WISC V Research Report v5

March 2017
WISC-V
Efficacy Research Report
EFFICACY RESEARCH REPORT | WISC-V 1

Contents
03
Product Summary
05
Assessment Quality Indicators
06
Foundational Research
07
Intended Product Implementation
08
Product Research
EFFICACY RESEARCH REPORT | WISC-V

Product Summary
The Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V) is a comprehensive
intellectual ability assessment for children. The WISC-V, the newest edition of the
Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children (WISC), includes new subtests and has better
interpretive power. The test can be delivered and scored digitally via Q-interactive
or manually via paper and pencil. Composite scores include primary, ancillary and
complementary index scores and a Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ).
Primary Index Scores include:

• Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI)
• Visual Spatial Index (VSI)
• Working Memory Index (WMI)
• Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI)
• Processing Speed Index (PSI)
Ancillary Index Scores include:

• Verbal (Expanded Crystallized) Index (VECI)
• Expanded Fluid Index (EFI)
• Quantitative Reasoning Index (QRI)
• Auditory Working Memory Index (AWMI)
• Nonverbal Index (NVI)
• General Ability Index (GAI)
• Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI)
Complementary Index Scales include:

• Naming Speed Index (NSI)
• Symbol Translation Index (STI)
• Storage and Retrieval Index (SRI)
Adapted and published in many countries across the globe, the WISC is the leading cognitive
ability measure in the world. The WISC-V is currently published in the US, Canada, Australia
and Spain, with future publications planned in the United Kingdom, France, Germany,
Netherlands and Scandinavia.
The WISC-V was developed for use with children between the ages of 6 and 16 and is used
to obtain a comprehensive assessment of general intellectual functioning in the context of
various types of evaluations, including (but not limited to):
• Identifying students in school with specific learning disabilities
and qualification for services.
• Identifying children with intellectual disability or giftedness.
• Evaluating cognitive processing strengths and weaknesses.
• Assessing the impact of brain injuries.

The WISC has been revised frequently over the last seven decades to incorporate advances
in the field of intellectual assessment, to update norms that reflect population changes,
to update item content to reflect changes in culture and technology, and to meet the
practical and clinical needs of contemporary society.
The original WISC adapted subtests of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale (Wechsler,
1939) for use with children. It provided a Verbal IQ (VIQ), Performance IQ (PIQ), and Full Scale
IQ (FSIQ).
The WISC–Revised (WISC-R) retained all 12 subtests from the first edition, shifted the age
range, and continued to offer a VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ.
The WISC–Third Edition (WISC-III) retained all of the subtests from the WISC-R and
introduced a new subtest. The WISC–III introduced four new index scores that represented
more narrow domains of cognitive function: the Verbal Comprehension Index, the
Perceptual Organization Index, the Freedom from Distractibility Index, and the
Processing Speed Index. It continued to offer a VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ.
The WISC–Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) dropped three subtests that appeared on the
WISC-III. Ten of the subtests were retained with revised item content and scoring procedures.
Five new subtests were developed. The traditional VIQ and PIQ scores were eliminated,
and the FSIQ was retained. Several process scores, which provided more detailed
information about certain aspects of WISC-V performance, also were included.
The revision goals for the WISC-V were generally to consider advances in structural models
of intelligence, cognitive neuroscience, neurodevelopmental research, psychometrics, and
contemporary practical clinical demands. The latter included revising instructions and
item phrasing to enhance comprehension of the task demands; simplifying scoring criteria,
shortening testing time; improving psychometric properties in norming methods; improving
floors and ceilings; increasing significance level options for critical values; improving the
measure of visual spatial processing, fluid reasoning, and working memory; adding a
variety of new composite scores to provide more clinical information; and adding measures
of cognitive processes that are sensitive to learning problems. These considerations
collectively refine the entire battery.

Assessment Quality Indicators
The efficacy of the WISC-V can be conceptualized as its quality as a signal of general
intellectual ability. Signal quality, in turn, can be characterized as a function of the fairness
of the assessments, the consistency and accuracy of scores (reliability), and the extent
to which the assessment allows test users to make sound interpretations of children’s
intellectual functioning (validity) (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014).
Assessment Quality Indicator 1: Test scores can be interpreted

as measures of intelligence in children and can be used for identification,
placement, and resource allocation (Validity).
A key WISC-V goal is to enable test users to make sound interpretations about examinee
ability and to support identification or placement decisions by providing measures that
accurately capture general intellectual ability, as well as profiles of relative strengths and
weaknesses across different aspects or domains of cognitive ability.
Assessment Quality Indicator 2: Test scores are consistent

over time and/or over multiple raters (Reliability).
Another important goal of the WISC-V is to minimize errors in judgment and decision m
aking
by providing scores that are consistent over different testing occasions and raters.
Assessment Quality Indicator 3: Test scores can be interpreted

the same way for test-takers of different subgroups (Fairness).
The WISC-V also strives to provide scores that can be interpreted in the same way for all test-
-takers, regardless of gender or race/ethnicity. Fairness implies that when the assessments
are administered as intended, items are not systematically biased against any particular
group of test-takers and students are not hindered in demonstrating their skills by
irrelevant barriers in the test administration procedures.

Foundational Research
Overview of Foundational Research
Contemporary intelligence research supports the presence of a general underlying global
intelligence factor, which is manifest in several subabilities within specific domains, such
as verbal ability (Gottfredson & Saklofske, 2009; Johnson, Bouchard, Krueger, McGue, &
Gottesman, 2004). The design of the original Wechsler Intelligence Test was consistent
with this view, positing an underlying global intelligence factor, with subtests focused on
specific aspect of cognitive abilities, including verbal comprehension, abstract reasoning,
visual spatial processing, quantitative reasoning, memory, and processing speed. Despite
periodic revisions to the particular mix of subtests with each new edition of the Wechsler
tests, this general approach of modeling intelligence using a hierarchical structure persists.
Moreover, some of the original subtests (e.g., Block Design and Vocabulary) continue
to appear in modified form on other published intelligence measures, confirming their
continued relevance to intelligence theory today. Several of the new subtests of the WISC-V
are based on subtests appearing on either the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)
or the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) that have already
been well-researched. Finally, in line with recent advances in intelligence theory, updates
to the latest version include new measures of visual spatial ability, fluid reasoning, and
working memory; separate visual spatial and fluid reasoning composites; and
improvements of the measure of verbal comprehension and processing speed.

Intended Product Implementation
The WISC-V was developed over the course of five years by an expert team including
doctoral-level scientists and clinicians and an advisory panel who provided expert advice
about intellectual ability testing, clinical utility, specific learning disabilities, and child
neuropsychology. Administration of the WISC-V can take place in digital or paper format.
It is used to assess for intellectual disability, intellectual giftedness, and specific learning
disabilities; and is frequently part of a battery to examine cognitive functioning in Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
Complete details on test administration, scoring, and interpretation can be found

in the WISC-V administration manual and in Flanagan and Alfonso (2017); Kaufman,
Raiford, and Coalson (2016); and Weiss, Saklofske, Holdnack, and Prifitera (2016).

Product Research
The WISC product (in all its iterations) is one of the most-researched assessment products
that exists. In fact, there are more than 70 years of research on the WISC.
As the WISC-V is in the market longer, more data on this most current edition will become
available. Many external researchers request access to the WISC data to independently
verify and conduct their own studies on factor structure and many other questions.
They also independently collect and publish large special group studies to validate the
use of the test in their frequently tested populations. In addition to a variety of published
studies, there is ongoing research to extend the norms for intellectually gifted test-takers.
Research Studies
Item Pilot, Tryout, and Standardization Study
Study Citation Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC-V: Technical and Interpretive Manual.

Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Research Study NA
Contributors
Type of Study Item pilot, tryout and standardization study
Sample Size Three Mini- Pilots: N=17, 5, and 20
Three Pilots: N=431, 397, and 120
National Tryout: N=356 in each of 9 different age groups
Standardization Study: N=2,200 children in 11 different age groups
Description of Sample Three Mini- Pilots: Demographic data on the participants

were not reported.
Three Pilots: Demographic data on the participants were not reported.

National Tryout: Participants were sampled using a stratified sampling
procedure to account for representation across key demographic
characteristics (sex, race/ethnicity, parent education level, and
geographic region). Within each of nine different age groupings, the
sample was similar to the U.S. population according to 2012 census data.
Standardization Study: Participants came from a nationally representative

sample. Participants in each of 11 age groups were closely matched to
2012 U.S. census data on race/ethnicity, parent education level, and
geographic region and were balanced with respect to gender.
Assessment Quality Test scores can be interpreted as measures of intelligence

Indicator Measured in children and can be used for identification, placement,
and resource allocation (Validity)
Three mini-pilot studies (N=17, 5, and 20) and three pilot studies (N=431, 397, and 120)
were conducted on research versions of the test to examine issues with item content and
relevance, instructions for the examiner and child, administration procedures, psychometric
properties, and scoring criteria.
A national tryout was conducted on a version of the scale including all 21 of the subtests to
confirm findings from the earlier pilots, as well as refine item order and conduct statistical
analysis on test structure and potential item bias. Participants included 356 children
sampled using a stratified sampling procedure to account for representation across key
demographic characteristics (sex, race/ethnicity, parent education level, and geographic
region). Within each of nine different age groupings, the sample was similar to the U.S.
population according to 2012 census data.

A standardization study was conducted using a nationally representative sample to develop
norms to support score interpretation. Participants included 2,200 children from 11 age
groups, each of which was closely matched to 2012 U.S. census data on race/ethnicity,
parent education level, and geographic region and balanced with respect to gender.
The WISC-V includes eight new subtests. Although two of the new subtests are adaptations
of item types previously used and studied on the WAIS, the other 6 subtests are brand new
for the WISC-V. Five of the brand new subtests contain item types that are similar to those
studied in previous intelligence research literature. However, the Picture Span subtest
includes some novel elements that may not be as well researched (e.g., use of semantically
meaningful stimuli). To the extent that these are brand new subtests for the WISC-V, there
may be less published research supporting their use compared to subtests that formed part
of previous versions of the WISC. Nevertheless, the WISC-V norms, which are critical
for valid interpretation of individual performance, were developed based on
industry-standard, rigorous methods involving large, representative samples
of learners. The provision of norms based on a large, representative sample
enhances the validity of interpretations.
Factor Analytic Study

Research Study NA
Contributors
Type of Study Factor Analytic
Sample Size N=2,200 children in 11 different age groups
Description of Sample Participants came from a nationally representative sample. Participants

in each of 11 age groups were closely matched to 2012 U.S. census data
on race/ethnicity, parent education level, and geographic region and were
balanced with respect to gender.
Assessment Quality Test scores can be interpreted as measures of intelligence in

Indicator Measured children and can be used for identification, placement,
A study was conducted on all primary and secondary subtests, in part, to evaluate factor
structure of the test. Participants included 2,200 children from 11 age groups, with each age
group closely matched to 2012 U.S. census data on race/ethnicity, parent education level,
and geographic region and balanced among males and females.
Patterns of correlations among all subtests provide initial evidence of convergent and
discriminant validity. Confirmatory factor analysis shows the WISC-V measures five related,
but distinct general abilities and each of the primary subtests included in the analysis
(e.g., digit span) is associated with the hypothesized aspect of cognitive ability (e.g., working
memory). This hierarchical structure was independently confirmed for test takers in five
different age groups.
Thus, empirical data patterns are consistent with the hypothesized structure of
the test, which is rooted in contemporary intelligence theory, providing support
for its valid use as a measure of cognitive ability.

Criterion Validity Study
Study Citation Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC-V:

Technical and Interpretive Manual. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Research Study NA
Contributors
Type of Study Correlational
Sample Size KABC-II: N=89 children, ages 6-16

KTEA-3: N=207, ages 6-16
WIAT- III: N=211, ages 6-16
Description of Sample KABC-II: The sample was composed of nonclinical participants.

It was evenly balanced between males and females and was 47% White,
35% Hispanic, 10% African-American, 2% Asian, and 6% other. 87% of
participants had parents with at least 12 years of education, with almost
a third of the sample reporting at least 16 years of parental education.
47% of participants were drawn from the South, 22% from the West, 20%
from the Midwest, and 11% from the Northeast.
KTEA-3: The sample was composed of nonclinical participants. The

sample was 60% female and was 52% White, 25% Hispanic, 13% African-
-American, 7% Asian, and 3% other. 88% of participants had parents with
at least 12 years of education, with around 30% of the sample reporting
at least 16 years of parental education. 37% of participants were drawn
from the South, 30% from the West, 21% from the Midwest, and 13%
from the Northeast.
WIAT-III: The sample was composed of nonclinical participants.

The sample was 54% male, 52% White, 22% Hispanic, 18%
African-A merican, 7% other and 2% Asian. 91% of participants had
parents with at least 12 years of education, with around 32% of the
sample reporting at least 16 years of parental education. 43% of
participants were drawn from the South, 28% from the West, 21%

The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC–II) is an individually
administered battery of subtests measuring the cognitive abilities of children and adolescents
aged three–18. The WISC-V and the KABC-II were administered to 89 children, aged 6-16, in
counterbalanced order, with a testing interval of 14-70 days and a mean testing interval of
22 days. Researchers computed correlations between composite scores and corresponding
subtest scores, which were corrected for range restriction using the normative sample as the
referent group. Corrected correlations between WISC-V FSIQ and KABC-II Fluid Crystallized
Index score (FCI) and Mental Processing Index (MPI) were 0.77 to 0.81, respectively. Corrected
correlations between corresponding subscores of the WISC-V and KABC-II (e.g., WISC-V VCI
and KABC-II Knowledge/Gc) were moderate, ranging from 0.50 to 0.74.
The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-3) is an individually

administered diagnostic achievement test designed for students in grades prekindergarten
through 12 and adults that measures listening, speaking, reading, writing, and mathematics
skills. The WISC-V and the KTEA-3 were administered to 207 children, aged 6-16, with a
testing interval of 0-52 days and a mean testing interval of 14 days. Researchers computed
correlations between corresponding composite scores, which were corrected for range
restriction using the normative sample as the referent group. Correlations between WISC-V
FSIQ and KTEA-3 composite scores ranged from 0.49 to 0.82, with most correlations in the
moderate to high range. WISC-V primary indexes were related to the KTEA-3 composites
(e.g., the WISC-V VCI with the KTEA-3 Reading score), with correlations ranging from 0.12
to 0.77, and most correlations in the moderate range.

The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III) is an individually
administered diagnostic achievement test designed for students in grades prekindergarten
through 12 and adults that measures listening, speaking, reading, writing, and mathematics
skills. The WISC-V and the WIAT-III were administered to 211 children, aged 6-16, with a
testing interval of 0-59 days and a mean testing interval of 16 days. Researchers computed
correlations between corresponding composite scores, which were corrected for range
restriction using the normative sample as the referent group. Correlations between WISC-V
full scale IQ and WIAT-III composite scores ranged from 0.58 to 0.81. WISC-V primary indexes
were related to the WIAT-III composites (e.g., WISC-V VCI and WIAT-III Oral Language), with
correlations ranging from 0.19 to 0.78, and most correlations in the low to moderate range.
The WISC-V ancillary index scores correlate moderately to highly with all WIAT-II composites,
with correlations ranging from 0.40 to 0.73.
It should be noted that nonclinical samples were used in each study and correlations
were corrected for range restriction. Furthermore, external criterion measures may not
have been designed to assess exactly the same mix of abilities as the WISC-V.
Nevertheless, this collection of studies demonstrates that the WISC-V exhibits
consistent, positive relationships with other published measures of cognitive
ability and achievement.
WISC-V Integrated Technical and Interpretive Manual
Study Citation Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E. (2015).WISC-V Integrated Technical

and Interpretive Manual. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Research Study NA
Contributors
Type of Study Criterion validity study
Sample Size N=550 children, ages 6-16

in each of 11 age groups were closely matched to 2012 U.S. census
data on race/ethnicity, parent education level, and geographic region
and were balanced with respect to gender.

Indicator Measured children and can be used for identification, placement,
The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition, Integrated (WISC-V Integrated)
is an individually administered, comprehensive clinical instrument for assessing the cognitive
processes of children ages 6:0–16:11. Its subtests and scores extend the clinical information
about the cognitive processes and test-taking behaviors that may affect performance on
the WISC-V. The WISC-V Integrated also provides two index scores that permit additional
understanding of the cognitive abilities measured with the WISC-V in specific areas of
intellectual functioning (i.e., Multiple Choice Verbal Comprehension Index and Visual
Working Memory Index).
In particular, eight subtests are adaptations of WISC-V subtests: they include the same item
content as their corresponding, but the mode of presentation or the response format is
modified. Two subtests are variations of WISC-V subtests, which include either novel item
content or modifications to the mode of presentation or response format. Finally, four
subtests are designed to expand the scope of construct coverage or to provide information
that may be related to the child’s performance on Coding.
Modifications revolved around reducing receptive language demands by eliminating or

simplifying complex words and using language likely to be familiar to children of all age
levels where possible. In addition, modifications reduce expressive language demands by,
for example, eliminating expressive responses for the verbal comprehension measure. These
types of modifications are designed to reduce language barriers for all children and make the
test more accessible to children with substantial expressive delays or with clinical conditions
associated with expressive verbal difficulties, as well as for children who are deaf or hard of
hearing. Finally, in addition to these modifications, some WISC-V Integrated subtests provide
additional testing time relative to the WISC-V.

Correlational studies were conducted between the WISC–V subtest, process, and composite
scores and the WISC-V Integrated subtest-level and index scores. The correlations between
the scores for the WISC-V subtests and the scores for the WISC–V Integrated index and
subtest-level scores from the same domain generally were moderate to high. Correlations
for associated subtests range from 0.20 to 0.84, with most correlations between 0.49 and
0.83. Corresponding composite score correlations range from 0.35 to 0.69 for MCVI and
from 0.40 to 0.83 for Visual Working Memory Index (VWMI). As expected, the Multiple
Choice Verbal Comprehension Index (MCVCI) correlates most highly with the VCI (0.69),
followed by the QRI (0.61), AWMI (0.53), and FRI (0.52). The VWMI correlates most highly
with the WMI (0.83) and the CPI (0.73), partly because they share a subtest, Picture Span
(PS). The VWMI also correlates highly with the NVI (0.70) and the AWMI (0.65), supporting
its use as a nonverbal alternative to the AWMI. Taken together, this study provides
strong evidence that WISC-V performance is consistently and positively related to
performance on another measure of the same constructs that relaxes testing time
requirements, and reduces both receptive and expressive language demand.
Using the WASI-II with the WISC-V
Study Citation Raiford, S. E., Zhou, X., Drozdick, L. W.. (2016).

Using the WASI-II with the WISC-V. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Research Study NA
Contributors
Type of Study Criterion validity study
Sample Size N=43 children, ages 6-16
Description of Sample Participants were 58% male, 54% White, 16% African American, 14%
Asian, 12% Hispanic, and 5% other. 98% of participants had a parent
who completed at least 12 years of school and 42% had a parent
who completed 16 or more years of school. 47% of participants came
from the South, 26% from the Northeast, 19% from the West, and 9%
from the Midwest.

The Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Second Edition (WASI-II) is an abbreviated

cognitive ability test for assessing intelligence for ages 6-90 years, and has traditionally been
used with the longer-form WISC products. The WAS-II was developed to provide quick and
accurate estimates of intellectual functioning for screening and reevaluation purposes.
The scale consists of four subtests that overlap the WISC-V: Vocabulary, Similarities,
Block Design, and Matrix Reasoning. Although both assessments include these same
four subtests, there are no shared items across the two measures. WASI-II provides four
composite scores: the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), the Perceptual Reasoning Index
(PRI), the Full Scale IQ-2 Subtest (FSIQ-2), and the Full Scale IQ-4 Subtest (FSIQ-4).
A sample of examinees took the WISC-V and then the WASI-II. The correlation coefficients
corrected for the variability of the normative sample of corresponding subtest pairs and
of the two FSIQ scores are moderately high and are all statistically significant at the .05
level, ranging from 0.53 (for Matrix Reasoning) to 0.87 (for the FSIQ measures). Thus,
performance on the WISC-V shows consistently strong and positive relationships
with performance on corresponding subtests of an abbreviated form of the test
designed to measure the same constructs, but using different items.

Special Group Studies: Differential Sensitivity

Research Study NA
Contributors
Type of Study Special group study
Sample Size Intellectually Gifted: N=95

Intellectual Disability - Mild Severity: N=74
Intellectual Disability - Moderate Severity: N=37
Borderline Intellectual Functioning: N=20
Specific Learning Disorder - Reading: N=30
Specific Learning Disorder - Reading and Written Expression: N=22
Specific Learning Disorder - Mathematics: N=28 Attention Deficit/Hyper-
activity Disorder: N=48 Disruptive Behavior: N=21
Traumatic Brain Injury: N=20
English Language Learners: N=16
Autism Spectrum Disorder w/ Language Impairment: N=30
Autism Spectrum Disorder w/out Language Impairment: N=32
Description of Sample Intellectually Gifted: The sample was 65% male, 73% White, 10%
Hispanic, 8% other, 6% Asian, and 3% African-A merican. 100% of
participants had parents with at least 12 years of education, with 88%
of the sample reporting at least 16 years of parental education. 52%
of participants were drawn from the Midwest, 32% from the South, 8%
from the Northeast, and 6% from the West.
Intellectual Disability - Mild Severity: The sample was 55% male, 60%
White, 26% African-A merican, 14% Hispanic, and 1% other. 68% of
of the sample reporting at least 16 years of parental education. 60% of
participants were drawn from the South, 27% from the Midwest, 10%
from the West, and 4% from the Northeast.
Intellectual Disability - Moderate Severity: The sample was 51% female,

57% White, 30% African-American, 5% Hispanic, 5% other, and 3% Asian.
68% of participants had parents with at least 12 years of education, with
16% of the sample reporting at least 16 years of parental education. 60%
of participants were drawn from the South, 27% from the Midwest, 10%
Borderline Intellectual Functioning: The sample was 70% female, 35%

Hispanic, 30% White, 25% African-American, 5% Asian, and 5% other.
5% reporting at least 16 years of parental education. 50% of participants
were drawn from the South, 35% from the West, 10% from the Midwest,
and 5% from the Northeast.
Specific Learning Disorder - Reading: The sample was 57% female, 63%
White, 28% Hispanic, and 10% African-American. 87% of participants
had parents with at least 12 years of education, with 40% reporting
at least 16 years of parental education. 57% of participants were drawn
from the Northeast.
Specific Learning Disorder - Reading and Written Expression: The sample

was 68% male, 50% White, 36% Hispanic, and 14% African-American. 77%
of participants had parents with at least 12 years of education, with 18%
reporting at least 16 years of parental education. 50% of participants were
drawn from the South, 27% from the West, and 23% from the Midwest.

Specific Learning Disorder - Mathematics: The sample was 50% female,
46% White, 36% Hispanic, and 18% African-A merican. 79% of participants
had parents with at least 12 years of education, with 29% reporting at
least 16 years of parental education. 50% of participants were drawn
from the South, 25% from the West, 21% from the Midwest, and 4% from
the Northeast.
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: The sample was 63% male,

77% White, 8% African-American, 8% Hispanic, and 6% other. 98% of
reporting at least 16 years of parental education. 60% of participants
were drawn from the South, 19% from the Midwest, 13% from the West,
Disruptive Behavior: The sample was 52% male, 48% White, 38% African-
-American, 10% other, and 4.8% Asian. 92% of participants had parents
with at least 12 years of education, with 10% reporting at least 16 years
of parental education. 38% of participants were drawn from the Midwest,
33% from the South, 14% from the Northeast, and 14% from the West.
Traumatic Brain Injury: The sample was 60% male, 55% White, 30%
Hispanic, 10% African-A merican, and 5% other. 90% of participants had
parents with at least 12 years of education, with 40% reporting at least
16 years of parental education. 45% of participants were drawn from the
South, 45% from the West, and 10% from the Midwest.
English Language Learners: The sample was 50% female, 88% Hispanic,
and 13% Asian. 50% of participants had parents with at least 12 years of
education, with 6% reporting at least 16 years of parental education. 38%
of participants were drawn from the West, 31% from the South, 19% from
the Midwest, and 13% from the Northeast.
Autism Spectrum Disorder w/ Language Impairment: The sample was

77% male, 70% White, 20% Hispanic, 7% African-A merican, and 3% other.
Autism Spectrum Disorder w/out Language Impairment: The sample

was 75% male, 69% White, 13% Hispanic, 9% other, 6% African-A merican,
education, with 56% reporting at least 16 years of parental education.
44% of participants were drawn from the South, 38% from the West,
9% from the Midwest, and 9% from the Northeast.

Indicator Measured children and can be used for identification, placement, and
resource allocation (Validity)

Several special group studies were conducted concurrently with WISC-V standardization to
determine if the constructs measured by the scale perform as expected in selected criterion
groups with known characteristics. Participants were drawn from a variety of clinical settings
and were accepted for participation in special group samples based on specified inclusion
criteria, including a positive diagnosis for that particular disorder. Comparison groups
were derived from the WISC-V normative sample and were matched to each clinical group
according to age, sex, race/ethnicity, and parent education level. Control subjects were then
randomly selected from the comparison groups. For each group, researchers calculated
an effect size between the clinical and comparison groups, which equals the standardized
mean performance difference between the two groups, and provides an indication of the
sensitivity of the WISC-V to that particular diagnostic group. Effect sizes for the different
groups were as follows (with significance reported at the p<.05 or p<.01 level):
• Intellectually gifted students significantly outperformed their matched control
counterparts on all WISC-V subtests and composites, with effect sizes ranging
from 0.39 to 2.05.
• C
hildren with mild intellectual disability scored significantly lower than their matched
control counterparts on all WISC-V subtests and composites, with effect sizes ranging
from 1 .23 to 3.02.
• C
hildren with moderate intellectual disability scored significantly lower than their
matched control counterparts on all WISC-V subtests and composites, with effect
sizes ranging from 1
.23 to 3.63.
• A
ll primary index scores except one were significantly lower for children with borderline
intellectual functioning compared to the means of the matched control group, and most
subtest scores were also significantly lower for this group.
• C
hildren with specific learning disorder-reading (SLD-R) earned significantly lower
primary index scores than their matched control counterparts and most subtests
were also significantly lower for this group, with the largest effect sizes observed for
the Working Memory and Verbal Comprehension indices.
• C
hildren with specific learning disorder-reading and writing had similar results to the
SLD-R group, where working memory, naming speed, and paired associate learning
tasks demonstrated moderate to large effects relative to the matched control group.
• C
hildren with specific learning disorder-mathematics (SLD-M) earned significantly lower
scores than their matched control group counterparts for all primary and ancillary
indices but one, with the largest differences observed for quantitative, conceptual,
and spatial reasoning, verbal working memory, and paired associate learning and recall.
• C
hildren with ADHD earned significantly lower scores than their matched control group
counterparts on the Verbal Comprehension, Working Memory, and Processing Speed
indices, with a pattern of significant subtest differences indicating specific difficulty
with working memory, graphomotor processing speed, and automaticity of naming.
• C
hildren with traumatic brain injury earned significantly lower scores than their matched
control group counterparts for all primary and ancillary index scores, with the largest
effect sizes for the Visual Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, and Working Memory indices.
• C
hildren who are English Language Learners scored significantly lower than their
matched control counterparts on the Verbal Comprehension and Working Memory
indices, as well as the Full Scale IQ, whereas index scores containing subtests requiring
minimal expressive language and reduced receptive language abilities showed no
significant differences between groups.
• C
hildren with Autism Spectrum Disorder with accompanying language impairment
scored significantly lower than their matched control counterparts on all primary indices,
with the largest effect sizes for the Working Memory and Verbal Comprehension indices.
• C
hildren with Autism Spectrum Disorder without accompanying language impairment
performed similarly on the primary index scores to those in the control group,
with the exception of the Working Memory Index.

It should be noted that the clinical samples were not randomly selected but were recruited
based on availability. Thus, these studies may not be representative of the WISC-V
performance of all children in the diagnostic category. Moreover, the diagnoses of children
within the same special group might have been made on the basis of different criteria and
procedures, and the sample sizes for some of the studies are small and cover only a portion
of the WISC-V age range. Only group performance is reported. Finally, the technical manual
cautions that scores on the WISC-V should never be used as the sole criteria for diagnostic or
classification purposes. Nonetheless, this collection of special studies demonstrates
that the WISC-V is sensitive to performance differences of learners in various
clinical reference groups, with the patterns of score differences consistent with
each diagnostic category, thus providing support for the diagnostic utility of the
WISC-V in identifying children with learning disabilities, neurodevelopmental
disorders, or intellectual giftedness.
WISC-V Special Group study: Children with Hearing Differences

who Utilize Spoken Language and have Assistive Technology
Study Citation Costa, E. B. Adams, Day, L. A., & Raiford, S. E. (2016). WISC–V special
group study: Children with hearing differences who utilize spoken language
and have assistive technology. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Research Study The River School/River REACH Clinic

Contributors
Gallaudet University
Type of Study Special group study
Sample Size N=15 children, 6-8 years of age, with hearing differences
Description of Sample The sample was 60% male, 40% White, 20% Asian, 20% Other, 13%
African-American, and 7% Hispanic. 100% of participants had parents
with at least some college or technical school, and 80% of participants
had parents holding a Bachelor’s degree. 100% of participants came
from the South.
Participants included children with hearing loss falling within at least the
mild range unilaterally, who use either a cochlear implant or hearing aid.

Indicator Measured children and can be used for identification, placement, and resource
allocation (Validity)
Researchers conducted a special study to examine WISC-V performance of learners with

hearing impairments. Previous research and theory suggest that that working memory
is critical to the development of spoken language (Gupta & MacWhinney, 1997), and
correlations have been found between working memory and language development in
children with hearing differences (Hansson, Forsberg, Löfqvist, Mäki-Torkko, & Sahlén, 2004;
Pisoni & Geers, 2000). Previous studies of children who use listening and spoken English
as a preferred communication modality and utilize hearing aids and/or cochlear implants
(Costa, Day, & Raiford, 2016) have demonstrated lower performance on verbally-
based subtests that required greater language output (i.e., Similarities, Vocabulary, and
Comprehension) as compared to those with little to no expressive output. Significant
differences were also seen on some measures of fluid reasoning and working memory.

All of the WISC-V primary subtests from the final edition were administered to matched
samples of learners. Comparison groups were derived from the WISC–V normative sample
and were matched to each clinical group according to age, sex, race/ethnicity, and parent
education level. Control subjects were then randomly selected from the comparison groups.
Researchers calculated an effect size between the hearing impaired and comparison groups,
which equals the standardized mean performance difference between the two groups,
and provides an indication of the sensitivity of the WISC-V. Effect sizes were as follows
(with significance reported at the p<.05 level):
• W
ith the exception of the WMI and the AWMI, none of the mean composite
scores are significantly different between the hearing differences group and
the matched control group
• The WMI and AWMI differences show large effect sizes of 1.04 and 1.02, respectively
• T
he hearing impaired group scored significantly lower on Comprehension and Picture
Span than did the matched control group, with effect sizes of 0.98 and 0.91, respectively
Thus, these results replicate previous research on cochlear implant users that demonstrated
lower scores on subtests from the Verbal Comprehension domain. In addition, these
findings are consistent with previous research that demonstrates vulnerability in the area
of verbal working memory for children with hearing differences (Geraci, Gozzi, Papagno,
& Cecchetto, 2008). It should be noted that that the sample was one of convenience, and
included children who use appropriate technology and receive specialized educational
services and supports. Further, the sample was small and not necessarily representative
in several demographic factors (e.g., parental education, geographic region). Nevertheless,
results from this study support the conclusion that the WISC-V is sensitive to
performance differences exhibited by hearing impaired individuals with access
to high-quality assistive devices and ideal levels of educational support.
Intelligent Testing with the WISC-V
Study Citation Kaufman, A. S., Raiford, S. E., & Coalson, D. L. (2016).

Intelligent testing with the WISC-V. John Wiley & Sons.
Research Study NA
Contributors
Type of Study Descriptive and correlational
Sample Size Demographic analysis sample N=2,198

Risk factors analysis sample sizes
• Academic-Q Questionnaire sample size=2,226
• Behavior-Q Questionnaire sample size=2,327
Scatter analysis sample

• Normative sample N=2,198
• Clinical sample N=461
• Nonclinical N=2,882
Description of Sample Each sample was drawn from the nationally representative
standardization sample. Participants in each of 11 age groups
were closely matched to 2012 U.S. census data on race/ethnicity,
parent education level, and geographic region and were balanced
with respect to gender.
The risk factors analysis sample excluded all clinical and intellectually-
gifted learners.


Performance Trends by Demographic Groups
Previous research has demonstrated several consistent trends in performance on tests
of cognitive ability for different subgroups:
• M
ales and females tend to perform differently on measures of cognitive ability, although
the nature and magnitude of these differences evolves over the lifespan (e.g., Keith,
Reynolds, Roberts, Winter, & Austin, 2011; Lynn & Irwing, 2008; Preiss & Fránová, 2006)
• S
ocioeconomic status, as measured by a variety of proxy variables, is strongly
associated with performance on cognitive ability tests from infancy through
adolescence (e.g., Sellers, Burns, & Guyrke, 1996; Von Stumm & Plomin, 2015)
• T
here are performance differences among White, African-American, and Hispanic
test-takers, although the magnitude of these differences varies by age, and the
differences can be at least partially attenuated by controlling for socioeconomic
status (e.g., Arinoldo, 1981; Sellers et al., 1996)
Researchers analyzed the WISC-V performance of several subgroups using the normative
sample. First, they computed the mean male-female difference on all composite scores to
identify those exhibiting significant sex-related differences (at p<.05 or p<.01). Researchers
concluded that the WISC-V Working Memory Index, Processing Speed Index, FSIQ, Nonverbal
Index, Cognitive Proficiency Index, and Symbol Translation Index are significantly higher in
female than in male children, and the Quantitative Reasoning Index is significantly higher
in male than in female children. However, with the exception of the Processing Speed Index
and the Cognitive Proficiency Index, the magnitude of mean differences is small (i.e., most
differences are less than 1.5 points). The Verbal Comprehension Index, Visual Spatial Index,
Auditory Working Memory Index, General Ability Index, Naming Speed Index, and Storage
and Retrieval Index showed no significant sex differences.
Next, researchers computed mean score differences among test-takers with different
parental education levels as a proxy indicator for socioeconomic status. Differences
between all levels were statistically significant at the p<.001 level and favored children
with higher parental education levels. This effect was strongest for composites that depend
on verbal ability – the General Ability Index, FSIQ, and the Verbal Comprehension Index.
Finally, researchers computed mean composite score differences among White, African-
American, Asian, Hispanic, and Other test-takers. Before adjusting for sex and parental
education level, Asian and White test-takers tend to outperform their African-American,
Hispanic, and Other counterparts on all composites. Combined, sex and parental education
account for between 3.5% and 19.5% of the variance in composite scores. However, even
when subgroup means were adjusted for sex and parental education level, there were still
performance differences between groups, with the largest amount of residual variance
attributable to race/ethnicity for the Visual Spatial Index, General Ability Index, Verbal
Comprehension Index, and FSIQ. The differences between White and African-American
test-takers were the largest, with significant differences persisting on all composite scores,
and the largest differences observed for measures of crystallized ability and acquired
knowledge. Even where large differences persist, however, the percentage of variance
attributable to race/ethnicity is relatively small, ranging from 1% to 6%. White and Hispanic
group score differences are noticeably smaller after adjusting for sex and parental education
level, and may no longer be practically meaningful.
Taken together, this analysis of performance trends of various subgroups of test-

takers shows consistent results with previous literature on subgroup differences that
manifest on measures of cognitive ability and their relationship to socioeconomic status,
providing support for the WISC-V as a measure of cognitive ability.

Relationship to Academic and Behavioral Risk Factors
Previous research on academic failure and delinquency has identified a large number
of risk factors that predict a learner’s likelihood of dropping out of school or engaging
in criminal behavior (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Casillas, Robbins, Allen, Kuo, Hanson,
& Schmeiser, 2012; Quist & Matshazi, 2000). Such factors include both static factors
(e.g., age, gender, race, history of abuse) and dynamic factors (e.g., motivation, school
attendance, current substance abuse). Having specific learning disabilities, low cognitive
ability, and poor attention span have all been linked to academic failure, which is itself a
risk factor for delinquency (Hinshaw, 1992; Howse, Calkins, Anastopoulos, Keane, & Shelton,
20013; Leech, Day, Richardson, & Goldschmidt, 2003). Family-level risk factors, such as
low income, single-parent households, and low parental education have also been
shown to be important predictors of academic failure (Carlson & Corcoran, 2001; Rauh,
Parker, & Garfinkel, 2003).
Researchers designed two new risk assessments: the Child and Adolescent Academic
Questionnaire (Academic-Q), containing items related to risk factors for school failure and
the Child and Adolescent Behavior Questionnaire (Behavior-Q), containing items related to
risk factors for delinquency and criminal behavior. Instruments were based on an extensive
review of the academic and delinquency risk research and included both static and dynamic
factors, as well as both individual-level and family-level risk factors.
Researchers computed correlations between Academic-Q and Behavior-Q composites

with the WISC-V FSIQ. Results showed that in the full sample, FSIQ correlated -0.50 with the
Academic-Q, which means that academic risk factors predict 25% of the variance in the FSIQ.
The correlation with Behavior-Q was much smaller (r=-.12), demonstrating that less than 2%
of the variance in IQ scores is accounted for by delinquency risk factors. This pattern
of results is consistent with previous literature on the relationship between
cognitive ability measures and academic and delinquency outcomes in children
and adolescents, providing support for the WISC-V as a measure of cognitive ability.
Scatter Analysis
Scatter refers to the degree of variability across, between, and within composite
and subtest scores, and has long been a topic of interest for the Wechsler family of
assessments (Matarazzo, Daniel, Prifitera, & Herman, 1988; McLean, Kaufman, & Reynolds,
1989; Wechsler, 1991; Wechsler, 2003). Traditionally, scatter analysis has been used to inform
comparison of different types of scores as a way of identifying relative cognitive strengths
and weaknesses. The concept of normative base rates is important in any discussion of
scatter, and captures the degree of variability in scores for nonclinical samples.
Researchers investigated the prevalence of scatter in the normative sample using the index
range, calculated by subtracting the lowest primary index score from the highest. The mean
index range and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated separately for each age level,
gender, parental education level, and racial/ethnic category. The means and SDs were highly
consistent across these groups, with mean differences hovering around 25 points and SDs
of approximately 10 points. This result suggests that the large amount of scatter in the index
scores cannot be attributed to demographic factors. Researchers also computed index
ranges for different clinical groups and the intellectually gifted. Results suggest that all but
one of the special groups (those with intellectual disabilities) exhibit mean index ranges
consistent with the “normal” range of about 25. Moreover, researchers found that 18% of
learners in the normative sample earned three or more significant differences between
primary indexes and their FSIQ, and only a few clinical groups (intellectually gifted, children
with intellectual disability) demonstrated rates that were substantially different from this.
Researchers replicated this analysis with subtest scores for the 10 primary subtests to
compute the mean subtest range across demographic groups. Once again, mean ranges
were quite similar across demographic groups (hovering around 7 +/- 2 points) and were
consistent with previous estimates of subtest ranges for the Wechsler assessments.
Similarly, subtest scatter for most special groups (excluding children with intellectual
disability) was comparable to that for both the normative and non clinical samples. Once
again, as many as 17% of learners in the normative sample earned four or more significant
differences between primary subtest scores, and results for most special groups did not
differ much.

Given the relatively large amount of scatter in the normative sample, as well as the similarity
in scatter for many clinical and special groups, the researchers conclude that scatter may
not be useful in terms of enhancing clinical diagnosis; however, when coupled with base rate
information – which is provided in the WISC-V manual – scatter is important for supporting
accurate interpretation of strengths and weaknesses relative to a “normal” population.
These results are consistent with previous research showing a large degree of variability
in cognitive ability scores for nonclinical samples (Orsini, Pezzuti, & Hulbert, 2014), which
supports the value of the WISC-V as a measure of cognitive ability. They also provide
support for the practice of interpreting discrepancies in terms of significance and
prevalence, which is facilitated by including WISC-V base rates in the manual. Thus,
WISC-V interpretive materials enhance clinical utility.
Internal Consistency Reliability Study

Research Study NA
Contributors
Sample Size N=2,200 participants ages 6-16

Assessment Quality Test scores are consistent over time and/or

Indicator Measured over multiple raters (Reliability)
The WISC-V was administered twice to a sample of 218 students within five different age
bands (6-7, 8-9, 10-11, 12-13, and 14-16), with test-retest intervals ranging from 9–82 days, and
a mean interval of 26 days. The stability coefficient is the correlation between the first and
second testing, corrected for range restriction using the normative sample as the referent.
The corrected test-retest coefficient for the FSIQ was 0.92 and corrected coefficients for
the primary index scores ranged from 0.75 to 0.94. Corrected coefficients for the WISC-
-V subtest scores ranged from 0.71 to 0.90. It should be noted, however, that sample sizes
for test-retest reliability analysis were somewhat small, particularly for the complementary
subtests and process subscores and correlations were corrected for range restriction.
However, results generally suggest that both primary index scores and subtest
scores demonstrate moderate to high consistency over testing occasion.

Interrater Reliability Study

Research Study NA
Contributors
Sample Size N=60 randomly selected cases from the normative sample
Description of Sample The mean age of the participants was 11.3 years. The sample was evenly
split between males and females. 47% of the sample was White, 28%
Hispanic, 12% African American, 8% Other, and 5% Asian. 83% of the
sample reported parental educational levels of at least 12 years and 30%
reported at least 16 years of parental education. 38% of the sample was
drawn from the South, 28% from the West, 22% from the Midwest, and
12% from the Northeast.
Assessment Quality Test scores are consistent over time and/or over
Indicator Measured multiple raters (Reliability)
Most of the subtests for all WISC-V protocols from the normative sample were double scored
by two independent scorers, and evidence of interscorer agreement was obtained using
the normative sample. Data collected by examiners were scored by trained personnel. All
scorers were required, at a minimum, to have a Bachelor’s degree and to attend a training
program conducted by members of the research team. In addition, all scorers received
feedback on scoring errors and additional training, as needed, and a research team member
coached each scorer intermittently. Interscorer agreement for a subset of all subtests was
high, ranging from 0.98 to 0.99.
Scoring of the Verbal Comprehension Index is more subjective, which required a separate
study. A sample of 60 cases was randomly selected from the normative sample and
scored independently by nine different raters who were completing doctoral-level clinical
psychology programs and had completed at least one semester course in psychological
assessment but had no prior training on WISC-V scoring criteria. Interscorer reliabilities, in
the form of the intraclass correlation coefficient, were .98 for Similarities, .97 for Vocabulary,
.99 for Information, and .97 for Comprehension.
Given the extensive training, feedback and support provided to the scorers participating
in the study, it is not clear whether the estimated interrater agreement rates would apply to
the typical clinician who does not receive this type of feedback and support. Nevertheless,
evidence suggests that scoring of the WISC-V is highly consistent across raters.

Q- interactive and Paper Administrations of Cognitive Tasks: WISC-V
Study Citation Daniel, M.H., Wahlstrom, D., & Zhang, O. (2014). Equivalence
of Q-interactive and Paper Administrations of Cognitive Tasks:
WISC-V. Q-interactive Technical Report 8. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Research Study NA
Contributors
Type of Study Equivalence Study
Sample Size N=350 participants, ages 6-16
Description of Sample Paper: The sample was 58% female, 67% White, 17% Hispanic, 10%
African-American, and 6% other. 90% of participants had parents with
at least 12 years of education, with 42% reporting at least 16 years of
parental education. The mean age for the group was 11.1 years.
Q-Interactive: The sample was 58% female, 66% White, 18%

Hispanic, 11% African-American, and 5% other. 93% of participants had
parents with at least 12 years of education, with 45% reporting at least 16
years of parental education. The mean age for the group was 11.1 years.
Assessment Quality Test scores can be interpreted the same way for test-t akers
Indicator Measured of different subgroups (Fairness)
As part of the WISC-V standardization, 350 nonclinical participants, ages 6-16, were randomly
assigned to either the paper or the digital format of the test. Within each condition,
participants were placed into matched pairs on the basis of age range, gender, ethnicity,
and parent education. All examiners were trained, engaged in practice administrations,
and were provided feedback on any administration errors. Researchers calculated effect
sizes for the format effect using a multiple regression based approach in which the
dependent variables were the subtest scaled scores and the predictors were demographic
covariates and WISC-V subtests that had previously shown only very minor format effects.
Effect sizes were mixed, with some positive and some negative. A criterion of greater than
0.20 was used to identify effect sizes worthy of following up. An effect size of 0.20 is slightly
more than one-half of a scaled-score point on the commonly used subtest metric that has
a mean of 10 and standard deviation of three. Only three subtests showed a statistically
significant format effect (two that were significant at the p<.05 level and one significant at
the p<.01 level); however, none of these exceeded the effect size criterion of 0.20. There
were no significant differences in format effects by ability level, age, socioeconomic status,
gender, or race/ethnicity.
It should be noted that this study was based on nonclinical samples, so equivalence cannot
be assumed for clinical groups of test-takers. Test-takers and non-Pearson examiners were
compensated for their participation. Moreover, given the training, practice and feedback
provided to the examiners participating in the study, it is not clear whether the equivalence
could be expected to hold when examiners have not been provided this type of feedback.
This collection of studies suggests that paper and digital formats of the WISC-V
provide comparable results. Thus, learners taking one format will not be at a
disadvantage relative to learners taking the other format.

Q- interactive Special Group Studies: The WISC-V and Children
with Intellectual Giftedness and Intellectual Disability
Study Citation Raiford, S.E., Holdnack, J., Drozdick, L., & Zhang, O., (2014). Q-interactive
special group studies: The WISC-V and children with intellectual giftedness
and intellectual disability.
Q-interactive Technical Report 9. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Research Study NA
Contributors
Type of Study Q-interactive performance for special populations
Sample Size Intellectual giftedness sample: N=24 participants, ages 616
Intellectual disability sample: N=22 participants, ages 716
Description of Sample Intellectual giftedness sample: The sample was 54% male, 71% White,
17% other, 8% Hispanic, and 4% Asian. 100% of participants had parents
of parental education.
Sample demographics were similar to those of the intellectually gifted

sample used for the special group study conducted with the WISC-V
paper format.
Intellectual disability sample:The sample was 64% male, 59% White,

18% Hispanic, 14% African-American, 5% Asian and 5% other. 73% of
reporting at least 16 years of parental education. Sample demographics
were generally similar to those of the intellectual disability-mild severity
sample used for the special group study conducted with the WISC-V
paper format, with slight differences in parental education levels.
A special study was conducted to investigate the performance of the digital format
of the WISC-V for clinical groups. The purpose of the study was to show that the digital
format of the test demonstrates similar sensitivity to clinical conditions as the paper format.
24 test-takers identified as intellectually gifted and 22 test-takers identified as intellectually
disabled were each matched with a non-clinical counterpart from the sample used in
the first digital-paper equivalence study on the basis of age range, gender, ethnicity,
and parent education. All examiners were trained, engaged in practice administrations,
and were provided feedback on any administration errors. For each protocol, two
independent scorers reevaluated all subjectively scored items using the final scoring
rules, and an expert scorer or a member of the research team resolved any discrepancies
between the two scorers as needed.
The intellectual giftedness sample outperformed the matched control sample across all
composite scores and subtests. Most of these differences were significant at the p<.01
level, with Cohen’s D effect sizes ranging from 0 .46 to 1
.72. Moreover, the pattern of subtest
effect sizes is consistent with those observed in the WISC-V paper study, and mean General
Ability Index scores were identical for the intellectually gifted samples on both paper and
digital formats. The intellectual disability sample earned significantly lower scores than their
matched control counterparts across all primary and ancillary indices, as well as all subtests,
with Cohen’s D effect sizes ranging from 1.76 to 3.86. In addition, the mean General Ability
Index scores were nearly identical for the intellectual disability samples on both forms
(63.7 on the digital versus 63.5 on paper).
It should be noted that test-takers and non-Pearson examiners were compensated for
their participation. Moreover, given the training, practice and feedback provided to the
examiners participating in the study, it is not clear whether the equivalence could be
expected to hold when examiners have not been provided this type of feedback. However,
this collection of studies provides further support for the comparability of paper
and digital formats of the WISC-V for intellectually gifted learners and those with
an intellectual disability.

Q- interactive Special Group Studies: The WISC-V and Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
and Accompanying Language Impairment or Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Study Citation Raiford, S.E., Drozdick, L., & Zhang, O., (2015). Q-interactive special
group studies: The WISC-V and children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
and accompanying language impairment or Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity
disorder. Q-interactive Technical Report 11. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Research Study NA
Contributors
Sample Size Autism Spectrum with accompanying language impairment sample:

N=30 participants, ages 6-16
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder sample:

Description of Sample Autism Spectrum with accompanying language impairment sample:

The sample was 90% male, 53% White, 27% Hispanic, 13% African
American, and 7% Asian. 93% of participants had parents with at least
12 years of education, with 57% reporting at least 16 years of parental
education. Sample demographics were generally similar to those of the
ASDL sample used for the special group study conducted with the WISC-V
paper format, although the sample was slightly more racially diverse and
more male, and reported slightly lower levels of parental education.
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder sample: The sample was 64%

male, 64% White, 16% Hispanic, 16% African-A merican, and 4% other.
88% of participants had parents with at least 12 years of education,
with 48% reporting at least 16 years of parental education. Sample
demographics were generally similar to those of the ADHD sample used
for the special group study conducted with the WISC-V paper format,
although the sample was slightly younger and more racially diverse
and reported slightly higher levels of parental education.
A special study was conducted to investigate the performance of digital formats of the
WISC-V for clinical groups. The purpose of the study was to show that the digital format of
the test demonstrates similar sensitivity to clinical conditions as the paper format. 30 test-
takers identified as being on the autism spectrum with accompanying language impairment
(ASD-L) and 25 test-takers identified as having ADHD were each matched with a non-clinical
counterpart from the sample used in the first digital-paper equivalence study on the basis
of age range, gender, ethnicity, and parent education. All examiners were trained, engaged
in practice administrations, and were provided feedback on any administration errors.
For each protocol, two independent scorers reevaluated all subjectively scored items using
the final scoring rules, and an expert scorer or a member of the research team resolved
any discrepancies between the two scorers as needed.
The ASD-L sample earned significantly lower scores (p<.01) than the matched control
sample on all primary and ancillary indices, as well as all subtests, with Cohen’s D effect
sizes ranging from 0.81 to 2.00. The pattern of performance differences was similar to
those observed for the paper format. The mean General Ability Index scores for the
ASD-L samples taking the digital and paper formats were 81.8 and 85.7, respectively.

The ADHD sample earned lower scores than their matched control counterparts across
all primary and ancillary indices, as well as all subtests, although the only significant
differences (p<.01) were for the Fluid Reasoning Index, Auditory Working Memory Index,
General Ability Index, Matrix Reasoning, Letter-Number Sequencing, and Delayed Symbol
Translation. Across all indices, Cohen’s D effect sizes ranged from 0.03 to 1.11. Although
performance differences between ADHD examinees and the nonclinical sample were
not as stark as those observed for the paper format, the direction of the differences was
consistent, and the means and effect size patterns were similar. In addition, mean General
Ability Index scores for the ADHD samples taking the digital and paper formats were very
similar (98.8 for digital and 97.1 for paper). Furthermore, it is possible that the observed
differences in sample demographics caused the disparity in results.
It should be noted that test-takers and non-Pearson examiners were compensated for their
participation. Moreover, given the training, practice and feedback provided to the examiners
participating in the study, it is not clear whether the equivalence could be expected to hold
when examiners have not been provided this type of feedback. However, this collection
of studies provides further support for the comparability of paper and digital
formats of the WISC-V for ASD-L and ADHD groups.

Q- interactive Special Group Studies: The WISC-V and Children
with Specific Learning Disorders in Reading or Mathematics
Study Citation Raiford, S.E., Drozdick, L. W., & Zhang, O., (2016). Q-interactive special
group studies: The WISC-V and children with specific learning disorders in
reading or mathematics. Q-interactive Technical Report 13. Bloomington,
MN: Pearson.
Research Study NA
Contributors
Sample Size Specific Learning Disorder - Reading (SLD-R) sample:

Specific Learning Disorder - Mathematics (SLD-M) sample:

Description of Sample SLD-R sample: The sample was 63% male, 88% White, 8% Hispanic,
and 4% African American. 88% of participants had parents with at least
a high school diploma or equivalent, with 42% of participants having a
parent with a Bachelor’s degree. Sample demographics were generally
similar to those of the SLD-R sample used for the special group study
conducted with the WISC-V paper format, although the sample was
slightly older and more male.
SLD-M sample: The sample was 44% male, 61% White, 13% Hispanic,
13% African-A merican, and 13% other. 91% of participants had parents
with at least a high school diploma or equivalent, with 35% of participants
having a parent with a Bachelor’s degree. Sample demographics were
generally similar to those of the ADHD sample used for the special group
study conducted with the WISC-V paper format, although the sample
was slightly younger and less racially diverse and reported slightly higher
levels of parental education.
A special study was conducted to investigate the performance of a digital format of the
WISC-V for clinical groups. The purpose of the study was to show that the digital format
of the test demonstrates similar sensitivity to clinical conditions as the paper format. 24
test-takers identified as having SLD-R and 23 test-takers identified as having SLD-M were
each matched with a non-clinical counterpart from the sample used in the first digital-paper
equivalence study on the basis of age range, gender, ethnicity, and parent education. All
examiners were trained, engaged in practice administrations, and were provided feedback
on any administration errors. For each protocol, two independent scorers reevaluated all
subjectively scored items using the final scoring rules, and an expert scorer or a member of
the research team resolved any discrepancies between the two scorers as needed.
The SLD-R sample earned significantly lower scores on all primary indexes (p<.05) than the
matched control sample, with the largest effect sizes seen on VCI (1.01), WMI (1.24), and
AWMI (1.14). Several individual subtest scores were also significantly lower (p<.01) for the
SLD-R sample than for the control sample, including Letter-Number Sequencing, Digit Span,
Arithmetic, Picture Concepts, Information, Picture Span, and Similarities, with effect sizes
ranging from 0.99 to 1.44. Finally, all of the complementary subtest scores were lower for the
SLD-R sample than for the control sample (p<.05), with effect sizes ranging from 0.92 to 1.79.
The results indicate significant difficulties with immediate paired associate learning, rapid
verbal naming, verbal comprehension, and working memory. This pattern of performance
differences was similar to those observed for the paper format.

The SLD-M sample earned significantly lower scores on all primary indexes (p<.01) than
the matched control sample, with the largest effect sizes seen on QRI (1.50), AWMI (1.39),
and WMI (1.28). All subtest scores except PC and CO were significantly lower (p<.05) for
the SLD-M sample than for the control sample, with effect sizes ranging from 0.67 to 1.55.
Finally, all of the complementary subtest scores except DST were significantly lower for the
SLD-M sample than for the control sample (p<.05), with effect sizes ranging from 0.62 to
1.32. Overall, the results suggest that the most significant difficulties are with quantitative
and spatial reasoning, auditory working memory, rapid automatic quantity naming tasks,
and paired associate learning and recall.This pattern of performance differences was also
similar to those observed for the paper format.
It should be noted that test-takers and non-Pearson examiners were compensated for their
participation. Moreover, given the training, practice and feedback provided to the examiners
participating in the study, it is not clear whether the equivalence could be expected to hold
when examiners have not been provided this type of feedback. However, this collection
of studies provides further support for the comparability of paper and digital
formats of the WISC-V for learners with specific learning disabilities in Reading
and Mathematics.
WISC-V Coding and Symbol Search in Digital Format: Reliability,

Validity, Special Group Studies, and Interpretation
Study Citation Raiford, S. E., Zhang, O., Drozdick, L.W., Getz, K., Wahlstrom, D., Gabel, A.,
Holdnack, J. A., & Daniel, M. (2016). WISC-V Coding and Symbol Search in
digital format: Reliability, validity, special group studies, and interpretation.
Q-interactive Technical Report 12. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Research Study NA
Contributors
Type of Study Q-interactive equivalence study and performance for special populations
Sample Size Non-clinical equivalence: N=651 students ages 6-16
Specific Learning Disorder- Reading (SLD-R):

N=24 students ages 6-16
Specific Learning Disorder- Mathematics (SLD-M):

N=22 students ages 6-16
Motor Impaired (MI): N=15 students ages 6-16
Description of Sample Non-clinical equivalence: The sample was 52% male, and was 55% White,
24% Hispanic, 12% African-A merican, 7% other, and 1% Asian. 87% of
participants had parents with at least 12 years of education, and one-
-third reported their parents had a Bachelor’s degree. 48% of the sample
was drawn from the South, 25% from the West, 14% from the Northeast,
and 12% from the Midwest.
SLD- R: The sample was 58% male, and was 50% Hispanic, 46% White,
and 4% other. 100% of participants had parents with at least 12 years of
education, and one-third reported their parents had a Bachelor’s degree.
71% of the sample was drawn from the South, 12% from the Northeast,
and 8% each from the Midwest and the West.
SLD- M: The sample was 54% male, and was 54% White, 23% Hispanic,
18% African-A merican, and 4% other. 100% of participants had parents
with at least 12 years of education, and 13% reported their parents had a
Bachelor’s degree. 82% of the sample was drawn from the South, and 9%
each from the Midwest and the West.
MI: The sample was 80% male, and was 80% White, 13% Hispanic,
and 7% other. 93% of participants had parents with at least 12 years
of education, and 47% reported their parents had a Bachelor’s degree.
73% of the sample was drawn from the South, 20% from the Northeast,
and 7% from the West.

Using a test-retest design, 651 participants were administered both the digital and paper
formats of the Processing Speed subtests, with the order of administration counterbalanced.
The testing interval ranged from 14 to 72 days, with a mean testing interval of around 25
days. Researchers computed correlations between raw scores and scaled scores from these
two administrations, corrected for range restriction using the normative sample as the
referent. They also computed effect sizes, equal to standardized mean differences, using
a criterion of 2.0 to flag substantial differences. Raw score correlations between the paper
and digital formats ranged from 0.84 to 0.88, and scaled score correlations ranged from 0.63
to 0.68. There were no significant differences between scores on the two formats,
suggesting that the scores from the paper and digital formats of these subtests can
be considered equivalent.
A special study was conducted to investigate the performance of digital formats of the
WISC-V for clinical groups. The purpose of the study was to show that the digital format of the
test demonstrates similar sensitivity to specific learning disorders in reading and mathematics
as the paper format. For motor-impaired children, the purpose of the study was to illustrate
typical performance for touch response compared to written responses.
24 test-takers identified as having SLD-R, 22 test-takers identified as having SLD-M, and 15 test-
takers with significant motor impairment were each matched with a nonclinical counterpart
from the sample used in the scaling study on the basis of age range, gender, ethnicity, and
parent education.
The SLD-R sample earned significantly lower scores (p<.05) than the matched control sample
on most primary indices and the FSIQ, with Cohen’s D effect sizes ranging from
0.30 to 1.77. The SLD-M sample earned significantly lower scores than their matched
control counterparts across all primary and ancillary indices (p<.05). Across all indices, Cohen’s
D effect sizes ranged from 0.75 to 1.85. The MI sample earned significantly lower scores
(p<.05) than the matched control sample on the Coding and Symbol Search subtests and the
Processing Speed Index, with Cohen’s D effect sizes ranging from 0.81 to 0.95.
For all three special groups, the pattern of performance differences was similar
to those observed for the paper format, suggesting that when the Processing Speed
Index subtests are administered digitally, scores are comparable to
the paper format for these groups.

Internal Consistency Reliability: Special Groups Study

Research Study NA
Contributors
Sample Size Intellectually Gifted: N=95

Intellectual Disability - Mild Severity: N=74 Intellectual Disability -
Moderate Severity: N=37 Borderline Intellectual Functioning: N=20
Specific Learning Disorder - R
eading: N=30
Specific Learning Disorder - Reading and Written Expression: N=22
Specific Learning Disorder - Mathematics: N=28 Attention Deficit/
Hyperactivity Disorder: N=48 Disruptive Behavior: N=21
Traumatic Brain Injury: N=20 English Language Learners: N=16
Autism Spectrum Disorder w/ Language Impairment: N=30
Autism Spectrum Disorder w/out Language Impairment: N=32
Description of Sample Intellectually Gifted: The sample was 65% male, 73% White, 10% Hispanic,
8% other, 6% Asian, and 3% African-A merican. 100% of participants
had parents with at least 12 years of education, with 88% of the sample
were drawn from the Midwest, 32% from the South, 8% from the
Northeast, and 6% from the West.
Intellectual Disability - Mild Severity: The sample was 55% male, 60%
White, 26% African-A merican, 14% Hispanic, and 1% other. 68% of
participants had parents with at least 12 years of education, with
16% of the sample reporting at least 16 years of parental education.
60% of participants were drawn from the South, 27% from the Midwest,
10% from the West, and 4% from the Northeast.
Intellectual Disability - Moderate Severity: The sample was 51% female,

57% White, 30% African-A merican, 5% Hispanic, 5% other, and 3% Asian.
16% of the sample reporting at least 16 years of parental education. 60%
of participants were drawn from the South, 27% from the Midwest, 10%
Borderline Intellectual Functioning: The sample was 70% female, 35%

Hispanic, 30% White, 25% African-A merican, 5% Asian, and 5% other.
were drawn from the South, 35% from the West, 10% from the Midwest,
Specific Learning Disorder - Reading: The sample was 56.7% female,

63.3% White, 27.6% Hispanic, and 10% African-A merican. 86.7% of
reporting at least 16 years of parental education. 56.7% of participants
were drawn from the South, 23.3% from the West, 16.7% from the
Midwest, and 3.3% from the Northeast.
Specific Learning Disorder - Reading and Written Expression: The sample

was 68% male, 50% White, 36% Hispanic, and 14% African-A merican. 77%
of participants had parents with at least 12 years of education, with 18%
reporting at least 16 years of parental education. 50% of participants were
drawn from the South, 27% from the West, and 23% from the Midwest.

Specific Learning Disorder - Mathematics: The sample was 50% female,
46% White, 36% Hispanic, and 18% African-A merican. 79% of participants
had parents with at least 12 years of education, with 29% reporting at
least 16 years of parental education. 50% of participants were drawn
from the Northeast.
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: The sample was 63% male,

77% White, 8% African-A merican, 8% Hispanic, and 6% other. 98% of
were drawn from the South, 19% from the Midwest, 13% from the
West, and 8% from the Northeast.
Disruptive Behavior: The sample was 52% male, 48% White, 38% African-
American, 10% other, and 4.8% Asian. 92% of participants had parents
of parental education. 38% of participants were drawn from the Midwest,
33% from the South, 14% from the Northeast, and 14% from the West.
Traumatic Brain Injury: The sample was 60% male, 55% White, 30%
Hispanic, 10% African-A merican, and 5% other. 90% of participants had
parents with at least 12 years of education, with 40% reporting at least
16 years of parental education. 45% of participants were drawn from
the South, 45% from the West, and 10% from the Midwest.
English Language Learners: The sample was 50% female, 88% Hispanic,
education, with 6% reporting at least 16 years of parental education. 38%
of participants were drawn from the West, 31% from the South, 19% from
the Midwest, and 13% from the Northeast.
Autism Spectrum Disorder w/ Language Impairment: The sample was

77% male, 70% White, 20% Hispanic, 7% African-A merican, and 3% other.
Autism Spectrum Disorder w/out Language Impairment: The sample was

75% male, 69% White, 13% Hispanic, 9% other, 6% African-A merican,
education, with 56% reporting at least 16 years of parental education.
44% of participants were drawn from the South, 38% from the West, 9%
Assessment Quality Test scores can be interpreted the same way for test-t akers of
Indicator Measured different subgroups (Fairness) and they are consistent over time
and/or over multiple raters (Reliability)

Several special group studies were conducted concurrently with WISC-V standardization.
Participants were drawn from a variety of clinical settings and were accepted for
participation in special group samples based on specified inclusion criteria, including a
positive diagnosis for that particular disorder. The following special groups were included
in the study: intellectually gifted, intellectual disability-mild severity, intellectual disability-
-moderate severity, borderline intellectual functioning, specific learning disorder-reading,
specific learning disorder-reading and written expression, specific learning disorder-
-mathematics, attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder, disruptive behavior, traumatic brain
injury, English language learners, Autism Spectrum Disorder with language impairment,
and Autism Spectrum Disorder without language impairment.
Split-half reliability coefficients were computed for each subtest, with the exception of the
following subtests: Coding, Symbol Search, Cancellation, Naming Speed, and the Naming
Speed and Symbol Translation standard process scores. Coefficients were averaged across
groups using Fisher’s z transformation. Across all special groups, the average split-half
reliability of the subtest and scaled process scores ranged from 0.86 to 0.97. Coefficients
were generally consistent with corresponding estimates for the normative sample. It should
be noted that the clinical samples were not randomly selected but were recruited based
on availability. These studies may not be representative of the WISC-V performance of all
children in the diagnostic category. The diagnoses of children within the same special group
might have been made on the basis of different criteria and procedures. Moreover,
the sample sizes for some of the studies are small and cover only a portion of the WISC-V
age range. Nevertheless, evidence from these studies suggests that the WISC-V
subtests are internally consistent for a wide variety of clinical groups,
and their consistency is comparable to that for non-clinical test-takers.
Factor Invariance Between Genders

of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition
Study Citation Chen, H., Zhang, O., Raiford, S. E., Zhu, J., & Weiss, L. G. (2015). Factor
invariance between genders on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children–Fifth Edition. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 15.
Research Study National Taiwan

Contributors
Normal University Pearson
Type of Study Factor analytic

Assessment Quality Test scores can be interpreted the same way

Indicator Measured for test-t akers of different subgroups (Fairness)
A representative sample of 2,200 children, ages 6-16, from the standardization

study was administered 16 subtests from the WISC-V. A second- order factor model,
positing an overarching general intelligence factor subsuming five additional factors
(Verbal Comprehension, Visual Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing
Speed) was tested for invariance across males and females. Results demonstrated that
the hypothesized model showed configural invariance (same number of factors and factor
pattern) and metric invariance (equal factor loadings) across males and females (overall
model Chi-square=428.14, df=207, CFI=0.99, RMSEA=0.031). These results suggest that
WISC-V scores can be interpreted in the same way for males and females.

Is the Cattell–Horn–Carroll-Based Factor Structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children—Fifth Edition (WISC-V) Construct Invariant for a Representative Sample of
African-American, Hispanic, and Caucasian Male and Female Students Ages 6 to 16 Years?
Study Citation Scheiber, C. (2016). Is the Cattell–Horn–Carroll-based factor structure

of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition (WISC-V)
construct invariant for a representative sample of African-American,
Hispanic, and Caucasian male and female students ages 6 to 16 years?
Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology, 2(3-4): 79-88.
Research Study NA
Contributors
Type of Study Factor analytic
Description of Sample Participants came from a nationally representative sample of children

without clinical conditions. Participants in each of 11 age groups
were closely matched to 2012 U.S. census data on race/ethnicity,
parent education level, and geographic region and were balanced
with respect to gender.
Assessment Quality Test scores can be interpreted the same way

Indicator Measured for test-t akers of different subgroups (Fairness)
A representative sample of 2,637 children, ages 6-16, from the standardization sample
was administered 16 subtests from the WISC-V. A second- order factor model, positing
an overarching general intelligence factor subsuming five additional factors (Verbal
Comprehension, Visual Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed)
was tested for invariance across Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic males and
females. The model tested was identical to the model from the Chen et al. (2015) paper,
except that Arithmetic scores were allowed to cross-load on Working Memory and Verbal
Comprehension, in addition to Fluid Reasoning. Based on CFI, RMSEA, and changes in CFI
and RMSEA for successive models, results demonstrate that the hypothesized model shows
configural invariance (same number of factors and factor pattern) metric invariance
(equal factor loadings), and intercept invariance (equal subtest means) across all groups
(overall model Chi-square=1644.45, df=747, CFI=0.95, RMSEA=0.051). These results
suggest that WISC-V scores can be interpreted in the same way for Caucasian,
African-American, and Hispanic males and females.

References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National
Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational
and Psychological Testing (U.S.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing.
Washington, DC: AERA.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge.
Arinoldo, C. G. (1981). Black–White differences in the general cognitive index of the

McCarthy scales and in the full scale IQS of Wechsler's scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
37(3), 630-638.
Carlson, M. J., & Corcoran, M. E. (2001). Family structure and children's behavioral and
cognitive outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3), 779-792.
Casillas, A., Robbins, S., Allen, J., Kuo, Y. L., Hanson, M. A., & Schmeiser, C. (2012). Predicting
early academic failure in high school from prior academic achievement, psychosocial
characteristics, and behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 407.
Chen, H., Zhang, O., Raiford, S. E., Zhu, J., & Weiss, L. G. (2015). Factor invariance
between genders on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition.
Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 15.
Costa, E. B. Adams, Day, L. A., & Raiford, S. E. (2016). WISC-V special group study:
Children with hearing differences who utilize spoken language and have assistive
technology. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Daniel, M.H., Wahlstrom, D., & Zhang, O. (2014). Equivalence of Q-interactive and paper
administrations of cognitive tasks: WISC-V. Q-interactive Technical Report 8. Bloomington,
MN: Pearson.
Flanagan, D. P. & Alfonso, V. C. (2017). Essentials of WISC-V assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Geraci, C., Gozzi, M., Papagno, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2008). How grammar can cope with limited
short-term memory: Simultaneity and seriality in sign languages. Cognition, 106(2), 780-804.
Gottfredson, L., & Saklofske, D. H. (2009). Intelligence: Foundations and issues

in assessment. Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 183.
Gupta, P., & MacWhinney, B. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition and verbal short-term memory:
Computational and neural bases. Brain and Language, 59(2), 267-333.
Hansson, K., Forsberg, J., Löfqvist, A., Mäki–Torkko, E., & Sahlén, B. (2004). Working memory
and novel word learning in children with hearing impairment and children with specific
language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 39(3),
401-422.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement

in childhood and adolescence: causal relationships and underlying mechanisms.
Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 127.
Howse, R. B., Calkins, S. D., Anastopoulos, A. D., Keane, S. P., & Shelton, T. L. (2003).
Regulatory contributors to children's kindergarten achievement. Early Education
and Development, 14(1), 101-120.
Johnson, W., Bouchard, T. J., Krueger, R. F., McGue, M., & Gottesman, I. I. (2004).
Just one g: Consistent results from three test batteries. Intelligence, 32(1), 95107.
Kaufman, A. S., Raiford, S. E., & Coalson, D. L. (2016). Intelligent testing with the WISC-V.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Keith, T. Z., Reynolds, M. R., Roberts, L. G., Winter, A. L., & Austin, C. A. (2011).
Sex differences in latent cognitive abilities ages 5 to 17: Evidence from the Differential
Ability Scales—Second Edition. Intelligence, 39(5), 389-404.

Leech, S. L., Day, N. L., Richardson, G. A., & Goldschmidt, L. (2003). Predictors of
self-reported delinquent behavior in a sample of young adolescents. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 23(1), 78-106.
Lynn, R., & Irwing, P. (2008). Sex differences in mental arithmetic, digit span, and g defined as
working memory capacity. Intelligence, 36(3), 226-235.
Matarazzo, J. D., Daniel, M. H., Prifitera, A., & Herman, D. O. (1988). Inter-subtest scatter
in the WAIS-R standardization sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 940-950.
McLean, J. E., Kaufman, A. S., & Reynolds, C. R. (1989). Subtest scatter on the WAIS-R.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 919-926.
Orsini, A., Pezzuti, L., & Hulbert, S. (2014). The unitary ability of IQ in the WISC-IV
and its computation. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 173-175.
Pisoni, D. D., & Geers, A. E. (2000). Working memory in deaf children with cochlear implants:
Correlations between digit span and measures of spoken language processing. The Annals
of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement, 185, 92.
Preiss, M., & Fránová, L. (2006). Depressive symptoms, academic achievement,

and intelligence. Studia Psychologica, 48(1), 57.
Quist, R. M., & Matshazi, D. G. (2000). The Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale
(CAFAS): A dynamic predictor of juvenile recidivism. Adolescence, 35(137), 181-192.
Raiford, S.E., Drozdick, L., & Zhang, O., (2015). Q-interactive special group studies: The WISC-V
and children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and accompanying language impairment or Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity disorder. Q-interactive Technical Report 11. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Raiford, S.E., Drozdick, L. W., & Zhang, O., (2016). Q-interactive special group studies: The WISC-V
and children with specific learning disorders in reading or mathematics. Q-interactive Technical
Report 13. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Raiford, S.E., Holdnack, J., Drozdick, L., & Zhang, O., (2014). Q-interactive special group studies:
The WISC-V and children with intellectual giftedness and intellectual disability. Q-interactive
Technical Report 9. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Raiford, S. E., Zhang, O., Drozdick, L.W., Getz, K., Wahlstrom, D., Gabel, A., Holdnack,
J. A., & Daniel, M. (2016). WISC-V Coding and Symbol Search in digital format: Reliability,
validity, special group studies, and interpretation. Q-interactive Technical Report 12.
Raiford, S. E., Zhou, X., Drozdick, L. W. (2016). Using the WASI-II with the WISC-V.
Rauh, V. A., Parker, F. L., Garfinkel, R. S., Perry, J., & Andrews, H. F. (2003). Biological, social,
and community influences on third–grade reading levels of minority Head Start children:
A multilevel approach. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3), 255-278.
Scheiber, C. (2016). Is the Cattell–Horn–Carroll-based factor structure of the Wechsler

Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition (WISC-V) construct invariant for a representative
sample of African-American, Hispanic, and Caucasian male and female students ages 6 to 16
years? Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology, 2(3-4): 79-88.
Sellers, A. H., Burns, W. J., & Guyrke, J. S. (1996). Prediction of premorbid intellectual
functioning of young children using demographic information.
Applied Neuropsychology, 3(1), 21-27.
Von Stumm, S., & Plomin, R. (2015). Socioeconomic status and the growth
of intelligence from infancy through adolescence. Intelligence, 48, 30-36.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Third Edition.

San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC-V Technical and interpretive manual. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E. (2015). WISC-V Integrated Technical and Interpretive Manual.
Weiss, L., Saklofske, D., Holdnack, J., & Prifitera, A. (2016). WISC-V assessment and interpretation:
Scientist-practitioner perspectives. London, UK: Academic Press.

WISC V Research Report v5

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

WISC V Research Report v5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WISC V Research Report v5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

March 2017

EFFICACY RESEARCH REPORT | WISC-V 1

EFFICACY RESEARCH REPORT | WISC-V

Primary Index Scores include:

Ancillary Index Scores include:

Complementary Index Scales include:

EFFICACY RESEARCH REPORT | WISC-V 03

EFFICACY RESEARCH REPORT | WISC-V 04

Assessment Quality Indicator 1: Test scores can be interpreted

Assessment Quality Indicator 2: Test scores are consistent

Assessment Quality Indicator 3: Test scores can be interpreted

EFFICACY RESEARCH REPORT | WISC-V 05

EFFICACY RESEARCH REPORT | WISC-V 06

Complete details on test administration, scoring, and interpretation can be found

EFFICACY RESEARCH REPORT | WISC-V 07

Item Pilot, Tryout, and Standardization Study

Study Citation Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC­-V: Technical and Interpretive Manual.

Type of Study Item pilot, tryout and standardization study

Sample Size Three Mini­- Pilots: N=17, 5, and 20

Three Pilots: N=431, 397, and 120

National Tryout: N=356 in each of 9 different age groups

Standardization Study: N=2,200 children in 11 different age groups

Description of Sample Three Mini­- Pilots: Demographic data on the participants

Three Pilots: Demographic data on the participants were not reported.

Standardization Study: Participants came from a nationally representative

Assessment Quality Test scores can be interpreted as measures of intelligence

EFFICACY RESEARCH REPORT | WISC-V 08

Factor Analytic Study

Study Citation Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC­-V: Technical and Interpretive Manual.

Type of Study Factor Analytic

Sample Size N=2,200 children in 11 different age groups

Description of Sample Participants came from a nationally representative sample. Participants

Assessment Quality Test scores can be interpreted as measures of intelligence in

EFFICACY RESEARCH REPORT | WISC-V 09

Study Citation Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC­-V:

Type of Study Correlational

Sample Size KABC-­II: N=89 children, ages 6-­16

Description of Sample KABC-­II: The sample was composed of nonclinical participants.

KTEA-­3: The sample was composed of nonclinical participants. The

WIAT-­III: The sample was composed of nonclinical participants.

Assessment Quality Test scores can be interpreted as measures of intelligence

The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-3) is an individually

EFFICACY RESEARCH REPORT | WISC-V 10

WISC-V Integrated Technical and Interpretive Manual

Study Citation Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E. (2015).WISC-V Integrated Technical

Type of Study Criterion validity study

Sample Size N=550 children, ages 6-16

Description of Sample Participants came from a nationally representative sample. Participants

Assessment Quality Test scores can be interpreted as measures of intelligence in

Modifications revolved around reducing receptive language demands by eliminating or

EFFICACY RESEARCH REPORT | WISC-V 11

Using the WASI-II with the WISC-V

Study Citation Raiford, S. E., Zhou, X., Drozdick, L. W.. (2016).

Type of Study Criterion validity study

Sample Size N=43 children, ages 6-16

Assessment Quality Test scores can be interpreted as measures of intelligence

The Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Second Edition (WASI-II) is an abbreviated

Study Citation Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC-V: Technical and Interpretive Manual.

Sample Size Three Mini- Pilots: N=17, 5, and 20

Description of Sample Three Mini- Pilots: Demographic data on the participants

Study Citation Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC-V: Technical and Interpretive Manual.

Study Citation Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC-V:

Sample Size KABC-II: N=89 children, ages 6-16

Description of Sample KABC-II: The sample was composed of nonclinical participants.

KTEA-3: The sample was composed of nonclinical participants. The

WIAT-III: The sample was composed of nonclinical participants.

Study Citation Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC-V: Technical and Interpretive Manual.

Intellectual Disability - Moderate Severity: The sample was 51% female,

Specific Learning Disorder - Reading and Written Expression: The sample

Study Citation Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC-V: Technical and Interpretive Manual.

Study Citation Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC-V: Technical and Interpretive Manual.

Sample Size N=350 participants, ages 6-16

Type of Study Q-interactive performance for special populations

Sample Size Intellectual giftedness sample: N=24 participants, ages 616

Intellectual disability sample: N=22 participants, ages 716

Type of Study Q-interactive performance for special populations

Type of Study Q-interactive performance for special populations

WISC-V Coding and Symbol Search in Digital Format: Reliability,

Sample Size Non-clinical equivalence: N=651 students ages 6-16

Specific Learning Disorder- Reading (SLD-R):

Specific Learning Disorder- Mathematics (SLD-M):

Motor Impaired (MI): N=15 students ages 6-16

Study Citation Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC-V: Technical and Interpretive Manual.