See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266380813

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV Dyads for Estimating Global Intelligence

Article  in  Assessment · September 2014

DOI: 10.1177/1073191114551551 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

17 1,257

4 authors, including:

Todd A Girard Bradley Axelrod

Ryerson University U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
61 PUBLICATIONS   1,191 CITATIONS    246 PUBLICATIONS   3,942 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ronak Patel
Ryerson University
5 PUBLICATIONS   337 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Visuospatial Strategies and Socioemotional Processing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bradley Axelrod on 10 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

551551
research-article2014
ASMXXX10.1177/1073191114551551AssessmentGirard et al.

Article
Assessment

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV

2015, Vol. 22(4) 441­–448
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Dyads for Estimating Global Intelligence sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1073191114551551
asm.sagepub.com

Todd A. Girard1, Bradley N. Axelrod2, Ronak Patel1, and John R. Crawford3

Abstract
All possible two-subtest combinations of the core Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV (WAIS-IV) subtests were evaluated
as possible viable short forms for estimating full-scale IQ (FSIQ). Validity of the dyads was evaluated relative to FSIQ in a
large clinical sample (N = 482) referred for neuropsychological assessment. Sample validity measures included correlations,
mean discrepancies, and levels of agreement between dyad estimates and FSIQ scores. In addition, reliability and
validity coefficients were derived from WAIS-IV standardization data. The Coding + Information dyad had the strongest
combination of reliability and validity data. However, several other dyads yielded comparable psychometric performance,
albeit with some variability in their particular strengths. We also observed heterogeneity between validity coefficients
from the clinical and standardization-based estimates for several dyads. Thus, readers are encouraged to also consider
the individual psychometric attributes, their clinical or research goals, and client or sample characteristics when selecting
among the dyadic short forms.

Keywords
WAIS-IV, two-subtest short forms, intelligence assessment

Wechsler Intelligence Scales (WIS) have long been a core
component of cognitive assessment across various settings
and populations (Kaufman, 1990; Piotrowski, 1999; L. A.
Rabin, Barr, & Burton, 2005; Thompson, LoBello, Atkinson,
Chisholm, & Ryan, 2004; Watkins, Campbell, Nieberding,
& Hallmark, 1995; Wolber, Reynolds, Ehrmantraut, &
Nelson, 1997). Short forms and brief cognitive tools date
back about a century, but their continued use and develop-
ment appears particularly relevant in the recent climate of
mental health care delivery that demands efficiency in psy-
chological assessment (Eisman et al., 2000; Piotrowski,
1999). Moreover, long administration times for comprehen-
sive assessment can place strains on some individuals’ levels
of tolerance and motivation, and unduly challenge those
with certain psychological, sensory, motor, and/or other
physical constraints, which may be unnecessary in situations
requiring only a rough gauge or screening of global intelli-
gence (Crawford, Allum, & Kinion, 2008). For example, a
quick gauge of global intellectual functioning may be sought
under conditions of time constraints, accommodating idio-
syncratic testing factors (e.g., poor stamina), or for reevalu-
ations/monitoring of clients at follow-ups to initial more
comprehensive testing (Christensen, Girard, & Bagby, 2007;
Sattler & Ryan, 2009). Similarly, short forms are used to
quickly characterize global intelligence of research samples
(e.g., Girard, Christensen, & Rizvi, 2010). Both time-savings
and such client characteristics were key reasons reported for
use of short-form and brief intelligence tests in an interna-
tional survey by Thompson et al. (2004). They also reported
that the most commonly used short forms were those derived
from selected subtests of WIS.
In addressing the need for shortened tests, the Wechsler
Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI; Wechsler, 1999)
was designed to provide brief (two or four subtests) alterna-
tives to the lengthy WAIS-III (Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale–III; Wechsler, 1997) for assessing global intelligence,
as measured by the full-scale intelligence quotient (FSIQ).
While the WASI is an independent brief instrument, several
short forms are readily derived by using selected subtests
directly from the WAIS. Past research indicated mixed sup-
port regarding WASI estimates of WAIS-III scores, and
between WASI and WAIS-III SF scores. For example,
although comparable, Axelrod (2002) reported a higher
validity coefficient and prediction accuracy for the WAIS-
III dyad of Vocabulary + Matrix Reasoning than the
1
Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2
John D. Dingell Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
Detroit, MI, USA
3
University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
Corresponding Author:
Todd A. Girard, Department of Psychology, Ryerson University, 350
Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 2K3, Canada.
Email: tgirard@psych.ryerson.ca

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at US DEPT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS on July 20, 2015

442 Assessment 22(4)
two-subtest WASI composed of Vocabulary + Matrix
Reasoning. However, the WAIS-III dyad tended to overesti-
mate FSIQ to a greater degree than the WASI dyad. Since
the study by Axelrod (2002), Pearson Assessments devel-
oped newer editions of both tests: the WAIS-IV (Wechsler,
2008) and WASI-II (Wechsler, 2011). However, compara-
bility of WASI-II and the WAIS-IV has not yet been demon-
strated independently from the publisher and assessment of
WAIS-IV short-forms is nascent. Use of WAIS-IV short
forms offers a practical advantage in that one only requires
the WAIS-IV whether interested in a full assessment or a
quicker estimate of IQ (depending on client or research
sample), without having to also have the WASI-II pur-
chased. If further testing is subsequently desired, remaining
subtests can be administered. Although the WASI-II can
similarly be substituted for the corresponding subtests in
such a follow-up full assessment (i.e., administering the
remaining subtests), WAIS-IV short forms provide greater
flexibility to select different subtest combinations depend-
ing on client or research specific goals. Therefore, the cur-
rent report focuses on evaluation of two-subtest short forms
of WAIS-IV FSIQ.
The WAIS-IV is the most recent full-scale WIS
(Wechsler, 2008). Updates to the WAIS-IV include changes
at the item, subtest, scoring, and conceptual levels. For
instance, scales were modified to increase the developmen-
tal appropriateness, enhance psychometric attributes, and
reduce biased measures (e.g., increased item range,
decreased emphasis on demands for motor dexterity and
speed on visual–spatial tasks, decreased emphasis on audi-
tory processing for working memory, new items, modified
instructions, discontinue rules, and scoring rules). At the
conceptual level, the WAIS-IV further integrates the
Cattell–Horn–Carroll theoretical framework, with increased
measurement of fluid intelligence. At the subtest level,
these changes are instantiated with the removal of two sub-
tests (Object Assembly and Picture Arrangement) and addi-
tion of three new tests (Visual Puzzles, Figure Weights, and
Cancellation). Of the latter, Visual Puzzles is now one of 10
core subtests contributing added measurement of fluid rea-
soning in the calculation of FSIQ.
The WAIS-IV expands on its predecessors in several
important ways, also claiming to reduce administration
time by 15%. Nonetheless, the WAIS-IV is still estimated to
take 60 to 90 minutes to administer the 10 core subtests
required for FSIQ for normative samples, and often longer
for some clinical samples. These modifications warrant
psychometric evaluation of short-form estimates of intelli-
gence based on the new WAIS-IV.
Prior studies have examined WIS dyads using different
versions of the WIS. Silverstein’s (1982) dyad of Vocabulary
+ Block Design is an example of a popular short form origi-
nally derived from the WAIS-R. This dyad was also recom-
mended by Sattler and Ryan (1998, 2009) for both the
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at US DEPT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS on July 20, 2015
WAIS-III and WAIS-IV. Merchan-Naranjo et al. (2012)
recently reported that out of five dyads assessed, only
Information + Block Design performed adequately for use
with Asperger syndrome. This finding underscores the need to
also assess the utility of short forms in clinical populations.
Sattler and Ryan (2009) report on the validity and reli-
ability of a set of top 10 dyads plus some deemed particu-
larly suitable for specific clinical issues (e.g., hearing
impairment). The coefficients were derived from the
WAIS-IV standardization data and dyadic short-form esti-
mates of FSIQ have not yet been empirically evaluated for
use with clinical samples. Of note, some dyads yielded
comparable validity and/or reliability measures as longer
short forms (triads-pentads). The dyads with the highest
validity coefficients included Vocabulary paired with any of
the Block Design, Visual Puzzles, or Figure Weights sub-
tests. All three dyads yielded correlations with FSIQ of r′ =
.87 to .88 (Sattler & Ryan, 2009); r′ reflects r values after
correcting for redundant error variance (Girard &
Christensen, 2008). Umfleet, Ryan, Gontkovsky, and
Morris (2012) subsequently evaluated short forms for the
Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning indices.
Despite focus in the short-form literature on the correla-
tion coefficient as one useful index of validity, it is impor-
tant to note that a high correlation does not mean high
agreement and the strength of correlation depends on the
range of data (Bland & Altman, 1986; Spinks et al., 2009).
For example, a short form with a perfect correlation may
consistently overestimate the full-scale score. Moreover,
short-form validity should be assessed as a multifaceted
construct (Boone, 1990; Silverstein, 1990; Spinks et al.,
2009; Thompson, Howard, & Anderson, 1986).
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate all pos-
sible dyad combinations using the 10 core subtests from the
WAIS-IV. Thus, we provide an assessment of the reliability
and several measures of validity of WAIS-IV dyads based
on data from the standardization sample and a large clinical
sample. While we encourage readers to weigh each of these
validity measures to their own accord, we also derive an
unbiased composite measure of psychometric performance
to aid evaluation of the dyads. That is, as Cyr and Brooker
(1984) note, it may be difficult for many users to mentally
derive a composite summary interpretation of short-form
performance across measures, even when just comparing
across two indices. They ranked short forms using a metric
of “psychometric effectiveness” calculated as the average
of the reliability and validity coefficients. Here we extend
this approach in providing Rc as a composite measure of
psychometric performance incorporating the multiple indi-
ces assessed. Silverstein (1990) not only acknowledged the
advantage of this integrative approach but also noted that
separate reliability and validity indices may be of interest in
their own right under different situations. Thus, we provide
an overall summary score (Rc) as well as the data for each
Girard et al. 443
psychometric index separately to maximize information for
and comprehension by readers.
Method
Clinical Sample
Our sample was composed of 482 persons administered at
least the 10 core subtests from the WAIS-IV through a med-
ical neuropsychology consultation clinic within an urban
veteran’s medical center with referrals from neurology, psy-
chiatry, and primary care. The sample was mostly male
(93.6%), and primarily of Caucasian (63.5%) and African
American (32.8%) self-identified ethnicity. The participants
averaged 51.1 years of age (SD = 17.9), had 12.8 (SD = 2.0)
years of education, and generated a mean FSIQ in the high
end of the low average range (M = 88.9; SD = 14.2). The
FSIQ data were normally distributed (Mdn = 89.0; skew =
0.14, SE = 0.11; kurtosis = 0.02, SE = 0.22) with scores
ranging from 51 to 144.
Procedures
WAIS-IV subtests had been administered and scored
according to standardized procedures (Wechsler, 2008) as
part of clinical evaluations. The archival data were de-
identified and approved for research use in accordance with
policy at the host medical facility.
Analyses
In total, we calculated deviation quotients (DQs) for all 45
dyad combinations of the 10 core WAIS-IV subtests. DQs
are derived via linear scaling of composite subtest scaled
scores to obtain scores sharing the WIS full-scale mean of
100 and SD of 15 (FSIQ itself being a DQ; Tellegen &
Briggs, 1967). Composite reliability (rxx) and correlation
coefficients (rstd) between the short-form dyad DQs and
FSIQ were calculated using the WAIS-IV standardization
data as per methods outlined by Crawford and colleagues
(Crawford, Anderson, Rankin, & MacDonald, 2010;
Crawford et al., 2008), which apply long-standing methods
in the short-form literature (Levy, 1967; Moiser, 1943;
Tellegen & Briggs, 1967). Consistent with prior reports
(e.g., Girard, Axelrod, & Wilkins, 2010; Sattler & Ryan,
2009), internal consistency reliabilities from the standard-
ization sample were used for this purpose, with the excep-
tion of Symbol Search and Coding for which only test–retest
reliabilities are available (Wechsler, 2008). Correlations (r)
were also computed for each dyad based on the neuropsy-
chological sample data. All correlations were corrected
(r′std; r′) for redundant error variance using Levy’s (1967)
formula because of dyad subtests being embedded within
the full-scale administration (Girard & Christensen, 2008).
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at US DEPT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS on July 20, 2015
In addition, the magnitude of differences between each of
the dyad DQs and FSIQ were assessed using paired t tests.
Taking into account both the consistency of scores and sys-
tematic differences between dyad and full-scale scores, we
also used the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) using a
two-way model assessing absolute agreement (model A.1 in
McGraw & Wong, 1996).
As an additional measure of agreement, we calculated
the proportion of DQs for each dyad falling within ± 10 IQ
points of participants’ respective FSIQ scores. This level of
agreement was selected as a meaningful range correspond-
ing to that of the qualitative categories used in WIS test
interpretation (e.g., 80-90 = below average, 110-120 =
above average). Nonetheless, it is possible that different
interval widths may affect measurement sensitivity and/or
conclusions. To address this concern, we ran parallel analy-
ses using intervals of ±2 and 5 IQ points, roughly corre-
sponding to ±1 and 2 SEM, respectively (SEM is 2.16 for
WAIS-IV FSIQ; Wechsler, 2008).
Last, to facilitate interpretation across the multiple psy-
chometric indices, a composite measure of the above psy-
chometric measures (Rc) was computed adapting the
approach of Cyr and Brooker (1984). More specifically,
whereas Cyr and Brooker averaged the reliability and valid-
ity (Pearson’s r) coefficients to provide an index of “psy-
chometric effectiveness,” we average across all the indices
assessed here. In keeping with the original metric, the
unweighted approach to the composite was selected because
there are no sufficiently strong reasons to differentially
weight the indices and the parsimony of a simple average
facilitates interpretation. The reliability and corrected valid-
ity coefficients derived from standardization data, the cor-
rected validity coefficient based on our sample, the ICC,
and the proportion of DQs within ± 10 IQ points all fall on
scales from 0 to 1 in magnitude. To integrate the difference
scores with these measures, we first converted the corre-
sponding mean differences to positive r effect-sizes (incor-
porating the normative SD of 15 for WAIS-IV IQ scores) to
represent the absolute degrees of discrepancy on a 0 to 1
scale. Because high values on the former measures, but low
discrepancy scores represent good dyad performance, we
subsequently subtracted the latter r values from unity to
yield a comparable metric of agreement (1 − r). Then, we
calculated the mean of these six values as an overall psy-
chometric composite score Rc for each dyad. Thus, the Rc
index is a multifaceted composite measure of psychometric
performance that can be interpreted on a scale from 0
(absent) to 1 (perfect) correspondence between the short
form and full scale.
Results
Reliability and validity data for the 45 dyadic short forms are
provided in Table 1. The dyads are rank ordered with respect
444 Assessment 22(4)

Table 1.  Reliability and Validity of Dyadic WAIS-IV Short Forms for FSIQ.

Dyad rxx r′std*** r′*** p(±10) Mdiff ICC Rc

Coding + Information .922 .850 .860 .832 –0.494 .871 .887
Coding + Matrix Reasoning .917 .815 .856 .842 –0.320 .866 .881
Block Design + Digit Span .931 .833 .856 .834 1.288*** .859 .878
Symbol Search + Vocabulary .907 .845 .848 .830 –0.830* .867 .878
Coding + Visual Puzzles .909 .810 .857 .832 –0.366 .872 .878
Arithmetic + Similarities .919 .857 .859 .838 2.128*** .859 .877
Matrix Reasoning + Vocabulary .947 .864 .867 .830 3.527*** .851 .874
Coding + Vocabulary .929 .851 .851 .807 –1.666*** .860 .874
Coding + Similarities .904 .839 .853 .836 –1.679*** .863 .873
Digit Span + Visual Puzzles .936 .830 .858 .811 1.890*** .856 .871
Similarities + Symbol Search .881 .830 .840 .828 –0.798* .862 .869
Arithmetic + Coding .909 .833 .857 .813 –1.915*** .865 .869
Arithmetic + Symbol Search .887 .823 .850 .805 –1.043** .867 .866
Block Design + Vocabulary .934 .873 .846 .790 2.884*** .842 .865
Matrix Reasoning + Symbol Search .896 .805 .846 .801 0.581 .855 .864
Digit Span + Vocabulary .957 .852 .815 .768 0.783* .816 .864
Arithmetic + Vocabulary .943 .860 .834 .780 2.227*** .835 .863
Arithmetic + Block Design .917 .846 .849 .797 2.693*** .851 .862
Visual Puzzles + Vocabulary .940 .865 .852 .784 3.567*** .838 .860
Digit Span + Similarities .932 .846 .816 .772 0.701 .818 .860
Information + Symbol Search .903 .822 .844 .784 1.559*** .859 .860
Block Design + Coding .904 .819 .823 .797 –1.018** .839 .858
Digit Span + Information .951 .851 .842 .757 2.845*** .832 .856
Symbol Search + Visual Puzzles .891 .780 .846 .780 0.823* .863 .855
Arithmetic + Visual Puzzles .922 .835 .860 .774 3.390*** .849 .854
Digit Span + Matrix Reasoning .942 .836 .826 .763 1.839*** .820 .854
Block Design + Symbol Search .887 .789 .821 .778 0.162 .843 .852
Similarities + Visual Puzzles .917 .848 .849 .782 3.607*** .835 .852
Arithmetic + Matrix Reasoning .928 .850 .844 .757 3.224*** .833 .851
Matrix Reasoning + Similarities .924 .854 .841 .768 3.515*** .827 .850
Block Design + Similarities .913 .850 .829 .776 2.983*** .825 .849
Arithmetic + Information .939 .839 .846 .770 4.434*** .821 .845
Digit Span + Symbol Search .907 .786 .824 .761 –2.196*** .825 .838
Coding + Digit Span .928 .798 .829 .749 –3.085*** .817 .836
Arithmetic + Digit Span .887 .821 .788 .739 0.790 .805 .836
Block Design + Information .931 .854 .841 .734 5.160*** .807 .833
Information + Matrix Reasoning .943 .849 .853 .691 5.741*** .803 .825
Block Design + Matrix Reasoning .925 .823 .819 .712 4.262*** .797 .823
Similarities + Vocabulary .945 .817 .777 .730 2.966*** .764 .822
Matrix Reasoning + Visual Puzzles .931 .809 .843 .703 4.981*** .806 .821
Information + Visual Puzzles .937 .839 .834 .691 5.906*** .785 .816
Information + Similarities .939 .822 .799 .720 4.881*** .765 .814
Block Design + Visual Puzzles .927 .773 .817 .697 4.732*** .789 .808
Information + Vocabulary .962 .810 .763 .658 5.056*** .730 .793
Coding + Symbol Search .900 .698 .774 .703 –3.112*** .775 .791

Note. FSIQ = full-scale intelligence quotient; rxx = composite reliability coefficients of dyadic short forms (Moiser, 1943; based on WAIS-IV
standardization data); r′std = Pearson product–moment correlations between dyad deviation quotients (DQs) and FSIQs corrected for redundant error
variance (Girard & Christensen, 2008); r′ = corrected validity coefficients based on neuropsychological sample data; p(±10) = proportion of sample
for whom dyad DQs fall within ±10 points of their respective FSIQs; Mdiff = mean difference scores between the dyad DQs and FSIQ scores; ICC =
two-way intraclass correlation coefficient modeling absolute agreement; Rc = composite measure of psychometric performance averaged across the six
preceding measures (see text for details). Although consideration of individual indices is recommended, dyads are displayed in descending order by Rc
with subtests in each pair labeled alphabetically. Boldfaced values highlight the top five dyads according to each psychometric measure.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at US DEPT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS on July 20, 2015

Girard et al. 445
to composite Rc values. The metrics for each reliability and
validity measure are also provided for each dyad. In the
interest of parsimony, we will highlight the summary statis-
tics for the top few dyads according to the Rc score followed
by those for reliability and each validity measure.
Psychometric composite values ranged from Rc = .79 for
the combination of Coding + Symbol Search to Rc = .89 for
Coding + Information (M = 0.85). Consistent with the for-
mer Processing Speed dyad, all eight dyads composed of
single-index domains fell in the bottom quarter overall. The
Working Memory dyad of Arithmetic + Digit Span ranked
highest among this subset, Rc = .84. Although the Coding +
Information dyad failed to top the list for any individual
measure, it ranked highest overall on the Rc score and in the
top five for the sample-derived validity coefficient (r′, sec-
ond), proportion of scores falling with ±10 points of FSIQ
(fifth), mean discrepancy from FSIQ (fourth; being one of
only seven dyads with a nonsignificant discrepancy), and
ICC (second). It fared slightly less well in terms of its valid-
ity coefficient (r′std, 11th) and particularly its reliability
(25th) derived from the standardization data; nonetheless, it
exceeded criteria used previously for acceptable reliability
(>.90) and validity (>.82; e.g., Christensen et al., 2007;
Girard, Axelrod, et al., 2010).
With respect to the coefficients derived from the standard-
ization data, three dyads exceeded reliability of rxx = .95:
Information + Vocabulary and each of these two paired with
Digit Span. Only six dyads fell below rxx = .90. As noted
above, although the top Rc dyad Coding + Information fared
lower in terms of reliability than on other measures, it still
met the latter acceptable level (rxx = .92). Because of its lower
subtest reliability, all nine dyads including Symbol Search
fell among the 12 least reliable dyads, albeit the minimum
rxx = .88. Although Information + Vocabulary was the most
reliable combination (rxx = .96), this single-domain Verbal-
Comprehension dyad ranked in the bottom 10 across the five
validity measures and next to last overall, Rc = .79. As in
Sattler and Ryan (2009), the dyads of Vocabulary with Block
Design and with Visual Puzzles yielded the highest r′std (both
.87). However, these dyads ranked 14th and 19th on our com-
posite Rc measure, respectively. They scored lowest in terms
of their mean discrepancy scores, tending to overestimate
FSIQ on average by 2.88 and 3.57 IQ points, respectively.
The highest validity coefficient based on the sample data
was for Matrix Reasoning + Vocabulary (r′ = .87). This
dyad also ranked 7th overall (Rc = .87), as reflected in terms
of its high reliability (4th; r′xx = .95) and validity based on
the standardization data (3rd; r′std = .86), the proportion of
scores within 10 points of FSIQ (8th), and ICC (17th).
However, it fell 12th from last in terms of its discrepancy
score, overestimating FSIQ by 3.53 points on average.
Coding + Matrix Reasoning was the dyad with the high-
est proportion of scores falling within 10 points of FSIQ
(.84). This dyad ranked second overall (Rc = .88) and in
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at US DEPT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS on July 20, 2015
terms of its mean discrepancy score, underestimating FSIQ
by less than one third of an IQ point. It ranked 5th for ICC
(.87) and 9th in terms of its sample validity coefficient (r′ =
.86), but substantially lower in terms of the coefficients
based on standardization data (35th, r′std = .82; 28th, rxx =
.92). As expected, rates of inclusion were lower for the nar-
rower bandwidths of ±2 (.15-.24) and ±5 (.36-.53). However,
the correlation between Rc scores reported in Table 1 based
on all six psychometric indices with the five after omitting
the proportion of scores falling within the ±10 point interval
was near perfect, r = .989. Moreover, inspection of changes
in rank order of dyads by Rc scores revealed minimal differ-
ences; the mean shift was −0.02 places.
In terms of magnitude, one quarter of the dyads yielded
discrepancies of less than one IQ point, but a handful devi-
ated by 5 or more IQ points. Notably, all the top five dyads
on this discrepancy measure included one of the Processing
Speed tasks (Coding or Symbol Search). On average, the
Block Design + Symbol Search dyad only slightly overesti-
mated FSIQ by less than one sixth of an IQ point, ranking it
best in terms of mean discrepancy. However, it ranked only
27th overall (Rc = .85), 23rd in terms of the proportion of
scores within 10 points of FSIQ, and among the bottom 10
among the validity and reliability coefficients. In general,
dyads tended to overestimate FSIQ (mean of mean differ-
ences = +1.70) and ranged from −3.11 (underestimating) to
+5.91 (overestimating) IQ points. Even with the large sam-
ple size, seven dyads, including the Block Design + Symbol
Search, Coding + Information, and Coding + Matrix
Reasoning dyads discussed above, revealed nonsignificant
discrepancies at alpha level of .05, four more at .01, and two
more at .001. The rest were highly significant at p < .001
(ranging down to p = 5 × 10−49).
Coding + Visual Puzzles yielded the highest ICC (.87).
This dyad also ranked in the top five overall (Rc = .88), third
in terms of mean discrepancy, and sixth with respect to both
the sample validity coefficient and proportion of scores within
10 points of FSIQ. However, it ranked in the bottom third for
validity and reliability based on standardization data.
Discussion
We report the validity and reliability coefficients of 45
dyadic short forms of the WAIS-IV based on standardiza-
tion data as well as their multifaceted validity in a large
clinical sample. More specifically, we assessed correlations
and magnitudes of discrepancies between dyads and FSIQ,
as well as the proportion of dyad DQs falling within ±10
points of participants’ respective FSIQ scores. Although
assessment of individual measures is encouraged in accor-
dance with one’s goals, we further present a composite
measure of psychometric performance (Rc) based on the
approach of Cyr and Brooker (1984) to aid interpretation
across the multiple indices.
446 Assessment 22(4)
Readers are encouraged to consider the individual mea-
sures relative to their goals for short-form use when evalu-
ating or selecting a dyad. In this vein, we note the
heterogeneity in psychometric performance across mea-
sures. There is no dyad that consistently ranked among the
five highest values for each measure (see boldfaced values
in Table 1). One source of variance is the discrepancy
between validity coefficients in our sample and those
derived from the standardization data, highlighting the
importance of evaluating short-form validity across rele-
vant samples. In addition, the variability in performance
across sample validity measures highlights the value of
considering multiple forms of validity when assessing
short forms. Future research may yield further insight
regarding the reasons for these discrepancies. Despite vari-
ability across measures, the results do also yield relative
consistencies in performance supporting superior perfor-
mance of some dyads.
Overall, the dyad comprising Coding + Information
ranked highest on the composite Rc measure and was among
the top five dyads across all four sample validity measures.
Consistent with Sattler and Ryan (2009), this dyad failed to
rank in the top 10 according to the scores derived from the
standardization data. Nonetheless, the latter authors did rec-
ommend it as a good dyad for rapid screening. Moreover,
the standardization-based reliability and validity coeffi-
cients exceed recommended thresholds for acceptable reli-
ability (rxx > .90) and validity (r′std > .82) in the WIS
literature (e.g., Christensen et al., 2007; Girard, Axelrod, et
al., 2010). Thus, the current results further support this dyad
for obtaining a quick gauge of intellectual functioning.
The dyads of Block Design + Vocabulary and Visual
Puzzles + Vocabulary have the highest r′std = .87, consistent
with their place atop Sattler and Ryan’s (2009) ranking by
validity. However, these dyads ranked lower on our addi-
tional and sample-based measures, particularly in their
mean overestimation of FSIQ. Likewise, although
Information + Vocabulary is the most reliable combination
based on standardization data, it ranked in the bottom 10 in
terms of validity and next to last overall (Rc = .79).
Coding + Matrix Reasoning ranked second overall with
strong sample validity, including the highest rate of inclu-
sion for DQs within 10 points of FSIQ, and acceptable lev-
els for the standardization data. Of note, this dyad may be
preferred for use with hearing impaired samples (Sattler &
Ryan, 2009). Other dyads recommended by Sattler and
Ryan (2009) for this purpose ranked far lower overall
(Arithmetic + Matrix Reasoning, 29th; Block Design +
Matrix Reasoning, 38th).
The Matrix Reasoning + Vocabulary dyad proved strong
with respect to its reliability and validity coefficients across
samples and ranked seventh on our list overall. However,
further highlighting the importance of assessing multiple
indices, it tended to overestimate FSIQ in the clinical
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at US DEPT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS on July 20, 2015
sample by more than 3.5 points, on average. Very similar
results were obtained by Axelrod (2002) with this combina-
tion for estimating FSIQ on the WAIS-III. Use of these
tasks from the two-subtest WASI yielded not only less dis-
crepancy but also a poorer validity coefficient (Axelrod,
2002). Similar empirical comparisons between WAIS-IV
short forms and the WASI-II will be important. This dyad is
also integrated in the two-subtest Oklahoma Premorbid
Intelligence Estimate–3 (OPIE-3) equation along with
demographic variables (Schoenberg, Duff, Scott, & Adams,
2002), which was also found to overestimate FSIQ on aver-
age (Spinks et al., 2009). Notably, we found that five dyads
including Processing Speed measures yielded the smallest
mean discrepancies in our clinical sample. These findings
should also be taken into consideration in the development
of future versions of the WASI and OPIE tests.
In addition to psychometric attributes, it is important to
consider clinical factors and suitable applications. Dyad short
forms are most appropriate when the research or referral
question is aimed at estimating global intelligence (FSIQ).
That is, these short-form estimates are insufficient grounds
for key verdicts regarding individual clients, such as place-
ment decisions (Sattler & Ryan, 2009; Silverstein, 1990;
Thompson et al., 1986). For instance, the top dyads yielded
inclusion rates of 84% of the short-form estimates falling
with ±10 points of FSIQ scores in our clinical sample.
Slightly better, Sattler and Ryan (2009) reported 95% inclu-
sion rates with bandwidths of 7 to 12 IQ points, based on
WAIS-IV standardization data, for their recommended dyads.
Further assessment of bandwidths of ±2 and 5 reflected max-
ima of only a quarter and a half of cases falling within roughly
1 and 2 SEM, respectively. Overall, these rates and ranges
warrant against making important individual-level interpreta-
tions based on dyad FSIQ Equivalents. On the other hand,
most dyads present adequate reliability, validity coefficients,
and mean discrepancies to support their use for research or
for clinical screening or monitoring purposes (Sattler &
Ryan, 2009). Moreover, the drop in validity for these pur-
poses is weighed against the substantial time-savings of
administering only 2 of the 10 core WAIS-IV subtests.
Nonetheless, it will be useful to directly assess administration
times for specific short forms in both clinical and nonclinical
samples. Although such goals may be achieved with the use
of independent brief tests of intelligence, the list of dyads
assessed here offers users more flexibility in choice and the
advantage of being able to simply follow up a quick screen
with full administration of the remaining WAIS-IV if more
comprehensive intelligence assessment is needed.
Despite the variation across validity measures, most
dyads rank within a reasonably stable range of performance.
For instance, the top 10 dyads on the composite measure
range from Rc = .87 to .89. Thus, users might take into
account clinical considerations, such as the referral question
or client/sample characteristics when selecting a short form.
Girard et al. 447
For example, as noted above, Coding + Matrix Reasoning is
recommended for hearing-impaired samples. Use of Matrix
Reasoning versus Information along with Coding (i.e., top
two dyads in Table 1) may also depend on whether fluid or
crystallized intelligence is of more interest, respectively.
Likewise, whereas Information and Vocabulary assess more
concrete knowledge, Similarities is desired for assessment
of abstract verbal reasoning and may prove more sensitive
to nuances of psychosis (Christensen et al., 2007; Crawford
et al., 2008; Donders, 1997; Girard, Axelrod, et al., ),
although this requires empirical assessment. The dyads
involving Similarities with Arithmetic and with Coding
ranked in the top 10 overall (sixth and ninth; Table 1), but
over- and underestimated FSIQ by about two points in our
sample, respectively. Nonetheless, although statistically
significant deviations, the magnitude of these mean dis-
crepancies fall within the normative standard error of mea-
surement for FSIQ.
It is also important to consider the sample’s characteristics
with respect to the generalization of the current results. We
report here on a large neuropsychological sample for whom
the FSIQ scores were normally distributed with a full range
of scores. The sample comprised predominately males of
Caucasian and African American descent with a mean low
average FSIQ of 89. Some apparent discrepancies across
indices may reflect differential sensitivity of some dyads to
the samples or measures used, an observation that should be
taken into account regarding generalizability and the need for
future research in this regard. For instance, discrepancies
between r′std and sample r′ values likely relate at least in part
to sample differences between the standardization data set
and the clinical sample. It is notable in this regard that all
dyads including at least one Processing Speed task (Coding
or Symbol Search; see Table 1) yielded numerically higher
validity coefficients for the clinical sample than for the stan-
dardization data (except for Coding + Vocabulary, for which
they were equal); performance across sample statistics was
more balanced across other domains. This observation may
relate to the particular sensitivity of Processing Speed mea-
sures to clinical conditions (e.g., Christensen et al., 2007;
Gorlyn et al., 2006; Hawkins, 1998; Taylor & Heaton, 2001).
It is notable that the lower reliabilities of dyads including
Coding and/or Symbol Search are likely partly because of
reliance on test–retest correlations for these subtests
(Wechsler, 2008). As reviewed by Sattler and Ryan (2009),
these assessments were based on a smaller subsample and
among other subtests test–retest values are consistently lower
than their internal consistency counterparts. Nonetheless, the
enhanced sensitivity noted above cannot be explained by this
method difference, as less reliable measures typically yield
less sensitive tests and because the same reliability values
were used for validity estimates in both samples. In future, it
will be valuable to have larger assessments of reliability on a
common metric, as well as to directly estimate reliabilities in
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at US DEPT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS on July 20, 2015
clinical samples. In contrast, some dyads were closely
matched; for example, Arithmetic + Similarities and Matrix
Reasoning + Vocabulary ranked among the highest five
validity coefficients on both data sets and differed only at the
third decimal place. Nonetheless, cross-validation studies on
other representative samples will be useful in future.
Moreover, it will be important to investigate short-form per-
formance at different ability levels, particularly the tails of
the distribution (Spinks et al., 2009).
Future work should also reassess the dyads’ psychomet-
ric properties from their administration independently of
the full-scale WAIS-IV. The statistical correction for redun-
dant error variance (r′) estimates the validity coefficient “as
if” obtained from separate administrations (Girard &
Christensen, 2008). However, systematic sources of vari-
ance (e.g., influence of other subtests) and clinical consider-
ations (e.g., motivation/attention) may differentially affect
full-score and short-form performance. For instance, short
forms may yield higher subtest scores and more reliable
performance (Levy, 1968; Wymer, Rayls, & Wagner, 2003),
but with reduced validity coefficients with FSIQ when iso-
lated than when embedded in the full battery, particularly
for dyads (Thompson et al., 1986). However, Axelrod
(2002) failed to observe any significant order effects regard-
ing the administration of the two- (or four-) subtest WASI
and the full WAIS-III, suggesting that at least some mea-
sures are robust to potential influences of test administra-
tion time. These issues deserve further empirical attention
with the WAIS-IV.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Axelrod, B. N. (2002). Validity of the Wechsler Abbreviate Scale
of Intelligence and other very short forms of estimating intel-
lectual functioning. Assessment, 9, 17-23.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for
assessing agreement between two methods of clinical mea-
surement. Lancet, 1, 307-310.
Boone, D. E. (1990). Short forms of the WAIS-R with psychiatric
inpatients: A comparison of techniques. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 46, 197-200.
Christensen, B. K., Girard, T. A., & Bagby, R. M. (2007). WAIS-
III short form for Index and IQ scores in a psychiatric popula-
tion. Psychological Assessment, 19, 236-240.
Crawford, J. R., Allum, S., & Kinion, J. E. (2008). An index-based
short form of the WAIS-III with accompanying analysis of
reliability and abnormality of differences. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 47, 215-237.
448 Assessment 22(4)
Crawford, J. R., Anderson, V., Rankin, P., & MacDonald, J. (2010).
An index-based short-form of the WISC-IV with accompany-
ing analysis of the reliability and abnormality of differences.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 235-258.
Cyr, J. J., & Brooker, B. H. (1984). Use of appropriate formulas
for selecting WAIS-R short forms. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 52, 903-905.
Donders, J. (1997). A short form of the WISC-III for clinical use.
Psychological Assessment, 9, 15-20.
Eisman, E. J., Dies, R. R., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G.,
Kubiszyn, T., . . .Moreland, K. L. (2000). Problems and limi-
tations in the use of psychological assessment in the contem-
porary health care delivery system. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 31, 131-140.
Girard, T. A., Axelrod, B. N., & Wilkins, L. (2010). Comparison
of WAIS-III short-forms for measuring index and full-scale
scores. Assessment, 17, 400-405.
Girard, T. A., & Christensen, B. K. (2008). Clarifying problems
and offering solutions for correlated error when assessing
the validity of selected-subtest short forms. Psychological
Assessment, 20, 76-80.
Girard, T. A., Christensen, B. K., & Rizvi, S. (2010). Visual-
spatial episodic memory in schizophrenia: A multiple systems
framework. Neuropsychology, 24, 368-378.
Gorlyn, M., Keilp, J. G., Oquendo, M. A., Burke, A. K., Sackeim,
H. A., & Mann, J. J. (2006). The WAIS-III and Major
Depression: Absence of VIQ/PIQ Differences. Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 28, 1145-1157.
Hawkins, K. A. (1998). Indicators of brain dysfunction derived
from graphic representations of the WAIS-III/WMS-III tech-
nical manual clinical samples data: A preliminary approach
to clinical utility. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12,
535-551.
Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelli-
gence. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Levy, P. (1967). The correction for spurious correlation in the
evaluation of short-form tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
23, 84-86.
Levy, P. (1968). Short-form tests: A methodological review.
Psychological Bulletin, 69, 410-416.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences
about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological
Methods, 1, 30-46.
Merchan-Naranjo, J., Mayoral, M., Rapado-Castro, M., Llorente,
C., Boada, L., Arango, C., & Parellada, M. (2012). Estimation
of the intelligence quotient using Wechsler Intelligence Scales
in children and adolescents with Asperger Syndrome. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 116-122.
Moiser, C. I. (1943). On the reliability of a weighted composite.
Psychometrika, 8, 161-168.
Piotrowski, C. (1999). Assessment practices in the era of managed
care: Current status and future directions. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 55, 787-796.
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.
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at US DEPT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS on July 20, 2015
View publication stats
Sattler, J. M., & Ryan, J. J. (1998). Assessment of children:
Revised and updated third edition. WAIS-III supplement. San
Diego, CA: Sattler.
Sattler, J. M., & Ryan, J. J. (2009). Assessment with the WAIS-IV.
La Mesa, CA: Sattler.
Schoenberg, M. R., Duff, K., Scott, J. G., & Adams, R. L. (2002).
An evaluation of the clinical utility of the OPIE-3 as an estimate
of premorbid WAIS-III FSIQ. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17,
308-321.
Silverstein, A. B. (1982). Two- and four-subtest short forms of
the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 415-418.
Silverstein, A. B. (1990). Short forms of individual intelligence
tests. Psychological Assessment, 2, 3-11.
Spinks, R., McKirgan, L. W., Arndt, S., Caspers, K., Yucuis,
R., & Pfalzgraf, C. J. (2009). IQ estimate smackdown:
Comparing IQ proxy measures to the WAIS-III. Journal of
the International Neuropsychological Society, 15, 590-596.
Taylor, M. J., & Heaton, R. K. (2001). Sensitivity and specific-
ity of WAIS-III/WMS-III demographically corrected fac-
tor scores in neuropsychological assessment. Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society, 7, 867-874.
Tellegen, A., & Briggs, P. F. (1967). Old wine in new skins:
Grouping Wechsler subtests into new scales. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 31, 499-506.
Thompson, A. P., Howard, D., & Anderson, J. (1986). Two- and
four-subtest short forms of the WAIS-R: Validity in a psy-
chiatric sample. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18,
287-293.
Thompson, A. P., LoBello, S. G., Atkinson, L., Chisholm, V.,
& Ryan, J. J. (2004). Brief intelligence testing in Australia,
Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 286-290.
Umfleet, L. G., Ryan, J. J., Gontkovsky, S. T., & Morris, J. (2012).
Estimating WAIS-IV Indexes: Proration versus linear scaling in
a clinical sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68, 390-396.
Watkins, C. E., Jr., Campbell, V. L., Nieberding, R., & Hallmark,
R. (1995). Contemporary practice of psychological assess-
ment by clinical psychologists. Professional Psychology:
Research & Practice, 26, 54-60.
Wechsler, D. (1997). WAIS-III: Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale–third edition administration and scoring manual. San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence
(WASI). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–fourth edi-
tion (WAIS-IV). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corpora-tion.
Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence–
second edition (WASI-II). San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Wolber, G. J., Reynolds, B., Ehrmantraut, J. E., & Nelson, A. J.
(1997). In search of a measure of intellectual functioning for
an inpatient psychiatric population with low cognitive ability.
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 21, 59-63.
Wymer, J. H., Rayls, K., & Wagner, M. T. (2003). Utility of a
clinically derived abbreviated form of the WAIS-III. Archives
of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 917-927.