Wechsler Intelligence Scale

The role of the Wechsler intelligence scales in neuropsychological assessment dates

back to the Wechsler-Bellevue I. Although the present chapter focuses on the
WAIS-IV, the WMS-IV was co-standardized with the WAIS-IV, and the two instru-
ments together provide a much more comprehensive evaluation of an individual's
neurocognitive status.

From: WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation, 2010

Related terms:

Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Psychometry, Cognition, Intelligence Quotient,

Working Memory, Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

View all Topics

The Wechsler Intelligence Scales in the

Assessment of Psychopathology
Gerald Goldstein, Donald H. Saklofske, in WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation,
2010

Historical introduction
The Wechsler intelligence scales were first developed at the Bellevue Hospital, a
psychiatric facility in New York City. In his book Measurement of Adult Intelligence,
David Wechsler (1941) wrote a brief section on schizophrenia, stating that patients
with this disorder produce a profile characterized by relatively good performance
on verbal tests that do not require much verbalization, but poor performance on
tests involving attention to details, such as Picture Completion. Since that time an
extensive literature has grown involving identification of test profiles that charac-
terize various disorders ranging from schizophrenia and depression to Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and learning disabilities. For some time,
the Wechsler scales have been commonly administered in psychiatric clinics and
hospitals, often as part of a comprehensive psychological assessment, and are used
along with other tests in diagnosis formulation and treatment planning. David
Rapaport, a pioneer in application of the Wechsler scales to psychopathology, said:

Diagnostic testing of intelligence and concept formation scrutinizes the extent

and quality of a subject's achievements. From the relationships between different
achievements, and from the types of falling-short of or deviation from expected
achievements, we infer the maturity and strength, as well as the degrees and kinds
of impairments, of the functions underlying the achievements and the personality
structure or maladjustment type in which these would be likely to occur. (Rapaport,
1946)

This statement still characterizes the nature of the clinical application of intelligence
testing to psychopathology. In essence, the Wechsler scales are viewed within this
theoretical framework as a personality test to be used in conjunction with a broader
personality assessment. In these applications, an intelligence test is rarely admin-
istered in isolation from other procedures. In the evaluation of psychopathology,
an intelligence test was typically used in conjunction with interviewing and per-
sonality tests that may have included projective techniques such as the Rorschach
or Thematic Apperception Test, or objective procedures such as the MMPI. How-
ever, clinical psychology has come through an era in which intelligence tests were
used as part of a battery of other cognitive tests and projective techniques for the
purpose of doing comprehensive personality evaluations. This practice was at its
height during the time of David Rapaport and his colleagues at the Menninger
Foundation, and is presented in the two-volume Diagnostic Psychological Testing
(Rapaport, 1946). Evidence for the presence and characteristics of psychopathology
was elicited by comparing one test with the other, such as noting anxiety indicators
on the Rorschach with intact intellectual function. The use of these test batteries has
apparently diminished in clinical psychology and has been replaced by a number
of other forms of assessment (i.e., multimethod), including structured interviews,
systematic observation, objective tests and scales, behavioral assessment methods,
and neuropsychological testing. In part because of changing views and models of
psychopathology and psychological disorders, and also because of limited diagnostic
and prescriptive utility, projective techniques are not used as widely as they were
in the past, and have been replaced by a number of objective tests and structured
interviewing.

Research in psychopathology with the Wechsler scales may be divided into three
components. The earliest, described by Wechsler himself, involves the search for
clinical pathognomonic signs or profiles that uniquely characterize specific dis-
orders; is there a “schizophrenia profile” or an “autism profile” with which one
can diagnose the disorder? The second set of studies involves exploratory or con-
firmatory factor analysis asking the question of whether intelligence has differ-
ent latent structures in different clinical groups. For example, do individuals with
schizophrenia have the traditional Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Organization,
Working Memory, and Processing Speed structure found in normal individuals?
The third area has centered on the problem of heterogeneity within clinical entities,
focusing on the identification of subtypes of a disorder using such techniques as
cluster analysis. One aspect of heterogeneity focuses on the matter of recovery,
involving research evaluating change in intellectual function following treatment,
or in conjunction with clinical trials.

It may be stated in advance that the search for single pathognomonic profiles
has essentially been abandoned. While subtest profiles continue to be reported
in research studies they are typically not done so with the implication that they
are specifically diagnostic of a particular disorder. The observation of intellectual
heterogeneity in essentially all psychiatric disorders has discouraged talking of a
“schizophrenia profile” or a “traumatic brain injury profile.” These three components
pertain to studies of the Wechsler intelligence scales themselves, but there is also
an enormous literature in which the Wechsler scales were used in conjunction with
other procedures, for various purposes. Thus, the Wechsler scales may be used in
combination with various neuropsychological tests (Reitan & Wolfson, 1993), neu-
roimaging procedures (see, for example, Kraemer, Rosenberg, & Thompson-Schill,
2009), measures of social functioning, and other behavioral assessments. In the case
of autism, the Wechsler IQ is used to classify the disorder into “high functioning”
and “low functioning” subtypes (Rutter & Schopler, 1987). In some cases, it is used
with other tests to derive indexes such as the Thought Disorder Index (Solovay et al.,
1986), where it is used in combination with the Rorschach Test to document disor-
dered thinking such as confabulation or peculiar verbalizations. There is an extensive
literature on use of the Wechsler scales in conjunction with the Halstead-Reitan
Neuropsychological Battery (Goldstein & Beers, 2004). The Wechsler scales are in fact
now considered as being a part of that Battery (Reitan & Wolfson, 1993). The linking
and co-norming studies conducted with new versions of the Wechsler tests, such as
the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV; Wechlser, 2008a),
with other measures, such as the Wechsler Memory Scales (WMS-IV; Wechlser,
2008a) and Wechsler Individual Achievement Tests (WIAT-II; Wechsler, 2001) and the
Wechsler Fundamentals: Academic Skills (WF:AS; Wechsler, 2008b), are intended to
extend the description of cognitive functioning to related areas such as memory and
achievement. Thus, rather than employing such measures in search of consistent
and reliable diagnostic profiles, the intent is to describe the cognitive and related
functioning of the individual client. At the same time, it should be pointed out that
there are some more or less characteristic performances of particular clinical groups,
but again these are not marker variables for classification or diagnosis (see WAIS-IV
Technical Manual).

> Read full chapter

Neuropsychological Testing
Glenn T. Stebbins, in Textbook of Clinical Neurology (Third Edition), 2007

Other Intelligence Tests

The Wechsler scales are not the only method for the assessment of intellectual
abilities. Due to space limitations we cannot list all tests of intelligence. However,
other tests of intellectual abilities tend to follow two different assessment methods:
tests of verbal abilities and tests of nonverbal abstraction. The first method, testing
of verbal abilities, is represented by tests such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test–Revised (discussed in the section on Perception and Construction Abilities), in
which patients are asked to choose which of four pictures best identifies a spoken
word. This method is based on the high correlation between vocabulary knowledge
and IQ.44 The second method, tests of nonverbal abstraction, is represented by
the Raven's Progressive Matrices Test (discussed in the section on Reasoning and
Problem Solving Through Concept Formation), in which patients must abstract
general principles and rules from patterns. This method tends to correlate well with
the Full Scale IQ from the Wechsler scales.

> Read full chapter

WISC-V
Lawrence G. Weiss, ... Aurelio Prifitera, in WISC-V Assessment and Interpretation,
2016

Introduction
The Wechsler scales are the most widely used measures of intelligence, and have
been translated, adapted, and standardized in dozens of countries around the
world. Since first introduced in the Wechlser–Bellevue Intelligence Scale (WBIS), the
Wechsler model has evolved substantially, but remains grounded in Dr. Wechsler’s
foundational definition of intelligence:

…the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think

rationally, and to deal effectively with his (or her) environment.(Wechsler, 1939, p. 3)

> Read full chapter

Applications in Diverse Populations
Sarah W. Bisconer, Janene N. Suttie, in Comprehensive Clinical Psychology, 1998

9.01.5.1 Intelligence
The Wechsler scales include three individually administered scales of intelligence:
Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised (WIPPSI-R; Wechsler,
1989), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III; Wechsler,
1991), and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R; Wechsler, 1981). The
Wechsler scales are widely used in the USA; however, they have been criticized for
their low reliability with individuals with IQ scores less than 50, for being culturally
biased, and for yielding lower scores with children who are culturally deprived
(Kaplan et al., 1994). The Wechsler scales yield a standard score with a mean of 100
and a standard deviation of 15. The WIPPSI-R is appropriate for children ages 3 years
to 1 years 3 months, the WISC-III is appropriate for children ages 6 years to 16 years
11 months, and the WAIS is appropriate for persons ages 16–14 years.

The Stanford-Binet, Fourth Edition (Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler, 1986), is an in-
dividually administered measure of general intelligence for persons ages 2 years
to 23 years 11 months. The scale yields a standard score with a mean of 100 and
a standard deviation of 16. As such, a cutoff score reflecting 2 standard deviation
units below the mean is lower (IQ of 68) when compared with the Wechsler scales.
Like the Wechsler scales, the Stanford-Binet has been criticized for its low reliability
with individuals with IQ scores less than 50, for being culturally biased, and for
yielding lower scores with children who are culturally deprived (Kaplan et al., 1994).
The Stanford-Binet does not assess for mental retardation in younger children, as
the lower-limit composite standard age score is 95 for children 2 years 0 months.

The Gesell Developmental Schedules (Gesell, 1949), and Bayley Scales of Infant De-
velopment (Bayley, 1969) can be used when assessing for intellectual limitations in
children younger than three years. The Gesell was originally published in 1940, and
at the time, represented a pioneering attempt to provide a systematic, empirically
based assessment of behavior development in young children. The test is appro-
priate for children ages four weeks to five years. Five major fields of behavior are
assessed, including adaptive, gross motor, fine motor, language, and personal-social
behavior. The data are obtained through observation of the child's responses to
standard toys and stimulus objects, and by gathering information from the child's
caretakers.

The Bayley Scales of Infant Development are appropriate for assessing the develop-
mental status of children ages 2 months to 2 years 6 months. The test consists of
three scales: mental scale, motor scale, and infant behavior record. Standard scores
are derived for the mental and motor scales with norms classified by half-month
steps from 2 to 6 months and by one-month steps from 6 to 30 months. The mental
scale measures perception, memory, learning, problem solving, vocalization, and
initial verbal communication and abstract thinking. The motor scale measures gross
motor abilities (e.g., sitting, standing, walking, climbing stairs), and fine motor skills
of the hands and fingers. The infant behavior record assesses emotional and social
behavior, attention span, persistence, and goal directedness.

The Gesell, Bayley, and Cattell Measurement of Intelligence in Infants and Young
Children (Cattell, 1950) also have been recommended to assess the intellectual levels
of older persons who fall in the severe and profound levels of mental retardation and,
consequently, below the floors of the Wechsler and Stanford–Binet scales. All three
measures provide a chronological assessment of social, adaptive, language, and
motor areas of growth and development (Morgenstern & Klass, 1991). The Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R; Dunn & Dunn, 1981) is an alternative
measure for persons with physical or other disabilities that make oral and written
responses difficult or impossible. The PPVT-R is appropriate for children ages
2 years 6 months to adulthood. Scores on the PPVT-R can be standardized to reflect
an equivalent Wechsler full scale IQ score (M = 100, SD = 15). When compared with
the Wechsler scales and Stanford-Binet, the PPVT-R measures a similar yet narrower
range of attributes. Therefore, it should not be used as the only or primary source
for classifying intellectual functioning (Morgenstern & Klass, 1991).

The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983)
is appropriate for children ages 2 years 6 months to 12 years 6 months. The battery
yields a mental processing composite score (M= 100, SD = 15) that is roughly
equivalent to the Wechsler full scale IQ score, and subtest scores in four areas:
sequential processing, simultaneous processing, nonverbal, and sociocultural. The
K-ABC is considered a better predictor of intellectual ability in children with mental
retardation, in comparison to the WISC-R. This is because the K-ABC measures intel-
lectual ability without emphasizing academic and verbal skills, which is characteristic
of the Wechsler scales (Morgenstern & Klass, 1991).

> Read full chapter

Assessment
Kevin John O’Connor, Sue Ammen, in Play Therapy Treatment Planning and Inter-
ventions (Second Edition), 2013
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – 4th Edition
(WISC-IV)
The Wechsler Intelligence Scales are among the most widely used assessment
instruments for determining a child’s intellectual abilities and particular strengths
and weaknesses in cognitively understanding his or her world (Cohen, Swerdlik, &
Smith, 1992). The Wechsler Scales provide an estimate of global intellectual ability
(Full Scale IQ) and four Composites: Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), which mea-
sures the application of verbal skills and information to problem solving; Perceptual
Reasoning Index (PRI), which measures the ability to engage in nonverbal reason-
ing using visual images; Working Memory Index (WMI), which measures working
memory, short-term memory, sustained attention, and auditory processing; and
Processing Speed Index (PSI), which measures visual-motor coordination, attention,
concentration, and the speed of mental processing. Test results can be examined
using profile analysis to determine whether there is a pattern in the subscale results
and by using Composite scores to facilitate understanding how a particular child
processes information (see Prifitera, Saklofske, & Weiss, 2008; Sattler, 2008). While
formal intelligence testing requires advanced training and qualifications that makes
it less likely to be used in play therapy treatment planning on a regular basis, the case
example of Steven Johnson demonstrates a situation in which intelligence testing
was particularly useful in understanding the functioning of this child.

Steven’s WISC-IV results were as follows: FSIQ = 81, indicating below average cognitive
abilities; VCI = 83, PRI = 78, WMI = 73, with significant variability in the subtest
scores for the different composite indexes. Examination of the subtest profile using
the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of Crystallized vs Fluid intelligence (Flanagan &
Kaufman, 2004) reveals that subtests requiring fluid reasoning (AR = 5, CO = 5, WR
= 5, BD = 6; fluid mean = 5.25) gave significantly lower results than subtests using
crystallized abilities (IN = 9, VC = 8; crystallized mean = 8.5). Fluid intellectual abilities
develop through incidental learning and involve problem-solving through flexibility and
adaptation, while crystallized intellectual abilities involve skills and knowledge acquired
through direct, deliberate training or education. Fluid intellectual abilities are more
vulnerable to neurological injury. Deficits in fluid intelligence contribute to difficulty
with processing novel or complex social information, leading to problems in learning social
skills as these are largely dependent on incidental learning.

> Read full chapter

Intellectual Disability☆
S.W. Bisconer, S.Z. Ahsan, in Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Psychology, 2017

Intelligence
The Wechsler Intelligence Scales, Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, the Bayley
Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, and the Kauffman Assessment Battery for
Children, Second Edition are four standardized and clinically and legally accepted
measures of intellectual function. The Wechsler scales include three individually
administered scales of intelligence. The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale
of Intelligence – Fourth Edition (WIPPSI-IV) measures cognitive development in
preschoolers and young children ages 2.6–7.7 years (Wechsler, 2012). The Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition (WISC–V) measures a child's intel-
lectual ability and is appropriate for children 6.0–16.11 years (Wechsler, 2014). The
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) measures an adult's
intellectual ability and is appropriate for persons 16.0–90.11 years (Wechsler, 2008).

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5) is an individually admin-

istered measure of intelligence and cognitive abilities for persons 2–85 years and
older. The SB5 is used to diagnose a wide variety of developmental disabilities and
can be used as part of early childhood assessment, psychoeducational evaluations for
special education services, and for later career development planning (Royd, 2003a,
2003b).

The Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley III)
(Bayley, 2005a) are used to assess the developmental status of children ages 1 month
to 42 months. This assessment takes 30–90 min to administer depending on the
age of the child. The scales measure the complete child in five areas: (a) Cognitive
(visual preference, attention, memory, sensorimotor, exploration and manipulation,
concept formation); (b) Motor (fine motor and gross motor subtests); (c) Language
(receptive and expressive subtests); (d) Social-emotional (communicating needs,
self-regulation using emotional signals); and (e) Adaptive behavior (communication,
self-care, self-direction). Care-giver participation is encouraged and a care-giver
report with recommendations is generated. The Bayley III Screening Test (Bayley,
2005b) is used for ongoing screening, monitoring, and reassessment in children.
The assessment is easily administered in 15–20 min and provides cognitive, lan-
guage, and motor domain scores and cut scores according to age. The assessment
is useful in pediatric offices, daycare centers, and early intervention programs.

The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II) (Kauf-
man and Kaufman, 2004a) is appropriate for children ages 3–18 years. The scales
and subscales are designed to minimize verbal instructions and responses. Test
items contain limited cultural content, which limits cultural bias. KABC-II scales
include: simultaneous processing, sequential processing, planning, learning, and
knowledge. The KABC-II is considered a better predictor of intellectual ability in
children with intellectual limitations, compared to other assessments of intelligence,
because it measures intellectual ability without emphasizing academic and verbal
skills. The Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT-2) (Kaufman and Kaufman, 2004b)
is a screening tool that includes two scales: crystalized or verbal scale and fluid or
nonverbal scale. The KBIT-2 can be used (a) to re-evaluate the intellectual status of
a child or adult who has previously received comprehensive assessment; (b) as a
screening tool to identify high-risk children who will need referral for comprehensive
assessment; and (c) as an assessment of intellectual ability in children and adults
residing in institutional settings.

> Read full chapter

Intelligence Assessment☆
F.J. Abad, ... R. Colom, in Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Psychology, 2017

Wechsler Scales
The Wechsler scales measure intelligence from 2:6 to 90 years. The latest versions are
the WPPSI-IV for preschool and primary-grade children, the WISC-V for elementary
and high-school children, and the WAIS-IV for adolescents, adults and elders.

WPPSI-IV. This battery provides a full scale IQ, five main indexes assessing Ver-
bal Comprehension (VC), Visual-Spatial Ability (VS), Fluid Reasoning (FR), Working
Memory (WM) and Processing Speed (PS) plus four ancillary index scores: Vocab-
ulary Acquisition Index (VA), Nonverbal Index (NV), General Ability Index (GAI) and
Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI).

GAI and CPI are especially useful when the best way to describe the overall intellec-
tual functioning is not through the full scale IQ due to a high variability between the
main indexes (the higher index score minus the lower index score should be < 23 IQ
points that correspond to 1.5 standard deviations). GAI includes VC subtests plus FR
and VS ones. CPI includes WM subtests and PS ones.

This edition has been deeply reviewed as to fit the more recent theoretical advances
in intelligence research.

The structure and content of the battery differ depending on the child's age. Table 5
includes the core tests for each scale.
Table 5. Primary indexes and tests for each age band in the WPPSI-IV

Primary indexes Age band 2:6 to Age band 4:0 to Ancillary indexes Ancillary indexes
and tests 3:11 7:7 for 2:6 to 3:11 for 4:0 to 7:7
Verbal Comprehension (VC)
Receptive vocabu- VA/GAI VA
lary
Information GAI GAI
Picture naming VA/GAI VA
Similarities GAI GAI
Vocabulary GAI
Comprehension GAI
Visual Spatial (VS)
Block design NV/GAI NV/GAI
Object Assembly NV/GAI NV/GAI
Working Memory (WM)
Picture memory NV NV/CPI
Zoo locations NV NV/CPI
Fluid Reasoning (FR)
Matrix reasoning NV/GAI
Picture concepts NV/GAI
Processing Speed (PS)
Bug search NV/CPI
Cancellation NV/CPI
Animal coding NV/CPI

Note: Subtests included in each Ancillary Index are signalled including the abbrevi-
ation of the index in the third column.

The battery allows the examiner to assist the child on early items for assuring test
requirements are understood.

The overall full scale IQs and the main and ancillary indexes are standard scores with
the mean set at 100 and the standard deviation (SD) set at 15. The range of possible
WPPSI-IV FSIQs is 41–160. Standard scores are provided for the separate subtests
(MEAN = 10, SD = 3).

The battery was standardized at the USA on 1 700 children from age 2:6 through
7:7 years, and matched 2010 US Census Bureau estimates on the stratification
variables of sex, race/ethnicity, US geographic region, and parental education. The
internal consistency coefficient average 0.96 for the full scale IQ across the nine age
groups. For the primary indexes, reliability coefficients range from 0.86 to 0.94.
The reliability coefficients for the subtests range from 0.75(for animal coding) to
0.93(for similarities). The test-retest coefficient for the full scale IQ was 0.93 for
172 children tested twice with a time interval of 3 weeks. Across all ages the average
stability coefficients for the main indexes ranged from 0.86 for the processing
speed index to 0.93 for the general ability index (GAI).

The manual provides several validity studies, factor analytic results, research
overviews, and interpretative tables providing great amounts of information.

All the WPPSI-IV subtests are good measures of g, for the younger and for the older
group (g loadings > 0.55).

WISC-V. This battery offers standard scores on five factors, namely, verbal compre-
hension (VC), visual spatial ability (VS), fluid reasoning (FR), working memory (WM)
and processing speed (PS). Each index score is measured by two core subtests. Most
of these factors include optional subtest that, if administered, provide supplemen-
tary information. Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning are the two groups in which
the Perceptual Reasoning Index from the WISC-IV has been divided. The battery
allows computing five ancillary indexes named quantitative reasoning (QR), auditory
working memory (AWM), nonverbal (NV), general ability index (GAI) and cognitive
proficiency index (CPI). Table 6 includes the core tests for each factor.

Table 6. Primary indexes and tests in the WISC-V

Primary indexes and tests Ancillary Indexes

Verbal Comprehension (VC)
Similarities GAI
Vocabulary GAI
Information
Comprehension
Visual Spatial (VS)
Block design NV/GAI
Visual puzzles NV
Working Memory (WM)
Digit span AWM/CPI
Picture span NV/CPI
Letter-number sequencing AWM
Fluid Reasoning (FR)
Matrix reasoning NV/GAI
Figure weights QR/NV/GAI
Picture concepts
Arithmetic QR
Processing Speed (PS)
Coding NV/CPI
Symbol search CPI
Cancellation
Note: Essential subtests for each factor have a checking mark in the second column;
remaining subtests are optional.Subtests included in each Ancillary Index are sig-
nalled including the abbreviation of the index in the third column.

WISC-V includes complementary indexes and subtests that differ from the primary
and ancillary items, because they do not form part of any broad ability measured.
Their usefulness is to provide detailed information to psycho-educational eval-
uations (eg, children with learning disorders). These are the three complemen-
tary indexes: naming speed index (NSI) includes two tests (naming speed liter-
acy—NSL—and naming speed quantity—NSQ-); symbol translation index (STI)
includes three tests (immediate symbol translation—IST-, delayed symbol transla-
tion—DST-, and recognition symbol translation—RST-) and storage and retrieval
index (SRI).

The range of possible WISC-V FSIQs is 40–160.

The battery was standardized at the USA on 2 200 children aged 6 through 16:11-
 years and stratified by age, sex, race/ethnicity, US geographic region, and parent
education. The average reliability across the age groups range from 0.96 to 0.97 for
the full scale, 0.88 to 0.95 for the indexes scores and 0.81 to 0.94 for the subtests
scores. Stability was estimated with a subsample (N = 218) from the standardization
sample that comprised five age groups providing a 0.91 for the full scale IQ, 0.68 to
0.91 for the main indexes and 0.63 to 0.89 for the subtests.

As for validity, the manual includes data for content validity, response processes,
factorial validity (internal structure, inter-correlations of scores, confirmatory fac-
tor analysis), correlations with external variables (intelligence measured with other
batteries), and criterion-related validity (achievement, behavior and special groups:
gifted, intellectual disability and traumatic brain injury).

All the WISC-V subtests are good measures of g (g loadings > 0.55) for the whole
sample. g loading for FR was perfect, and the other first-order factors give strong
correlations (0.88 VS, 0.85 VC, 0.81 WM) except PS (0.51).

WISC-V can be tablet based administered and scored (through the Q-Interactive
and Q-global systems developed by Pearson) and there is a WISC-V Integrated that
includes fourteen subtests. The main purpose of this Integrated version is that the
psychologist could select the specific tests needed to understand the child's per-
formance and approach to learning. WISC-V Integrated include the following sub-
tests: Similarities Multiple Choice, Vocabulary Multiple Choice, Picture Vocabulary
Multiple Choice, Information Multiple Choice, Comprehension Multiple Choice,
Figure Weights Process Approach, Arithmetic Process Approach, Written Arithmetic,
Block Design Multiple Choice, Cancellation Abstract, Spatial Span, Sentence Recall,
Coding Recall, and Coding Copy.
From these tests two main indexes are obtained: the multiple choice verbal com-
prehension index (MCVCI) and the visual working memory index (VWMI). This
Integrated version is a complement to WISC-V that needs to have WISC-V scores
to be fully interpreted.

WAIS-IV. This battery was designed to parallel the WISC-IV. The WAIS-IV comprises
a full scale IQ, as well as indexes on four factors: verbal comprehension, perceptual
reasoning, working memory and processing speed. Table 7 includes the core tests
for each factor.

Table 7. Primary indexes and tests in the WAIS-IV

Primary Indexes and tests Ancillary Indexes

Verbal Comprehension (VC)
Similarities GAI
Vocabulary GAI
Information GAI
Comprehension
Perceptual Reasoning (PR)
Block design GAI
Visual puzzles GAI
Matrix reasoning GAI
Figure weights
Pictures completion
Working Memory (WM)
Digit span CPI
Arithmetic CPI
Letter-number sequencing
Processing Speed (PS)
Coding CPI
Symbol search CPI
Cancellation

Note: Essential subtests for each factor have a checking mark in the second column;
remaining subtests are optional.Subtests included in each Ancillary Index are sig-
nalled including the abbreviation of the index in the third column.

The battery was standardized at the USA on 2 200 adults, selected according to
2005 US Census data, and stratified according to age, sex, race/ethnicity, geographic
region, and educational level. The participants were divided into 13 age groups
between 16–17 and 85–90 with each group including 100 to 200 people. The average
split-half reliability coefficients across the age groups are 0.97–0.98 for the full scale
IQ, 0.96 for the VC, 0.87 for PR, 0.88 for WM and 0.87 for PS. The average individual
subtest reliabilities ranged from 0.94 for vocabulary to 0.78 for cancellation, with a
median coefficient of 0.89. The stability coefficients were 0.96 for full scale IQ and
VC, 0.88 for WM and 0.87 for both PR and PS (those coefficients were computed
from 298 participants tested twice with a time interval of 3 weeks).

The range of possible WAIS-IV full scale IQs is 45–155. The WAIS-IV computes scaled
scores for each individual based exclusively on chronological age. The use of four
indexes derives from the results of factor analysis. Several factor analyses have shown
that the Wechsler performance scale measures visual-spatial ability (Gv), but some
researchers argue that the perceptual-reasoning scale measures a mixture of Gv and
non-verbal reasoning (Gf ).

The battery allows computing one ancillary index named general ability index (GAI).
The GAI is specially useful when the full scale IQ is not the best way to describe the
overall intellectual functioning due to a high variability between indexes (difference
score from the higher to the lower > 22 points). GAI refers only to verbal compre-
hension and perceptual reasoning. Lichtenberger and Kaufman (2013) provide com-
putations and norms for another ancillary index named cognitive proficiency index
(CPI). CPI refers to working memory and processing speed only. The comparison
between GAI and CPI offers interesting hypothesis for clinicians.

> Read full chapter

Comprehensive Neuropsychological
Assessment Batteries
Gerald Goldstein, in Handbook of Psychological Assessment (Third Edition), 2000

B Tests Added to the Battery by Reitan

1. The Wechsler Intelligence Scales: Some clinicians continue to use the Wech-
sler-Bellevue, some the WAIS, and some the WAIS-R. In any event, the test is given
according to manual instructions and is not modified in any way. It is too soon to
determine how many HRB users will switch over to the recently published WAIS III
(Wechsler, 1997).

2. The Trail Making Test: In Part A of this procedure the subject must connect in order a
series of circled numbers randomly scattered over a sheet of 8 1/2 × 11 paper. In Part
B, there are circled numbers and letters, and the subject’s task involves alternating
between numbers and letters in serial order (e.g., 1 to A to 2 to B, etc.). The score is
time to completion expressed in seconds for each part.

3. The Reitan Aphasia Screening Test: This test serves two purposes in that it contains
both copying and language-related tasks. As an aphasiascreening procedure, it
provides a brief survey of the major language functions: naming, repetition, spelling,
reading, writing, calculation, narrative speech, and right-left orientation.

The copying tasks involve having the subject copy a square, Greek cross, triangle, and
key. The first three items must each be drawn in one continuous line. The language
section may be scored by listing the number of aphasic symptoms or by using the
Russell and colleagues’ quantitative system. The drawings are not formally scored
or are rated through a matching to model system also provided by Russell and
colleagues (1970).

4. Perceptual Disorders: These procedures actually constitute a sub-battery and in-

clude tests of the subject’s ability to recognize shapes and identify numbers written
on the fingertips, as well as tests of fingers discrimination and visual, auditory, and
tactile neglect. Number of errors is the score for all of these procedures.

> Read full chapter

Theoretical, Empirical and Clinical

Foundations of the WAIS-IV Index
Scores
Lawrence G. Weiss, ... Susan Engi Raiford, in WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpreta-
tion, 2010

Summary and comment

Each revision of the various Wechsler intelligence scales has both added to and
modified the Wechsler model of intelligence based on the extant literature of the
time. Following the lead of the WISC-IV (Wechsler, 2003), the WAIS-IV (Wechsler,
2008) has taken bold new steps to bring modern clinical research on working
memory and processing speed to the forefront of the Wechsler model. A number of
significant improvements and modifications have been made to the Wechsler family
of tests, driven by the demands of clinical practice, but also reflecting advances
in theory, research, and measurement sophistication. In Wechsler's original model,
verbal intelligence (VIQ) and performance intelligence (PIQ) combined to form
full-scale intelligence (FSIQ). His original model included, as part of the VIQ, two
subtests designed to measure what we now call working memory (i.e., Arithmetic
and Digit Span). Similarly, the original model included, as part of the PIQ, one
subtest designed to measure what we now call processing speed (i.e., Coding).
Ongoing neuropsychological research and psychometric advances have highlighted
the clinical import of these constructs, and subsequent editions of the test have
systematically added more subtests in these areas. Over the years, the Wechsler
model has systematically expanded the domain coverage of the FSIQ to more fully
represent these clinically important constructs. Other advances include revision of
the verbal subtests to include more verbal reasoning than crystallized knowledge,
and the revision of the performance subtests to include more fluid reasoning than
visual spatial skills.

In a major departure from the original Wechsler tests, the focus of interpreting the
WAIS-IV now rests solidly on a four-factor structure that is grounded in a wide body
of research in clinical neuropsychology. Basic interpretation of the WAIS-IV requires
understanding of the clinical and behavioral correlates of these four domains of
intelligence. Advanced interpretation further requires appreciation of the dynamic
and reciprocal interactions between crystallized knowledge, fluid reasoning, working
memory, processing speed, and executive functions. There are few activities of
value in life that can be accomplished through only one of these domains, and an
ecologically valid theory of intelligence requires an integrated model of how these
abilities work together as described in this chapter.

While the psychometric fit of the WISC-III, WAIS-III, WISC-IV and WAIS-IV to a

four-factor model has been beyond question for decades, the evolution of the
Wechsler scales has been guided less by factor analysis, as in the Carroll-Horn-Cattell
model of intelligence (Carroll, 1993), and more by ongoing clinical and neurocogni-
tive research. Nevertheless, there is a fair amount of overlap between these theories,
and this congruence among independent research groups is ultimately confirming
the progress our science continues to make in building increasingly advanced
models of intelligence.

> Read full chapter

Assessment
C. Munro Cullum, in Comprehensive Clinical Psychology, 1998

(ii) The Wechsler Vocabulary Subtest

This is a subtest of the Wechsler scales (WAIS-III, WAIS-R) and provides a good
assessment of vocabulary and basic word knowledge. As previously noted, the
Vocabulary subtest tends to be relatively insensitive to acquired cerebral damage
in most cases, and may provide an index from the Wechsler scales regarding an
individual's likely level of pre-morbid functioning. Unlike the NART, however, the
Vocabulary subtest, with its reliance upon subject-generated word definitions,
tends to be somewhat more susceptible to the effects of brain injury, and may also be
 impacted by conditions that affect initiation of responding. The WAIS-R-NI version
includes provisions for multiple-choice responding for those patients who may have
difficulty with verbal expression. The correlation between WAIS-R Vocabulary and
FSIQ is 0.81 (0.85 with VIQ), and the WAIS-III Vocabulary correlation with FSIQ
is 0.80 (0.83 with VIQ), also makes the Vocabulary subtest appealing when a brief
estimate of current verbal intellectual functioning is desired.

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.