Factor Structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children-Fourth Edition Among Referred Native American Students

Abstract

i ABSTRACTThe Native American population is severely underrepresented in empirical test validity research despite being overrepresented in special education programs and at an increased risk for special educational evaluation. This study is the first to investigate the structural validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children -Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) with a Native American sample. The structural validity of the WISC-IV was investigated using the core subtest scores of 176, six-to-sixteen-year-old Native American children referred for a psychoeducational evaluation. The exploratory factor analysis procedures reported in the WISC-IV technical manual were replicated with the current sample. Congruence coefficients were used to measure the similarity between the derived factor structure and the normative factor structure. The Schmid-Leiman orthogonalization procedure was used to study the role of the higher-order general ability factor. Results support the structural validity of the first-order and higherorder factors of the WISC-IV within this sample. The normative first-order factor structure was replicated in this sample, and the Schmid-Leiman procedure identified a higher-order general ability factor that accounted for the greatest amount of common variance (70%) and total variance (37%). The results support the structural validity of the WISC-IV within a referred Native American sample.

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

“…However, the WISC–IV UK factor structure identified by Watkins et al . () with the Irish sample was consistent with results from other WISC–IV studies using both EFA and CFA (Bodin, Pardini, Burns, & Stevens, ; Canivez, ; Keith, ; Nakano & Watkins, ; Styck & Watkins, ; Watkins, , ; Watkins, Wilson, Kotz, Carbone, & Babula, ), with other versions of Wechsler scales (Canivez & Watkins, ,b; Dombrowski, McGill, & Canivez, ; Gignac, , ; Golay & Lecerf, ; Golay, Reverte, Rossier, Favez, & Lecerf, ; Lecerf, Rossier, Favez, Reverte, & Coleaux, ; McGill & Canivez, ; Nelson, Canivez, & Watkins, ; Niileksela, Reynolds, & Kaufman, ; Watkins & Beaujean, ), and intelligence tests in general (Canivez, , ; Canivez, Konold, Collins, & Wilson, ; Canivez & McGill, ; DiStefano & Dombrowski, ; Dombrowski, , ,b; Dombrowski & Watkins, ; Dombrowski, Watkins, & Brogan, ; Nelson & Canivez, ; Nelson, Canivez, Lindstrom, & Hatt, ) in showing the largest portions of variance were captured by the g factor and small portions of variance were associated with group factors. Three recent studies of the WISC–V have also yielded identical results (Canivez, Watkins, & Dombrowski, , ; Dombrowski, Canivez, Watkins, & Beaujean, ) with general intelligence dominating explained common variance and little unique explained common variance among the group factors.…”

“…It was noted that such results were difficult to place in context as no other studies of the WISC-IV UK factor structure with British (normative or clinical) or Irish samples were available for comparison. Further, because only the 10 WISC-IV UK core subtests were used (archival data), it was not possible to examine rival structural models based on the Cattell-Horn-Carroll framework (CHC; McGrew, 1997McGrew, , 2005Schneider & McGrew, 2012 However, the WISC-IV UK factor structure identified by Watkins et al (2013) with the Irish sample was consistent with results from other WISC-IV studies using both EFA and CFA (Bodin, Pardini, Burns, & Stevens, 2009;Canivez, 2014;Keith, 2005;Nakano & Watkins, 2013;Styck & Watkins, 2016;Watkins, 2006Watkins, , 2010Watkins, Wilson, Kotz, Carbone, & Babula, 2006), with other versions of Wechsler scales (Canivez & Watkins, 2010a,b;Dombrowski, McGill, & Canivez, 2017;Gignac, 2005Gignac, , 2006Golay & Lecerf, 2011;Golay, Reverte, Rossier, Favez, & Lecerf, 2013;Lecerf, Rossier, Favez, Reverte, & Coleaux, 2010;Nelson, Canivez, & Watkins, 2013;Niileksela, Reynolds, & Kaufman, 2013;Watkins & Beaujean, 2014), and intelligence tests in general (Canivez, 2008(Canivez, , 2011Canivez, Konold, Collins, & Wilson, 2009;DiStefano & Dombrowski, 2006;Dombrowski, 2013Dombrowski, , 2014aDombrowski & Watkins, 2013;Dombrowski, Watkins, & Brogan, 2009;Nelson & Canivez, 2012;Nelson, Canivez, Lindstrom, & Hatt, 2007) in showing the largest portions of ...…”

“…Numerous studies of Wechsler scales and other intelligence tests have consistently found that the greatest portions of total and common variance are apportioned to or associated with the g factor, which is estimated by the Full Scale score, and much smaller portions of total and common variance are apportioned to the first‐order or group dimensions, estimated by the respective factor index scores (or CHC‐based composites). This has been documented in both EFA and CFA studies of the WISC–IV (Bodin et al ., ; Canivez, ; Keith, ; Nakano & Watkins, ; Styck & Watkins, ; Watkins, , ; Watkins et al ., ) and with other versions of Wechsler scales (Canivez & Watkins, ,b; Canivez et al ., , ; Dombrowski et al ., ; Golay & Lecerf, ; Golay et al ., ; Gignac, , ; Lecerf et al ., ; McGill & Canivez, ; Watkins & Beaujean, ; Watkins et al ., ). Further, these results are not unique to Wechsler scales as similar results were also observed with the DAS–II (Canivez & McGill, ), SB5 (Canivez, ), WASI and WRIT (Canivez et al ., ), RIAS (Dombrowski et al ., ; Nelson & Canivez, ; Nelson et al ., ), CAS (Canivez, ), WJ III (Dombrowski, , ,b; Dombrowski & Watkins, ; Strickland, Watkins, & Caterino, ), and the WJ IV Cognitive (Dombrowski et al ., ).…”

Validez Estructural de la Escala Wechsler de Inteligencia para Niños-IV en Estudiantes Indígenas de México

“…Las investigaciones posteriores sobre este tema se realizaron con la Escala de Inteligencia de Wechsler para Niños-Tercera Edición (WISC-III; Wechsler, 1991) y la WISC-IV (Wechsler, 2003). Utilizaron el AFC y los resultados indicaron un buen ajuste de las estructuras factoriales de estas escalas a los datos observados (Kush & Watkins, 2007;Nakano & Watkins, 2013). Kush y Watkins (2007) analizaron la validez estructural de la WISC-III en una muestra de 344 alumnos y alumnas de educación especial de distintas etnias nativo americanas.…”

“…Por un lado, la validez de esta versión se determinó en una muestra de estandarización que no incluyó a los grupos indígenas (Fina et al, 2012) y, por otro lado, no existe ninguna publicación sobre este tema realizada con muestras de niños y niñas indígenas de México. Las investigaciones que han obtenido evidencia de validez de constructo a través de análisis de la estructura interna de las escalas Wechsler en nativo americanos se han realizado en Estados Unidos, con las versiones originales de estas escalas y con muestras de indígenas de ese país (Kush & Watkins, 2007;McShane & Plas, 1982;Nakano & Watkins, 2013;Reschly, 1978;Zarske et al, 1981). Esta falta de evidencia sobre la validez de constructo de la WISC-IV en muestras de indígenas de México pone en duda si esta escala está midiendo las mismas capacidades intelectuales en este alumnado que en aquel que formó parte del estudio de validación de la versión de la WISC-IV para ese país, lo cual presenta consecuencias importantes en la interpretación de las puntuaciones en estas poblaciones infantiles y en las orientaciones psicoeducativas que se pueden derivar.…”