Construct Validity of the WISC-V in Clinical Cases: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the 10 Primary Subtests

Abstract

Independent exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) research with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition (WISC-V) standardization sample has failed to provide support for the five group factors proposed by the publisher, but there have been no independent examinations of the WISC-V structure among clinical samples. The present study examined the latent structure of the 10 WISC-V primary subtests with a large ( N = 2,512), bifurcated clinical sample (EFA, n = 1,256; CFA, n = 1,256). EFA did not support five factors as there were no salient subtest factor pattern coefficients on the fifth extracted factor. EFA indicated a four-factor model resembling the WISC-IV with a dominant general factor. A bifactor model with four group factors was supported by CFA as suggested by EFA. Variance estimates from both EFA and CFA found that the general intelligence factor dominated subtest variance and omega-hierarchical coefficients supported interpretation of the general intelligence factor. In both EFA and CFA, group factors explained small portions of common variance and produced low omega-hierarchical subscale coefficients, indicating that the group factors were of poor interpretive value.

Construct Validity of the German Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the 15 Primary and Secondary Subtests

“…Also, these studies all showed inadequate portions of unique group factor variance apart from g necessary for confident interpretation of factor index scores, except, perhaps, for PS. These results were also observed in a large U.S. clinical sample (Canivez, McGill, et al, 2018).…”

“…Dombrowski et al (2015) also failed to find support for five-factors in the total U.S. WISC-V standardization sample using exploratory bifactor analysis through the bifactor rotation criterion (Jennrich & Bentler, 2011). Furthermore, EFA did not support five group factors with a large U.S. clinical sample (Canivez, McGill, et al, 2018). Recent independent research with the French WISC-V (Wechsler, 2016a) and the WISC-V U.K. edition (WISC-V UK ; Wechsler, 2016b) found identical EFA results supporting four first-order factors (not five), dominant general intelligence, and poor unique measurement of the four group factors (Canivez et al, 2019; Lecerf & Canivez, 2018).…”

Monte Carlo Modeling of Contemporary Intelligence Test (IQ) Factor Structure: Implications for IQ Assessment, Interpretation, and Theory

“…Their results suggested that a four bifactor model, consistent with their EFA results, had the best model fit. This same result was replicated by additional researchers who used both the normative data set and independent clinical samples (Canivez, McGill, et al, 2020; Canivez, Watkins, & Dombrowski, 2016; Dombrowski, Canivez, & Watkins, 2018).…”

Factor Structure of the Differential Ability Scales–Second Edition Core Subtests: Standardization Sample Confirmatory Factor Analyses

“…Finally, it should be noted that these results are not unique to the DAS-II. As a result, a host of independent CFA and EFA studies of other major tests of intelligence such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition (WISC-IV; Bodin et al, 2009; Canivez, 2014; Keith, 2005; Watkins, 2006, 2010; Watkins et al, 2006), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition (WISC-V; Canivez et al, 2016, 2017, 2020; Dombrowski, Canivez, & Watkins, 2017), Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV; Canivez & Watkins, 2010a, 2010b; Nelson et al, 2013), Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Fourth Edition (WPPSI-IV; Watkins & Beaujean, 2014), Woodcock-Johnson–Third Edition (WJ III; Cucina & Howardson, 2017; Dombrowski, 2013, 2014a, 2014b; Dombrowski & Watkins, 2013; Strickland et al, 2015), Woodcock-Johnson–Fourth Edition (WJ IV; Dombrowski, McGill, & Canivez, 2017, 2018a, 2018b), Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale: Fifth Edition (SB-5; Canivez, 2008; DiStefano & Dombrowski, 2006), Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC; Cucina & Howardson, 2017), Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children–Second Edition (KABC-2; McGill & Dombrowski, 2018), Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence (KAIT; Cucina & Howardson, 2017), and Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS; Dombrowski et al, 2009; Nelson & Canivez, 2012; Nelson et al, 2007) have reached similar conclusions about what commercial ability tests measure. We encourage practitioners to consider these results along with the psychometric meta-analysis conducted by Dombrowski, McGill, and Morgan (2019) when making decisions about how these measures should be interpreted and utilized in clinical practice.…”