Vocabulary and Block Design are proposed as a two-subtest short form of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised; the addition of Arithmetic and Picture Arrangement provides a four-subtest short form of the scale. Based on data from the standardization sample, tables are presented giving Full Scale IQs for each of nine age groups for both short forms.

The literature on short forms of individual intelligence tests-Wechsler's scales in particular-is critically reviewed. The review is structured around four choice-points faced by those who study short forms: how to abbreviate the original scale, what kind of subject sample to use, how to estimate IQs on the original scale, and what criteria to apply in evaluating a short form. The review concludes with some reflections based on more than 20 years of research on short forms and the posing of two questions about which little is yet known.Short forms have a long history. Doll (1917) proposed a brief Binet-Simon scale not long after Goddard introduced that scale into the United States and more than 20 years before Wechsler (1939) published the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale (W-B). In the present article, however, the focus is on short forms of Wechsler's scales, although most of what follows can be generalized to short forms of any intelligence test constructed along similar lines, that is, as a multitest battery. My purpose is to review what we know about such short forms and how we came to know it, for the benefit of both clinical practitioners and clinical investigators, psychologists who use short forms and psychologists who study them. How Wechsler Viewed Short FormsIn discussing the legitimacy of using short forms, Wechsler (1958) made a distinction based on the use to be made of the results. If all the examiner wants is an IQ for screening purposes, Wechsler observed that there are combinations of three subtests, and even some combinations of two subtests, that may suffice. For anything beyond that, he did not recommend short forms. His view was that an intelligence test should and can give the examiner much more than an IQ (e.g., an evaluation of an individual's strengths and weaknesses), and for that purpose the need was for more testing, not less. Later, Wechsler (1967) appeared to adopt a somewhat harder line, stating that "reduction in the number of [subtests] as a time-saving device is unjustifiable and not to be encouraged" (p. 37) and advising those who ask what one is to do when there is not enough time, to "find the time" (p. 37). How Others Have Viewed Short FormsOthers who have examined the literature on short forms have given them rather mixed reviews. Tellegen and Briggs (1967)

Wechsler's intelligence scales long have been subjected to factor analytic studies in an effort to describe the components of measurable human intelligence. Most authors have extracted a general factor g, as well as a Verbal Comprehension factor, Perceptual Organization factor, and Memory/Freedom from Distractibility factor from a two‐ or three‐factor solution. This article reviews the factor analytic studies done on the 1981 WAIS‐R standardization sample and various patient samples in an effort to update and continue to tie together the findings on Wechsler's scales across ages and populations. We conclude that although the results of the WAIS‐R factor analytic studies reviewed depend upon the statistical approach employed as well as each investigator's theoretical perspective, a three‐factor solution appears to provide a source of hypotheses about an individual's or a select sample's unique abilities and weaknesses worthy of further exploration.

The construct validity of family therapists' assessments of client functioning was evaluated with data collected in a clinical setting (N = 1,165). The assessments were provided by the therapists in the context of the intake interview. The convergent and discriminant validities of various dimensions of client functioning were evaluated through analyses conducted within the therapist-generated judgments and with data collected directly from clients. The analyses were generally supportive of the construct validity of the assessments. A factor analysis of the client functioning data also is reported.This study provides information relevant to the construct validity of interview-based clinical assessments of family functioning. The assessments were provided by a sample of experienced family therapists as part of the routine intake process.It is important to recognize that most assessments carried out in clinical and counseling settings derive from the interview conducted with the client at intake by the professional involved in providing the intervention. These interviews sometimes are based on a standardized format and sometimes not. Further, the interviews sometimes are supplemented with test scores or other information collected outside the interview, although, in most cases, the assessment is based solely on information and observations collected within the interview itself.