Long-Term Stability of Membership in a Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Third Edition (WISC-III) Subtest Core Profile Taxonomy

Abstract

Although often applied in practice, clinically based cognitive subtest profile analysis has failed to achieve empirical support. Nonlinear multivariate subtest profile analysis may have benefits over clinically based techniques, but the psychometric properties of these methods must be studied prior to their implementation and interpretation. The current study posed the following question: Is Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III) cluster membership based on nonlinear multivariate subtest profile analysis stable over a 3-year period? Membership stability to a subtest taxonomy, including constancy of displaying an unusual profile, was based on data from 585 students. General (.39) and partial (.26 to .51) kappa coefficients either failed to reach statistical significance or indicated poor classification stability, with the exception of two profile types. It was concluded that, with these two possible exceptions, profile-type membership to an empirically derived WISC-III subtest taxonomy should not be used in interpretation or educational decision making.

Cognitive Clusters in Specific Learning Disorder

“…Distinct cognitive profiles characterized by specific weaknesses (in broad-based cognitive processing, executive functioning, verbal functioning, or nonverbal-visuospatial processing) were reported in previous cluster-analytic studies on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) among clinical and healthy samples (Bodin, Pardini, Burns, & Stevens, 2009; Borsuk, Watkins, & Canivez, 2006; Donders, 1996; C. R. Hale et al, 2014; Holcomb, Hardesty, Adams, & Ponder, 1987; Konold, Glutting, McDermott, Kush, & Watkins, 1999; Snow, Cohen, & Holliman, 1985; Vance, Wallbrown, & Blaha, 1978; Waxman & Casey, 2006).…”

Cognitive and motivational profile shape predicts mathematical skills over and above profile level

“…When it comes to predictive or incremental validity, research also indicates that profile level is the best predictor of educational outcomes, whereas profile shape adds minor incremental validity at best (Kahana et al, ; Watkins & Glutting, ). Further, Borsuk, Watkins, and Canivez () demonstrated that membership in WISC‐III subtest profile‐type groups was generally not stable over a 3‐year period (with the exception of two profiles, one of them containing a high frequency of learning‐disabled children). The low reliability of subtest scores in comparison to full‐scale IQ scores implies that profile analysis should not be used for classification purposes or for diagnostic labeling (Sattler & Saklofske, ).…”

Discriminant Validity of the WISC-IV Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix

“…However, the examination of intra-individual score patterns (i.e., the degree to which an examinee's IQ subtest scores match the invalid score profile) is problematic for numerous reasons. These types of score interpretations have been widely denounced primarily due to the lack of diagnostic utility for score profiles (Devena and Watkins 2012;Smith and Watkins 2004;Watkins et al 2002) and the temporal instability of subtest difference scores (Borsuk et al 2006;McDermott et al 1989aMcDermott et al , b, 1992Watkins and Smith 2013). Thus, the C-LIM was built on the shaky foundation of subtest score differences.…”