WISC-V Canadian norms: Relevance and use in the assessment of Canadian children.

Abstract

Following debate over the use of the WAIS-IV Canadian adult norms that has been suitably addressed, this study examines the normative differences in the WISC-V child and adolescent data in three ways: (a) presenting a comparison of country normative data across subtest and composite scores for demographically matched and unmatched samples, (b) providing a review of Canadian-U.S. standard FSIQ score differences across ability level, and (c) comparing the case detection accuracy of the WISC-V CDN versus U.S. norms for children with intellectual disability and giftedness. Results demonstrate small mean differences overall in the WISC-V norms when comparing the standardization samples in the two countries; however, there are significant observable differences in the sensitivity of the norms in identifying case status. This is vital for accurate identification, and supports the use of Canadian norms in clinical and gifted decision making. These results support the use of Canadian norms when assessing these exceptional children following best clinical assessment practices and testing guidelines. Public Significance StatementIntelligence assessments are used by psychologists in health and education settings every day to assist in the identification of strengths and weaknesses in cognitive abilities, including the identification of giftedness and diagnosis of intellectual disability. It is important that these assessments have representative population norms so that children are accurately diagnosed/identified and can receive appropriate support. This article reviews the need for and importance of distinct Canadian norms when using the Canadian edition of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V CDN ), for making important clinical decisions.

Examining cognitive speed and accuracy dysfunction in youth and young adults with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis using a computerized neurocognitive battery.

“…While the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental cohort of over 9,000 individuals aged 8–21 serves as the published normative data set for the PCNB (Moore et al, 2015), we determined that these norms could not be appropriately utilized for non-American populations (approximately 75% of our sample). Similar to existing literature (Babcock et al, 2018; Harrison et al, 2014), the application of the Philadelphia-based norms led to positively skewed Z -scores in our MS and control sample. Importantly, our HC participants were proportionally representative of our MS participants for nationality.…”

Differences in Parents and Teachers’ Perceptions of Behavior Manifested by Gifted Children with ADHD Compared to Gifted Children without ADHD and Non-Gifted Children with ADHD Using the Conners 3 Scale

“…Several studies have shown the relevance of using the GAI instead of the FISQ with gifted children who also have co-occurring disabilities such as ADHD who generally present a weakness in working memory and processing speed [ 44 , 45 , 46 ]. The WISC-V has good reliability and validity across various populations, including the French Canadian population [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. The WISC-V scores in the present study are based on French Canadian norms.…”

A comparison of WPPSI-IV performance between Finland-Swedish minority children and the Scandinavian test norms: Findings from The FinSwed Study

“…The main aim of the present study was to compare the performance of Finland-Swedish 5-6-year-old children on the Swedish WPPSI-IV to the Scandinavian test norms. Since previous studies have shown differences in test performance also between different cultures with the same language (e.g., Babcock et al, 2018), we hypothesized that some differences would be found between the Finland-Swedish children's performance and the Scandinavian test norms. Further, this study aimed to explore how age, sex, bilingualism, and parental education relate to the WPPSI-IV performance of Finland-Swedish children.…”

“…For instance, there seems to be a monolingual advantage in vocabulary (Bialystok et al, 2010), for young children especially in expressive vocabulary (Korkman et al, 2012; Korpinen et al, 2023; Thordardottir, 2011). However, linguistic reasons cannot be the only explanation for cross-cultural differences, since differences have been found also on nonverbal tests (Roivainen, 2019; Rosselli & Ardila, 2003) as well as between people from different countries who speak the same language (Babcock et al, 2018; Duggan et al, 2019; Miller et al, 2015).…”