Cited by 174Psychological Testing and AssessmentHistorical and Modern Theater StudiesCognitive Abilities and Testing

Sensitivity and specificity of WAIS–III/WMS–III demographically corrected factor scores in neuropsychological assessment

TAYLOR, MICHAEL J., HEATON, ROBERT K.·2001·Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society

Abstract

This study explored the neurodiagnostic utility of 6 factor scores identified by recent exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the WAIS–III and WMS–III: Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Organization, Processing Speed, Working Memory, Auditory Memory and Visual Memory. Factor scores were corrected for age, education, sex and ethnicity to minimize their influences on diagnostic accuracy. Cut-offs at 1, 1.5 and 2 standard deviations (SD s) below the standardization sample mean were applied to data from the overlapping test normative samples (N = 1073) and 6 clinical samples described in the WAIS–III/WMS–III Technical Manual (N = 126). The analyses suggest that a 1 SD cut-off yields the most balanced levels of sensitivity and specificity; more strict (1.5 or 2 SD) cut-offs generally result in trading modest gains in specificity for larger losses in sensitivity. Finally, using combinations of WAIS–III/WMS–III factors together as test batteries, we explored the sensitivity and specificity implications of varying diagnostic decision rules (e.g., 1 vs. 2 impaired factors = “impairment”). For most of the disorders considered here, even a small (e.g., 3 factor) WAIS–III/WMS–III battery provides quite good overall diagnostic accuracy. (JINS, 2001, 7, 867–874.)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1355617701777107

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
TAYLOR, M. J., & HEATON, R. K.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
Published
2001-11
Volume
7
Issue
7
Pages
867-874
ISSN
  • 1355-6177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7661
OpenAlex
W2139390659
Cited by
174
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
WAIS-III, WMS-III, factor scores, sensitivity and specificity, diagnostic accuracy, cut-off values, verbal comprehension, perceptual organization, processing speed, working memory, auditory memory, visual memory, neuropsychological assessment, diagnostic decision rules, cognitive impairment diagnosis
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Brain Damage, Chronic, Brain Diseases, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Mental Recall, Reference Standards, Wechsler Scales, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review