Factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition: Exploratory factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests.

Abstract

The factor structure of the 16 Primary and Secondary subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V; Wechsler, 2014a) standardization sample was examined with exploratory factor analytic methods (EFA) not included in the WISC-V Technical and Interpretive Manual (Wechsler, 2014b). Factor extraction criteria suggested 1 to 4 factors and results favored 4 first-order factors. When this structure was transformed with the Schmid and Leiman (1957) orthogonalization procedure, the hierarchical g-factor accounted for large portions of total and common variance while the 4 first-order factors accounted for small portions of total and common variance; rendering interpretation at the factor index level less appropriate. Although the publisher favored a 5-factor model where the Perceptual Reasoning factor was split into separate Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning dimensions, no evidence for 5 factors was found. It was concluded that the WISC-V provides strong measurement of general intelligence and clinical interpretation should be primarily, if not exclusively, at that level. (PsycINFO Database Record

Investigating the theoretical structure of the DAS‐II core battery at school age using Bayesian structural equation modeling

“…Similarly, the high H values (>.80) also suggests a dominant general factor that portends to be stable across studies. Thus, consistent with other frequentist EFA and CFA studies (e.g., Bodin, Pardini, Burns, & Stevens, ; Canivez, ; Canivez & McGill, ; Canivez, Watkins, & Dombrowski, , ; DiStefano & Dombrowski, ; Dombrowski, , , ; Dombrowski, Watkins, & Brogan, ; Dombrowski, Canivez, & Watkins, ; Dombrowski, Canivez, Watkins, & Beaujean, ; Dombrowski, McGill, & Canivez, , ; Watkins & Beaujean, ) and consistent with Frazier and Youngstrom (), the DAS–II appears to be an instrument dominated by a general factor.…”

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

“…() 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. These results suggest that primary interpretation of these Wechsler scales (and other intelligence tests) should focus on the global score because it accounts for the largest portion of common variance.…”

“…Numerous studies of Wechsler scales and other intelligence tests have consistently found that the greatest portions of total and common variance are apportioned to or associated with the g factor, which is estimated by the Full Scale score, and much smaller portions of total and common variance are apportioned to the first‐order or group dimensions, estimated by the respective factor index scores (or CHC‐based composites). 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 ., ).…”

Construct validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale For Children – FifthUKEdition: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the 16 primary and secondary subtests

“…The same substantive problems identified by Canivez and Watkins (); Canivez et al . (); Canivez, Watkins, and Dombrowski (); and Beaujean () with the CFA methods employed by the publisher with the US WISC‐V also apply to the WISC‐V UK . Among the noted problems was use of unweighted least squares estimation without explicit justification rather than maximum‐likelihood estimation as well as failure to fully disclose details of CFA (Kline, ).…”