Cited by 39Cognitive Abilities and TestingPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

A cross-cultural comparison between South African and British students on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales Third Edition (WAIS-III)

Open access
Cockcroft, Kate, Alloway, Tracy, Copello, Evan, Milligan, Robyn·2015·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

There is debate regarding the appropriate use of Western cognitive measures with individuals from very diverse backgrounds to that of the norm population. Given the dated research in this area and the considerable socio-economic changes that South Africa has witnessed over the past 20 years, this paper reports on the use of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Third Edition (WAIS-III), the most commonly used measure of intelligence, with an English second language, multilingual, low socio-economic group of black, South African university students. Their performance on the WAIS-III was compared to that of a predominantly white, British, monolingual, higher socio-economic group. A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis showed that the WAIS-III lacks measurement invariance between the two groups, suggesting that it may be tapping different constructs in each group. The UK group significantly outperformed the SA group on the knowledge-based verbal, and some non-verbal subtests, while the SA group performed significantly better on measures of Processing Speed (PS). The groups did not differ significantly on the Matrix Reasoning subtest and on those working memory subtests with minimal reliance on language, which appear to be the least culturally biased. Group differences were investigated further in a set of principal components analyses, which revealed that the WAIS-III scores loaded differently for the UK and SA groups. While the SA group appeared to treat the PS subtests differently to those measuring perceptual organization and non-verbal reasoning, the UK group seemed to approach all of these subtests similarly. These results have important implications for the cognitive assessment of individuals from culturally, linguistically, and socio-economically diverse circumstances.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00297

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

20 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Carpenter P. A. Just M. A. Shell P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: a theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Psychol. Rev. 97 404– 431 10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.404 2381998 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Kaufman A. S. (1994). Intelligent Testing With the WISC-III. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  3. Kline R. B. (1998). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling. New York: The Guilford Press.
  4. Lezak M. D. Howieson D. B. Loring D. W. (2004). Neuropychological Assessment, 4th Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Maloka E. (2013). The Fruits of Freedom South African History Online. http://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/chapter-4-fruits-freedom [accessed April 15, 2014].
  6. Turkheimer E. Haley A. Waldron M. D’Onofrio B. Gottesman I. I. (2003). Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychol. Sci. 14 623– 628 10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci-1475.x 14629696 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cockcroft, K., Alloway, T., Copello, E., & Milligan, R.
Affiliations
  • University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
  • University of North Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Cockcroft, Kate
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2015-03-13
Volume
6
Pages
297-297
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2027682326
Cited by
39
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of North Florida Digital Commons (University of North Florida) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
WAIS-III, measurement invariance, cross-cultural comparison, intelligence testing, South African students, British students, low socioeconomic status, multilingualism, English as a second language, processing speed, working memory, nonverbal reasoning, matrix reasoning, perceptual organization

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