Exploratory and hierarchical factor analysis of the WJ-IV Cognitive at school age.

Abstract

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

Construct validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth UK Edition with a referred Irish sample: Wechsler and Cattell–Horn–Carroll model comparisons with 15 subtests

“…However, the WISC–IV UK factor structure identified by Watkins et al . () with the Irish sample was consistent with results from other WISC–IV studies using both EFA and CFA (Bodin, Pardini, Burns, & Stevens, ; Canivez, ; Keith, ; Nakano & Watkins, ; Styck & Watkins, ; Watkins, , ; Watkins, Wilson, Kotz, Carbone, & Babula, ), with other versions of Wechsler scales (Canivez & Watkins, ,b; Dombrowski, McGill, & Canivez, ; Gignac, , ; Golay & Lecerf, ; Golay, Reverte, Rossier, Favez, & Lecerf, ; Lecerf, Rossier, Favez, Reverte, & Coleaux, ; McGill & Canivez, ; Nelson, Canivez, & Watkins, ; Niileksela, Reynolds, & Kaufman, ; Watkins & Beaujean, ), and intelligence tests in general (Canivez, , ; Canivez, Konold, Collins, & Wilson, ; Canivez & McGill, ; DiStefano & Dombrowski, ; Dombrowski, , ,b; Dombrowski & Watkins, ; Dombrowski, Watkins, & Brogan, ; Nelson & Canivez, ; Nelson, Canivez, Lindstrom, & Hatt, ) in showing the largest portions of variance were captured by the g factor and small portions of variance were associated with group factors. Three recent studies of the WISC–V have also yielded identical results (Canivez, Watkins, & Dombrowski, , ; Dombrowski, Canivez, Watkins, & Beaujean, ) with general intelligence dominating explained common variance and little unique explained common variance among the group factors.…”

“…This has been documented in both EFA and CFA studies of the WISC–IV (Bodin et al ., ; Canivez, ; Keith, ; Nakano & Watkins, ; Styck & Watkins, ; Watkins, , ; Watkins et al ., ) and with other versions of Wechsler scales (Canivez & Watkins, ,b; Canivez et al ., , ; Dombrowski et al ., ; Golay & Lecerf, ; Golay et al ., ; Gignac, , ; Lecerf et al ., ; McGill & Canivez, ; Watkins & Beaujean, ; Watkins et al ., ). Further, these results are not unique to Wechsler scales as similar results were also observed with the DAS–II (Canivez & McGill, ), SB5 (Canivez, ), WASI and WRIT (Canivez et al ., ), RIAS (Dombrowski et al ., ; Nelson & Canivez, ; Nelson et al ., ), CAS (Canivez, ), WJ III (Dombrowski, , ,b; Dombrowski & Watkins, ; Strickland, Watkins, & Caterino, ), and the WJ IV Cognitive (Dombrowski et al ., ). The implication of these consistent findings is that primary interpretive weight should be placed on the omnibus FSIQ rather than the first‐order group factor‐based index scores.…”

Re(Examining) Relations between CHC Broad and Narrow Cognitive Abilities and Reading Achievement

“…As noted long ago by Meehl (1990), one can only have confidence in a theory when it has been subjected to a "risky" empirical test, with due consideration to the specification of appropriate parameters (i.e., g) which may obviate the importance of the target variables in question (lower-order CHC variables). Additionally, both studies failed to cite any of the previous research questioning the structural or predictive validity of CHC-related scores on the WJ III which is vital for informing future studies with the WJ IV and other related CHC instruments (Dombrowski et al, 2016).…”

“…Related research on the WJ IV is presently starting to accumulate however, a recent structural validity study of the WJ IV COG (Dombrowski et al, 2016) failed to locate several posited CHC broad abilities and, like its predecessor, that general intelligence accounted for most of the reliable variance in the lower-order measures. Accordingly, researchers have also begun to update the previous series of cognitive-achievement relations studies (Evans et al, 2002;Floyd et al, 2003Floyd et al, , 2008 with the WJ IV.…”

“…Additionally, the WJ III COG was the first test reported to measure all of the proposed broad cognitive abilities in the most recent iteration of the CHC model (Schneider & McGrew, 2012). Accordingly, the WJ III COG has been utilized as the de facto reference instrument for making refinements to the CHC model and validating many of the inferences made about potential relationships between broad cognitive abilities and academic achievement in the technical and professional literature over the last 15 years (Dombrowski, McGill, & Canivez, 2016).…”