Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 22 (2007) 917–924

Rapidly-administered short forms of the Wechsler

Adult Intelligence Scale—3rd edition
Alison J. Donnell a , Neil Pliskin a , James Holdnack b ,
Bradley Axelrod c , Christopher Randolph d,∗
aDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States
b Harcourt Assessment, Inc., San Antonio, TX, United States
c Psychology Section, Detroit Veterans Administration Medical Center, Detroit, MI, United States
d Department of Neurology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois, United States

Accepted 20 June 2007

Abstract
Although the Wechsler Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) is a common component of most neuropsychological evaluations, there are many
clinical situations where the complete administration of this battery is precluded by various constraints, including limitations of time
and patient compliance. These constraints are particularly true for dementia evaluations involving elderly patients. The present study
reports data on two short forms particularly suited to dementia evaluations, each requiring less than 20 min of administration time. One
of the short forms was previously validated in dementia for the WAIS-R [Randolph, C., Mohr, E., & Chase, T. N. (1993). Assessment
of intellectual function in dementing disorders: Validity of WAIS-R short forms for patients with Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, and
Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 15, 743–753]; the second was developed specifically for
patients with motor disabilities. These short forms were validated using the WAIS-III normative standardization sample (N = 2450),
neurologic sample (N = 63), and matched controls (N = 49), and a separate mixed clinical sample (N = 70). The results suggest that
each short form provides an accurate and reliable estimate of WAIS-III FSIQ, validating their use in appropriate clinical contexts.
The present data support the use of these short forms for dementia evaluations, and suggests that they may be applicable for the
evaluation of other neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders that involve acquired neurocognitive impairment.
© 2007 National Academy of Neuropsychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; Dementia; Short form

1. Introduction

Measurement of general intellectual ability, although essentially a “composite” score reflecting ability across mul-
tiple neurocognitive domains, remains a core component of psychological and neuropsychological evaluations. The
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), in its various editions, has been the most popular measure for assessing
intelligence in the United States (Harrison, Kaufman, Hickman, & Kaufman, 1988; Matarazzo & Herman, 1984;
Rabin, Barr, & Burton, 2005). The most recent revision, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition (WAIS-
III), extends the upper age normative data assessing the intellectual abilities of adults ages 16 through 89 (Wechsler,

∗ Corresponding author. ABPP-CN, 1 East Erie, Suite 355, Chicago, IL 60611, United States. Tel.: +1 708 216 3539; fax: +1 708 216 4629.
E-mail address: crandol@lumc.edu (C. Randolph).

0887-6177/$ – see front matter © 2007 National Academy of Neuropsychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.acn.2007.06.007
918 A.J. Donnell et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 22 (2007) 917–924

1997) and is considered more useful for an elderly population than past editions (Wymer, Rayls, & Wagner, 2003).
However, several practical issues commonly interfere with administering the WAIS-III to an older population. First,
patient endurance often dictates shorter exams, especially in a cognitively compromised elderly population where
patients can become fatigued, frustrated, and agitated. The WAIS-III manual reports that the average administration
time for the 11 WAIS-III subtests that yield the three IQ scores requires approximately 75 min (Wechsler, 1997),
although administration time of the WAIS-III in clinical populations may be as long as 90 min (Ryan, Lopez, &
Werth, 1998). Second, neuropsychologists are under increasing pressure to be time- and cost-efficient and with time
constraints dictated by third party reimbursement for assessments, the full WAIS-III often becomes impractical to
administer.
Consequently, an abbreviated version of the WAIS-III that reduces the evaluation time without significantly impact-
ing the reliability or validity of the Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) score for a compromised elderly population would be valuable.
Shortened versions of intellectual tests in a dementia evaluation are useful for obtaining a quick measurement of FSIQ
to compare to estimates of premorbid function for the purpose of gauging intellectual decline. In a situation where
assessment is time limited, a briefer evaluation of intelligence in older adults would also allow more time for the
assessment of other neuropsychological functions to take place. The use of shortened versions of Wechsler scales has
been ongoing since 1956 (Doppelt, 1956). Although a number of short forms exist for the WAIS and several have been
validated specifically for the WAIS-III, few have been objectively evaluated with an older cognitively compromised
sample.
One criterion for an acceptable abbreviated version is that the total testing time should be reduced by at least 50%
(Levy, 1968). Resnick and Entin (1971) also proposed that an intelligence quotient (IQ) obtained from an abbreviated
version should significantly correlate with the Full Scale IQ, and according to Nunnally (1978), have reliabilities equal
to or higher than 0.90. The four-subtest short form proposed by Kaufman (1990) for the WAIS-revised (WAIS-R) has
one of the shortest administration times (less than 20 min) and correlated 0.96 with the FSIQ in the standardization
sample of the WAIS-R. This short-form tetrad of subtests is composed of Arithmetic, Similarities, Picture Completion,
and Digit Symbol-Coding.
Because of its high reliability, short administration time, and practical utility in terms of the information obtained
for a dementia evaluation (i.e., arithmetic computation, abstraction, attention, and processing speed), Randolph, Mohr,
and Chase (1993) examined the psychometric properties of the Kaufman tetrad in a dementia sample and found that
it actually underestimated the FSIQ in their sample. As such, Randolph et al. revised Kaufman’s scaling table in order
to correct for this underestimation. Results indicated that the revised scaling table produced a high correlation with
the WAIS-R FSIQ (r = 0.96) and corrected for the underestimation. In fact, 72% of the entire sample was within five
points of their actual IQ whereas only 52% were within this range using the original Kaufman scaling.
The present study was undertaken in order to validate this revised version of the Kaufman short-form for the
WAIS-III. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to examine the revised scaling of the short form Kaufman
tetrad (SF1) for the WAIS-III in healthy and compromised older adult samples. Additionally, a second short form was
validated that substituted Letter-Number Sequencing and Symbol Search for Arithmetic and Digit Symbol-Coding.
The second short form (SF2) was developed to aid the clinician working with patients having significant motor
problems or when working with subjects that have low educational attainment and subsequently may have poorly
developed arithmetic skills. Additionally, this study examined SF1 estimated FSIQs as compared to the Wechsler
Test of Adult Reading (WTAR: The Psychological Corporation, 2001) premorbid predicted FSIQ to examine the
anticipated change in FSIQ with cognitively compromised samples. We chose to use the full WAIS-III normative
sample to validate these short forms for normals across the full age range (16–89), as these short forms may also prove
useful in neuropsychological evaluations of younger patients under certain circumstances. We hypothesized that the
Randolph et al. revised scaling of SF1 would prove valid for the WAIS-III, and that SF2 would prove to be a reliable
alternative.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants were members of the WAIS-III/WMS-III standardization sample (Wechsler, 1997), which contains
both healthy controls (N = 2450) and specific clinical samples. A group of older healthy adults (N = 49) were extracted
 A.J. Donnell et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 22 (2007) 917–924 919

Table 1
Demographic information for the matched control and clinical samples
Matched controls (n = 49) Neurologic sample (n = 63) Mixed VA sample (n = 70)

Age 63.0 (S.D. = 15.5) 64.1 (S.D. = 14.5) 53.7 (S.D. = 15.0)
Gender
Female 57.1 54.0
Male 42.9 46.0 100.0
Race/ethnicity
Caucasian 89.8 90.5 60.0
African American 8.2 6.3 40.0
Hispanic 0.0 1.6
Other 2.0 1.6
Education
≤8 years 6.1 6.3 7.1
9–11 years 4.1 4.8 27.1
12 years 28.6 28.6 28.6
13–15 years 24.5 20.6 24.3
≥16 years 36.7 39.7 12.9

from the standardization sample and were matched on age, education, gender, and ethnicity to the clinical groups
identified from the standardization sample as the groups of interest. The clinical groups included those diagnosed with
degenerative neurological disorders of Alzheimer’s disease, Huntington’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease (neurologic
sample). There were no significant differences between the neurologic sample and the matched control group on any
demographic variables. A second sample of clinical cases from a veteran’s medical center (mixed VA sample) was also
included and comprised of heterogeneous neurological and psychiatric disorders, such as Alzheimer’s, seizure, stroke,
vascular dementia, Huntington’s, depressive disorder, schizophrenia, alcohol abuse, bipolar, and personality disorders
(N = 70). All participants in the WAIS-III/WMS-III standardization project underwent informed consent procedures.
The mixed VA sample data were obtained during clinical evaluations predating HIPAA legislation; these WAIS-III
data have been previously reported and were re-analysed for the present study. Table 1 provides the demographic data
for matched control and clinical samples.

2.2. Procedure

The WAIS-III and WTAR were administered according to the standardized procedures outlined in their respective
manuals (Wechsler, 1997b, c; The Psychological Corporation, 2001). All of the subtests were administered in order.
Therefore, all subjects completed the full version of the WAIS-III and not just the proposed short forms. All WTAR
predictions of premorbid FSIQ used the WTAR + demographics tables in the WTAR manual. Pearson correlation
coefficients were used to compare short form and full WAIS-III FSIQ scores.

3. Results

3.1. Healthy standardization sample—SF1

Results indicated that in the normal standardization sample the SF1 estimated FSIQ correlated highly (r = 0.93)
with the actual FSIQ. The SF1 estimated FSIQ and the actual FSIQ means for the standardization sample were both
100.3, resulting in no difference. Seventy-two percent of the standardization sample’s SF1 estimated FSIQ was within
5 points of their actual FSIQ and 94% was within 10 points. It is important to note that for the healthy samples, it was
necessary to adjust the sum of scaled scores by subtracting 2 points from the total of Similarities, Picture Completion,
Arithmetic and Digit Symbol to estimate the SF1 FSIQ. The Appendix provides the table to convert the sum of scaled
scores to the estimated SF1 FSIQ.
920 A.J. Donnell et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 22 (2007) 917–924

Table 2
Means and standard deviations of SF1, Actual FSIQ, and WTAR
Difference SF1 FSIQ Actual FSIQ Difference WTAR-P SF1-WTAR-P
mean (S.D.) mean (S.D.) mean (S.D.) mean (S.D.)

Standardization sample* 100.3 (14.5) 100.3 (14.5) 0.0 (5.3)

Matched controls* 108.0 (16.3) 0.5 108.4 (17.8) −0.4 (5.8) 107.5 (12.3)
Neurologic sample 86.1 (13.0) 86.2 (11.5) −0.1 (4.3) 104.2 (10.5) −18.1
Mixed VA sample 83.0 (10.3) 83.3 (11.1) 0.3 (4.5)

Note: SF1: Short-Form 1; FSIQ: Full Scale IQ; WTAR-P: Wechsler Test of Adult Reading predicted premorbid FSIQ.
* In the standardization and matched control samples, it is necessary to adjust the sum of scaled scores by subtracting 2 points to the total of

Similarities, Picture Completion, Arithmetic and Digit Symbol before looking up the FSIQ equivalent. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-3rd edition
Copyright © 1997 by The Psychological Corporation. Reproduced by Permission. All Rights Reserved.

3.2. Clinical samples—SF1

Results indicated that the SF1 estimated FSIQ correlated highly (r = 0.95) with the actual FSIQ for the neurologic
sample. The SF1 estimated FSIQ average for the neurologic sample was 86.1 and the actual FSIQ average was 86.2,
resulting in a negligible mean difference of −0.1. Eighty-three percent of the neurologic sample estimated IQ was within
5 points of their actual IQ and 97% was within 10 points of their actual IQ. The mean WTAR-predicted premorbid FSIQ
for the neurologic sample was 104.2, resulting in a mean difference from their SF1 estimated IQ of 18.1 and reflected
the expected drop from their premorbid IQ. The actual mean WAIS-III FSIQ for the subset of healthy normals matched
to the neurologic sample on demographic variables was 108.4, and the SF1 estimated FSIQ for this group was 108.0.
The WRAT predicted FSIQ for this healthy subgroup was 107.5. Therefore, the SF1 estimated FSIQ for the neurologic
sample was a reliable estimate of actual current FSIQ, and both measures reflected a drop from premorbid FSIQ of
approximately 18 points based upon WTAR prediction, and of approximately 22 points based upon comparison to
demographically-matched controls.
For the mixed VA sample, results indicated that the SF1 estimated FSIQ also correlated highly (r = 0.91) with the
actual FSIQ. The SF1 estimated FSIQ average for the mixed VA sample was 83.3 and the actual FSIQ average was
83.0, resulting in a mean difference of only 0.3. Eighty percent of the mixed VA sample estimated IQ was within 5
points of their actual IQ and 97% was within 10 points. Tables 2 and 3 provide means, standard deviations, reliability,
and percentages for SF1.

3.3. Healthy samples—Short Form 2

Results indicated that in the standardization sample the SF2 estimated FSIQ correlated highly (r = 0.89) with the
actual FSIQ. The SF2 estimated FSIQ average was 100.5 and actual FSIQ was 100.3, resulting in a mean difference of
0.2. Fifty-nine percent of the standardization sample’s SF2 estimated FSIQ was within 5 points of their actual FSIQ and
87% was within 10 points. For the healthy samples, it was necessary to adjust the sum of scaled scores by subtracting
3 points from the total of Similarities, Picture Completion, Letter-Number Sequencing, and Symbol Search to estimate
the SF2 estimated FSIQ. Appendix A provides the table to convert the sum of scaled scores to the estimated SF2
FSIQ.

Table 3
SF1 compared to Actual FSIQ
Correlation % within 5 pts % within 10 % within 15
SF1 and FSIQ or less pts or less pts or less

Standardization sample 0.93 71.5 94.0 99.4

Matched controls 0.94 65.4 85.8 100.0
Neurologic sample 0.95 83.3 96.7 100.0
Mixed VA sample 0.91 80.0 96.6 100.0

Note: SF1: Short-Form 1; FSIQ: Full Scale IQ.

 A.J. Donnell et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 22 (2007) 917–924 921

Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations of SF2, Actual FSIQ, and WTAR
SF2 FSIQ difference Actual FSIQ Difference WTAR-P SF2-WTAR-P
mean (S.D.) mean (S.D.) mean (S.D.) mean (S.D.)

Standardization sample* 100.5 (14.6) 100.3 (14.5) 0.2 (7.1)

Matched controls* 106.3 (15.9) 108.4 (17.8) −2.1 (7.5) 107.5 (12.3) −1.2
Neurologic sample 86.0 (13.3) 86.2 (11.5) −0.2 (5.8) 104.2 (10.5) −18.2
Mixed VA sample 86.7 (10.5) 83.3 (11.1) 3.4 (4.3)

Note: SF2: Short-Form 2; FSIQ: Full Scale IQ; WTAR-P: Wechsler Test of Adult Reading predicted premorbid FSIQ.
* In the standardization and matched control samples, it is necessary to adjust the sum of scaled scores by subtracting 3 points to the total of

Similarities, Picture Completion, Letter-Number Sequencing and Symbol Search before looking up the FSIQ equivalent. Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale-3rd edition Copyright © 1997 by The Psychological Corporation. Reproduced by Permission. All Rights Reserved.

Table 5
SF2 compared to actual FSIQ
Correlation SF2 and FSIQ % within 5 pts or less % within 10 pts or less % within 15 pts or less

Standardization sample 0.89 59.4 87.0 96.0

Matched controls 0.90 57.5 79.6 98.0
Neurologic sample 0.90 70.0 96.7 98.3
Mixed VA sample 0.92 66.7 97.1 100.0

Note: SF2: Short-Form 2; FSIQ: Full Scale IQ.

3.4. Clinical samples—Short Form 2

Results indicated that for the SF2 estimated FSIQ correlated highly (r = 0.90) with the actual FSIQ for the neurologic
sample. The SF2 estimated FSIQ average for the neurologic sample was 86.0, resulting in a mean difference of −0.2
from their actual FSIQ of 86.2. Seventy percent of the neurologic sample estimated IQ was within 5 points of their
actual IQ and 97% was within 10 points of their actual IQ. As stated previously, the mean WTAR- predicted premorbid
FSIQ for the neurologic sample was 104.2, resulting in a mean difference from their SF2 estimated IQ of 18.2 and
again reflected the expected drop from their premorbid IQ. The SF2 estimated FSIQ for the subset of healthy normals
matched to the neurologic sample on demographic variables was 106.3, resulting in a mean difference of −2.1.
For the mixed VA sample, results indicated that for the SF2 estimated FSIQ also correlated highly (r = 0.92) with
the actual FSIQ. The SF2 estimated FSIQ average for the mixed VA sample was 86.7, resulting in a mean difference
of 3.4 from their actual mean of 83.3. Sixty-seven percent of the mixed VA sample estimated IQ was within 5 points
of their actual IQ, and 97% was within 10 points. Tables 4 and 5 provide means, standard deviations, reliability, and
percentages for SF2.

4. Discussion

Neuropsychological assessments of older adults with suspected dementia or neurological compromise typically
evaluate multiple cognitive domains. The evaluation of current intelligence is often important in that it can provide
information about the extent of cognitive decline when compared to predicted premorbid performance. The WAIS-III
FSIQ is a well-understood composite measure of general cognitive functioning and a common component of most
neuropsychological and psychological evaluations. There are, however, many clinical situations where the complete
administration of this battery is precluded by various constraints, including limitations of time and patient compliance.
Therefore, the use of a valid, reliable, and quick evaluation of intelligence is beneficial in these circumstances. The
short forms used in this study meet the acceptable criteria for abbreviated versions of measuring intelligence. Both
short forms can be rapidly administered, in less than 20 min, which reduces the total testing time of intelligence by
more than 75%. Additionally, both short forms are significantly correlated with the Full Scale IQ and have reliabilities
generally above 0.90.
The SF1 appears to provide a slightly more accurate estimate of FSIQ and assesses clinical domains of interest
(i.e., arithmetic computation, abstraction, attention, and processing speed), for a dementia evaluation. Therefore, the
922 A.J. Donnell et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 22 (2007) 917–924

use of SF2 is recommended only for those people with substantial motoric compromise while SF1 is recommended
for most other clinical populations. It should be noted that the Symbol Search task included in SF2 also has a motoric
component, although the motor demands of this task are quite minimal and unlikely to impact significantly upon test
performance.
The WTAR + demographics prediction of premorbid FSIQ in our neurological sample studied resulted in a slight
underprediction, in comparison to the observed FSIQ of the matched control group. This underprediction was small,
however (approximately 3 points), and consistent with the frequently reported observation that reading pronounciation
performance does tend to decline somewhat with advancing dementia. The use of the WTAR is obviously the best
methodology for predicted premorbid WAIS-III FSIQ, as these measures were co-normed, and clinicians can be
reasonably assured that use of this methodology will result in a conservative estimate of intellectual decline in dementia
evaluations employing the WTAR and these short forms (or full WAIS-III testing). That is, estimates of premorbid FSIQ
using the WTAR in a clinical sample will be most accurate in cases of minimal acquired impairment, and will tend to
slightly underestimate premorbid FSIQ with advancing dementia. Estimates of the magnitude of decline will be affected
accordingly, with a tendency to slightly underestimate the magnitude of decline in cases of more advanced dementia.
This is, if anything, preferable to error in the opposite direction (overestimating decline, and perhaps committing a
type I error in making a diagnosis of dementia in the absence of acquired cognitive decline).
In sum, the use of these short forms will be helpful in minimizing frustration and fatigue on the part of the patient,
providing a reliable estimate of current intellectual status (and decline from predicted premorbid level using the
WTAR). This will result in greater efficiency in neuropsychological assessment of elderly or more impaired patients,
also allowing the inclusion of other neuropsychological tests critical to the evaluation of dementia within a single
focused test session.

Appendix A

Scaling tables for Short Form 1 and Short Form 2

Short Form 1 Short Form 2

Sum SS IQ 90% CI 95% CI Percentile Sum SS IQ 90% CI 95% CI Percentile

4 55 52–62 51–63 0.1 4 58 55–66 54–67 0.3

5 55 52–62 51–63 0.1 5 59 56–67 55–68 0.3
6 55 52–62 51–63 0.1 6 59 56–67 55–68 0.3
7 55 52–62 51–63 0.1 7 60 57–68 56–69 0.4
8 55 52–62 51–63 0.1 8 60 57–68 56–69 0.4
9 57 54–64 53–65 0.2 9 61 58–69 57–70 0.5
10 59 56–66 55–67 0.3 10 62 59–70 58–71 1
11 61 58–68 57–69 0.5 11 64 60–72 59–73 1
12 62 59–69 58–70 1 12 65 61–73 60–74 1
13 63 60–70 59–71 1 13 66 62–74 61–75 1
14 64 61–71 60–72 1 14 67 63–75 62–76 1
15 66 62–73 61–74 1 15 68 64–76 63–77 2
16 66 62–73 61–74 1 16 69 65–77 64–78 2
17 67 63–74 62–75 1 17 71 67–78 66–80 3
18 68 64–75 63–76 2 18 73 69–80 68–81 4
19 69 65–76 64–77 2 19 74 70–81 69–82 4
20 71 67–78 66–79 3 20 75 71–82 70–83 5
21 74 70–81 69–82 4 21 77 73–84 72–85 6
22 75 71–81 70–82 5 22 78 74–85 73–86 7
23 76 72–82 71–83 5 23 79 75–86 73–87 8
24 78 74–84 73–85 7 24 80 76–87 74–88 9
25 79 75–85 74–86 8 25 81 76–88 75–89 10
26 80 76–86 75–87 9 26 82 77–89 76–90 12
27 82 78–88 77–89 12 27 84 79–91 78–92 14
28 84 80–90 79–91 14 28 85 80–92 79–93 16
29 85 81–91 80–92 16 29 87 82–93 81–95 19
30 87 82–93 81–94 19 30 88 83–94 82–95 21
 A.J. Donnell et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 22 (2007) 917–924 923

Appendix A (Continued )
Short Form 1 Short Form 2
Sum SS IQ 90% CI 95% CI Percentile Sum SS IQ 90% CI 95% CI Percentile

31 88 83–94 82–95 21 31 89 84–95 83–96 23

32 89 84–95 83–96 23 32 90 85–96 84–97 25
33 91 86–97 85–98 27 33 93 88–99 87–100 32
34 93 88–99 87–100 32 34 94 89–100 88–101 34
35 94 89–100 88–101 34 35 96 91–102 89–103 39
36 96 91–101 90–102 39 36 97 91–103 90–104 42
37 97 92–102 91–103 42 37 98 92–104 91–105 45
38 98 93–103 92–104 45 38 100 94–106 93–107 50
39 100 95–105 94–106 50 39 102 96–108 95–109 55
40 102 97–107 96–108 55 40 104 98–109 97–111 61
41 104 99–109 98–110 61 41 106 100–111 99–112 66
42 106 100–111 99–112 66 42 108 102–113 101–114 70
43 108 102–113 101–114 70 43 110 104–115 103–116 75
44 110 104–115 103–116 75 44 111 105–116 104–117 77
45 111 105–116 104–117 77 45 112 106–117 105–118 79
46 112 106–117 105–118 79 46 114 107–119 106–120 82
47 115 109–119 108–120 84 47 116 109–121 108–122 86
48 117 111–121 110–122 87 48 118 111–123 110–124 88
49 119 113–123 112–124 90 49 120 113–124 112–126 91
50 120 114–124 113–125 91 50 121 114–125 113–127 92
51 121 115–125 114–126 92 51 123 116–127 115–128 94
52 123 117–127 116–128 94 52 125 118–129 117–130 95
53 125 119–129 118–130 95 53 128 121–132 120–133 97
54 128 121–132 120–133 97 54 129 122–133 120–134 97
55 130 123–134 122–135 98 55 130 123–134 121–135 98
56 132 125–136 124–137 98 56 132 124–136 123–137 98
57 133 126–137 125–138 99 57 134 126–138 125–139 99
58 134 127–138 126–139 99 58 135 127–139 126–140 99
59 135 128–138 127–139 99 59 139 131–142 130–143 99.5
60 142 135–145 134–146 99.7 60 142 134–145 133–146 99.7
61 153 145–156 144–157 >99.9 61 143 135–146 134–147 99.8
62 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 62 153 144–156 143–157 >99.9
63 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 63 155 146–157 145–158 >99.9
64 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 64 155 146–157 145–158 >99.9
65 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 65 155 146–157 145–158 >99.9
66 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 66 155 146–157 145–158 >99.9
67 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 67 155 146–157 145–158 >99.9
68 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 68 155 146–157 145–158 >99.9
69 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 69 155 146–157 145–158 >99.9
70 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 70 155 146–157 145–158 >99.9
71 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 71 155 146–157 145–158 >99.9
72 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 72 155 146–157 145–158 >99.9
73 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 73 155 146–157 145–158 >99.9
74 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 74 155 146–157 145–158 >99.9
75 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 75 155 146–157 145–158 >99.9
76 155 147–157 146–158 >99.9 76 155 146–157 145–158 >99.9

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—3rd edition Copyright © 1997 by The Psychological Corporation. Reproduced by Permission. All Rights
Reserved.

References

Axelrod, B. N. (2001). Administration duration for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III and Wechsler Memory Scale-III. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 16, 293–301.
Doppelt, J. E. (1956). Estimated the full scale score on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale from scores on four subtests. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 20, 63–66.
924 A.J. Donnell et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 22 (2007) 917–924

Harrison, P. L., Kaufman, A. S., Hickman, J. A., & Kaufman, N. L. (1988). A survey of tests used for adult assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 6, 188–198.
Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. New York: Allyn and Bacon Inc., pp. 125–150.
Levy, P. (1968). Short-form tests: A methodological review. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 410–416.
Matarazzo, J. D., & Herman, D. O. (1984). Base rate data for the WAIS-R: Test-retest stability and VIQ-PIQ differences. Journal of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 6, 351–366.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rabin, L. A., Barr, W. B., & Burton, L. A. (2005). Assessment practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada: A survey
of INS, NAN, and APA Division 40 members. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 33–65.
Randolph, C., Mohr, E., & Chase, T. N. (1993). Assessment of intellectual function in dementing disorders: Validity of WAIS-R short forms for
patients with Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, and Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 15, 743–753.
Resnick, R. J., & Entin, A. D. (1971). Is an abbreviated form of the WISC valid for Afro-Americans? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
36, 97–99.
Ryan, J. J., Lopez, S. J., & Werth, T. R. (1998). Administration time estimates for WAIS-III subtests, scales, and short forms in a clinical sample.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 16, 315–323.
The Psychological Corporation. (2001). Wechsler Test of Adult Reading: Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997b). WAIS-III/WMS-III technical manual. San Antonio TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997c). Wechsler Memory Scale—Revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wymer, J. H., Rayls, K., & Wagner, M. T. (2003). Utility of a clinically derived abbreviated form of the WAIS-III. Archives of Clinical Neuropsy-
chology, 18, 917–927.