Age and Sex Invariance of the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Evidence from Psychometric Network Modeling

Abstract

The Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ IV COG) is a comprehensive assessment battery designed to assess broad and narrow cognitive abilities, as defined by the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of intelligence. Previous studies examined the invariance of the WJ assessments across sex and age groups using factor analytic methods. Psychometric network modeling is an alternative methodology that can address both direct and indirect relationships among the observed variables. In this study, we employed psychometric network modeling to examine the invariance of the WJ IV COG across sex and age groups. Using a normative sample (n = 4212 participants) representative of the United States population, we tested the extent to which the factorial structure of the WJ IV COG aligned with CHC theory for the school-aged sample. Next, we used psychometric network modeling as a data-driven method to investigate whether the network structure of the WJ IV COG remains similar across different sex and age (age 6 to 19, inclusively) groups. Our results showed that the WJ IV COG maintained the same network structure across all age and sex groups, although the network structure at younger ages indicated weaker relationships among some subtests. Overall, the results provide construct validity evidence for the WJ IV COG, based on both theoretical and data-driven methods.

A Psychometric Network Analysis of CHC Intelligence Measures: Implications for Research, Theory, and Interpretation of Broad CHC Scores “Beyond g”

“…None have been grounded in the a priori selection of measures as per contemporary CHC or other intelligence theories. These studies have demonstrated that PNA of IQ batteries can produce network results consistent with no- g theoretical models of intelligence (e.g., dynamic mutualism and process overlap) and, when compared with latent variable factor models, the network models identify equally plausible representations of the multidimensional structure of IQ tests ( Bulut et al 2021 ). The PNA models typically identify the same groupings or communities of tests akin to the latent variable common cause factor analysis-based broad CHC score indices (e.g., crystallized intelligence, fluid reasoning, working memory, processing speed in the WAIS-IV; Schmank et al 2021 ).…”

“…The final set of 20 broad CHC measures used in the primary analysis, as classified by Schneider ( 2016 ), Schneider and McGrew ( 2018 ), and our own CHC analysis, were: Fluid Reasoning-Gf (Concept Formation, CONFRM; Analysis-Synthesis, ANLSYN), Comprehension–Knowledge-Gc (Oral Vocabulary, ORLVOC, General Information, GENINF; Oral Comprehension, ORLCMP; Verbal Analogies, VRBANL), Visual Processing-Gv (Spatial Relations, VZSPRL; Block Rotation, VZBLKR), Auditory Processing-Ga (Segmentation, SEGMNT; Sound Blending, SNDBLN; Phonological Processing-Word Access, PPACC; Phonological Processing-Word Substitution, PPSUB), Short-term Working Memory-Gwm (Verbal Attention, VRBATN; Objective-Number Sequencing, OBJNUM; Memory for Words, MEMWRD), Retrieval Fluency-Gr (Retrieval Fluency, RETFLU; Phonological Processing–Word Fluency, PPLU), Processing Speed-Gs (Letter–Pattern Matching, LETPAT; Number Pattern Matching, NUMPAT; Pair Cancellation; PAIRCN). It is important to note that this set of WJ IV measures differs from the Bulut et al ( 2021 ) PNA study that was restricted to the primary 14 COG measures in the WJ IV. The current study selected the purest CHC measures from across the WJ IV COG, OL, and ECAD components.…”

“…Thus, the final network is sparser and only includes what are called non-zero node (test) edges. The JASP network module provided the network metrics of betweenness, closeness, and strength that collectively described different centrality characteristics of the network typology ( Borsboom et al 2021 ; Bulut et al 2021 ; Jones et al 2018 ; Neal and Neal 2021 ; Robinaugh et al 2016 ).…”

“…To date, only a few studies have analyzed contemporary IQ batteries with PNA. These include PNA of the Hungarian and US WAIS-IV ( Schmank et al 2019 , 2021 ), US WAIS-III ( van der Maas et al 2017 ), and the WJ IV ( Bulut et al 2021 ). These PNA IQ battery studies have been confined to the universe (or subset) of measures specific to each IQ battery.…”

“…Absent from this small collection of IQ battery PNA studies are attempts to link the resulting network model and test network centrality metrics to intelligence testing interpretation. Although certain tests have been identified as central, gatekeeper, or bridge measures in an IQ battery network ( Bulut et al 2021 ), how these most central tests (and abilities they measure) might operate as hypothesized causal mechanism target systems ( Haslbeck et al 2021 ) to inform theory building and possible interventions, has been absent.…”