Hierarchical exploratory factor analyses of the Woodcock-Johnson IV Full Test Battery: Implications for CHC application in school psychology.

Abstract

The Woodcock-Johnson (fourth edition; WJ IV; Schrank, McGrew, & Mather, 2014a) was recently redeveloped and retains its linkage to Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory (CHC). Independent reviews (e.g., Canivez, 2017) and investigations (Dombrowski, McGill, & Canivez, 2017) of the structure of the WJ IV full test battery and WJ IV Cognitive have suggested the need for additional factor analytic exploration. Accordingly, the present study used principal axis factoring (PAF) followed by the Schmid and Leiman (SL; Schmid & Leiman, 1957) procedure with the 2 school-aged correlation matrices from the normative sample to determine the degree to which the WJ IV total battery structure could be replicated. Although 7 factors emerged across the 9 to 19 age range, the pattern of subtests loadings did not fully cohere with the structure presented in the Technical Manual, most notably for the academic fluency subtests. Also, the Fluid Reasoning (Gf) and Quantitative Reasoning (Gq) subtests coalesced to form a combined factor rather than 2 separate factors and the Long Term Retrieval (Gltr) subtests aligned with a variety of different factors. The results of this study indicated that the general intelligence factor variance far exceeded the variance attributed to the lower-order CHC factors. The combination of subtest migration and nominal total/common variance of the CHC lower-order factors suggests caution when interpreting the myriad CHC-related indices when making high stakes decisions. Implications for clinical practice are discussed. (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, 2009;Canivez, 2014;Canivez & McGill, 2016;Canivez, Watkins, & Dombrowski, 2016, 2017DiStefano & Dombrowski, 2006;Dombrowski, 2013Dombrowski, , 2014aDombrowski, , 2017bDombrowski, Watkins, & Brogan, 2009;Dombrowski, Canivez, Watkins, & Beaujean, 2015;Dombrowski, McGill, & Canivez, 2017a, 2017bWatkins & Beaujean, 2014) and consistent with Frazier and Youngstrom (2007), the DAS-II appears to be an instrument dominated by a general factor. Note.…”

Validation of the Batería III Woodcock-Munoz Pruebas de Habilidades Cognitivas for assessment of cognitive ability among children living in the Peruvian Amazon

“…In school-aged normative and standardization samples (Dombrowski, 2013;Dombrowski & Watkins, 2013;McGill & Busse, 2015) as well as in students referred for special education services (Strickland et al, 2015a), g has been found to dominate the facture structure of scores from the WJ III COG, with the test producing, in many reports, "limited predictive effects" beyond g (McGill & Busse, 2015, p. 353). The same finding appears to hold true in the revised WJ-IV (Dombrowski et al, 2017(Dombrowski et al, , 2018. In this sense our findings hold implications for cognitive testing and cognitive theory outside of the specific context of the Amazon region: our results add further evidence to the contention that interpretation of the WJ III COG should potentially be restricted to the g-factor.…”

Construct Validity of the WISC-V in Clinical Cases: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the 10 Primary Subtests

“…While some of these studies were of standardization samples, some EFA and CFA studies were of clinical samples (Bodin et al, 2009; Canivez, 2014a; Canivez, Watkins, Good, et al, 2017; Watkins, 2010; Watkins et al, 2006; Watkins et al, 2013). Furthermore, similar results have been reported with the Differential Ability Scales (DAS; Cucina & Howardson, 2017); DAS-II (Canivez & McGill, 2016; Dombrowski, Golay, McGill, & Canivez, 2018; Dombrowski, McGill, Canivez, & Peterson, 2019), Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (Cucina & Howardson, 2017), Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC; Cucina & Howardson, 2017), KABC-2 (McGill & Dombrowski, 2018b), Stanford–Binet–Fifth Edition (SB-5; Canivez, 2008; DiStefano & Dombrowski, 2006), Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence and Wide Range Intelligence Test (Canivez, Konold, Collins, & Wilson, 2009), Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (Dombrowski, Watkins, & Brogan, 2009; Nelson & Canivez, 2012; Nelson, Canivez, Lindstrom, & Hatt, 2007), Cognitive Assessment System (Canivez, 2011), Woodcock-Johnson III (Cucina & Howardson, 2017; Dombrowski, 2013, 2014a, 2014b; Dombrowski & Watkins, 2013; Strickland, Watkins, & Caterino, 2015), and the Woodcock-Johnson IV Cognitive and full battery (Dombrowski, McGill, & Canivez, 2017a, 2017b), so results of domination of general intelligence and limited unique measurement of group factors are not unique to Wechsler scales. These results and the advantages of bifactor modeling for understanding test structure (Canivez, 2016; Cucina & Byle, 2017; Gignac, 2008; Reise, 2012) indicate that comparisons of bifactor models to the higher-order models are needed.…”