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

Abstract

The present study examined the factor structure of the Differential Ability Scales–Second Edition (DAS-II) core subtests from the standardization sample via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using methods (bifactor modeling and variance partitioning) and procedures (robust model estimation due to nonnormal subtest score distributions) recommended but not included in the DAS-II Introductory and Technical Handbook. CFAs were conducted with the three DAS-II standardization sample age groups (lower early years [age = 2:6–3:5 years], upper early years [age = 3:6–6:11 years], school age [7:0–17:11 years]) using standardization sample raw data provided by NCS Pearson, Inc. Although most DAS-II core subtests were properly associated with the theoretically proposed group factors, both the higher order and bifactor models indicated that the g factor accounted for large portions of total and common variance, whereas the group factors (Verbal, Nonverbal, Spatial) accounted for small portions of total and common variance. The DAS-II core battery provides strong measurement of general intelligence, and clinical interpretation should be primarily, if not exclusively, at that level.

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

“…These German WISC-V results are not unique and quite similar to EFA and CFA results observed in studies of the WISC-IV (Bodin et al, 2009; Canivez, 2014; Keith, 2005; Styck & Watkins, 2016; Watkins, 2006, 2010; Watkins et al, 2006) and with other Wechsler scale versions (Canivez & Watkins, 2010a, 2010b; Canivez, Watkins, Good, et al, 2017; Gignac, 2005, 2006; Golay et al, 2013; Golay & Lecerf, 2011; Lecerf & Canivez, 2018; McGill & Canivez, 2016, 2018; Nelson et al, 2013; Watkins & Beaujean, 2014; Watkins et al, 2013). The present results showing dominance of g variance and small portions of group factor variance are also not unique to Wechsler scales as similar results have also been observed with the Woodcock–Johnson III (Cucina & Howardson, 2016; Dombrowski, 2013, 2014a, 2014b; Dombrowski & Watkins, 2013; Strickland et al, 2015), the Woodcock–Johnson IV Cognitive and full battery (Dombrowski et al, 2017; Dombrowski, McGill, et al, 2018a, 2018b), the Differential Ability Scale (DAS; Cucina & Howardson, 2016), the DAS–II (Canivez et al, 2020; Canivez & McGill, 2016; Dombrowski et al, 2019), the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (Cucina & Howardson, 2016), the KABC (Cucina & Howardson, 2016), the SB5 (Canivez, 2008), the WASI and WRIT (Canivez et al, 2009), and the RIAS (Dombrowski et al, 2009; Nelson & Canivez, 2012, Nelson et al, 2007).…”

Verbal and non-verbal skills in early childhood: dimensionality, developmental trajectories, and gender differences

“…Such findings challenge the idea that cognitive functioning is purely domain-specific or entirely influenced by a single underlying "g" factor, suggesting that interrelationships between cognitive skills should be considered. For example, the Differential Ability Scales (DAS) structure organizes cognitive functioning into a hierarchy of clusters representing distinct cognitive skills (Elliott, 2001;Gordon and Elliott, 2001;Canivez et al, 2020). These clusters appear interrelated but become more distinct when the child develops.…”

“…The validity studies of DAS II, including both clinical and non-clinical populations, indicated a satisfactory concurrent validity of the measure, ranging from moderate to high, as indicated by the correlation coefficients to other measures of intelligence ranging between r = 0.59 and r = 0.88 (Dumont et al, 2009). The structural validity of the DAS II was investigated using the standardization sample and both higher-order and bi-factor models indicated that the g factor accounted for large portions of total and common variance (Canivez et al, 2020). However, more is needed to know about the validity and test fairness of the latest version, BAS 3.…”

“…Despite extensive research on cognitive assessments (e.g., Kotz et al, 2008;Canivez et al, 2020), the psychometric properties of verbal and non-verbal measurements have often been insufficiently explored, particularly across gender in the Norwegian context. Investigating the consistency of cognitive assessments across genders is essential in identifying eventual measurement bias and allows for addressing potential inequalities.…”