Factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised.

Abstract

The construct validity of family therapists' assessments of client functioning was evaluated with data collected in a clinical setting (N = 1,165). The assessments were provided by the therapists in the context of the intake interview. The convergent and discriminant validities of various dimensions of client functioning were evaluated through analyses conducted within the therapist-generated judgments and with data collected directly from clients. The analyses were generally supportive of the construct validity of the assessments. A factor analysis of the client functioning data also is reported.This study provides information relevant to the construct validity of interview-based clinical assessments of family functioning. The assessments were provided by a sample of experienced family therapists as part of the routine intake process.It is important to recognize that most assessments carried out in clinical and counseling settings derive from the interview conducted with the client at intake by the professional involved in providing the intervention. These interviews sometimes are based on a standardized format and sometimes not. Further, the interviews sometimes are supplemented with test scores or other information collected outside the interview, although, in most cases, the assessment is based solely on information and observations collected within the interview itself.

A literature review of factor analytic studies of the WAIS-R

“…These coefficients were quite high and ranged from .87 (for the Perceptual Organization factor of the incarcerated sample) to .99 (for the Verbal Comprehension factor of the one medical and two inpatient psychiatric samples). In sum, it appears that the two-factor solutions for the WAIS-R are quite similar across diverse samples of individuals, and, as also may be seen in the data from Silverstein (1982) shown at the extreme left of Table 2, they are not too different from the twofactor solution of the earlier WAIS.…”

“…It is unfortunate that Doherty (personal communication), whose two-factor solution is .28 presented in Table 2, did not provide a three-factor solution for her neurological patient sample, inasmuch as in studies of Wechsler's earlier scales such a brain-impaired sample appeared to provide further corroboration for a third factor (Matarazzo, 1972). The results in Table 3 suggest that despite some of the minor inconsistencies across ages (Parker, 1983;Silverstein, 1982), populations sampled, and statistical techniques, evidence converges, when one reviews the aggregate of all of the studies of each of Wechsler's scales, of a third, Memory/Freedom from Distractibility factor. As illustrated in Table 3, which includes the Kaufman (1975) WISC-R data for comparative purposes, this consistency is demonstrated across ages (6% years to 74 years) and across various sampled populations.…”

Historical increase in the number of factors measured by commercial tests of cognitive ability: Are we overfactoring?

“…structure of the test with some authors espousing one factor solutions (O'Grady, 1983), others two factors (Silverstein, 1982), and still others three factors (Naglieri & Kaufman, 1983;Parker, 1983). Based upon findings from the latter studies, authors of the most recent revision, the WAIS-III, decided to add three subtests in an attempt to clarify potential second, third, and fourth factors (Wechsler, 1997a,b).…”

How neuroscience can inform the study of individual differences in cognitive abilities

“…Applied to mental abilities testing, this view suggests that models should focus on content rather than process. Earlier, models of human abilities were based on content-related factors such as verbal and visual-spatial abilities (Silverstein, 1982). More recently there has been a trend toward models emphasizing cognitive processes such as speed of information processing and working memory (Benson et al, 2010; Ward et al, 2012).…”