WISC-IV and Clinical Validation of the Four- and Five-Factor Interpretative Approaches
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the constructs measured by the WISC-IV and the consistency of measurement across large normative and clinical samples. Competing higher order four- and five-factor models were analyzed using the WISC-IV normative sample and clinical subjects. The four-factor solution is the model published with the test manual. In the five-factor model, the POI differentiated into a visual-spatial factor (consisting of Block Design and Picture Completion) and a fluid reasoning factor (consisting of Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts, with and Arithmetic). The five-factor solution included Inductive Reasoning (IR), consisting of Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts, as a narrow ability subsumed under the FRI (Gf). When all 15 WISC-IV subtests were considered, both four- and five-factor models were suitable and showed close model-data fit. Further, both models generally demonstrated full factorial invariance between clinical and nonclinical samples. Interpretation of the fifth factor is discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.64 · Cited by 4,734 · see citing works
Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies
Carroll, J. B. (1993) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571312 · Cited by 4,121 · see citing works
Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., Bunting, M. F., Therriault, D. J., & Minkoff, S. R. B. (2002) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(01)00096-4 · Cited by 1,108 · see citing works
TEACHER’S CORNER: Testing Measurement Invariance of Second-Order Factor Models
Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1203_7 · Cited by 1,032 · see citing works
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., & Conway, A. R. A. (2005) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.66 · Cited by 545 · see citing works
Watkins, M. W., Wilson, S. M., Kotz, K. M., Carbone, M. C., & Babula, T. (2006) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164406288168 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Karr, J. E., Areshenkoff, C. N., Rast, P., Hofer, S. M., Iverson, G. L., & Garcia-Barrera, M. A. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000160 · Cited by 637 · see citing works
Reynolds, M. R., & Keith, T. Z. (2017) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.02.005 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Self-citationFactor Structure of the 10 WISC-V Primary Subtests Across Four Standardization Age Groups
Dombrowski, S. C., Canivez, G. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2018) · Contemporary School Psychology · doi:10.1007/s40688-017-0125-2 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Canivez, G. L., McGill, R. J., Dombrowski, S. C., Watkins, M. W., Pritchard, A. E., & Jacobson, L. A. (2020) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191118811609 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Construct Validity of the WISC–IV<sup>UK</sup>With a Large Referred Irish Sample
Watkins, M. W., Canivez, G. L., James, T., James, K., & Good, R. (2013) · International Journal of School & Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/21683603.2013.794439 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Structural Validity of the WISC-IV for Students With Learning Disabilities
Styck, K. M., & Watkins, M. W. (2016) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/0022219414539565 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Testing Spearman's hypotheses using a bi-factor model with WAIS-IV/WMS-IV standardization data
Frisby, C. L., & Beaujean, A. A. (2015) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.04.007 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Structural Validity of the WISC-IV for Students With ADHD
Styck, K. M., & Watkins, M. W. (2017) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054714553052 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Chen, H., Zhu, J., Liao, Y.-K., & Keith, T. Z. (2020) · Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · doi:10.1177/0734282920930542 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationMcGill, R. J., Dombrowski, S. C., & Canivez, G. L. (2025) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.23457 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“More concerning, Canivez and Kush (2013) noted that the final validation model retained by Weiss et al. (2013) also contained a second ‐ order standardized loading of 1.0 between g and Fluid Reasoning indicating that these dimensions are statistically isomorphic.”
Influential
- Authors
- Weiss, L. G., Keith, T. Z., Zhu, J., & Chen, H.
- Affiliations
- Pearson Clinical Assessment, San Antonio, TX, USA
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- National Taiwan Normal University (TW)
- Venue
- Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-03-21
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 114-131
- ISSN
- 0734-2829 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-5144
- OpenAlex
- W4241309985
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 11
- FWCI
- 18.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- WISC-IV, factor structure, Big Five personality traits, four-factor model, fluid reasoning, inductive reasoning, visuospatial ability, processing speed, measurement invariance
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
