Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic studies were not reported in the Technical Manual for the Woodcock-Johnson, 4th ed. Cognitive (WJ IV Cognitive; Schrank, McGrew, & Mather, 2014b) Instead, the internal structure of the WJ IV Cognitive was extrapolated from analyses based on the full WJ IV test battery (Schrank, McGrew, & Mather, 2014b). Even if the veracity of extrapolating from the WJ IV full battery were accepted, there were shortcomings in the choices of analyses used and only limited information regarding those analyses was presented in the WJ IV Technical Manual (McGrew, Laforte, & Shrank, 2014). The present study examined the structure of the WJ IV Cognitive using exploratory factor analysis procedures (principal axis factoring with oblique [promax] rotation followed by application of the Schmid-Leiman, 1957, procedure) applied to standardization sample correlation matrices for 2 school age groups (ages 9-13; 14-19). Four factors emerged for both the 9-13 and 14-19 age groups in contrast to the publisher's proposed 7 factors. Results of these analyses indicated a robust manifestation of general intelligence (g) that exceeded the variance attributed to the lower-order factors. Model-based reliability estimates supported interpretation of the higher-order factor (i.e., g). Additional analyses were conducted by forcing extraction of the 7 theoretically posited factors; however, the resulting solution was only partially aligned (i.e., Gs, Gwm) with the theoretical structure promoted in the Technical Manual and suggested the preeminence of the higher-order factor. Results challenge the hypothesized structure of the WJ IV Cognitive and raise concerns about its alignment with Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract

Decision-makers in school psychology are presently engaged in the process of determining how to, if possible, move forward with conducting mandated psychoeducational evaluations of students in schools during the pandemic. Whereas prominent organizations within the profession (e.g., American Psychological Association, National Association of School Psychologists) have issued guidance and encouraged practitioners to delay testing, it is not clear whether that is a viable option in every jurisdiction. Accordingly, professionals are now considering the potential use of telehealth platforms to conduct assessments, in some form, as we move forward and deal with this crisis. The goal of this brief commentary is to raise some provisional limitations associated with the use of telehealth to conduct psychological assessments that we believe will have to be considered as use of these platforms is debated. Recommendations for professional practice are also provided.