Construct validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth UK Edition with a referred Irish sample: Wechsler and Cattell–Horn–Carroll model comparisons with 15 subtests

Abstract

These results were similar to those from other investigations, further demonstrating the replication of the WISC-IV factor structure across cultures and the importance of focusing primary interpretation on the FSIQ.

Construct validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale For Children – FifthUKEdition: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the 16 primary and secondary subtests

“…Thus, Model 4a bifactor (Figure ) appears the best model to represent WISC‐V UK measurement despite the weak standardized path coefficients of PC on PR and PSpan on WM. Model 4a bifactor did not manifest any negative standardized path coefficients or negative variance estimates and was consistent with CFA results from the WISC‐IV (Canivez, Watkins, Good, et al ., ; Watkins et al ., ) as well as the current EFA results from the WISC‐V UK .…”

“…These EFA, CFA, and model‐based reliability results are not unique to the WISC‐V or WISC‐V UK nor to national standardization samples. Similar results have been observed in studies of the WISC‐IV (Bodin, Pardini, Burns, & Stevens, ; Canivez, ; Gomez, Vance, & Watson, ; Keith, ; Styck & Watkins, ; Watkins, , ) and with other Wechsler scales (Canivez & Watkins, ; Canivez, Watkins, Good, et al ., ; Gignac, , ; Golay & Lecerf, ; McGill & Canivez, , ; Watkins & Beaujean, ; Watkins et al ., ). Nor are these results unique to Wechsler scales as similar findings have been reported with other cognitive scales (Canivez, , ; Canivez, Konold, Collins, & Wilson, ; Canivez & McGill, ; Cucina & Howardson, ; DiStefano & Dombrowski, ; Dombrowski, ; Dombrowski, McGill, & Canivez, ; Dombrowski & Watkins, ; Dombrowski et al ., ; Dombrowski, McGill, et al ., ; Nelson & Canivez, ; Strickland, Watkins, & Caterino, ).…”

“…The WISC‐V UK , as presented in the WISC‐V UK Administration and Scoring Manual, appears to be overfactored (Beaujean & Benson, ; Frazier & Youngstrom, ) and the robust replication of previous EFA and CFA findings from the US WISC‐V (Canivez et al ., ; Canivez, Watkins, et al ., ; Canivez, Watkins, Good, et al ., Canivez et al ., ; Dombrowski et al ., ), Canadian WISC‐V (Watkins et al ., ), French WISC‐V (Lecerf & Canivez, ), and Spanish WISC‐V (Fennollar‐Cortés & Watkins, ) further support that conclusion. The attempt to divide the PR factor into separate VS and FR factors appears to have been unsuccessful and therefore standard scores and comparisons for FRI scores are potentially misleading.…”

“…To date, there are no extant studies, technical supplements, or technical manuals providing EFA or CFA information with the WISC‐IV UK or WISC‐V UK standardization samples (Wechsler, , ). Only two studies have examined the latent factor structure of the WISC‐IV UK , and both applied CFA to data from Irish children referred for evaluation of learning difficulties (Canivez, Watkins, Good, James, & James, ; Watkins, Canivez, James, Good, & James, ). In the first study, Watkins et al .…”

“…() analysed the 10 core subtests and found a four‐factor structure (VC, PR, WM, PS). In the second study (Canivez, Watkins, Good, et al ., ), all 15 WISC‐IV UK subtests were analysed to allow a comparison of CHC‐based models with five factors to Wechsler‐based models with four factors. Meaningful differences in fit were not observed between the CHC and Wechsler representations, leading the researchers to favour the more parsimonious Wechsler model.…”