WAIS-IV Subtest Covariance Structure: Conceptual and Statistical Considerations

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: WAIS-IV Subtest Covariance Structure: Conceptual and Statistical Considerations
Language: English
Authors: Ward, L. Charles, Bergman, Maria A., Hebert, Katina R.
Source: Psychological Assessment. Jun 2012 24(2):328-340.
Availability: American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org/publications
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2012
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Intelligence Tests, Models, Factor Analysis, Goodness of Fit, Factor Structure, Epistemology, Intelligence
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
DOI: 10.1037/a0025614
ISSN: 1040-3590
Abstract: D. Wechsler (2008b) reported confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) with standardization data (ages 16-69 years) for 10 core and 5 supplemental subtests from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV). Analyses of the 15 subtests supported 4 hypothesized oblique factors (Verbal Comprehension, Working Memory, Perceptual Reasoning, and Processing Speed) but also revealed unexplained covariance between Block Design and Visual Puzzles (Perceptual Reasoning subtests). That covariance was not included in the final models. Instead, a path was added from Working Memory to Figure Weights (Perceptual Reasoning subtest) to improve fit and achieve a desired factor pattern. The present research with the same data (N = 1,800) showed that the path from Working Memory to Figure Weights increases the association between Working Memory and Matrix Reasoning. Specifying both paths improves model fit and largely eliminates unexplained covariance between Block Design and Visual Puzzles but with the undesirable consequence that Figure Weights and Matrix Reasoning are equally determined by Perceptual Reasoning and Working Memory. An alternative 4-factor model was proposed that explained theory-implied covariance between Block Design and Visual Puzzles and between Arithmetic and Figure Weights while maintaining compatibility with WAIS-IV Index structure. The proposed model compared favorably with a 5-factor model based on Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory. The present findings emphasize that covariance model comparisons should involve considerations of conceptual coherence and theoretical adherence in addition to statistical fit. (Contains 4 figures and 2 tables.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 49
Entry Date: 2013
Accession Number: EJ991567
Database: ERIC
Description
Abstract:D. Wechsler (2008b) reported confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) with standardization data (ages 16-69 years) for 10 core and 5 supplemental subtests from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV). Analyses of the 15 subtests supported 4 hypothesized oblique factors (Verbal Comprehension, Working Memory, Perceptual Reasoning, and Processing Speed) but also revealed unexplained covariance between Block Design and Visual Puzzles (Perceptual Reasoning subtests). That covariance was not included in the final models. Instead, a path was added from Working Memory to Figure Weights (Perceptual Reasoning subtest) to improve fit and achieve a desired factor pattern. The present research with the same data (N = 1,800) showed that the path from Working Memory to Figure Weights increases the association between Working Memory and Matrix Reasoning. Specifying both paths improves model fit and largely eliminates unexplained covariance between Block Design and Visual Puzzles but with the undesirable consequence that Figure Weights and Matrix Reasoning are equally determined by Perceptual Reasoning and Working Memory. An alternative 4-factor model was proposed that explained theory-implied covariance between Block Design and Visual Puzzles and between Arithmetic and Figure Weights while maintaining compatibility with WAIS-IV Index structure. The proposed model compared favorably with a 5-factor model based on Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory. The present findings emphasize that covariance model comparisons should involve considerations of conceptual coherence and theoretical adherence in addition to statistical fit. (Contains 4 figures and 2 tables.)
ISSN:1040-3590
DOI:10.1037/a0025614