Comparison of the WAIS and the WAIS—R in the upper ranges of IQ.

Mitchell, Robert E.; Grandy, Thomas G.; Lupo, J. Victor

doi:10.1037/0735-7028.17.1.82

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Table 1 we provide a summary of the published literature to date on comparisons of the WAIS and the WAIS-R . Evidence that the differences between WAIS and WAIS-R scores are less at either extreme of the IQ distribution is accumulating (e.g., Mitchell, Grandy, & Lupo, 1986; Rabourn, 1983; Spitz, 1986).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the WAIS and WAIS—R: Different results for different IQ groups.

Spruill

Beck²

1988

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a procedure that eliminated repetition of identical items, thus avoiding order effects, we administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and the WAis-Revised to 108 subjects. AH correlations between the two tests were significant and similar to those reported in the WAIS-R manual. For the group as a whole, verbal, performance, and full scale IQ scores on the WAIS-R were significantly lower than their respective WAIS scores; however, this difference was not consistent across IQ levels. Subjects of both average and borderline intelligence had WAIS IQ scores significantly above their WAIS-R scores. For the mildly retarded subjects, the performance IQs were equal for the WAIS and WAIS-R, whereas the WAIS-R verbal and full scale IQ scores were higher than the corresponding WAIS IQ scores. However, these score differences were small (1 point) and of little practical value. The differences of moderately retarded subjects, on the other hand, were large and in the reverse direction: The WAIS-R IQ scores were significantly higher than the WAIS IQ scores. Clinical implications of these findings are discussed. When an established test is revised, evaluation of the equivalence of the two forms is necessary. Since the publication of

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the WAIS and WAIS—R: Different results for different IQ groups.

Spruill

Beck²

1988

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prifitera and Barley (1985) have questioned the appropriateness of the 12-point discrepancy rule of interpretation because several studies have demonstrated that the WAIS and WAIS-R FSIQs are not equivalent. Typically, the WAIS-R score is 7 to 8 points lower than the WAIS, though the difference has been found to be less substantial in high-IQ subjects (Mitchell, Grandy, & Lupo, 1986). Prifitera and Barley reported that in their psychiatric inpatient sample with average and Psychometric Structure of the WMS 55 1 below-average IQ scores, the WAIS-R (M = 96.15, SD = 13.30) scores were almost 7 points lower than corresponding WAIS (M = 102.93, SD = 16.29) scores.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The psychometric structure of the Wechsler memory scale in comparison to the WAIS-R in a low-IQ clinical population

Oresick

Broder

1988

J. Clin. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The psychometric structure of the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS) and its relationship to the revised Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS‐R) were studied in an outpatient population of 103 individuals with low Full Scale IQ scores (M = 71). We found that the age correction of the WMS scores gave memory quotients (WMQ) equivalent to WAIS‐R FSIQ scores, but our findings also raised problems of interpretation. If the usual rule of thumb of a 12‐point discrepancy between the MQ and the FSIQ were applied, the WMS might be relatively insensitive to memory impairment in this low‐IQ clinical population, in which more numerous cases of impairment could be expected. Principal components analysis of the WMS raw scores and three WAIS‐R scores included as reference variables yielded five orthogonal factors: Attention/Concentration; Visual Reproductions; New Verbal Learning; Well‐learned Semantic Knowledge; and Intelligence. We argue that raw scores on the WMS should be reported to optimize possible diagnostic specificity and to align the WMS with experimental and clinical research in various types of memory functioning and impairment.

show abstract

“…Despite these methodological concerns, results of the combined administration studies are consistent with those from test-retest investigations because the WAIS-R consistently yielded lower IQs than the WAIS, and the differences between IQs were somewhat larger for subjects with average intelligence (i.e., average Full Scale difference = 8.4; Lippold and Claiborn, 1983) than for subjects with high average (i.e., average Full Scale difference = 3.8; Mitchell et al, 1986) intelligence.…”

Section: Combined Administration Designsmentioning

confidence: 52%

On the Comparability of the Wais and Wais-R: Review of the Research and Implications for Clinical Practice

Ryan

Nowak

Geisser

1987

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of WAIS/WAIS-R comparison studies is presented. Three methodologies have been used to assess scale comparability: (a) test-retest; (b) combined administration; and (c) equivalent groups. Results indicated that the WAIS-R yielded lower IQs than the WAIS for normals and groups with psychiatric and/or neurological disorders. The median WAIS/WAIS-R discrepancies across studies were -6.6, -6.4, and -6.8 for the Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQs, respectively. However, it was noted that differences were larger for persons of average as opposed to bright normal or superior intelligence. The single investigation that utilized retarded subjects found the WAIS-R Verbal and Full Scale IQs to be higher than corresponding WAIS values. These results should alert clinicians to the possibility that different relationships may exist between WAIS and WAIS-R scores at different points on the intelligence distribution.During the past 20 years, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS; Wechsler, 1955) has been one of the tests most widely used with adults (Lubin, Larsen, & Matarazzo, 1984). This paper reviews studies that have examined the comparability of the WAIS and its revised successor (WAIS-R; Wechsler, 1981) in a variety of normal and clinical populations. METHODOLOGIES OF COMPARISONThree methodologies have been used to assess WAIS/WAIS-R differences: (a) test-retest; (b) combined administration; and (c) equivalent groups. In the first paradigm, subjects are administered the WAIS and WAIS-R in counterbalanced order. This method allows for an evaluation of practice effects as well as differences in level of performance across instruments. With the second approach, the scales are administered concurrently to eliminate practice effects. This methodology requires that half the sample take the WAIS with the unique WAIS-R items inserted in positions that correspond to their locations on the original form. The remaining subjects are given the WAIS-R with unique WAIS items inserted in their appropriate locations. Items common to both scales are scored according to the standards for each test. The last strategy requires the identification of two samples matched on variables such as age, education, ability level, and/or diagnosis. One group is administered the WAIS and the other the WAIS-R according to standard instrucAddress reprint requests to Joseph J. Ryan, 116B,

show abstract

Comparison of the WAIS and the WAIS—R in the upper ranges of IQ.

Cited by 6 publications

References 4 publications

Comparison of the WAIS and WAIS—R: Different results for different IQ groups.

Comparison of the WAIS and WAIS—R: Different results for different IQ groups.

The psychometric structure of the Wechsler memory scale in comparison to the WAIS-R in a low-IQ clinical population

On the Comparability of the Wais and Wais-R: Review of the Research and Implications for Clinical Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About