Age and Gender Invariance in the Taiwan Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition: Higher Order Five-Factor Model

Abstract

<jats:p> This study investigated the factorial invariance of the Taiwan Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V) across age and gender. A higher order five-factor model was tested on a nationally representative sample of 1,034 children aged 6–16 years. The results demonstrated full factorial invariance for Taiwan children of different ages and gender. The WISC-V subtests demonstrated the same underlying theoretical latent constructs, strength of relations among factors and subtests, validity of each first-order factor, and communalities, regardless of age and gender, which supported the same interpretive approach of the WISC-V. These results accord with findings in the United States, indicating a full factorial invariance of the WISC-V five-factor structure across ages and gender. </jats:p>

Measurement Invariance of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition 10-Subtest Primary Battery: Can Index Scores be Compared across Age, Sex, and Diagnostic Groups?

“…An evaluation of the strong (scalar) specification suggested that both sex and diagnostic groups attained full scalar invariance, while age-groups attained partial scalar invariance. The finding of full or partial scalar invariance was consistent with previous research findings with the extended WISC-V 16 primary and secondary subtest battery (e.g., Chen et al, 2020; Pauls et al, 2019; Reynolds & Keith, 2017; Scheiber, 2016) and other intelligence tests including the Kaufman assessment battery for children, second edition (Reynolds, Scheiber, Hajovsky, Schwartz, & Kaufman, 2015; Scheiber, 2017), Woodcock-Johnson (Edwards & Oakland, 2006; Keith, 1999), and differential ability scale (Keith, Quirk, Schartzer, & Elliott, 1999). However, this is the first study to investigate invariance of the WISC-V 10-primary subtest battery across several groups (e.g., sex, age, and clinical diagnosis) with a referred sample more than double the size of the normative sample.…”

“…This conclusion is particularly important for the clinical comparison group. There have been recent calls for structural validity and invariance analyses within clinical groups (Chen et al, 2020; Graves et al, 2020), but rarely are data sets such as the one in the present study available. In this case, although three distinctly different clinical groups were available—an externalizing disorder (i.e., ADHD), an internalizing disorder (i.e., anxiety), and a neurologically based disorder (i.e., encephalopathy)—the scoring structure was either fully or partially invariant and functions the same way regardless of sex, age, or clinical group.…”

“…Invariance analyses have been conducted on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V; Wechsler, 2014a) using the 16 primary and secondary subtest normative sample data to determine equivalence of age and sex (sic., gender) in both US standardization samples (e.g., Reynolds & Keith, 2017; Scheiber, 2016) and international samples (e.g., Chen, Zhu, Liao, & Keith, 2020; Pauls, Daseking, & Petermann, 2019). However, only one invariance study has been conducted on the 10-primary subtest battery.…”

“…The lack of analyses on the 10-primary subtest battery is noteworthy considering that it contains the most frequently administered group of subtests by practitioners (Benson et al, 2019). Additionally, analyses on referred clinical samples (e.g., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, and brain injury) are important but rarely investigated (Chen et al, 2020). Children referred for the evaluation of suspected disability are the ones most frequently administered tests of cognitive ability, and there are frequent calls for analyses with clinical samples (Chen et al, 2020; Graves et al, 2020).…”

“…Additionally, analyses on referred clinical samples (e.g., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, and brain injury) are important but rarely investigated (Chen et al, 2020). Children referred for the evaluation of suspected disability are the ones most frequently administered tests of cognitive ability, and there are frequent calls for analyses with clinical samples (Chen et al, 2020; Graves et al, 2020). However, such analyses are less available in the literature.…”