the education-adjusted means. Both the table and the figure reveal that each of the four Indexes demonstrate different patterns of mean differences across the age range. The VCI (believed to be a measure of Gc) demonstrates the pattern of a maintained ability, whereas the other three Indexes all suggest vulnerable abilities, with the largest decreases with increasing age shown by PSI (Gs), followed by POI (Gf and Gv), and then WMI (S AR). Peak performance on the education-adjusted means occurred at ages 4554 for VCI, ages 2529 on POI and WMI, and ages 20-24 on PSI. Although it was not possible to adjust values for individuals ages 16-19 for education, note that the unadjusted mean PSI of about 103 for ages 1819 truly represents the peak performance on PSI. As noted, the unavailability of test data for each individual case prevented conducting relevant statistical analyses to determine which age-by-age differences in pairs of mean scores are large enough to be meaningful. Data from the WAIS-R (Kaufman et al., 1989) are helpful for estimation purposes. In that study, ANOVAs and ANCOVAs using the three IQs as dependent variables (and education as the covariate) produced significant values of F for the three ANOVAs and for two ANCOVAs (Performance and Full Scale IQ). The five Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) tests (p < .05) yielded almost precisely the same magnitude of difference needed for significance between pairs of mean scores: 4.5 IQ points (range 4.44 to 4.63). Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that differences of about 5 Index points (1/3 of a SD) are needed for any two means to differ significantly for each Factor Index. That rule of thumb should only be applied to POI, WMI, and PSI; it is conceivable that the age-by-age fluctuations of adjusted means on VCI (range 98.3 to 105.9) would not have produced a significant F in the ANCOVA.

TABLE 3. Mean Indexes on the Four WAIS-III Factors (with Mean Sums of Scaled Scores Based on the Reference Group of 20-34 POI ObL 99.6 100.0 99.3 100.6 98.4 97.7 93.9 89.4 85.5 82.9 80.6 76.2 74/7 79A 80.7 83.8 73.8 70.7 68/7 86.8 79.1 89.0 80.1 91.7 85.2 93.3 91.0 96.8 95.5 94.7 91.5 87.9 83.7 82.4 76.5 75.4 75X) 98.4 98.0 97.9 100.6 98.9 98.9 99.8 100.5 100.9 102.9 98.9 98.7 98.9 99.3 99.8 98.0 98.6 98.2 94.4 93.2 90.0 88.4 85.2 822 Ed. Adj. Obt. Ed. Adj. Obt. PSI WMI Ed. Adj. 100.2 99.9 97.9 97.5 98.9 95.6 97.6 93.0 91.1 90.3 88.2

Year Olds) for Adults Ages 16-17 to 85-89 YearsWith and Without an Adjustment for Educational Attainment

Age group (years)

VCI

Obt.

Ed. Adj.

16-17

94.9

18-19

98.0

20-24

97.2

98.3

25-29

100.0

100.1

30-34

101.5

101.4

35-44

103.9

102.6

14

45-54

105.4

105.9

55-64

100.3

103.3

65-69

100.1

104.7

70-74

99.7

103.9

75-79

98.6

103.5

80-S4

93.4

100.1

85-39

9L9

9SA

Note. Obt. = Obtained Index; Ed. Adj. = EducationAdjusted Index. Indexes forages 20-89 years are adjusted for the educational attainment of age groups 2529 and 30-34. Indexes forages 16-19 cannot be adjusted because parents' educational attainment is provided for these samples. Standardization data are from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd ed. 1997 by The Psychological Corporation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

WAIS-III ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

110 0 r

15

105.0

100.0 |

o (J

1
co a
ui

95.0

90.0 j
I

o d

I
(A

85.0
-VERBAL COMPREHENSION (VCI) 80.0 -PERCEPTUAL ORGANIZATION (POI) -PROCESSING SPEED (PSI) -WORKING MEMORY (WMI) 75.0

70.0

16-17^18-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 AGE GROUP

FIGURE 1. Mean reference group indexes on the four WAIS-III factors for adults ages 16-17 to 85-89 yearsAdjusted For Educational Attainment (values for ages 16-19 are unadjusted)
Standardization data from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd ed. 1997 by The Psychological Corporation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Question 3: Do the Three WAIS-III Perceptual Organization Subtests Display Similar or Different Patterns of Mean Scores Across the 16-17 to 85-89 Year Range, Especially in View of Its Inclusion of Matrix Reasoning, Which is Probably a Measure of Fluid Ability? Table 4 presents education-adjusted mean scaled scores (based on the reference group of 20-34-year-olds) on the seven Performance subtests for the 11 age groups between 20-24 and 8589 and unadjusted means for ages 16-19. Figure 2 depicts these means graphically for the three POI subtests plus a fourth subtest (Object Assembly) that is traditionally associated with WAIS and WAIS-R PO factors (see Chapter 8 in Kaufman, 1990) and contributes to the POI on the WISC-III (Wechsler, 1991). As is evident from the table and figure, all four subtests display similar

TABLE 4. Mean Reference Group Scaled Scores (Based on Norms for 20-34-Year-Olds) on the 7 Performance Subtests of the WAIS-III for Adults Ages 16-17 to 85-89 YearsAdjusted for Education

16

Age Group (Years) 16-17 18-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35^4 45-54 55-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89

Picture Completion 9.9 9.9 10.1(+0.2) 10.4 (+0.0) 9.7 (+0.0) 9.8 (-0.2) 9.8 (+0.1) 9.1 (+0.3) 8.6 (+0.6) 7.8 (+0.4) 7.5 (+0.5) 6.8 (+0.6) 6.8 (+1.1)

Digit Symbol/Coding 9.9 10.4 10.3 (+0.0) 9.9 (+0.0) 9.8 (+0.0) 9.4 (-0.1) 8.8 (+0.2) 7.6 (+0.5) 6.8 (+0.7) 6.6 (+0.6) 5.6 (+0.5) 5.6 (+1.0) 5.2 (+1.2)

Block Design 9.9 10.1 10.2 (+0.0) 10.3 (+0.0) 10.1 (+0.0) 9.7 (-0.1) 9.0 (+0.1) 8.7 (+0.3) 8.1 (+0.5) 8.0 (+0.6) 7.5 (+0.5) 7.0 (+0.6) 6.8 (+0.6)

Matrix Reasoning 10.5 10.4 10.1 (+0.0) 10.2 (+0.0) 9.9 (+0.0) 9.4 (-0.1) 8.9 (+0.1) 8.4 (+0.5) 7.8 (+0.7) 7.2 (+0.6) 6.8 (+0.5) 6.6 (+1.0) 6.1 (+0.7)

Picture Arrangement 10.0 9.8 10. 1 (+0.1) 10.2 (+0.0) 9.9 (+0.0) 9.2 (-0.2) 8.8 (+0.1) 8.4 (+0.4) 7.6 (+0.5) 6.8 (+0.5) 6.3 (+0.5) 6.0 (+0.8) 5.5 (+1.0)

Symbol Search 10.1 10.5 10.2 (+0.1) 10.1 (+0.0) 9.9 (+0.0) 9.2 (-0.2) 8.5 (+0.1) 8.0 (+0.5) 7.1 (+0.7) 6.6 (+0.5) 5.6 (+0.5) 5.0 (+0.8) 4.8 (+1.1)

Object Assembly 9.9 10.2 10.0 (+0.2) 10.2 (+0.0) 10.0 (+0.0) 9.5 (-0.1) 8.7 (+0.1) 8.3 (+0.3) 7.6 (+0.4) 7.4 (+0.5) 6.9 (+0.5) 6.2 (+0.4) 6.1 (+0.4)

Note. Scaled scores are based on the reference group ages 20-34 years. Values for ages 20-89 years are adjusted for the educational attainment of age groups 25-29 and 30-34. The amount of the adjustment to the actual reference group scaled score is shown in parentheses next to the adjusted scaled score. Values for ages 16-19 are unadjusted because parents' educational attainment is provided for these samples only. Standardization data are from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd ed. 1997 by The Psychological Corporation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

WAIS-III ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

17

11.0 -PICTURE COMPLETION -BLOCK DESIGN -MATRIX REASONING 10.0 | -OBJECT ASSEMBLY

90

i
8.0

[
< 2
7.0 i

6.0

5.0

I-

r-

16-17 18-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 AGE GROUP

FIGURE 2. Mean reference group scaled scores on the POI subtests, plus Object Assembly, for adults ages 16-17 to 85-89 yearsAdjusted For Education (values for ages 16-19 are unadjusted).
Standardization data from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd ed. 1997 by The Psychological Corporation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

age-by-age patterns of mean scores; all depict vulnerable abilities, resembling the pattern for POI (see Table 3 and Figure 1) and the pattern associated with Gf in various investigations (Horn & Hofer, 1992). Question 4: Are the Mean Scaled Scores Across the 16-89 Year Age Range Similar or Different for Object Assembly and the New Matrix Reasoning Subtest? Table 4 and Figure 2 reveal that the age-by-age mean scaled scores are virtually identical for Matrix Reasoning and Object Assembly. In fact, of all four POI subtests in Figure 2, no two are more similar than Object Assembly and Matrix Reasoning in their patterns of education-adjusted means from ages 2089; only for the unadjusted values in older adolescence is there divergence, especially at ages

18
11.0 DIGIT SYMBOL/CODING SYMBOL SEARCH 10.0 PICTURE ARRANGEMENT

KAUFMAN

90

o
8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0 16-17 18-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35^4 45-54 55-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 AGE GROUP

FIGURE 3. Mean reference group scaled scores on the PSI subtests, plus Picture Arrangement, for adults ages 16-17 to 85-89 yearsAdjusted For Education (values for ages 16-19 are unadjusted).
Standardization data of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd ed. 1997 by The Psychological Corporation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

16-17. Thus, the new subtest that contributes to Performance IQ, often considered to be a good measure of Gf, demonstrates essentially the same pattern of decreased mean scores across the age range as the traditional subtest that it replaced. The age-by-age pattern for Matrix Reasoning is also similar to the patterns observed for all other traditional POI subtests. Question 5: Are the Mean Scaled Scores Across the 16-89 Year Age Range Similar or Different for Digit Symbol/Coding and the New Symbol Search Subtest? Table 4 and Figure 3 indicate that the age-by-age mean scaled scores are virtually identical for Digit Symbol/Coding and Symbol Search. The fact that they differ in

WAIS-III ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

19

the type of speed that is required (perceptual speed vs. decision-making speed) and in the degree to which they provide good measurement of "g" and Performance IQ does not impact the pattern of mean scores across the wide age range. Age-by-age patterns are shown in Figure 3 for Picture Arrangement and for the two highly speeded subtests to provide a point of reference. Picture Arrangement is usually associated with POI factors; it is believed to measure Gf primarily, but it does so without the strong emphasis on speed (on the WAIS-III, unlike the WISC-III, no bonus points for quick perfect performance are allotted on Picture Arrangement). From Figure 3, it is apparent that the graph for Picture Arrangement does not display the same vulnerability as the graphs for the PSI subtests, but it is not widely divergent. Question 6: Do the Three WAIS-III Verbal Comprehension Subtests Display Similar or Different Patterns of Mean Scores Across the 16-17 to 85-89 Year Range, Especially in View of Similarities' Possible Fluid Component? Table 5 presents education-adjusted mean scaled scores (based on the reference group of 20-34-year-olds) for the seven Verbal subtests at ages 20-89 and unadjusted means for ages 16-19. Figure 4 depicts the means pictorially for the three VCI subtests and a fourth subtest (Comprehension) that is often associated with the VC factor in factor analyses of the WAIS, WAIS-R, and WAIS-III (see Chapter 8 in Kaufman, 1990; The Psychological Corporation, 1997) and is included on the VC factor for the WISC-III (Wechsler, 1991). From Table 5 and Figure 4, it is evident that the age-by-age pattern for Similarities differs from the "maintained" (Horn & Hofer, 1992) pattern observed for the three other VCI subtests and for Gc tasks in general. The pattern for Similarities indicates evidence of a maintained ability because it does not peak until ages 4554, but it also displays aspects of a vulnerable ability, decreasing with increasing age to a much greater extent than other VC subtests. Question 7: How Does the Age-by-Age Pattern of Means for the New Letter-Number Sequencing Subtest Differ from the Patterns for the Other WMI Subtests? Figure 5 graphs the age-by-age mean scores for the three WMI subtests that are included in Table 5. From Table 5, which includes data for all seven Verbal subtests, and an examination of Figures 4 and 5, it is apparent that Letter-Number Sequencing displays an age-by-age pattern that is different from all other Verbal subtests. For example, consider adults in their 80s. They earned education-adjusted mean scaled scores of about 10.5 on Vocabulary and Information; 9.5 on Comprehension and Arithmetic; and 8.5 on Similarities and Digit Span. Only Letter-Number Sequencing produced adjusted mean scaled scores as low as 6 to 6.5 during old age.

TABLE 5. Mean Reference Group Scaled Scores (Based on Norms for 20-34-Year-Olds) on the 7 Verbal Subtests for Adults Ages 16-17 to 85-89 YearsAdjusted for Education
Arithmetic Digit Span Information Comprehension Letter-Number Sequencing

Age Group (Years)

Vocabulary

Similarities

20

16-17 18-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-S4 85-39

8.6 9.2 9.5 (+0.2) 10.0 (+0.0) 10.5 (+0.0) 10.7 (-0.2) 11.4 (+0.1) 10.8 (+0.6) 11.2 (+0.9) 11.1 (+0.8) 11.1 (+0.9) 10.6 (+1.3) 10.3 (+1.2)

9.1 9.7 9.7 (+0.2) 10.0 (+0.0) 10.4 (+0.0) 10.4 (-0.2) 10.5 (+0.1) 9.6 (+0.5) 9.8 (+0.9) 9.5 (+0.7) 9.5 (+0.9) 8.6 (+1.2) 8.2 (+1.1)

9.4 9.9 9.9 (+0.2) 10.2 (+0.0) 10.2 (+0.0) 10.1 (-0.2) 10.8 (+0.1) 10.4 (+0.6) 10.4 (+0.8) 9.9 (+0.6) 9.7 (+0.5) 9.6 (+1.0) 9.1 (+0.9)

9.9 9.9 10.3 (+0.1) 10.0 (+0.0) 9.7 (+0.0) 9.6 (-0.1) 9.7 (+0.1) 9.4 (+0.3) 9.3 (+0.5) 8.9 (+0.4) 8.6 (+0.4) 8.7 (+0.7) 8.6 (+0.9)

9.7 10.1 10.0 (+0.2) 10.1 (+0.0) 10.3 (+0.0) 10.7 (-0.2) 11.6 (+0.1) 11.5 (+0.5) 11.7 (+0.8) 11.5 (+0.8) 11.4 (+0.9) 10.8 (+1.2) 10.6 (+1.3)

8.9 9.7 9.7 (+0.1) 10.2 (+0.0) 10.8 (+0.0) 10.7 (-0.2) 11.5 (+0.1) 11.2 (+0.5) 11.4 (+0.8) 11.1 (+0.7) 10.9 (+0.7) 9.9 (+0.8) 9.5 (+1.0)

10.6 10.2 10.4 (+0.2) lO.l(-K).O) 9.6 (+0.0) 9.5 (-0.2) 9.4 (+0.1) 8.9 (+0.4) 8.7 (+0.5) 7.8 (+0.6) 7.1 (+0.4) 6.6 (+0.6) 5.8 (+0.5)

Note. Scaled scores are based on the reference group, ages 20-34 years. Values for ages 20-89 years are adjusted for the educational attainment of age groups 25-29 and 30-34. The amount of the adjustment to the actual reference group scaled score is shown in parentheses next to the adjusted scaled score. Values for ages 16-19 are unadjusted because parents' educational attainment is provided for these samples only. Standardization data are from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd ed. 1997 by The Psychological Corporation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

WAIS-III ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

12

21

11

10

9
(0

-VOCABULARY 8 -SIMILARITIES -INFORMATION -COMPREHENSION

7 16-17 18-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 AGE GROUP

FIGURE 4. Mean reference group scaled scores on the VCI subtests, plus Comprehension, for adults ages 16-17 to 85-89 yearsAdjusted For Education (values for ages 16-19 are unadjusted).
Standardization data of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd ed. 1997 by The Psychological Corporation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

When Tables 4 and 5 and Figures 2 through 5 are examined as a group, it is apparent that the age-by-age means for Letter-Number Sequencing are most similar to the pattern of means for the subtests on the Performance Scale that are believed to measure Gf (Matrix Reasoning), Gv (Picture Completion), a blend of Gf and Gv (Block Design, Object Assembly), and Gs (Digit Symbol/Coding, Symbol Search). Although one cannot infer which abilities are measured by a task solely from the age-by-age patterns, these patterns offer clues. The SAR component of Letter-Number Sequencing is intuitive. However, the fairly steep decline of mean scores with increasing age suggests that the task may include Gf and Gv components, probably owing to the novel aspects of the task, and the likelihood that visualization is a common mediation technique, respectively. The task also may measure planning ability from Naglieri's (1999) Luria-based PASS model, a skill

22
-ARITHMETIC 11.0 -DIGIT SPAN -LETTER-NUMBER SEQUENCING

KAUFMAN

10.0

U]

a. o u

I
3

CO

9.0

in

a <n
8.0

d a ui

7.0

6.0

5.0

16-17 18-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 AGE GROUP

FIGURE 5. Mean reference group scaled scores on the W M I subtests for adult ages 1 6-1 7 to 85-89 yearsAdjusted For Education (values for ages 16-19 are unadjusted).
Standardization data of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd ed. 1997 by The Psychological Corporation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

that is similar to Gf and relates to the strategies that children use when solving the Letter-Number Sequencing items. Indeed, the Planning subtests in Naglieri's (1999) Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) are speeded tests, much like Wechsler's PSI subtests. When focusing exclusively on the graphs in Figure 5, it is striking that the three component subtests of the WMI each have their own characteristic age-by-age patterns of means. Digit Span, a prototypical measure of Horn's SAR, evidences the predicted moderate vulnerability associated with short-term memory ability (Horn & Hofer, 1992). Arithmetic, though considered an SAR ability by Horn (1985, 1989), displays instead the aging pattern associated with Gc ability, a logical alternative in view of the academic achievement that is inherent in a test of oral arithmetic. And Letter-Number Sequencing displays a vulnerability that is more extreme

WAIS-III ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

23

than the patterns of moderate decline that characterize SAR abilities, resembling instead the vulnerability of Gf and Gv abilities. DISCUSSION Practical Implications of Findings Three aspects of this study are particularly important from a practical, clinical standpoint: (a) norms at ages 16-19, (b) results involving Matrix Reasoning, and (c) results involving the separate subtests that compose the Working Memory Index. Norms at Ages 16-19 Years. The issue of the validity of the norms for ages 16-19 is important in view of the problems with norms for these ages on the WAIS-R (Kaufman, 1983,, 1990). On the WAIS-R, the normative sample of 16-19-year-olds performed more poorly than one would have predicted based on educational considerations and the performance of 20-24-year-olds. Also, the 18-19-year-olds did not outperform the younger sample of 16-17-year-olds despite a substantial educational advantage. The net result for the WAIS-R was to produce a set of "soft" norms that spuriously inflated their IQs. This inflation became most evident when a young adult achieved his or her 20th birthday, thereby entering a new norms group (20-24 instead of 18-19). For example, if a girl obtained a sum of scaled scores on the Full Scale of 100 just before her 20th birthday, she would earn a Full Scale IQ of 99; that exact performance just a few days later, after her birthday, produces a Full Scale IQ of 92, a penalty of 7 points (nearly one-half of a SD) for growing older. For the WAIS-III, the situation is opposite. First, the comparison of the performance of 16-17-year-olds to those ages 1819 is as one would predict: The older, more educated group performed better, most notably on the Verbal Scale, which is more highly correlated with educational attainment than is the Performance Scale. But, individuals ages 1819 performed at an identical level to young adults of 20-24 (see Table 2), which makes no sense in view of the fact that more than 50% of 20-24-year-olds (and much fewer 1819-year-olds) have attended at least 1 year of college. In contrast to the 7-point loss upon turning 20 with the WAIS-R, the same level of performance on the WAIS-III at ages 18 or 19 versus ages 20 through 24 will produce virtually identical IQs. Whereas the WAIS-R norms for 16-19 were too soft, the WAIS-III norms for ages 1819, and perhaps for 16-17 as well, are too steep. The bar seems to have been set too high, which will yield spuriously low WAIS-III IQs for those in their late teens. The reason for this finding may be the way in which The Psychological Corporation gathered the data. The person's own educational attainment was used for ages 20 and older, but the parent's education was used for ages 16-19. A glance at Table 1 indicates that the parents of older adolescents included nearly 20% college graduates, in contrast to 11% for those 20 to 24 years. Therefore, the 16-19-year-olds may have been given an unfair boost based on their parents' relatively high educational attainment relative to those ages 20-24 who are still continuing in their higher education.

24

KAUFMAN

The fact that there is no gain from ages 1819 to 20-24 needs to be internalized by clinicians, as does the fact that the norms for those ages 16-19 are likely to be slightly inflated relative to young adults. However, in view of the increase in test performance from ages 16-17 to 1819, it would be inappropriate to consider these norms invalid. Matrix Reasoning. Another practical implication of the results concerns the data for Matrix Reasoning. The age-by-age progression of means suggests that if the substitution of Matrix Reasoning for Object Assembly ultimately proves to impact the interpretation of Verbal-Performance IQ discrepancies for samples such as neurologically impaired adults with right or left hemisphere damage, then that impact is likely to be the same across the entire age range. The fact that Object Assembly and Matrix Reasoning have extremely similar mean score patterns for the different age groups indicates that they are highly similar in terms of how test performance relates to increasing age. This similarity suggests at least one important continuity in the Performance IQ construct from the WAIS-R to the WAIS-III. Interestingly, the education-adjusted mean scaled scores are almost identical (within 0.2 points for 11 of 12 age groups) for Matrix Reasoning and Object Assembly for ages 1819 through 85-89 (see Table 4). This finding, especially for ages 75+, is interesting in view of the facts that (a) Object Assembly is quite dependent on speed of performance and Matrix Reasoning is not; and (b) examiners are advised not to administer Object Assembly to adults 75 years or older. The data in Table 4 suggest that examiners might be able to obtain meaningful scores on Object Assembly for elderly individuals, and may choose to administer this subtest for an additional look at this population's performance on visual-motor tasks. One of the advantages of Object Assembly is that the aim of the task is readily communicated with a minimum of verbalization (unlike wordy nonverbal tasks like Picture Arrangement, Block Design, and Digit Symbol/Coding). Though the internal consistency reliability of Object Assembly is low for ages 75-89 (coefficients of .5O-.64), its stability coefficient of .68 for that age group is roughly comparable to the stability coefficients of several other WAIS-III subtests for elderly individuals (Digit Span, Letter-Number Sequencing, and Picture Arrangement) (see Tables 3.1 and 3.9 in The Psychological Corporation, 1997). Working Memory Index. A final practical implication of this study is the makeup of the WMI across the age range. Clinicians should study Figure 5, which shows the very different age-by-age pattern of means from ages 16-89 for the three component subtests of the WMI. The graphs for the three tasks are divergent at ages 16-17, generally convergent for ages 18-29, and divergent once again for ages 30+. Means for Arithmetic increase to ages 4554 before dropping gradually. Means for the other two tasks decrease with increasing age, quite rapidly for Letter-Number Sequencing. Although mean scaled scores will necessarily average 10 for each age on each subtest, clinicians need to be aware that the quality of the performance is quite different after age 30 when abilities are compared with adults in general. Relative to all adults, middle age and elderly individuals perform best on

WAIS-III ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

25

Arithmetic, worst on Letter-Number Sequencing, and at an intermediate level on Digit Span. Although the WMI is a unitary construct that is well supported by factor analysis for all ages, it is composed of three subtests with highly distinct patterns of means for different ages. In contrast, the POI is composed of subtests that share very similar age-by-age patterns (see Figure 2), as is the PSI (see Figure 3). The VCI (see Figure 4) includes two subtests that share a similar age-by-age "maintained" pattern (Vocabulary, Information) and one with a "vulnerable" pattern (Similarities). Theoretical Implications of Findings Table 3 and Figure 1 show the different age-by-age patterns of mean education-adjusted scaled scores for the four WAIS-III Factor Indexes. VCI displays the aging pattern associated with Gc; the POI pattern resembles Gf; the PSI pattern resembles Gs; and the WMI pattern resembles SAR (Horn, 1985, 1989; Horn & Hofer, 1992). The component subtests of these factors do not suggest that the dimensions are unitary measures of these specific Horn abilities, except for Gs or Broad Speediness, which seems to be the primary ability measured by both Digit Symbol/Coding and Symbol Search, and Gf (or likely a blend of Gf and Gv), which is measured by POI. The divergent patterns for the three WMI subtests suggest that other Horn abilities are assessed by this WAIS-III factor. Horn (1985,1989,1991) considers Digit Span and Arithmetic to be measures of SAR, with Arithmetic having a considerable Gf component as well (Horn & Hofer, 1992). Digit Span is undoubtedly a primary measure of SAR, but the age-by-age pattern of means for Arithmetic more closely resembles the pattern for Gc abilities and arithmetic reasoning and computation skills are certainly school related. The Gf aspect of Arithmetic has been supported by the results of factor analysis (see Table 8.9 in Kaufman & Kaufman, 1993), as has the SAR component (Horn, 1985), the Gc component (see Table 6.2 in Wechsler, 1991), and the Gq or Quantitative ability component (Woodcock, 1990). In addition, the new Letter-Number Sequencing subtest likewise seems to be cognitively complex. Its pattern of a steep decline in mean scores with increasing age suggests that it is a vulnerable ability, even more vulnerable than one would predict for a measure of SAR (which it is, at least to some extent, based on the immediate recall aspect of the task). Its age-by-age pattern resembles closely the pattern foi;the subtests that are traditionally associated with PO factors, whether the PO subtest is believed to be primarily a measure of Gv (Picture Completion, which requires little or no reasoning ability), Gf (Matrix Reasoning, which stresses reasoning more so than spatial visualization), or a blend of Gf and Gv (Block Design and Object Assembly, which measure nonverbal concept formation and spatial reasoning). Visualization might be a strategy that first facilitates the recall of the numbers in ascending order and then the recall of letters in alphabetic order, suggesting the potentially crucial role of planning ability (Naglieri, 1999). Similar visualiza-

26

KAUFMAN

tion strategies have been observed for Digits Backward (Costa, 1975). The fluid component of Letter-Number Sequencing would pertain to the novelty of this task and, perhaps, to the learning of retrieval strategies that may be involved when individuals progress from the shorter to longer series (again, emphasizing the key role of planning ability). From a Horn Gf-Gc theoretical standpoint, the WMI seems to be quite a complex factor. It cannot be interpreted as a simple measure of S AR, just as the complex POI factor cannot be automatically interpreted as a measure of Gv or Gf. Woodcock (1990) and McGrew (1997) have interpreted PO factors of a variety of Wechsler scales as almost exclusively within the domain of Gv. The inclusion of Matrix Reasoning on the POI factor strongly suggests a Gf component for the WAIS-III PO dimension, although some researchers (Horn, 1989; Kaufman, 1994) have argued that all PO factors for all Wechsler scales assess a blend of Gf and Gv. It is of interest to observe (Table 4 and Figure 2) that the patterns for the POI subtests, plus Object Assembly, are all vulnerable and remarkably similar to one another. As recently as 1992, Horn and Hofer classified Gv as vulnerable, but conceded that the literature provides "little evidence to indicate the vulnerable features of visual processing (Gv)" (p. 60). The present study supports the vulnerable nature of Gv and suggests that the age-by-age pattern for Gv and Gf are extremely similar. That same finding was reported in a study of purported Gf and Gv subtests included in the Kaufman Short Neuropsychological Assessment Procedure (K-SNAP; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1994), namely Gestalt Closure, a well-known measure of Gv, and Four-Letter Words, a novel test of fluid reasoning and planning ability (Kaufman, Kaufman, Chen, & Kaufman, 1996). For 1,193 individuals, ages 1594 years, education-adjusted mean scores demonstrated extreme vulnerability across this wide age range and the age patterns were highly similar for Gv and Gf abilities; adjusted means peaked at 106-109 in late adolescence and young adulthood, decreased to 99-100 at ages 50-54, and dropped to 82-83 at ages 75-94. Despite the extreme similarity in the age-by-age means for subtests believed to measure Gv and Gf for the K-SNAP and WAIS-III, these abilities are different in a neurological sense. Gv abilities and abilities that blend Gv with Gf (such as the ones measured by Block Design) are susceptible to right-hemispheric dysfunction (Reitan & Wolfson, 1992). In contrast, fluid reasoning abilities are believed to be most vulnerable to dysfunctions associated with the hypothalamus and adjacent areas (Horn & Noll, 1997). Like the WMI, the POI measures complex Horn abilities, primarily Gf and Gv, but is a pure measure of neither. The VCI is also complex when evaluated from the vantage point of Gf-Gc theory. Information and Vocabulary are good measures of Gc, but Similarities (which involves perceiving relationships between fairly common verbal concepts) seems to measure both Gc and Gf. That supposed Gf component undoubtedly explains why performance on this subtest, even when adjusted for education (Table 5 and Figure 4), demonstrates more vulnerability than other subtests often associated with the VC factor.

WAIS-III ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

27

This theoretical interpretation of the WAIS-III aging data has been primarily from Horn's (1985, 1989, 1991) theoretical perspective. It is not intended to be viewed as the only valid way to interpret the data, but as one of many possible valid interpretations of the age-by-age changes. The Horn approach is consistent with many previous theoretical interpretations of aging data, including those on the WAIS and WAIS-R (see Chapter 7 in Kaufman, 1990; Matarazzo, 1972) and on Kaufman and Kaufman's scales designed for adult populations (Kaufman & Horn, 1996; Kaufman et al, 1996; Wang & Kaufman, 1993). In that sense, the emphasis on Horn's theoretical position has the practical advantage of providing continuity in the interpretation of aging research. Nonetheless, Horn's approach (and the related Carroll [1997] model) has some shortcomings. For example, there is no empirical evidence that these approaches yield profiles for exceptional children, are directly relevant to diagnosis, or have relevance to eligibility decisions, intervention, or instructional planningall of which are pertinent for school psychologists. But, the Horn and Carroll systems do have much factor-analytic support for their constructs, and these constructs do seem relevant for interpreting age-by-age differences across the adult life span. CONCLUSIONS The norms at ages 16-19 for the WAIS-III are likely to yield scaled scores and IQs that are spuriously low because these groupsespecially ages 18-19 yearsperformed very similarly to ages 20-24, an illogical result in view of the considerably higher educational attainment of adults in their early 20s relative to older adolescents. Nonetheless, WAIS-III scores increased in predictable fashion from ages 16-17 to 18-19 (unlike the norms of questionable validity for the WAIS-R at ages 16-19), suggesting that the norms for older adolescents on the WAIS-III should be considered valid. The new WAIS-III Factor Indexes display patterns of age-by-age means that are each decidedly different from the others, with each one corresponding to different Horn abilities: VCI = Gc, POI = Gf/Gv, WMI = SAR, PSI = Gs. Although the Factor Indexes display patterns of mean scores that correspond to patterns observed for specific Horn abilities, only the POI and PSI Indexes are unitary across the 16-89 year age range. VCI and especially WMI are not unitary; the abilities they measure seem to be complex. The WMI data are only partially consistent with Horn's theoretical speculations. The new Letter-Number Sequencing subtest has an age-by-age pattern that suggests extreme vulnerability into old age, not unlike the patterns observed for Horn's Gf, Gv, and Gs abilities. The new Symbol Search subtest, despite its high g loading and close relationship to Performance IQ, displays an age-by-age pattern that is virtually identical to its highly speeded mate, Digit Symbol/Coding, despite the latter task's low g loading and poor relationship to Performance IQ.

28

KAUFMAN

The new untimed Matrix Reasoning subtest, often perceived as an excellent measure of Gf, displays the same age-by-age pattern as tasks sometimes considered to be primarily measures of Gv, including Object Assembly, the WAIS-R subtest it replaced in the Performance Scale. On the WAIS-III, the seven Performance subtests plus Letter-Number Sequencing all showed dramatic decreases in mean education-adjusted scaled scores with increasing age, starting at about age 35, when educational attainment is controlled.
REFERENCES
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A Survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, J. B. (1997). The three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Beyond traditional intellectual assessment: Contemporary and emerging theories, tests, and issues (pp. 122130). New York: Guilford. Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 122. Costa, L. D. (1975). The relation of visuospatial dysfunction to digit span performance in patients with cerebral lesions. Cortex, 11, 31-36. Horn, J. L. (1985). Remodeling old models in intelligence. InB. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook oj intelligence: Theories, measurements, and applications (pp. 267300). New York: Wiley. Horn, J. L. (1989). Cognitive diversity: A framework of learning. In P. L. Ackerman, R. J. Steinberg, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Learning and individual differences (pp. 61-116). New York: Freeman. Horn, J. L. (1991). Measurement of intellectual capabilities: A review of theory. In K. S. McGrew, J. K. Werder, & R. W. Woodcock (Eds.), Woodcock-Johnson technical manual: A reference on theory, and current research (pp. 197246). Allen, TX: DLM/Teaching Resources. Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology. 57, 253-270. Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1967). Age difference in fluid and crystallized intelligence. Acta Psychologica, 26, 107-129. Horn, J. L., & Hofer, S. M. (1992). Major abilities and development in the adult period. In R. J. Stemberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual development (pp. 44-99). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press. Horn, J. L., & Noll, J. (1997). Human cognitive capabilities: Gf-Gc theory. In D.P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Beyond traditional intellectual assessment: Contemporary and emerging theories, tests, and issues (pp. 5391). New York: Guilford. Kaufman, A. S. (1983). Review of Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 309-313. Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-IU. New York: Wiley. Kaufman, A. S. (1998, August). What happens to our WAIS-III scores as we agefrom 16 to 89 years and what do these changes mean for theory and clinical practice? Invited Division 16 award address presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Kaufman, A. S. (1999). Aging and intelligence on the WAIS--U1at ages 16 to 89years. Manuscript submitted for publication.

WAIS-III ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

29

Kaufman, A. S., & Horn, J. L. (1996). Age changes on tests of fluid and crystallized intelligence for females and males on the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT) at ages 17 to 94 years. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11, 97121. Kaufman, A. S., Kaufman, J. C , Chen, T., & Kaufman, N. L. (1996). Differences on six Horn abilities for fourteen age groups between 15-16 and 75-94 years. Psychological Assessment, 8, 161-171. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N.L. (1993). Manual for Kaufman Adolescent & Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1994). Manualfor Kaufman Short Neuropsychological Assessment Procedure (KSNAP). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (1999). Essentials of WAIS-III assessment. New York: Wiley. Kaufman, A. S., Reynolds, C. R., & McLean, J. E. (1989). Age and WAIS-R intelligence in a national sample of adults in the 20- to 74-year age range: A cross-sectional analysis with educational level controlled. Intelligence, 13, 235-253. Matarazzo, J. D. (1972). Wechsler's measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed comprehensive Gf-Gc framework. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Beyond traditional intellectual assessment: Contemporary and emerging theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151-179). New York: Guilford. Naglieri, J. A. (1999). Essentials of CAS assessment. New York: Wiley. The Psychological Corporation. (1997). WAIS-III and WMS-III technical manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Reitan, R. M., & Wolfson, D. (1992). Neuropsychological evaluation of older children. South Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychology Press. Reynolds, C. R., Chastain, R. L., Kaufman, A. S., & McLean, J. E. (1987). Demographic characteristics and IQ among adults: Analysis of the WAIS-R standardization sample as a function of the stratification variables. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 323-342. Wang, J., & Kaufman, A. S. (1993). Changes in fluid and crystallized intelligence across the 20- to 90-year age range on the K-BIT. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 11, 29-37. Wechsler, D. (1955). Manualfor the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1958). Measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (4th ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkens. Wechsler, D. (1981). Manualfor the Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleRevised (WAIS-R). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenThird Edition (WISC-III). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1997). Manualfor the Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleThird Edition (WAIS-III). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Woodcock, R. W. (1990). Theoretical foundations of the WJ-R measures of cognitive ability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 231258.

Action Editor: Randy Kamphaus Acceptance Date: October 7, 1999