Hierarchical Structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

Abstract

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) is one of the most well-known tests in the field of adult intelligence assessment. This study explores the validity of the Egyptian adaptation for the subscales of the WAIS-IV. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that the first-order, second-order, and bifactor models of both the five-factor Cattel–Horn–Carroll (CHC) and the four-factor structures fitted with the WAIS-IV. When the Arithmetic subscale was pathed to Perceptual Reasoning and Working Memory, the modified four first-order factor showed a better fit than any other model. Estimates of internal consistency revealed that Cronbach’s alpha was very high (.91) for the WAIS-IV scale and for four-factor structures (ranging from .81 to .95), while $ω_{h}$ was low (0.61) for the WAIS-IV scale and for four-factor structures, ranging from 0.20 to 0.68. Overall, these findings provided adding evidence about the dimensionality of WAIS-IV with a new sample.

Keywords

WAIS-IV test adaptations CHC hierarchical linear modeling

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV) is the most commonly used instrument to assess the cognitive abilities of adults (Goldstein & Saklofske, 2010; Salthouse & Saklofske, 2010). Unlike previous versions, the WAIS-IV (Wechsler, 2008) is structured to be compatible with the Cattel–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theoretical conceptualization of intelligence and takes into account the concepts of fluid reasoning, working memory, and processing speed (Kaufman, Salthouse, Scheiber, & Chen, 2016; Weiss, Saklofske, Coalson, & Raiford, 2010). In addition, the WAIS-IV reduces the administration time of the previous version (Coalson, Raiford, Saklofske, & Weiss, 2010).

Several recent validity studies have explored the validity and reliability of the WAIS-IV by reanalyzing the U.S. standard sample (n = 2,200). Benson, Hulac, and Kranzler (2010) indicated that the CHC model gave a better data fit than the four-factor model. Canivez and Watkins (2010) found that the second-order general factor explained the greatest proportion of the total variance. Gignac and Watkins (2013) found that the bifactor model was a better fit to the data. In addition, Glass, Ryan, and Charter (2010) showed that discrepancy score reliabilities ranged from .55 to .88 for WAIS-IV subtests and 80 to .91 for WAIS-IV indexes. Several studies have discussed the WAIS-IV structure across various samples. Bowden, Saklofske, and Weiss (2011) concluded that invariance of subtest scores across the United States and Canada was similar for construct measurement. D. I. Miller, Davidson, Schindler, and Messier (2013) and Nelson, Canivez, and Watkins (2013) suggested that four first-order factors was suitable. van Aken et al. (2017) and Weiss, Keith, Zhu, and Chen (2013a, 2013b) indicated that both the four- and five-factor models were a good fit with the data, but the five-factor model was a better overall fit. However, Canivez and Kush (2013) questioned the results of Weiss et al. (2013b) on the grounds of theoretical, methodological, and practical problems. Furthermore, some studies compared the differences in WAIS-IV Canadian and U.S. norms (Harrison, Holmes, Silvestri, & Armstrong, 2015a, 2015b; J. L. Miller et al., 2015).

Overall, these studies highlight the need for more research to test the WAIS-IV structure with Arabic speakers. To our knowledge, no attempt was made to provide an adapted version of the WAIS-IV for this population group. Test adaptation is a strategy that may reduce bias and minimize impact on the cross-cultural equivalence of test scores (van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2004), such as adapting the WAIS-IV for Arabic speakers. Furthermore, there is no published validation of the WAIS-IV for Egyptian samples. An objective of this study was to attempt to adapt the WAIS-IV for Arabic speakers. This study, therefore, set out to assess the dimensionality of the WAIS-IV for an Egyptian sample. To investigate the dimensionality of the WAIS-IV for an Egyptian sample, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed for different models to identify the best fit with the sample data.

Method

Participants

In total, 250 participants were recruited, but only 204 adults (128 [62.7%] females and 76 [37.3%] males) were administered at least the 10 core subtests of the WAIS-IV. All participants were aged between 18 and 24 (average 20.65 years, SD = 1.71).

Instrument and Adaptation Procedure

The WAIS-IV (Wechsler, 2008) is a measure of adult intelligence for ages 16 to 90. It includes 15 subtests—10 core (Similarities [SIM], Vocabulary [V], Information [INF], Block Design [BD], Matrix Reasoning [MR], Visual Puzzles [VP], Digit Span [DS], Arithmetic [AR], Coding [CD], Symbol Search [SS]) and five supplemental (Comprehension, Figure Weights, Picture Completion, Letter-Number Sequencing, and Cancellation)—from which four index factors may be derived: Verbal Comprehension (VC), Perceptual Reasoning (PR), Working Memory (WM) and Processing Speed (PS). Ten subtest scores are used to calculate the Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) where there are three subtests for VC and PR and two subtests for WM and PS (Climie & Rostad, 2011). In addition, there are five supplemental subtests, two for PR and one for VC, WM, and PS. The WAIS-IV was translated and adapted into Arabic as follows: (a) direct translation into Arabic by two expert bilingual translators (English-Arabic) with knowledge of psychology and education (working as assistant professor and lecturer, respectively, at the Faculty of Education of Fayoum University; (b) comparison of the two translations to investigate any variance in apprehension; (c) review from two experts in the Arabic language and education; (d) back translation from Arabic into English by two translators; (e) comparison of the two back-translations to identify any differences; and (f) review of differences which were resolved by consensus.

Data Analysis

Mplus 7.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2015) was used for CFA. The following configurations was tested: (a) one-factor model; (b) two-factor model (verbal and nonverbal reasoning); (c) four first-order factor model (VC [SIM, V, INF], PR [BD, MR, VP], WM [DS, AR], PS [CD, SS]); (d) four-factor loading on a higher order factor model (second-order; indirect hierarchical model); (e) direct hierarchical (bifactor) model with four first-order factors; (f) five first-order model (crystallized knowledge [GC; SIM, V, SIM], visual processing [GV; BD, VP], fluid reasoning [GF; AR, MR], short-term memory [GSM; AR, DS], processing speed [GS; CD, SS]); (g) bifactor model with five first-order factors; (h) five-factor loading on a higher order factor model (five second-order factors).

The model fit acceptance values are not statistically significant according to chi-square; a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value less than or equal to 0.05; χ²/df < 3; comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) > 0.95; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) < 0.05. Comparison of Akaike information criterion (AIC) values in various models is also considered (the best model has a lower value for AIC). In addition, Cronbach’s alpha, omega, and omega H coefficients were used to assess the reliability of WAIS-IV.

Results and Discussion

Table 1 provides an overview of descriptive statistics for the WAIS-IV subscale (M = 26.36; SD = 5.5) and four-factor (M = 65.91; SD = 11.03). The skewness and kurtosis values are less than the criterion of |2.0| to prove normal univariate distribution (acceptable; George & Mallery, 2010).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency Coefficients (Cronbach’s α, $ω, ω_{h} {, and ω}_{s}$ ) for the WAIS-IV.

	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	α	$ω$	$ω_{h} (ω_{s})$
Subscales
SIM	20.19	3.73	.40	0.82	.7
V	40.33	6.15	−.517	0.38	.86
INF	11.56	2.82	.47	−0.28	.78
BD	31.11	7.98	.76	0.82	.7
MR	16.82	4.24	−.22	−0.122	.82
VP	12.37	3.73	.38	−0.76	.83
DS	27.55	5.14	.29	−0.59	.81
AR	13.50	3.30	.35	−0.63	.82
SS	30.08	6.757	.45	1.289	.89
CD	60.12	11.17	−.09	−0.19	.95
Factors
VC	72.09	9.25	−.06	−0.13	.83	.51	.27
PR	60.30	12.53	.45	0.25	.82	.74	.20
WM	41.06	6.73	.25	−0.63	.81	.5	.27
PS	90.20	15.61	.11	−0.12	.95	.74	.68
General factor					.91	.79	.61

Note. WAIS-IV = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition; VC = Verbal Comprehension; PR = Perceptual Reasoning; WM = Working Memory; PS = Processing Speed; SIM = Similarities; V= Vocabulary; INF = Information; BD = Block Design; MR = Matrix Reasoning; VP = Visual Puzzles; DS = Digit Span; AR = Arithmetic; SS = Symbol Search; CD = Coding; $ω$ = omega; $ω_{h}$ = omega hierarchical.

The top of Table 2 shows the fit statistics for the eight WAIS-IV models first proposed. The fit statistics suggested that the one-factor model and the two-factor model (verbal and nonverbal) were inadequate (χ² significant, χ²/df < 2; RMSEA and >.05, TLI and CFI < .95). For the four-factor structure, the fit statistics were achieved for the correlated four first-order factor model (M3), the direct hierarchical model (Bifactor, M4), the four-factor loading on a higher order factor (second-order, M5) model. Moreover, no significant differences were found between these three models in terms of χ² value or AIC coefficient, but M3 and M4 gave better values of CFI and RMSEA than M5.

Table 2.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Fit Statistics for the WAIS-IV: Egyptian Sample.

Model	χ²	df	RMSEA (90% CI)	CFI	TLI	SRMR	AIC	M9 vs. models
Model	χ²	df	RMSEA (90% CI)	CFI	TLI	SRMR	AIC	Δχ²	Δdf	p	ΔAIC
M1: One-factor	110.9**		.1 [.082, .125]	.73	.65	.076	12,226.73
M2: Two-factor (verbal and nonverbal)	95.58**		.094 [.072, .117]	.78	.71	.070	12,213.33
Four-factor structure
M3: Four first-order factors	38.53	30	.037 [.0, .068]	.97	.95	.039	12,164.28	−4.12	1	<.05	−2.12
M4: Bifactor four-factor	38.0	29	.036 [.0, .073]	.97	.96	.041	12,163.76	—	—	—	−1.6
M5: Second-order four-factor	42.29	32	.040 [.0, .069]	.96	.95	.043	12,164.04	−7.88	3	<.05	−1.88
Five-factor structure
M6: Five first-order factors (GC, GV, GF, GSM, GS)	36.73	27	.042 [.0, .073]	.97	.94	.04	12,168.49	—	—	—	−3.76
M7: Bifactor five-factor	38.95	30	.038 [.00, .069]	.97	.95	.042	12,164.70	—	—	—	−3.88
M8: Second-order five-factor	47.4*	33	.046 [.00, .074]	.95	.93	.056	12,167.15	—	—	—	−6.33
Modification of four-factor models
M9: Modified four first-order factor (arithmetic loading on WM and PR)	34.4	29	.03 [.00, .064]	.98	.97	.037	12,162.16	—	—	—	—
M10: Modified bifactor four-factor (arithmetic loading on WM and PR)	38.16	29	.039 [.00, .07]	.97	.95	.041	12,165.92	—	—	—	−2.54
M11: Modified second-order four-factor (arithmetic loading on WM and PR)	42.29	31	.042 [.00, .07]	.96	.94	.043	12,166.04	−12.99	4	<.05	−4.99
M12: Modified four first-order factor (arithmetic loading on WM, PR, and VC)	34.4	28	.033 [.00, .067]	.97	.96	.037	12,164.13	−0.01	1	<.95	−1.97
M13: Modified bifactor four-factor (arithmetic loading on WM, PR, and VC)	38.16	28	.042 [.00, .07]	.96	.94	.041	12,167.9	−3.75	1	<.1	−5.74
M14: Modified second-order four-factor (arithmetic loading on WM, PR, and VC)	42.179	30	.045 [.00, .074]	.96	.93	.044	12,167.93	−7.769	1	<.01	−5.77
Modification of five-factor models
M15: Modified five first-order factors (arithmetic loading on GC, GF, and GSM)	36.83	27	.042 [.00, .074]	.97	.94	.041	12,168.48	—	—	—	−6.32
M16: Modified bifactor five-factor (arithmetic loading on GC, GF, and GSM)	38.83	29	.041 [.00, .071]	.96	.95	.042	12,166.58	—	—	—	−4.42
M17: Modified second-order five-factor (arithmetic loading on GC, GF, and GSM)	47.46*	32	.049 [.012, .076]	.94	.92	.049	12,169.21	—	—	—	−7.05

Note. WAIS-IV = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; AIC = Akaike information criterion.

p < .05. **p < .01.

The top of Table 3 summarizes the standardized loadings for the three plausible four-factor models: M3, M4 and M5. The 10 WAIS-IV subscales show a significant positive standardized loading value on the four factors (VC, PR, WM and PS) for M3 and M5 models. Similarly, the four-factor model (VC, PR, WM and PS) gives a significant positive loading on second-order factor, for M5. By contrast, in the bifactor model (M4), Matrix Reasoning yielded nonsignificant loadings on PR, and the Symbol Search subscale showed nonsignificant loading on general factor.

Table 3.

Standardized Loadings for Four- and Five-Factor Models.

	M3				M4					M5				M6					M7						M8
	VC	PR	WM	PS	G	VC	PR	WM	PS	VC	PR	WM	PS	GC	GV	GF	GSM	GS	G	GC	GV	GF	GSM	GS	GC	GV	GF	GSM	GS
SIM	.48				.37	.27				.49				.46					.36	.27					.46
V	.41				.26	.56				.43				.40					.25	.57					.45
INF	.59				.42	.27				.57				.61					.41	.29					.58
BD		.62			.55		.17				.61				.62				.55		.13					.63
MR		.55			.54		.09				.75					.46			.57			.06					.64
VP		.74			.65		.76				.56				.77				.68		.68					.76
DS			.32		.21			.20				.31					.20		.19				.20					.20
AR			.73		.55			.62				.78				.31	.20		.53			.30	.69				.49	.82
SS				.49	.12				.47				.49					.49	.11					.48					.49
CD				.99	.31				.95				.99					.99	.31					.95					.99
G										.74	.85	.73	.31												.64	.98	.79	.10	.30

Note. Bold values indicate p > .05 (nonsignificant loading). VC = Verbal Comprehension; PR = Perceptual Reasoning; WM = Working Memory; PS = Processing Speed; G = General Factor; GC = Crystallized Intelligence; GV = Visual Processing; GF= Fluid Intelligence/Reasoning; GSM = Short-Term Memory; GS= Processing Speed; SIM = Similarities; V= Vocabulary; INF = Information; BD = Block Design; MR = Matrix Reasoning; VP = Visual Puzzles; DS = Digit Span; AR = Arithmetic; SS = Symbol Search; CD = Coding.

Regarding the five-factor CHC-based structure derived from terms of the CHC theory of cognitive abilities through (McGrew, 2009) alongside the results of previous research (van Aken et al., 2017; Benson et al., 2010; Weiss et al., 2013b), the three five-factor models again fitted the data (see Table 2). For these models, the Arithmetic subscale was loaded significantly on both the WM and GF factors. M7 was a better fit than M6 and M8, giving the lowest value of AIC. Moreover, ΔΔχ2 was statistically significant between M7 and M8 (Δχ² = −8.45, df = 3, p < .05) but not between M6 and M7 (Δχ² = −2.22, df = 3, p < .75). For standardized loadings of the five-factor models (M6, M7, M8), a very similar pattern is observed with respect to what is mentioned in the four-factor models, as well as the same problem on bifactor model regarding the nonsignificant loadings of specific scales (see the bottom of Table 3).

To optimize the fit, some modifications are proposed (see the bottom of Table 2). For the four-factor structure, following the addition of a path between the Arithmetic subscale and PR, in addition to WM, the fit of M9 was improved due to multiple loadings of the Arithmetic subscale on PR and WM, but M10 and M11 did not show any improvement of fit statistics relative to M4 and M5. Interestingly, the Arithmetic subscale showed nonsignificant loading on PR and VC in multiple attempts to find the best model fit when a path was added from the Arithmetic subscale to PR, WM, and VC for models M12, M13, and M14. For the five-factor structure, no improvement in fit was observed in the loadings of the Arithmetic subscale on GC, GF and GSM for models M15, M16, or M17. In addition, no significant loadings were found between Arithmetic and GC for the three modified models M15 (.11), M16 (.041), and M17 (.14).

The modified models reproduce the previous observations for the unmodified models. As shown in Figure 1 for M9, the loadings of 10 subscales on the four-factor structure were very similar to M3, which produced a significant positive standardized loading value on the four factors (VC, PR, WM, and PS). Interestingly, comparisons of M9 with nested models using Δχ² suggested that M9 provided better overall fit (see Table 2). In addition, ΔAIC also supported the use of M9 over the other models. In summary, the best fit appeared to be obtained for Model 9 (see Table 2).

Figure 1.

Path diagram for M9.

In addition, the 10 subscales and four factors were shown to have acceptable internal consistency (see Table 1). The mean Cronbach’s alpha values for the 10 subscales and four factors were .81 and .85, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha for the general factor was very high (.91) and Coding and Symbol Search gave the highest internal consistency values (.95 and .89, respectively), while Similarities and Block Design gave the lowest (.7). The values of $ω$ and $ω_{h}$ were low (0.79 and 0.61, respectively). For the four factors, $ω$ ranged from 0.5 to 0.74 and $ω_{h}$ from 0.20 to 0.68. Zinbarg, Yovel, Revelle, and McDonald (2006) suggested that $ω \geq ω_{h}$ and that equality occurs in the case of a unidimensional scale only. In addition, this result may be explained by the fact that the omega hierarchical is very limited for unique constructs due to the general factor (Reise, 2012). These results are in agreement with Gignac and Watkins (2013), who reported that the estimated reliability of the WAIS-IV according to $ω_{h}$ was very low for all age groups. However, the internal consistency findings must be interpreted with caution for the Coding and Symbol Search subscales because they are speeded scales.

Interestingly, both the four-factor structure and five-factor CHC theory models fit the WAIS-IV with the Egyptian sample, confirming the findings of (van Aken et al., 2017; Weiss et al., 2013b). For the four-factor structure, the clearest finding was that the second-order model and the four-factor structure were the best fit for the data compared with the bifactor model. These findings are comparable with those of (Canivez & Watkins, 2010; D. I. Miller et al., 2013; Reynolds, Ingram, Seeley, & Newby, 2013). One unanticipated finding was that the bifactor model presented nonsignificant loadings of the MR subscale on PR, and nonsignificant loadings of the SS on general factor and these results are consistent with those of Gignac and Watkins (2013). Moreover, for the CHC-based structure, the five first-order factors (GC, GV, GF, GSM, GS), bifactor five-factor, and second-order five-factor models were also suitable, but the bifactor five-factor model presented nonsignificant loadings of the MR on the general factor, similar to the bifactor four-factor model. A possible explanation for this is that the bifactor model does not include mediation between a higher order factor and the observed variables by the first-order factor; the bifactor model focuses on the direct influences of a general factor on those subscales that also are loaded with nested factors directly, making the general factor closer to subscales (Gignac, 2008).

Another important finding was that adding a path from the Arithmetic subscale to the factors PR and WM for three four-factor structure models showed that the modified four first-order factor model was preferable to the other four- and five-factor models. In addition, the most obvious finding to emerge from the analysis is that Arithmetic is a complex subscale requiring multiple abilities (van Aken et al., 2017; Benson et al., 2010; Bowden et al., 2011; Ward, Bergman, & Hebert, 2012; Weiss et al., 2013b). The current study indicated that Arithmetic loaded significantly on WM (.34) and PR (.40) in the modified four first-order factor model and on GSM (.303) and GF (.689) in the bifactor five-factor model, but it showed nonsignificant when another path was added to VC, confirming with those obtained by Ward et al. (2012) who reported Arithmetic loadings of .32 and .35 on GSM and GF, in addition to slight loading on VC (.17) for the five-factor model. These results are also consistent with the findings of Weiss et al. (2013b), who showed that Arithmetic produced loadings of .36 and .27 on WM and PR, respectively, in the four-factor model. Our findings also corroborate the ideas of Nelson et al. (2013), who suggested that the bifactor model was suitable for the WAIS-IV structure using the normative data, although the correlated four first-order factor model gave a better fit. However, the findings presented here do not support those of Nelson et al., according to which the subscale loadings in the direct hierarchical model were significant. For example, the loading of Symbol Search on the general factor in the bifactor model was.362 according to Nelson et al. and 0.120 in this study, but the loading was nonsignificant on the general factor in the bifactor model. On the opposite, these results differ from the study of Benson et al. (2010) who found that the second-order model fit the data but selected the CHC model as the fittest for the data.

This study helps to disseminate knowledge of one of the most up-to-date and widely used measures in the field of intelligence testing, facilitating the development of scales that are suitable for the Egyptian community and its standards, especially Arab speakers for whom English is not a native language. The implications are important for the development of measures like the WAIS-IV that can be used by school psychologists and counselors to diagnose cognitive abilities and thus help to provide essential services for community institutions, particularly for Arabic speakers who do not speak English as a native language.

This study was limited by the absence of supplemental subscales of the WAIS-IV in our analysis. One of these subscales is Figure Weights, which showed the best loading on the GF factor in the five-factor model and also on the PR factor in the four-factor model in many studies comparing other core subscales, such as Ward et al. (2012). One additional limitation is that the WAIS-IV structure was explored with a randomly selected sample that satisfies the normal distribution criteria but was collected from a particular population and restricted by age (18-24). Caution should be exercised when generalizing the results to other age groups and regions.

In summary, the main goal of the current study was to adapt the WAIS-IV for Arabic-speaking populations. In addition, this study examined dimensionality and reliability using $ω_{h}$ and $ω$ for the WAIS-IV with an Egyptian sample. According to our data, we can infer that the four- and five-factor models are suitable but that the modified four first-order factor model should be preferred. One of the more significant findings to emerge from this study is that the indirect hierarchical models of both the five-factor and the four-factor structures provide a better fit than the direct hierarchical models (bifactor models). This finding may support the hypothesis presented in the WAIS-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual (Wechsler, 2008) that selected the second-order model and four first-order factor model as the best models. Despite these promising results, further work is required to establish the viability of dimensionality invariance for WAIS-IV across ages (25-90).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like thank Dr. Hanaa E M Hussein, Dr. Mona A. Abdel-Tawab, Dr. Abeer E. M. Abo Zaid, Dr. Mohamed A. M. Hasan, Dr. Mohammed A. Owees, and Dr. Alsaid M. Abo Zed for their help in adapting the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) for Arabic speakers.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Benson

Hulac

D. M.

Kranzler

J. H.

(2010). Independent Examination of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV): What does the WAIS-IV measure? Psychological Assessment, 22, 121-130. doi:10.1037/a0017767

Bowden

S. C.

Saklofske

D. H.

Weiss

L. G.

(2011). Invariance of the measurement model underlying the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV in the United States and Canada. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 186-199. doi:10.1177/0013164410387382

Canivez

G. L.

Kush

J. C.

(2013). WAIS-IV and WISC-IV structural validity alternate methods, alternate results. Commentary on Weiss et al. (2013a) and Weiss et al. (2013b). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 157-169. doi:10.1177/0734282913478036

Canivez

G. L.

Watkins

M. W.

(2010). Investigation of the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV): Exploratory and higher order factor analyses. Psychological Assessment, 22, 827-836. doi:10.1037/a0020429

Climie

E. A.

Rostad

(2011). Test review: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 581-586. doi:10.1177/0734282911408707

Coalson

D. L.

Raiford

S. E.

Saklofske

D. H.

Weiss

L. G.

(2010). WAIS-IV: Advances in the Assessment of Intelligence. In Weiss

L. G.

Coalson

D. L.

Saklofske

D. H.

Raiford

S. E.

(Eds.), WAIS-IV clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 3-24). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

George

Mallery

(2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gignac

G. E.

(2008). Higher-order models versus direct hierarchical models: g as superordinate or breadth factor? Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(1), 21-43.

Gignac

G. E.

Watkins

M. W.

(2013). Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS-IV. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 639-662. doi:10.1080/00273171.2013.804398

10.

Glass

L. A.

Ryan

J. J.

Charter

R. A.

(2010). Discrepancy score reliabilities in the WAIS-IV standardization sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 201-208. doi:10.1177/0734282909346710

11.

Goldstein

Saklofske

D. H.

(2010). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales in the Assessment of Psychopathology. In Weiss

L. G.

Coalson

D. L.

Saklofske

D. H.

Raiford

S. E.

(Eds.), WAIS-IV clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 189-216). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

12.

Harrison

A. G.

Holmes

Silvestri

Armstrong

I. T.

(2015a). Getting back to the main point: A reply to Miller et al. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 780-786. doi:10.1177/0734282915590064

13.

Harrison

A. G.

Holmes

Silvestri

Armstrong

I. T.

(2015b). Implications for educational classification and psychological diagnoses using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition with Canadian versus American norms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 299-311. doi:10.1177/0734282915573723

14.

Kaufman

A. S.

Salthouse

T. A.

Scheiber

Chen

(2016). Age differences and educational attainment across the life span on three generations of Wechsler Adult Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(5), 421-441. https://doi:10.1177/0734282915619091

15.

McGrew

K. S.

(2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37(1), 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004

16.

Miller

D. I.

Davidson

P. S. R.

Schindler

Messier

(2013). Confirmatory factor analysis of the WAIS-IV and WMS-IV in older adults. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 375-390. doi:10.1177/0734282912467961

17.

Miller

J. L.

Weiss

L. G.

Beal

A. L.

Saklofske

D. H.

Zhu

Holdnack

J. A.

(2015). Intelligent use of intelligence tests empirical and clinical support for Canadian WAIS-IV norms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 312-328. doi:10.1177/0734282915578577

18.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

19.

Nelson

J. M.

Canivez

G. L.

Watkins

M. W.

(2013). Structural and incremental validity of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition with a clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 25, 618-630. doi:10.1037/a0032086

20.

Reise

S. P.

(2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667-696. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715555

21.

Reynolds

M. R.

Ingram

P. B.

Seeley

J. S.

Newby

K. D.

(2013). Investigating the structure and invariance of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales, Fourth Edition in a sample of adults with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 3235-3245. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.06.029

22.

Salthouse

T. A.

Saklofske

D. H.

(2010). Do the WAIS-IV tests measure the same aspects of cognitive functioning in adults under and over 65? In Weiss

L. G.

Coalson

D. L.

Saklofske

D. H.

Raiford

S. E.

(Eds.), WAIS-IV clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 217-235). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

23.

van Aken

van der Heijden

P. T.

van der Veld

W. M.

Hermans

Kessels

R. P. C.

Egger

J. I. M

. (2017). Representation of the cattell–horn–carroll theory of cognitive abilities in the factor structure of the dutch-language version of the WAIS-IV. Assessment, 24(4), 458-466. doi:10.1177/1073191115607973

24.

van de Vijver

Tanzer

N. K.

(2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 54, 119-135. doi:10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004

25.

Ward

L. C.

Bergman

M. A.

Hebert

K. R.

(2012). WAIS-IV subtest covariance structure: Conceptual and statistical considerations. Psychological Assessment, 24, 328-340. doi:10.1037/a0025614

26.

Wechsler

(2008). WAIS-IV: Technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.

27.

Weiss

L. G.

Keith

T. Z.

Zhu

Chen

(2013a). Technical and practical issues in the structure and clinical invariance of the Wechsler Scales: A rejoinder to commentaries. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 235-243. doi:10.1177/0734282913478050

28.

Weiss

L. G.

Keith

T. Z.

Zhu

Chen

(2013b). WAIS-IV and clinical validation of the four- and five-factor interpretative approaches. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 94-113. doi:10.1177/0734282913478030

29.

Weiss

L. G.

Saklofske

D. H.

Coalson

D. L.

Raiford

S. E.

(2010). Theoretical, empirical and clinical foundations of the WAIS-IV index scores. In Weiss

L. G.

Coalson

D. L.

Saklofske

D. H.

Raiford

S. E.

(Eds.), WAIS-IV clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 64-94). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

30.

Zinbarg

R. E.

Yovel

Revelle

McDonald

R. P.

(2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 121-144. doi:10.1177/0146621605278814

	M3				M4					M5				M6					M7						M8
	VC	PR	WM	PS	G	VC	PR	WM	PS	VC	PR	WM	PS	GC	GV	GF	GSM	GS	G	GC	GV	GF	GSM	GS	GC	GV	GF	GSM	GS
SIM	.48				.37	.27				.49				.46					.36	.27					.46
V	.41				.26	.56				.43				.40					.25	.57					.45
INF	.59				.42	.27				.57				.61					.41	.29					.58
BD		.62			.55		.17				.61				.62				.55		.13					.63
MR		.55			.54		.09				.75					.46			.57			.06					.64
VP		.74			.65		.76				.56				.77				.68		.68					.76
DS			.32		.21			.20				.31					.20		.19				.20					.20
AR			.73		.55			.62				.78				.31	.20		.53			.30	.69				.49	.82
SS				.49	.12				.47				.49					.49	.11					.48					.49
CD				.99	.31				.95				.99					.99	.31					.95					.99
G										.74	.85	.73	.31												.64	.98	.79	.10	.30

	M3				M4					M5				M6					M7						M8
	VC	PR	WM	PS	G	VC	PR	WM	PS	VC	PR	WM	PS	GC	GV	GF	GSM	GS	G	GC	GV	GF	GSM	GS	GC	GV	GF	GSM	GS
SIM	.48				.37	.27				.49				.46					.36	.27					.46
V	.41				.26	.56				.43				.40					.25	.57					.45
INF	.59				.42	.27				.57				.61					.41	.29					.58
BD		.62			.55		.17				.61				.62				.55		.13					.63
MR		.55			.54		.09				.75					.46			.57			.06					.64
VP		.74			.65		.76				.56				.77				.68		.68					.76
DS			.32		.21			.20				.31					.20		.19				.20					.20
AR			.73		.55			.62				.78				.31	.20		.53			.30	.69				.49	.82
SS				.49	.12				.47				.49					.49	.11					.48					.49
CD				.99	.31				.95				.99					.99	.31					.95					.99
G										.74	.85	.73	.31												.64	.98	.79	.10	.30

Hierarchical Structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition with an Egyptian Sample

Abstract

Keywords

Method

Participants

Instrument and Adaptation Procedure

Data Analysis

Results and Discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References

	M3				M4					M5				M6					M7						M8
	VC	PR	WM	PS	G	VC	PR	WM	PS	VC	PR	WM	PS	GC	GV	GF	GSM	GS	G	GC	GV	GF	GSM	GS	GC	GV	GF	GSM	GS
SIM	.48				.37	.27				.49				.46					.36	.27					.46
V	.41				.26	.56				.43				.40					.25	.57					.45
INF	.59				.42	.27				.57				.61					.41	.29					.58
BD		.62			.55		.17				.61				.62				.55		.13					.63
MR		.55			.54		.09				.75					.46			.57			.06					.64
VP		.74			.65		.76				.56				.77				.68		.68					.76
DS			.32		.21			.20				.31					.20		.19				.20					.20
AR			.73		.55			.62				.78				.31	.20		.53			.30	.69				.49	.82
SS				.49	.12				.47				.49					.49	.11					.48					.49
CD				.99	.31				.95				.99					.99	.31					.95					.99
G										.74	.85	.73	.31												.64	.98	.79	.10	.30