Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--Fourth Edition

Petermann, Franz; Wechsler, David

doi:10.1037/t15169-000

Cited by 2,768 publications

(3,148 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

3,070

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The finding that WISC-IV Working Memory, and in particular the Letter-Number Sequencing subtest, did not appear sensitive to the effects of TBI is disappointing and contrasts with the findings of this subtest on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III; Wechsler, 1997) in adults with TBI (Donders et al, 2001). The reason for this difference may be that this subtest simply does not measure the same latent construct in children with TBI as it does in adult patients with TBI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criterion validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition after pediatric traumatic brain injury

Donders

Janke

2008

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of 40 children with complicated mild to severe traumatic brain injury on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2003) was compared with that of 40 demographically matched healthy controls. Of the four WISC-IV factor index scores, only Processing Speed yielded a statistically significant group difference ( p , .001) as well as a statistically significant negative correlation with length of coma ( p , .01). Logistic regression, using Processing Speed to classify individual children, yielded a sensitivity of 72.50% and a specificity of 62.50%, with false positive and false negative rates both exceeding 30%. We conclude that Processing Speed has acceptable criterion validity in the evaluation of children with complicated mild to severe traumatic brain injury but that the WISC-IV should be supplemented with other measures to assure sufficient accuracy in the diagnostic process. (JINS, 2008, 14, 651-655.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criterion validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition after pediatric traumatic brain injury

Donders

Janke

2008

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Average levels of within-person variability and of 10-year cross-sectional age differences for four cognitive abilities scaled in between-person standard deviation units. Picture vocabulary Name pictured objects Woodcock & Johnson (1990) Synonym vocabulary Select the best synonym of the target word Salthouse (1993) Antonym vocabulary Select the best antonym of the target word Salthouse (1993) Matrix reasoning Select the best completion of the missing cell in a matrix of geometric patterns Raven (1962) Shipley abstraction Select the best continuation of a series of items Zachary (1986) Letter sets Select the set of letters that does not belong with the others Ekstrom, French, Harman, & Dermen (1976) Spatial relations Determine which three-dimensional object matches the two-dimensional drawing Bennett, Seashore, & Wesman (1997) Paper folding Determine which pattern of holes would result from the paper being folded and a hole being punched in the designated location Ekstrom et al (1976) Form boards Determine which pieces are needed to assemble a target shape Ekstrom et al (1976) Word recall Listen to 12 unrelated words, recall as many as possible in any order, and repeat for four trials Wechsler (1997b) Logical memory Listen to a story and recall as much as possible Wechsler (1997b) Paired associates Listen to 6 pairs of unrelated words and recall the second member of the pair when presented with the first Salthouse, Fristoe, & Rhee (1996) Digit symbol Use a code table to substitute as many symbols for digits as possible within 120 s Wechsler (1997a) Letter comparison Classify sets of letters as same or different as rapidly as possible Salthouse & Babcock (1991) Pattern comparison Classify sets of line patterns as same or different as rapidly as possible Salthouse & Babcock (1991) Note. Every participant had a mean and a standard deviation for each variable across the three sessions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of within-person variability in cognitive and neuropsychological functioning for the interpretation of change.

Salthouse

2007

Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Samples of adults across a wide age range performed a battery of 16 cognitive tests in 3 sessions within an interval of approximately 2 weeks. Estimates of within-person variability across the 3 assessments were relatively large and were equivalent in magnitude to the cross-sectional age differences expected over an interval of 15-25 years. These findings raise questions about the precision of assessments based on a single measurement and imply that it may be difficult to distinguish true change from short-term fluctuation. Because there were large individual differences in the magnitude of this variability, it is proposed that change might be most meaningfully expressed in units of each individual's own across-session variability. Keywords cognition; aging; longitudinal change; measurement burstSeveral recent articles have reported the existence of substantial within-person variability in performance on the same cognitive and neuropsychological tests across multiple occasions. To illustrate, in studies by Salthouse and colleagues, the within-person (across-session) standard deviation averaged about 50% of the between-person standard deviation for a variety of different cognitive variables (e.g., Nesselroade & Salthouse, 2004;Salthouse & Berish, 2005;Salthouse, Nesselroade, & Berish, 2006). This phenomenon of sizable within-person variability is interesting for at least three reasons. First, measures of within-person variability could have unique diagnostic significance compared with measures of central tendency. That is, how much a person's performance varies around his or her average level on a specific test could be an early predictor of impending change to a different level of functioning. Consistent with this interpretation are several reports of significant relations between measures of within-person variability and neurological status (e.g., Burton, Strauss, Hultsch, Moll, & Hunter, 2006;Hultsch, MacDonald, Hunter, Levy-Bencheton, & Strauss, 2000;Murtha, Cismaru, Waechter, & Chertkow, 2002;Strauss, MacDonald, Hunter, Moll, & Hultsch, 2002) and even risk of death (Shipley, Der, Taylor, & Deary, 2006).A second reason why within-person variability is important is that it suggests that single assessments may not be sufficient for accurate evaluation of an individual if another assessment with the same test could lead to a different level of performance and, possibly, to a different diagnostic classification. Little is currently known about the potential impact of this type of problem, but it will likely depend on both the magnitude of the variability and the range of variables that exhibit within-person variability.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Timothy A. Salthouse, Department of Psychology, 102 Gilmer Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4400.. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptNeuropsychology. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 November 25. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptA third reason why the phenom...

show abstract

“…Intelligence was assessed longitudinally using the Revised Amsterdam Children Intelligence Test (RAKIT 20 ), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC [21][22][23] ), Raven's Standard and Advanced Progressive Matrices (SPM, APM 24,25 ), and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS 26,27 ), the choice of test being largely dependent on participants' age. A previous study employing the same data set demonstrated a high genetic stability of intelligence scores as assessed by the different tests (the autoregressive coefficients between the additive genetic factors at consecutive measurement occasions ranging from 0.8 to 1).…”

Section: Phenotype Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Intelligence: shared genetic basis between Mendelian disorders and a polygenic trait

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple inquiries into the genetic etiology of human traits indicated an overlap between genes underlying monogenic disorders (eg, skeletal growth defects) and those affecting continuous variability of related quantitative traits (eg, height). Extending the idea of a shared genetic basis between a Mendelian disorder and a classic polygenic trait, we performed an association study to examine the effect of 43 genes implicated in autosomal recessive cognitive disorders on intelligence in an unselected Dutch population (N = 1316). Using both single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-and gene-based association testing, we detected an association between intelligence and the genes of interest, with genes ELP2, TMEM135, PRMT10, and RGS7 showing the strongest associations. This is a demonstration of the relevance of genes implicated in monogenic disorders of intelligence to normal-range intelligence, and a corroboration of the utility of employing knowledge on monogenic disorders in identifying the genetic variability underlying complex traits.

show abstract

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--Fourth Edition

Cited by 2,768 publications

References 0 publications

Criterion validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition after pediatric traumatic brain injury

Criterion validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition after pediatric traumatic brain injury

Implications of within-person variability in cognitive and neuropsychological functioning for the interpretation of change.

Intelligence: shared genetic basis between Mendelian disorders and a polygenic trait

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About