Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment http://jpa.sagepub.

com/

Test Review: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV)
Alan S. Kaufman, Dawn P. Flanagan, Vincent C. Alfonso and Jennifer T. Mascolo Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 2006 24: 278 DOI: 10.1177/0734282906288389 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jpa.sagepub.com/content/24/3/278

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jpa.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jpa.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jpa.sagepub.com/content/24/3/278.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Aug 11, 2006 What is This?

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

278 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
DOI 10.1177/0734282906288389

Within the field of psychological assessment, the Wechsler scales continue to be the most widely used intelligence batteries. The concepts, methods, and procedures inherent in the design of the Wechsler scales have been so influential that they have guided most of the test development and research in the field for more than a half century (Flanagan, McGrew, & Ortiz, 2000). Virtually every reviewer of these scales, including those who have voiced significant concerns about them, have acknowledged the monumental impact that they have had on scientific inquiry into the nature of human intelligence and the structure of cognitive abilities. Kaufmans (1993) review of the third edition of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III), King WISC the Third Assumes the Throne, is a good example of the Wechsler scales position of authority and dominance in the field (Flanagan et al., 2000). Although the strengths of the Wechsler scales have always outweighed their weaknesses, critics have identified some salient limitations of these instruments; in particular, they lack a contemporary theory and research base (e.g., Braden, 1995; Burns & OLeary, 2004; Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004; Keith, Fine, Taub, Reynolds, & Kranzler, 2006; Little, 1992; McGrew, 1994; Shaw, Swerdlik, & Laurent, 1993; Sternberg, 1993; Witt & Gresham, 1985). Nevertheless, when viewed from an historical perspective, the importance, influence, and contribution of David Wechslers scales to the science of intellectual assessment are both obvious and profound.

Brief History of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

In the late 1930s, David Wechsler began his dramatic influence on the field of psychological assessment. His approach to test development reflected a merger of his keen clinical skills, firsthand statistical training (he studied under Charles Spearman and Karl Pearson in England), and extensive testing experience as a World War I examiner. The goal that Wechsler had in creating his battery was to obtain dynamic clinical information from a set of tasks. In this effort, he was influenced significantly by the Stanford-Binet/Army Alpha system (Verbal Scale) and the Performance Scale Examination/Army Beta system (Performance Scale). However, Wechslers ideas went well beyond the earlier use of tests simply as psychometric tools (see Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004); indeed, he single-handedly transformed the measurement of intelligence from the Terman-McNemar tradition of psychometric assessment to the innovative field of clinical assessment. The first in the Wechsler series of tests was the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale (Wechsler, 1939). In 1946, Form II of the Wechsler-Bellevue was developed, but The Psychological Corporation realized almost immediately that alternate forms of an intelligence test were not particularly marketable. (Indeed, Forms L and M of the 1937 Stanford-Binet were

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

Test Reviews 279

merged into Form L-M in 1960 for the same reason.) Three years later, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 1949) was published as a revision and downward extension of Form II that was designed solely for children ages 5 to 15 years. The WISC has had three revisions (Wechsler, 1974, 1991, 2003a), each with a 6- to 16-year age range. The current fourth edition, the WISC-IV, is the great-great-grandchild of the 1946 Wechsler-Bellevue Form II and is the instrument reviewed here. Specifically, in addition to a general description of the instrument and comparison of its features with those of its predecessor (the WISC-III), the psychometric, theoretical, and qualitative characteristics of the WISC-IV are reviewed. Special consideration will be given to the WISC-IVs utility with special populations and the defensibility of the interpretive steps espoused in the manual.

Description of the WISC-IV

The WISC-IV contains 15 subtests, 10 of which form the core battery. The 10 core subtests are organized to yield four 2- to 3-subtest indexes (Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed); taken together, the 10 core subtests yield a Full Scale IQ (FS-IQ). The WISC-IVs core battery subtests are organized as follows:
Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI): Similarities, Vocabulary, and Comprehension subtests; Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI): Block Design, Picture Concepts, and Matrix Reasoning subtests; Working Memory Index (WMI): Digit Span and Coding subtests; Processing Speed Index (PSI): Letter-Number Sequencing and Symbol Search subtests.

The five subtests excluded from the core battery are referred to as supplemental subtests, and each is associated with one of the indexes: VCI (Information and Word Reasoning), PRI (Picture Completion), WMI (Arithmetic), and PSI (Cancellation). Based on this description, there are several noteworthy changes from the WISC-III in terms of content and structure. First, Picture Arrangement, Object Assembly, and Mazes were deleted, all of which were associated with Wechslers Performance Scale and measured problem-solving ability. Picture Arrangement and Object Assembly were heavily dependent on bonus points for quick, perfect performance and presumably were eliminated to reduce emphasis on response time. Mazes had notably weak reliability, stability, and validity (Kaufman, 1994). Second, Information and Arithmetic were moved to supplemental status. This change reduces emphasis on school achievement; success on the WISC-IV VCI is less influenced by knowledge of facts than previous Verbal scales on Wechslers tests, and success on the WISCIV WMI is minimally influenced by math achievement, relative to previous Wechsler composites that included Arithmetic (e.g., Verbal IQ, Freedom From Distractibility Index). Third, five new subtests were added (Word Reasoning, Matrix Reasoning, Picture Concepts, Letter-Number Sequencing, and Cancellation), all of which place emphasis on fluid reasoning, working memory, or both, and none of which traces its heritage to Wechslers original sources (i.e., Binet and World War I tasks). Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts are good measures of fluid reasoning, an important ability that has consistently been underrepresented on

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

280 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Wechslers Performance Scale and perceptual indexes. Although the subtests these new tasks replaced (i.e., Picture Arrangement and Object Assembly) also measured problem-solving ability, they did so with too great an emphasis on processing speed, visualization, and crystallized abilities. Fourth, the Verbal IQ (V-IQ) and Performance IQ (P-IQ) were dropped, summarily dismissing the ubiquitous and overinterpreted V-P-IQ discrepancy. This change reflects perhaps the instruments greatest departure from 6 decades of Wechsler tradition and clinical folklore. To all but the conservative or diehard Wechslerites, this change was long overdue. The literature has never been clear on the meaningfulness or clinical utility of V-P-IQ differences (e.g., Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 2006; Lezak, 1995; Reitan, 1955). Therefore, focus on more domain-specific abilities (e.g., working memory) was warranted. Fifth, the Freedom From Distractibility (FD) Index was replaced with the WMI. This change was also long overdue because some have posited that the FD Factor was an artifact of the factor analyses of a severely limited battery of tests and should not have been considered to be or interpreted as a valid psychological construct (Carroll, 1993). Others have emphasized the huge number of plausible interpretations of the FD construct (few of which related to freedom from distractions), its variable subtest composition from sample to sample, and its failure to emerge for samples (i.e., preschoolers) who are virtually a functional definition of distractibility (Kaufman, 1979, 1994). Sixth, the Perceptual Organization Index (POI) was renamed the PRI. Although PRI is a better description of the abilities underlying the subtests that comprise this indexespecially in view of the new reasoning subtests that were added to the WISC-IVthe index remains factorially complex (Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004; Keith et al., 2006). That is, the core and supplemental PRI subtests appear to represent two distinct cognitive constructsFluid Reasoning (Gf; Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts) and Visual Processing (Gv; Block Design and Picture Completion). Norms for calculating separate Gf and Gv Indexes are available for the WISC-IV but not from the test publisher (see Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004; see also Keith et al., 2006). Nevertheless, the WISC-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual (The Psychological Corporation, 2003) provides construct validity evidence for the four-factor structure underlying the instrument based on exploratory factor analyses. Specifically, these analyses support the structure for core subtests and for a combination of core and supplemental subtests. Only Picture Concepts at ages 6 to 7 fails to load substantially on its designated factor. Construct validity of the four indexes also appears to be supported by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), although the support is stronger when only core subtests are included in the analyses. In the analyses of core subtests, goodness-of-fit (GFI) statistics ranged from .96 to .98; when supplemental subtests were added to the analyses, GFI values for four factors dropped to .90 to .95. Similarly, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) values were excellent for the core analyses (.03 to .05) and good when all subtests were analyzed (.04 to .06). Nevertheless, to evaluate the CFA studies sufficiently, an examination of factor loadings is necessary. These values were not reported in the WISC-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual (The Psychological Corporation, 2003). Finally, the WISC-IV FS-IQ has changed so dramatically in content and concept that it barely resembles the FS-IQ of previous WISCs or of any other Wechsler Scale, including the 1997 Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleThird Edition (WAIS-III) or the 2002 Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of IntelligenceThird Edition (WPPSI-III). Despite changes to

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

Test Reviews 281

previous revisions of the WISCincluding fairly radical ones such as the addition of four factor-based indexes to the WISC-III profile of scoresthe 10 subtests that have comprised the FS-IQ remained a death-and-taxes constant from the WISC to the WISC-R to the WISC-III. Not so for the WISC-IV, which includes only 5 of the 10 Full Scale subtests: Similarities, Comprehension, Vocabulary, Block Design, and Coding. In addition to these 5 subtests, the WISC-IV FS-IQ is composed of Matrix Reasoning, Picture Concepts, Digit Span, LetterNumber Sequencing, and Symbol Search. The WISC-IV Full Scale is the simple combination of the 10 subtests that make up the four indexesa sensible but nonetheless radical solution. The two WMI and two PSI subtests, all of which have relatively low g loadings (.40s to .60s; see Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004, Tables C.1 and C.2), constitute 40% of the Full Scale. Of these four memory and speed subtests, only coding was part of previous WISC FS-IQs. Excluded from the WISC-IV FS-IQ are subtests that have high g loadings, like Arithmetic and Information (mid .70s to low .80s). The result is a different FS-IQ, one that is more representative of the constructs that comprise the WISC-IV and that gives a more equal weighting to the five Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory (CHC) broad abilities that are measured by the batteryunlike previous editions of the WISC. The consequence of the change in FS-IQ is uncertain because research findings with previous WISCs are now less generalizable to the WISC-IV. As a quick example, ethnic differences between Whites and African Americans who were matched on socioeconomic status and other background variables were found to be smaller on the WISC-IV FS-IQ (9 points) than on WISC-III FS-IQ (11 points) (Prifitera & Saklofske, 1998; Prifitera, Saklofske, & Weiss, 2005). This is a positive finding. But clinicians and researchers need to be aware that with the clear-cut improvements in the structure of the major scales that comprise the WISC-IV comes the side effect of bringing into question the generalizability to the WISCIV of IQ-based research resultseven those that are time tested over the past 60 years with the Wechsler-Bellevue II, WISC, WISC-R, and WISC-III. Parenthetically, none of these positive, sweeping changes would have been made in Wechslers lifetime. The mere suggestion of the elimination of the V-P-IQ discrepancy or of the drastic modification in the Full Scale would likely have evoked the response that Kaufman (1994) vividly recalled whenever one of his suggestions struck a raw nerve in his mentor, Dr. Wechsler: His grandfatherly smile would evaporate. His temples would start to pulse, and his entire face and scalp would turn crimson (p. x). In addition to the content and structural changes already mentioned, several key features of the WISC-IV are reported in the WISC-IV Administration and Scoring Manual (Wechsler, 2003b) and in Flanagan and Kaufman (2004). These features are as follows:
includes several process scores that may enhance its clinical utility; special group studies were designed to improve its clinical utility; statistical linkage with measures of achievement (e.g., Wechsler Individual Achievement TestSecond Edition; WIAT-II); provides computer scoring and interpretive profiling report; Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) prediction table (WASI FS-IQ-4 and predicted WISC-IV FS-IQ range at 68% and 90% confidence interval); 11 core battery subtests on WISC-III yielded three indexes (and 12 subtests needed for FSIQ); 10 core battery subtests of WISC-IV yield four indexes and FS-IQ (more efficient; reduced testing time);

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

282 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

two manuals included in kit (administration and scoring, and technical and interpretive); items added to improve subtest floors and ceilings; scoring criteria modified to be more straightforward; instructions to examiners more understandable; increased developmental appropriateness (instructions modified; teaching, sample, and/or practice items for each subtest); norms updated; outdated items replaced; artwork updated to be more attractive and engaging to children; manual expanded to include interpretation guidelines (although these are quite limited) and more extensive validity information; weight of kit reduced by elimination of most manipulatives.

Administration and Scoring of the WISC-IV

The administration rules of the WISC-IV are detailed in the WISC-IV Administration and Scoring Manual (Wechsler, 2003b) and are also located on the record form. This section provides a review of the general administration rules. Some of the WISC-IV subtests start at predetermined items according to the childs age, whereas other subtests begin at Item 1 regardless of age. On subtests with age-based starting points, examinees must establish a basal or perfect score on the first two items administered to receive full credit for all previous items (called reverse items). When the examinee does not achieve a basal on a subtest with an age-based starting point, the examiner must give the reverse items in reverse sequence until perfect scores are achieved on two consecutive items. The WISC-IV Administration and Scoring Manual includes specific instructions for examiners when the first set of items administered is too difficult for the child. These instructions are referred to as reverse rules. In addition to starting points and reverse rules, subtests also have discontinue rules. Starting and discontinue rules were developed to minimize testing time, although total administration time of the WISC-IV is somewhat longer than other intelligence batteries that use adaptive testing procedures (see Dombrowski & Noonan, 2004). Similar to starting rules, discontinue rules differ across subtests. These rules typically require that a certain number of consecutive zero-point responses be obtained prior to discontinuing the subtest. Overall, the administration and scoring rules and guidelines of the WISC-IV are straightforward and easy to follow. As stated earlier, the WISC-IV places considerably less emphasis on time as compared to its predecessors. The Block Design subtest now has a no time bonus option, and the Picture Completion subtest has more liberal time limits. Moreover, the WISC-IV can be administered using time limits only for those tests that were designed to measure speed (i.e., Coding, Symbol Search, and Cancellation). Other potentially positive administration features of the WISC-IV are as follows. First, process scores may be obtained for the Cancellation Random (CAR) and Cancellation Structured (CAS) items. These scores allow for an evaluation of the childs visual selective attention and speed of processing via two modes of presentation. Second, separate scores are available for Digits Forward and Digits Backward, allowing for a comparison between Memory Span and Working Memory,

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

Test Reviews 283

respectively. In addition, process scores for Longest Digit Span Forward and Longest Digit Span Backward may be calculated. These scores may provide important information regarding a childs true memory capacity when overall Digit Span performance is variable, when the child has a tendency to respond impulsively, or when the childs level of attention and ability to concentrate waxes and wanes. Despite the many positive administration and scoring features of the WISC-IV, like any battery, it has certain weaknesses that are worthy of recognition. First, some items on the LetterNumber Sequencing subtest allow credit to be given for verbatim responses. This procedure is confusing because a working memory task requires the transformation of information. Second, some correct and incorrect responses to items on Matrix Reasoning and Picture Completion are not explained; therefore, it is not clear to many examiners why certain responses are given (or not given) credit. The Psychological Corporation, however, has been quick to respond to inquiries of this nature. Third, a more reliable means of administering the Digit Span and LetterNumber Sequencing subtests is through the use of audiotapes, which were not provided by The Psychological Corporation for the WISC-IV. Fourth, the WISC-IV Administration and Scoring Manual (Wechsler, 2003b) does not include training activities for examiners. These types of activities are particularly useful to ensure the competency of examiners prior to administering the WISC-IV in a clinical setting.

Technical Adequacy
Standardization. The WISC-IV was standardized on a sample of 2,200 children who were chosen to match closely the 2002 U.S. census data on the variables of age, gender, geographic region, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (parental education). The standardization sample was divided into 11 age groups, each composed of 200 children. The sample was split equally between boys and girls. Standardization data were collected between August 2001 and October 2002. Norm tables are divided into 4-month age intervals across the age span of the test. In general, the match between the WISC-IV standardization data and the U.S. population is exemplary. For example, the difference between the standardization data and U.S. population on the stratification variables of age, sex, race/ethnicity, parent education, and geographic region was generally less than 2 percentage points. For more detailed information on the WISC-IV standardization data, see Tables 3.2 through 3.5 in the WISCIV Technical and Interpretive Manual (The Psychological Corporation, 2003, pp. 26-29). Overall, the standardization sample of the WISC-IV is of exceptional quality. Reliability. The reliability of the WISC-IV is presented in its Technical and Interpretive Manual (The Psychological Corporation, 2003, Table 4.1, p. 34). The average internal consistency coefficients are .94 for VCI, .92 for PRI, .92 for WMI, .88 for PSI, and .97 for FS-IQ. Internal consistency values for individual subtests across all ages ranged from .72 for Coding (for ages 6 and 7) to .94 for Vocabulary (for age 15). The median internal consistency values for the individual subtests ranged from .79 (Symbol Search and Cancellation) to .90 (Letter-Number Sequencing). Like other major intelligence batteries, the WISC-IVs total test score (FS-IQ) and lower order composite (indexes) reliabilities are generally high (> .90+) across the age range whereas its subtest reliabilities are generally medium (.80 to .89).

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

284 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Likewise, test-retest (mean interval = 32 days) reliability coefficients for the FS-IQ and indexes for a sample of 243 children ages 6 to 16 years were high to medium for the five age groups studied. The WISC-IV is a stable instrument with average test-retest coefficients (corrected for variability of the sample) of .93, .89, .86, and .93 for the VCI, PRI, WMI, PSI, and FS-IQ, respectively (The Psychological Corporation, 2003, Table 4.4, p. 40). One-month practice effects (gains from test to retest) for the WISC-IV indexes and FS-IQ for three separate age groups (i.e., 6 to 7, 8 to 11, and 12 to 16) and the overall sample are reported in the WISCIV Technical and Interpretive Manual (The Psychological Corporation, 2003, Table 4.4). In general, practice effects are largest for ages 6 to 7 and become smaller with increasing age. Average FS-IQ gains dropped from about 8 points (ages 6 to 7) to 6 points (ages 8 to 11) to 4 points (ages 12 to 16). Certain WISC-IV subtests demonstrated relatively large gains from test to retest. Specifically, for ages 6 to 7, Coding and Symbol Search showed the largest gains; for ages 8 to 16, Picture Completion showed the largest gains. g loadings. The WISC-IV subtest g loadings by age groups and overall sample are reported in Flanagan and Kaufman (2004, Tables C.1 and C.2). These g loadings are reported based on two methods. In the first method, g loadings represent the unrotated loadings on the first factor using the principal factor analysis method. This method assumes that g influences the subtests indirectly through its relationship with the four factors. Based on this method, the VCI subtests generally have the highest g loadings at every age, followed by the PRI, WMI, and PSI subtests. Arithmetic, however, has g loadings that are more consistent with the VCI subtest loadings as compared to the WMI core battery subtests. In the second method, g loadings were based on a CFA using a nested factors model. This latter method assumes that each subtest has a distinct and direct relationship with both g and a broad ability (factor) (T. Z. Keith, personal communication, March 2004). Therefore, these g loadings were derived in a manner more consistent with the factor and scoring structure of the WISC-IV. Overall, g loadings are generally consistent across methods, with two exceptionsboth Word Reasoning and Comprehension had high g loadings (.70 or greater) based on the principal factor analysis method and medium g loadings (.51 to .69) based on the CFA (nested factors) method. These g loadings may be useful in generating hypotheses about fluctuations in a childs scaled score profile. Floors, ceiling, and item gradients. The floors and ceilings for all WISC-IV subtests are excellent, indicating that scaled scores greater than 2 SDs above and 2 SDs below the mean may be obtained on all subtests at all ages. Therefore, the WISC-IV may be used confidently as part of an evaluation for the identification of individuals who are functioning in either the gifted or mentally retarded ranges of functioning, respectively. Item gradients refer to the spacing between items on a subtest. The item gradients for the WISC-IV subtests range from good to excellent across the age range of the test. In fact, the only item gradient violation occurred at age 6. Thus, the spacing between items on the WISC-IV subtests is generally small enough to allow for reliable discrimination between individuals on the latent trait measured by the subtest. Structural validity. Although the structural validity of the WISC-IV is supported by the factor-analytic studies described in the WISC-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual (The Psychological Corporation, 2003), the manual did not provide information about the stability or

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

Test Reviews 285

invariance of this factor structure across age. In addition, because The Psychological Corporation did not provide factor loadings and factor correlations for the CFA presented in the manual, the nature of the cognitive constructs measured by the test is unclear. Keith et al. (2006) investigated whether the WISC-IV measured the same constructs across its 11-year age span as well as the nature of those constructs using the WISC-IV standardization data. Results of their analyses indicated that the WISC-IV measures the same constructs across the age range of the test. However, according to Keith and colleagues, the factor structure of the WISC-IV is not a good explanation of the constructs measured by the test. Rather, based on a comparison of theory-derived alternative models with the four-factor WISC-IV model, Keith et al. found that a five-factor CHC model provided a better fit to the WISC-IV standardization data. According to Keith et al. (2006), the WISC-IV measures crytallized ability (Gc), visual processing (Gv), fluid reasoning (Gf), short-term memory (Gsm), and processing speed (Gs). These findings are consistent with the results of a content validity study of new and revised intelligence batteries, based on CHC theory, that used an expert consensus format (see Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004, for details). Overall, whereas The Psychological Corporation identified four factors to describe the constructs underlying the WISC-IV, Keith et al. found five. Although the factor analyses conducted by The Psychological Corporation and Keith and colleagues (2006) differ, it is important to understand that there is no one right method of factor analysis. Indeed, the factor analyses, particularly the exploratory factor analyses, summarized in the WISC-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual (The Psychological Corporation, 2003) provide strong support for the WISC-IV four-factor structure, whereas the CFAs conducted by Keith and colleagues provide strong support for a five-factor structure. Noteworthy is the fact that the five-factor CHC model is more in line with contemporary psychometric theory and research. Nevertheless, the most comprehensive interpretive system for the WISC-IV that is currently available permits an examination of performance based on both structural models (see Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004). Relation to other Wechsler scales. The validity of the WISC-IV is supported by correlations with other global measures. The WISC-IV FS-IQ correlated substantially with the WISC-III, WPPSI-III, and WAIS-III FS-IQs (.89) as well as the FS-IQ-4 from the WASI (.86). These correlations, although not surprising, provide criterion-related validity for the WISC-IV global ability score. The WISC-IV also shows good to excellent convergent/ discriminant validity evidence. For example, the VCI has an average correlation of .83 with other measures of verbal ability (from the Wechsler scales) compared to a mean of .61 with measures of perceptual abilities. Similarly, the PRI has an average correlation of .76 with other measures of visual-perceptual ability (from the Wechsler scales) compared to a mean of .61 with measures of verbal abilities. Relation to WIAT-II. The validity of the WISC-IV was investigated further through an examination of its relationship to the WIAT-II. The correlations between the FS-IQ and WIAT-II composites ranged from .75 (Oral Language) to .78 (Reading and Math), indicating that the WISC-IV FS-IQ explains 56% to 60% of the variance in these achievement domains. The correlation between the FS-IQ and WIAT-II Total Achievement Score is .87 (76% of variance explained), which is about as high as the correlation between the WISC-IV FS-IQ and the

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

286 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

FS-IQs of other Wechsler scales (i.e., .89). These correlations are among the highest ever reported between global IQ and achievement. According to Kenny (1979), Even highly developed causal models do not explain behavior very well. A good rule of thumb is that one is fooling oneself if more than 50% of the variance is predicted (p. 9). It is likely that either overlapping content or standard deviations > 15 or some combination thereof led to spuriously high correlations. Alternatively, the high correlation between the WISC-IV and WIAT-II may be measuring constructs that are more similar than they are different (Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004). In general, Arithmetic, Vocabulary, and Information are the best predictors of the WIAT-II composites, and Picture Concepts, Coding, and Cancellation are the worst predictors of these same composites. Although the correlational studies with the WISC-IV were conducted with a total of nine instruments (see The Psychological Corporation, 2003, pp. 60-65), eight of these instruments were published by The Psychological Corporation. It would have been desirable for The Psychological Corporation to report correlations with a more diverse group of cognitive and achievement tests, including measures from other publishers that were already published when the WISC-IV was standardizedfor example, the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Tests of Achievement (WJ III COG, WJ III ACH; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001a, 2001b) and the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS; Naglieri & Das, 1997). In addition to correlational studies, the WISC-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual (The Psychological Corporation, 2003) provides a number of special group studies to investigate the diagnostic utility of the instrument. These studies are summarized in Table 1 and in the next section. Special groups studies. The WISC-IV includes some test score results for special groups to help provide information about the tests specificity and its clinical utility for diagnostic assessment (Hebben, 2004). The special groups studied included children with autistic disorder, children with Aspergers disorder, children with expressive language disorder, children with mixed receptive-expressive language disorder, intellectually gifted children, children with mild or moderate mental retardation, children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), children with learning disorders and ADHD, children with learning disorders, children with traumatic brain injury (TBI), and children with motor impairment. The WISC-IV performances of each group are reported in Table 1. This table also provides general comments and conclusions for each special group study. The specific composition of each group is described in the WISC-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual (The Psychological Corporation, 2003). Caution must be exercised when generalizing from the results of the special group studies described in Table 1 for two main reasons. Specifically, the sample sizes are generally small and participants were not randomly selected. As may be seen in Table 1, the clinical samples ranged from 16 to 89 participants. In most cases, data were derived from independent clinical settings. As such, there is no guarantee that identical criteria and procedures were used for diagnosis. In many cases, the groups were heterogeneous and therefore included a diverse set of diagnoses. For example, the learning disorders group included children with reading, written expression, and mathematics disorders. The TBI group included children with both open and closed head injuries as well as different causes and severity of brain injury (Hebben, 2004).

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

Test Reviews 287

Because the information presented in Table 1 is based on group data, it is not likely to be representative of a whole diagnostic class, and in many cases, it is not specific to the diagnostic class (Hebben, 2004). Although these data may be useful in describing individual children in terms of patterns of cognitive performance, it should not be used to make differential diagnoses (Hebben, 2004). As Kaufman and Lichtenberger (2000) pointed out with regard to learning disability, Many variablesincluding performance on standardized measures of achievement, academic history, developmental history, medical history, family history, and behavioral observationsmust be combined to properly evaluate a child with a potential learning disability (p. 205). Based on the results of the studies summarized in Table 1, it is evident that the utility of the WISC-IV in the diagnosis of specific disorders, especially learning disorders, cannot be determined. Although it may seem obvious that the more specified nature of the WISC-IV indexes as compared to the WISC-III would prove quite useful in identifying children with learning disorders, the type of studies necessary to test this assumptionmainly studies comprising more homogeneous sampleshave yet to be conducted.

Interpretation of the WISC-IV

The WISC-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual (The Psychological Corporation, 2003) describes a 10-step approach to basic profile analysis. Steps 1 through 5 require the examiner to report and describe the FS-IQ, VCI, PRI, WMI, and PSI, respectively. Step 6 requires the examiner to evaluate index-level discrepancy comparisons. This step is confusing in that it discusses intersubtest scatter as well as pairwise discrepancies at the index, subtest, and process levels of performance. In this step, the reader is referred to Table B.6 of the WISC-IV Administration and Scoring Manual (Wechsler, 2003b) for information about the cumulative percentages of intersubtest scatter within the various indexes. However, no guidelines are offered with regard to (a) criteria for identifying an unusual difference, (b) reasons for obtaining information about intersubtest scatter, and (c) how this type of information is used in the interpretation process. Next, the reader is referred to Table B.1 for differences between indexes required for statistical significance (by age and overall sample) and to Table B.2 for base rate information about index score discrepancies (by overall sample and ability level). Again, the rationale for obtaining such information is not offered, and its utility in the interpretation of a childs performance is not explained. Steps 7 through 9 involve evaluating performance at the subtest level. Step 7 requires the examiner to evaluate strengths and weaknesses. The procedure described in this step is essentially a traditional ipsative analysis of subtest scaled scores. Similarly, Step 8 involves evaluating subtest-level discrepancy comparisons. Whereas test interpretation ends at Step 7 in most cases (see The Psychological Corporation, 2003, p. 106), two subtest scaled scores may be compared to confirm or refute separate a priori hypotheses (p. 106). Table B.3 of the WISCIV Administration and Scoring Manual (Wechsler, 2003b) provides the differences between all possible pairs of subtests required for significance. Step 9 involves evaluating the pattern of scores within subtests. This step reflects a more qualitative type of analysis of the raw data to
(text continues on p. 291)

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

288

Table 1 Summary of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenFourth Edition (WISC-IV) Validity Studies With Special Groups
WISC-IV Performancea Conclusions Data cannot be used to inform learning disorder diagnosis because all indexes are within the average range and no one index differs substantially from any other. Such a pattern is inconsistent with the learning disorders literature that supports domain-specific deficits in individuals with learning disorders. Due to the heterogeneous nature of this group, these results are not surprising. Noteworthy is the fact that there was virtually no distinction between the mean VCI, PRI, WMI, and PSI performances across the learning disorders groups. However, the reading disorder group displayed the lowest WMI compared to the written expression disorder and math disorder groups. This finding is consistent with other evidence demonstrating that children with reading difficulties often have working memory problems (e.g., Swanson & Howell, 2001). Because all indexes are within the average range, children with ADHD cannot be discriminated from children without ADHD using the WISC-IV. VCI range = 92 to 95 PRI range = 88 to 98 WMI range = 87 to 93 PSI range = 91 to 93 FS-IQ range = 89 to 93

Special Group

Sample Size

Age Range (Years)

Learning disorders (includes children with reading, written expression, and math disorders)

30 to 56

7 to 16

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

82 to 89

8 to 13

VCI = 99 PRI = 100 WMI = 96 PSI = 93 FS-IQ = 98 VCI = 94, 94 PRI = 93, 94 WMI = 95, 93 PSI = 85, 84 FS-IQ = 90, 92

Traumatic brain injury (TBI; open, closed)

25 to 27, 14 to 16

6 to 16

No premorbid data were available. Because many special groups, including the intellectually gifted, have higher VCIs and PRIs as compared to their PSIs, such a pattern may not be useful for diagnosis. However, it is clear that processing speed deficits interfere significantly with the learning process (McGrew, 2005). The WISC-IV cannot distinguish generally average-functioning children with below average processing speed from children with TBI. However, children with TBI can be expected to perform below average on the PSI. Interestingly, the WMI was higher than would ordinarily be expected in children with TBI.

Motor impairment

21

6 to 15

VCI = 96 PRI = 84 WMI = 92 PSI = 78 FS-IQ = 86 Although the motor demands of the WISC-IV tasks (PRI) are lower than those associated with the WISC-III tasks (POI), they were not entirely eliminated, as reflected by this groups performance on the PRI (84; below average). Children with motor impairment will have difficulty with tasks involving visual-motor coordination (e.g., Block Design), particularly tasks that have a time component (e.g., PSI). Findings are consistent with these expectations. Within-group differences between VCI, PSI, and WMI are within +1 SEM. Below average VCI is expected. Average PRI is expected. WMI and PSI scores are slightly lower than expected. Additional measures are necessary to diagnose an expressive language disorder. The WISC-IV is not an ideal test to use with individuals with language disorders. Alternatives include the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (Bracken & McCallum, 1998) and Leiter International Performance ScalesRevised (Roid & Miller, 1997). The FS-IQ of 77 calls into question the diagnosis for this group. Additional measures are necessary to diagnose a mixed receptive-expressive language disorder. The WISC-IV is not an ideal test to use with individuals with language disorders. Alternatives include the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test and Leiter International Performance Scales. All composites found to be within the average range. Consistent with general findings that children with Aspergers syndrome are of average intelligence and show no clinically significant delays in language.

Expressive language disorder

22 to 27

6 to 16

VCI = 83 PRI = 92 WMI = 86 PSI = 88 FS-IQ = 83

Mixed receptiveexpressive language disorder

38 to 40

6 to 16

VCI = 78 PRI = 87 WMI = 83 PSI = 83 FS-IQ = 77 VCI = 106 PRI = 101 WMI = 95 PSI = 87 FS-IQ = 99 VCI = 80 PRI = 86

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

Aspergers syndrome

24 to 27

9 to 15

Autistic disorder

17 to 19

7 to 16

Most composites found to be below average. Consistent with general findings that many children with autism have below average cognitive functioning and language-based deficits. (continued)

289

290

Table 1 (continued)
WISC-IV Performancea Conclusions WISC-IV results for both groups of individuals with mental retardation are consistent with existing research. The WISC-IV distinguishes between normally functioning children and those functioning in the mild to moderate ranges of mental retardation. All participants had existing scores on standardized measures of cognitive ability that were at least 2 SDs above the mean, the present groups scores were 1 1/3 SDs above the mean on only three of five composites. The gifted groups scored significantly higher than matched controls. However, their scores would not meet the criteria for most gifted programs in U.S. public schools. Interestingly, this group performed within the average range on the WMI and PSI. Findings suggest that gifted individuals may perform in the above average to upper extreme ranges of ability on conceptual verbal and visual reasoning tasks without necessarily scoring in these same ranges on tests of processing speed and memory. Alternatively, gifted individuals may place a greater emphasis on optimal performance and accuracy as compared to speed. VCI = 67, 52 PRI = 66, 53 WMI = 67, 57 PSI = 73, 58 FS-IQ = 61, 46 VCI = 125 PRI = 120 WMI = 113 PSI = 111 FS-IQ = 124

Special Group

Sample Size

Age Range (Years)

Mental retardation (mild severity, moderate severity)

56 to 63, 47 to 55

6 to 16

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

Intellectually gifted

59 to 63

6 to 16

Note: Information in this table is based in part on Hebben (2004). VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index; WMI = Working Memory Index; PSI = Processing Speed Index; FS-IQ = Full Scale IQ. a. Average range or normal limits refers to standard scores of 85 to 115, inclusive. Below average refers to standard scores of 70 to 84, lower extreme refers to standard scores of 69, above average refers to standard scores of 116 to 130, upper extreme refers to standard scores of 131+. All scores that fall outside and above normal limits (i.e., > 115) are considered normative strengths. All scores that fall outside and below normal limits (i.e., < 85) are considered normative weaknesses.

Test Reviews 291

uncover unexpected response patterns, for example, that may be related to inattention, impulsivity, and so forth. Because the types of analyses conducted at Steps 7 and 8 have been found to be largely unreliable and invalid (see McDermottt, Fantuzzo, & Glutting, 1990), they should be either avoided altogether or conducted only for the purpose of generating hypotheses hypotheses that need to be tested through the use of other data sources. In the last step of the WISC-IV interpretive approach (Step 10) espoused by The Psychological Corporation, the examiner performs the process analysis. That is, the examiner conducts a qualitative analysis of specific individual responses on the Block Design, Digit Span, and Cancellation subtests. This analysis focuses on the various processes an individual might use to solve a problem correctly or the processes that may have hindered problem solving in some way (Hebben & Milberg, 2002). According to Hebben (2004), Though intellectually and intuitively appealing . . . the empirical basis of the process approach is not sufficiently well developed to allow for scientifically supportable clinical predictions by all clinicians (p. 193). Hebben observed further that (a) none of the clinical samples demonstrated statistically significant differences between Digits Forward and Digits Backward, (b) the difference between the structured versus random conditions of the Cancellation subtest was generally less than 1 scaled score point for most of the special study groups, and (c) none of the clinical samples scored very differently on the Block Design process scaled score (i.e., no additional points for quick performance) as compared to their Block Design scaled score, suggesting that no new information is gained from the process score. It is important to remember that when supplemental subtests are used to replace core battery subtests, the underlying construct intended to be measured by the index may change. For example, the subtests that comprise the VCI (i.e., Similarities, Vocabulary, and Comprehension) measure qualitatively different aspects of Crystallized Intelligence (Gc) in general. That is, Similarities measures Lexical Knowledge (VL), Language Development (LD), and to some extent, Fluid Reasoning (Gf; Induction); Vocabulary measures VL and LD; and Comprehension measures LD and General Information (K0) and may require general sequential reasoning or deductive reasoning (Gf-RG) for some items. Although Gf is likely involved in responding to some VCI items, the common or most robust portion of the variance among the VCI core battery subtests is Gc. However, when Word Reasoning is substituted for Vocabulary for example, the composition of the VCI changes, consisting of items that rely more substantially on Gf. The extent to which the underlying constructs of indexes change as a result of substitutions was described in detail in Flanagan and Kaufman (2004). In contrast to the traditional interpretation method described by The Psychological Corporation, Flanagan and Kaufman (2004) offered a method of interpreting performance on the WISC-IV that is both psychometrically and theoretically defensible. Their systematic method of interpretation begins with an analysis of the WISC-IV indexes to determine the best way to summarize a childs overall intellectual ability. Next, both Normative and Personal Strengths and Weaknesses among the indexes are identified. Interpretation of fluctuations in the childs index profile offers the most reliable and meaningful information about WISC-IV performance because it identifies strong and weak areas of cognitive functioning relative to both same-age peers from the normal population (interindividual or normative approach) and the childs own overall ability level (intraindividual or ipsative approach). Finally, Flanagan and Kaufman offered optional interpretive steps involving new

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

292 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

WISC-IV composites for examiners who choose to go beyond the FS-IQ and index profile in an attempt to uncover additional information about the childs cognitive capabilities as well as generate potentially meaningful hypotheses about areas of integrity or dysfunction. This method of interpretation reflects numerous modifications and enhancements of prior methods of Wechsler test interpretation (see Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004, for details).

Summary and Conclusions

The contributions to the science of intellectual assessment made by David Wechsler through his intelligence scales are landmark. Quinn McNemar (1942), a statistician, was instrumental in establishing the guidelines for IQ test interpretationthat is to say, StanfordBinet interpretationstrictly in terms of psychometrics. The fact that Terman and McNemar were g theorists, coupled with the fact that the one-score Binet had a preWorld War II monopoly on IQ testing, prevented any of the emerging learning or cognitive theories from having any impact at all on IQ test interpretation. David Wechsler changed all that. By virtue of his status as the consummate clinician, he replaced psychometric assessment with clinical assessment. And because his new Wechsler-Bellevue IQ test was composed of separate Verbal and Performance Scales, each with five or six separate subtests, his series of instruments became a springboard for the application of theory to profile interpretationfor example, neuropsychological theory (Reitan, 1955), Horn-Cattell Gf-Gc theory (Matarazzo, 1972), and a diversity of cognitive and psycholinguistic theories (Kaufman, 1979). Although Wechsler is not recognized as an important theoretician, this fact neither detracts from his accomplishments nor diminishes his innovations in applied psychometrics. Wechsler was a well-known clinician (one of the first private practitioners), and as such, he intentionally placed significant importance in developing tasks that had practical, clinical value and not merely theoretical value. Indeed, despite the fact that his scales yielded three IQs and were composed of multiple subtests, he considered these scales and tasks merely as different ways of assessing general ability; until his death in 1981, he was an avowed g theorist. Thus, the driving force behind the development of the Wechsler scales was no doubt more practical and clinical than theoretical. Zachary (1990) stated,
When David Wechsler published the original Wechsler-Bellevue scales in 1939, he said relatively little about the theoretical underpinnings of his new instrument; rather, he followed a pragmatic approach. He selected a set of tasks that were easy to administer and score. (p. 276)

When asked why he borrowed tasks directly from tests developed for World War I assessments instead of developing new ones, Wechsler said, How can you improve on the tried-and-true? I chose tests that I knew would work, that I knew had clinical value (A. Kaufman, personal communication, September 1971). Detterman (1985) also attributed much of the popularity of the Wechsler family of tests to their ease of administration fostered by an organization of subtests that are brief . . . and have long clinical histories (p. 1715). For better or worse, Wechslers primary motivation for constructing his tests was to create an efficient, easy-to-use tool for clinical purposes; the only theory he relied on was apparently Spearmans g theory.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

Test Reviews 293

Ultimately, the WISC-IV is the best WISC ever. Its psychometric properties are superb. Even though the precise constructs that underlie the test are arguable, psychometric evidence of its construct validity is exemplary. The addition of new tests such as Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts, the elimination of tests from the old guard such as Picture Arrangement and Object Assembly, and the relegation of traditional subtests to supplemental status (Information and Arithmetic) have changed the face of the WISC. The WISC-IV, unlike all of its predecessors, provides good measurement of the theory-based and research-based constructs of Gf and working memory while deemphasizing visualization and response speed. Whereas the dramatic decisions to eliminate V-IQ and P-IQ and to alter unequivocally the FS-IQ construct will likely limit generalizations of research findings from old WISCs to the newest WISC, these decisions are good ones from a contemporary standpoint and are to be applauded.
Despite these accomplishments and accolades, under the critical eye of subsequent advancements in the field, the failure of the Wechsler Scales to keep abreast of contemporary intelligence research cannot be ignored. It is clear that meaningful use and interpretation of the Wechsler Scales require the adoption of a fourth-wave approach in which contemporary theory, research, and measurement principles are integrated. (Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004, p. 43)

Although The Psychological Corporation has made great strides toward this integration, as reflected in the many changes from the WISC-III, the WISC-IV is the only major intelligence test published in the new millennium that is not firmly grounded in CHC theory or any other theory for that matter. This fact alone demonstrates that the inertia of tradition plays a more powerful role in the revisions of the Wechsler scales than does adherence to contemporary theory and research. Notwithstanding, we recommend the use of the WISC-IV, particularly when it is interpreted within the context of Flanagan and Kaufmans (2004) comprehensive interpretive approachan approach that is grounded in current CHC research and that is consistent with current theory-driven WISC-IV research (viz., Keith et al., 2006). Alan S. Kaufman Yale University School of Medicine Dawn P. Flanagan St. Johns University Vincent C. Alfonso Fordham University Jennifer T. Mascolo St. Johns University

References
Bracken, B. A., & McCallum, R. S. (1998). Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Braden, J. P. (1995). Review of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-third edition. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), The tenth mental measurements yearbook (Vol. 1, pp. 1098-1103). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement. Burns, T. G., & OLeary, S. D. (2004). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenIV: Test review. Applied Neuropsychology, 11, 233-236.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

294 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Detterman, D. K. (1985). Review of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. In J. V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (p. 1715). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Dombrowski, S. C., & Noonan, K. (2004). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenFourth Edition (WISC-IV). Communique, 33(2), 35-37. Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment. New York: John Wiley. Flanagan, D. P., McGrew, K. S., & Ortiz, S. O. (2000). The Wechsler intelligence scales and Gf-Gc theory: A contemporary approach to interpretation. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hebben, N. (2004). Review of special group studies and utility of the process approach with the WISC-IV. In D. P. Flanagan & A. S. Kaufman (Eds.), Essentials of WISC-IV assessment (pp. 183-199). New York: John Wiley. Hebben, N., & Milberg, W. (2002). Essentials of neuropsychological assessment. New York: John Wiley. Kaufman, A. S. (1979). Intelligent testing with the WISC-R. New York: John Wiley. Kaufman, A. S. (1993). King WISC the Third assumes the throne. Journal of School Psychology, 31, 345-354. Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III. New York: John Wiley. Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2000). Essentials of WISC-III and WPPSI-R assessment. New York: John Wiley. Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2006). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley. Keith, T. Z., Fine, J. G., Taub, G. E., Reynolds, M. R., & Kranzler, J. H. (2006). Higher order, multi-sample, confirmatory factor analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenFourth Edition: What does it measure? School Psychology Review, 35, 108-127. Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: John Wiley. Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Little, S. G. (1992). The WISC-III: Everything old is new again. School Psychology Quarterly, 72, 148-154. Matarazzo, J. D. (1972). Wechslers measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (5th and enlarged ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. McDermott, P. A., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Glutting, J. J. (1990). Just say no to subtest analysis: A critique of Wechsler theory and practice. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 289-302. McGrew, K. S. (1994). Clinical interpretation of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive AbilityRevised. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 136-181). New York: Guilford. McNemar, Q. (1942). The revision of the Stanford-Binet Scale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Prifitera, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (1998). WISC-III clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Prifitera, A., Saklofske, D. H., & Weiss, L. G. (2005). WISC-IV clinical use and interpretation: Scientistpractitioner perspectives. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. The Psychological Corporation. (2003). WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Author. Reitan, R. M. (1955). Certain differential effects of left and right cerebral lesions in human adults. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 48, 474-477. Roid, G. H., & Miller, L. J. (1997). Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting. Shaw, S. E., Swerdlik, M. E., & Laurent, J. (1993). Review of the WISC-III [WISC-III Monograph]. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 151-160. Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Rockys back again: A review of the WISC-III [WISC-III Monograph]. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 161-164. Swanson, H. L., & Howell, M. (2001). Working memory, short-term memory, and speech rate as predictors of childrens reading performance at different ages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 720-734.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014

Test Reviews 295

Wechsler, D. (1939). Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1949). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenRevised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (2003a). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenFourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (2003b). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenFourth Edition (WISC-IV) administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Witt, J. C., & Gresham, F. M. (1985). Review of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenThird Edition. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), The tenth mental measurements yearbook (Vol. 2, pp. 1716-1719). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather N. (2001a). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather N. (2001b). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Zachary, R. A. (1990). Wechslers intelligence scales: Theoretical and practical considerations. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 276-289.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at ELTE PPK on March 4, 2014