38,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: Essentials of Psychological Assessment
- Sprache: Englisch
The comprehensive reference for informative WISC-V assessment
Essentials of WISC-V Assessmentprovides step-by-step guidance for administering, scoring, and interpreting the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V). Packed with practical tips for more accurate assessment, this informative guide includes numerous case studies that illustrate a range of real-world issues. Special attention is devoted to the assessment of individuals who have significant learning difficulties, such as learning disabilities, and who speak English as a second language. The WISC-V is a valuable assessment tool, but it must be administered and scored appropriately to gain meaning from score interpretation. This book gives you an in-depth understanding of the WISC-V assessment and interpretive process to assist practitioners in:
- Conducting efficient and informative WISC-V assessments
- Utilizing WISC-V in cross-battery and neuropsychological assessment
- Applying WISC-V in the identification of specific learning disabilities
- Utilizing WISC-V in nondiscriminatory assessment of English language learners
- Writing theory-based WISC-V reports
- Linking WISC-V findings to interventions based on individual performance
As the world's most widely-used intelligence test for children, the WISC-V is useful in diagnosing intellectual disabilities and specific learning disabilities, as well as in identifying giftedness. In this volume, sample reports demonstrate how WISC-V assessment results may be linked to interventions, accommodations, modifications, and compensatory strategies that facilitate positive outcomes for children. Essentials of WISC-V Assessment is the all-in-one practical resource for both students and practitioners. The book can be used on its own or with companion software (purchased separately) that provides a user-friendly tool for producing psychometrically and theoretically defensible interpretations of WISC-V performance, and may be used to develop interventions based on each child's strengths and weaknesses.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 1048
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017
Ähnliche
CONTENTS
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Acknowledgments
Series Preface
Foreword
References
Chapter One: Overview of the WISC-V
From Prediction to Prevention
From Explanation to Enduring Empathy
General Trends in Intelligence Test Interpretation
Why the History of the Wechsler Scales Matters
Description of the WISC-V
Rapid Reference 1.1
Rapid Reference 1.2
Rapid Reference 1.3
Rapid Reference 1.4
Rapid Reference 1.5
Rapid Reference 1.6
Rapid Reference 1.7
Rapid Reference 1.8
References
Chapter Two: How to Administer the WISC-V
Appropriate Testing Conditions
Rapport With Examinee
Rapid Reference 2.1
Rapid Reference 2.2
Rapid Reference 2.3
Rapid Reference 2.4
Testing Individuals With Special Needs
Administration Considerations
Rules for Starting and Discontinuing Subtests
Rapid Reference 2.5
Recording Responses
Rapid Reference 2.6
Timing
Rapid Reference 2.7
Querying
Repeating Items
Subtest-by-Subtest Rules of Administration of the WISC-V Primary Subtests
Subtest-by-Subtest Rules of Administration of the WISC-V Secondary and Complementary Subtests
Frequently Asked Questions: Subtest Administration
Rapid Reference 2.8
References
Chapter Three: How to Score the WISC-V
Types of Scores
Rapid Reference 3.1
Step by Step: How the WISC-V is Scored
Rapid Reference 3.2
References
Chapter Four: How to Interpret the WISC-V
Rapid Reference 4.1
Getting Started
Rapid Reference 4.2
Rapid Reference 4.3
Rapid Reference 4.4
Rapid Reference 4.5
Rapid Reference 4.6
Rapid Reference 4.7
WISC-V Interpretation Step by Step
Rapid Reference 4.8
Rapid Reference 4.9
Rapid Reference 4.10
Rapid Reference 4.11
Rapid Reference 4.12
Rapid Reference 4.13
Rapid Reference 4.14
Rapid Reference 4.15
Rapid Reference 4.16
Rapid Reference 4.17
Rapid Reference 4.18
Rapid Reference 4.19
Rapid Reference 4.20
Rapid Reference 4.21
Rapid Reference 4.22
Rapid Reference 4.23
Rapid Reference 4.24
Rapid Reference 4.25
Rapid Reference 4.26
Rapid Reference 4.27
Rapid Reference 4.28
Rapid Reference 4.29
Rapid Reference 4.30
Rapid Reference 4.31
Rapid Reference 4.32
Rapid Reference 4.33
Rapid Reference 4.34
Rapid Reference 4.35
Conclusion
References
Chapter Five: Strengths And Weaknesses of the WISC-V
Rapid Reference 5.1
Rapid Reference 5.2
Rapid Reference 5.3
Rapid Reference 5.4
References
Chapter Six: A Neuropsychological Approach to Interpretation of the WISC-V
Levels of Interpretation
Rapid Reference 6.1
Rapid Reference 6.2
Rapid Reference 6.3
Rapid Reference 6.4
Rapid Reference 6.5
Neuropsychological Interpretation of WISC-V Performance
Rapid Reference 6.6
Rapid Reference 6.7
Rapid Reference 6.8
Rapid Reference 6.9
WISC-V Complementary Subtests
Rapid Reference 6.10
Conclusion
References
Appendix 6.A: Cognitive Constructs Assessed with the WISC-V Subtests
Cognitive Constructs Assessed With the Fluid Reasoning and Visual Spatial Subtests
Cognitive Constructs Assessed With the Working Memory Subtests and the Arithmetic and Immediate Symbol Translation Subtests
Cognitive Constructs Assessed With the Processing Speed Subtests
Cognitive Constructs Assessed With the Naming Speed Subtests
Cognitive Constructs Assessed With the Symbol Translation Tasks
Appendix 6.B: Behavior Observations and Process-Oriented Assessment at the Subtest, Item, and Cognitive Construct Levels
Verbal Comprehension Subtests
Fluid Reasoning and Visual Spatial Subtests
Working Memory Domain and Arithmetic and Symbol Translation Subtests
Processing Speed Subtests
Naming Speed Subtests
appendix 6.C: Cluster Analysis Interpretation
Steps for Completing Subtest Cluster Analyses
Verbal Comprehension Clinical Clusters and Cluster Contrasts
Fluid Reasoning and Visual Spatial Clinical Clusters and Cluster Contrasts
Working Memory Clinical Clusters and Clinical Cluster Contrasts
Appendix 6.D: Subtest and Process Score Comparison Worksheets
Chapter Seven: Use of the WISC-V in the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities
The Dual Discrepancy/Consistency Operational Definition of SLD
Rapid Reference 7.1
Rapid Reference 7.2
Rapid Reference 7.3
Rapid Reference 7.4
Rapid Reference 7.5
Rapid Reference 7.6.
Rapid Reference 7.7
Rapid Reference 7.8
Rapid Reference 7.9
Rapid Reference 7.10
Using X-BASS for SLD Identification: Three Steps to PSW Output
Rapid Reference 7.11
PSW-A Data Summary
PSW-A g-Value Data Summary
Dual Discrepancy/Consistency Model: PSW Analyses for SLD
Conclusion
References
Appendix 7.A: Factors That May Facilitate Learning and Aid in ByPassing or Minimizing the Effects of Deficits
References
Chapter Eight: Illustrative Case Report
Psychoeducational Evaluation Report
Reference
Appendix 8.A: CBRS Scores
Appendix 8.B: Cross-Battery Assessment Software System (X-BASS): Dual-Discrepancy/Consistency Model: PSW Results for AMANDA FARRIS
Chapter Nine: Assessment of English Learners With the WISC-V
Fairness, Bias, and Traditional Assessment Approaches
A Recommended Best Practice Approach
Best Practices in the Evaluation of ELs With the WISC-V
Case Study: Jose Maria
Conclusion
References
Chapter Ten: WISC-V and Q-interactive
Digital Platform
Rapid Reference 10.1
Hardware
Software
Set-Up
Rapid Reference 10.2
Administration
Rapid Reference 10.3
Training and Tech Support
Output
Security and Legal Issues
Considerations for University Trainers
Rapid Reference 10.4
Overall Impressions and Recommendations
References
Epilogue: Dorothea McCarthy Remembered
References
About the Authors
Contributors
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 1.3
Table 1.4
Table 1.5
Table 1.6
Table 1.7
Table 1.8.
Table 1.9
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Table 3.11
Table 3.12
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Table 4.8
Table 4.9
Table 4.10
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8.1
Table 8.2
Table 8.3
Table 8.4
Table 8.5
Table 8.6
Table 8.7
Table 9.1
Table 9.2
List of Illustrations
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.3
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.10
Figure 6.1
Figure 6C.1
Figure 7.1
Figure 7.2
Figure 7.3
Figure 7.4
Figure 7.5
Figure 7.6
Figure 7.7
Figure 7.8
Figure 7.9
Figure 7.10
Figure 7.11
Figure 7.12
Figure 7.13
Figure 7.14
Figure 7.15
Figure 7.16
Figure 9.1
Figure 9.2
Figure 9.3
Figure 9.4
Figure 9.5
Figure 9.6
Figure 9.7
Figure 9.8
Figure 9.9
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Chapter 1
Pages
iii
iv
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
Essentials of WISC-V Assessment
Dawn P. Flanagan
Vincent C. Alfonso
Copyright © 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax 978-646-8600, or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, 201-748-6011, fax 201-748-6008, or online at www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Readers should be aware that Internet Web sites offered as citations and/or sources for further information may have changed or disappeared between the time this was written and when it is read.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If legal, accounting, medical, psychological or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
For general information on our other products and services, please contact our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at 800-956-7739, outside the U.S. at 317-572-3986, or fax 317-572-4002.
Wiley publishes in a variety of print and electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some material included with standard print versions of this book may not be included in e-books or in print-on-demand. If this book refers to media such as a CD or DVD that is not included in the version you purchased, you may download this material at http://booksupport.wiley.com. For more information about Wiley products, visit www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Flanagan, Dawn P., author. | Alfonso, Vincent C., author.
Title: Essentials of WISC-V assessment / Dawn P. Flanagan, Vincent C. Alfonso.
Description: Hoboken : Wiley, 2017. | Series: Essentials of psychological assessment | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016055353 | ISBN 9781118980873 (paperback) | ISBN 9781118981009 (AdobePDF) | ISBN 9781118980996 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. | Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. | Children--Intelligence testing. | Ability--Testing. | BISAC: PSYCHOLOGY / Assessment, Testing & Measurement.
Classification: LCC BF432.5.W42 F583 2017 | DDC 155.4/1393--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016055353
Cover Design: Wiley
Cover Image: ©Greg Kuchik/Getty Images
Recently, each of us lost the second of the two most enduring mentors in our lives: our parents. We dedicate this book to them—Frank and Maryann Flanagan and Alfred and Mary Alfonso—for their unwavering belief in our capabilities, acceptance and support of our endeavors, and unconditional love.
We also dedicate this book to those who have mentored us in our professional lives, some who have come and gone but will never be forgotten, and some who remain in the wings, always willing to lend support and offer advice—we have benefited from and thank you for your wisdom and guidance.
And finally, we dedicate this book to all practitioners who use the WISC-V in a manner in which David Wechsler intended—that is, not only to understand the unique pattern of a child or adolescent's strengths and weaknesses, but to use that pattern to help him or her “act purposefully, think rationally and deal effectively with [his or her] environment (Wechsler, 1958, p. 7).”
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge several people for their special and extraordinary contributions. We express our deepest appreciation to Tisha Rossi, Mary Ellen Schutz, Pam Suwinsky, Diane Turso, and Justin Frahm for supporting us through the publication process and for ensuring the quality of this book. We are also particularly grateful to Joel Schneider for contributing his expertise in writing Chapter 1; to George McCloskey, Jamie Slonim, Robert Whitaker, Samantha Kaufman, and Naoko Nagoshi for providing Chapter 6, on the use of the WISC-V in neuropsychological evaluation; to Samuel Ortiz, Kristan Melo, and Meghan Terzulli for providing Chapter 9, on assessing culturally and linguistically diverse individuals with the WISC-V; to Carlea Dries, Ron Dumont, and Kathleen Viezel for providing Chapter 10, on the WISC-V and Q-Interactive; and to Erin McDonough, who provided in Chapter 8 the case study that was used to demonstrate our interpretive method and approach to SLD identification and who provided us with valuable insight into the nuances of WISC-V interpretation based on her experience and clinical acumen.
We also thank Emma Hettrich, Caitlyn Hynes, Jennifer Mascolo, Carly Meyer, Kathleen Palma, Jaime Seaburg, John Willis, and Noelle Winter for their reviews of several chapters several times! In addition, we appreciate the tenacious efforts of Ou Zhang and Andrea Olson from Pearson, who provided us with norms and critical values for the clinical composites included in Appendix B; Gail Cheramie, Jamie Chaffin, and Robert Lichtenstein, who provided illustrative case studies in Appendix C; and Marlene Sotelo-Dynega, who compiled the WISC-V task characteristics found in Appendix F.
Finally, we recognize the contributions of our longtime colleague and friend, Samuel Ortiz, who spent countless hours incorporating new WISC-V components into X-BASS based on the interpretive method we espoused in this volume; Susie Engi Raiford, our new colleague, who supported our work from the beginning, carefully edited multiple chapters, and wrote the Foreword to this volume; and Alan Kaufman, our longtime mentor who taught us to test intelligently and who wrote the Epilogue to this volume.
Series Preface
In the Essentials of Psychological Assessment series, we have attempted to provide the reader with books that will deliver key practical information in the most efficient and accessible style. The series features instruments in a variety of domains, such as cognition, personality, education, and neuropsychology. For the experienced clinician, books in the series offer a concise yet thorough way to master utilization of the continuously evolving supply of new and revised instruments as well as a convenient method for keeping up to date on the tried-and-true measures. The novice will find here a prioritized assembly of all the information and techniques that one must have at one's fingertips to begin the complicated process of individual psychological assessment and diagnosis.
Wherever feasible, visual shortcuts to highlight key points are utilized alongside systematic, step-by-step guidelines. Chapters are focused and succinct. Topics are targeted for an easy understanding of the essentials of administration, scoring, interpretation, and clinical application. Theory and research are continually woven into the fabric of each book but always to enhance clinical inference, never to sidetrack or overwhelm. We have long been advocates of what has been called “intelligent testing”: the notion that a profile of test scores is meaningless unless it is brought to life by the clinical observations and astute detective work of knowledgeable examiners. Test profiles must be used to make a difference in the child's or adult's life, or why bother to test? We want this series to help our readers become the best intelligent testers they can be.
In Essentials of WISC-V Assessment, Dawn Flanagan and Vincent Alfonso provide practitioners with a complete, step-by-step approach to administering, scoring, and interpreting the most widely used intelligence test in the world: the WISC-V. Each chapter is chock-full of practical tips that make assessment of cognitive functions with the WISC-V efficient and informative. In addition, interpretation of the WISC-V is linked to X-BASS and applied to a case study in a step-by-step approach, highlighting the WISC-V in the identification of specific learning disabilities. This volume also includes chapters on use and interpretation of the WISC-V in neuropsychological evaluation, use of the WISC-V in the assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse individuals, and how to administer and score the WISC-V on Q-Interactive. All told, Flanagan and Alfonso deliver a one-two knockout punch in this latest essentials volume.
Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman, Series Editors
University of Connecticut
Foreword
Susie Engi Raiford
In February 2015, the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) held their first annual convention after the publication of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V; Wechsler, 2014). The manuals and data were available, and many school districts had purchased the test. Drs. Dawn Flanagan and Vincent Alfonso were to give a talk about use of the WISC-V in the context of their cross-battery assessment (XBA) approach to interpretation.
I arrived late to a room with a capacity for 200 people. Every seat was full, and dozens of additional people stood in the back and sat crammed in the aisles on the floor. It was hot and crowded, but the room was buzzing with excitement and anticipation. Attendees delighted as Dawn and Vinny joked about the tight space and the fire code, but no attendees left and more hopefuls crowded around the door in the foyer. The school psychology field knew this was a big moment.
I sat quietly in the aisle, snapping pictures and awaiting their thoughts about use of the test that had been carefully and thoughtfully nurtured through a five-year revision process to publication. When you are involved in conceptualization and design of the WISC-V from beginning to end, you watch it take shape and pour your life into it on a daily basis. As its research director, you revise and write items, author the manuals, oversee data collection and scoring, ensure its technical integrity and quality, and help to launch and support it. The feeling is akin to bearing and raising a child, and NASP 2015 felt like the first day of kindergarten.
It was with good reason, then, that I was sitting on the edge of my metaphorical seat (since no real seats were available) awaiting their talk. XBA transcends individual instruments and focuses instead on comprehensively addressing referral questions (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013). However, XBA is highly relevant to the clinical utility of individual tests. The modern Wechsler scales are influenced by XBA and Dawn, Vinny, and colleagues' dual discrepancy/consistency pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) method for learning disability identification (Flanagan, Alfonso, Mascolo, & Sotelo-Dynega, 2012). Using dialectical reasoning processes, the Wechsler theoretical framework of intelligence simultaneously considers these important works alongside other structural models of intellect, clinical utility evidence (e.g., clinical sensitivity, predictive validity, neuroscience), functional models of cognition (e.g., neuropsychological processing theory), and specific ability models (e.g., working memory). The Wechsler theoretical framework informs development to ensure each revision of the WISC is innovative, contemporary, and draws on the best that these different lines of inquiry have to offer.
Dawn, Vinny, and colleagues' collective writings also resonate with the modern Wechsler theoretical framework. They have sought in their own conceptualization of cognitive assessment to link and reconcile the same approaches to their own. For example, they have linked Cattell-Horn-Carroll with the Lurian and neuropsychological approaches (Flanagan, Alfonso, Ortiz, & Dynda, 2010) and have incorporated George McCloskey's neuropsychologically oriented process approach to psychoeducational evaluations (McCloskey, Hartz, & Slonim, 2016) into their own interpretive systems (Flanagan & Kaufman, 2005, 2009). Essentials of WISC-V Assessment features interpretation from the general to the specific in the spirit of Alan Kaufman's intelligent testing, beginning with global score selection (e.g., FSIQ, GAI, or NVI) and interpretation at the index score level. Their approach acknowledges that assessment is part science and part art: potentially clinically meaningful findings are investigated further. McCloskey's process approach (see Chapter 6) provides optional analyses that permit the test user to examine weaknesses through drilling down to the subtest and item level to examine the multiple processes involved in carrying out any WISC-V task.
Dawn and Vinny have the breadth and depth of knowledge and practicality that comes from devouring every article about assessment and test technical manual that was available and mentoring trainees and practitioners for decades. As a result, their thinking is steeped in psychometric knowledge and clinical utility, and seeks what will be useful in practice and clear to clinicians. Their approaches to interpretation of test results endeavor to link science to practice in ways that are understandable and useful. They don't just achieve this goal, they knock the ball out of the park. Their model is beautiful in its simplicity and sophistication; a masterpiece of practicality built on a strong theoretical foundation and psychometric excellence. Practitioners who follow their approach to comprehensive assessment and interpretation find it accessible and effective.
Research- and theory-based approaches to cognitive test interpretation now dominate the cognitive assessment scene (Kamphaus, Winsor, Rowe, Kim, & 2012), and they are here to stay. A systematic approach based firmly on research and theory helps us to make sense of the data we obtain so that we can explain assessment results to teachers and parents in a way that makes sense and that is defensible theoretically and empirically, and can help children to learn successfully. The sum total of human knowledge now doubles every 12 months and is projected soon to double every 12 hours (IBM, 2006). That knowledge is accessible to nearly everyone in the digital age, so teachers and parents expect answers that make sense and have scientific merit. Clinicians who approach test interpretation from sound underlying theoretical frameworks that stand up to psychometric investigations and are bolstered by neuroscience, such as the system presented in Essentials of WISC-V Assessment, are at a distinct advantage and are more likely to be able to help more children to learn effectively.
Remarkably, Dawn and Vinny don't rest on their laurels. They are keen to improve upon their methods. They seek criticism of their models and make refinements in response to new empirical findings. For example, Essentials of WISC-IV Assessment (Flanagan & Kaufman, 2005, 2009) recommended that if a 23-point discrepancy was present between the highest and lowest index scores, the FSIQ was to be considered invalid and should not be interpreted. Essentials of WISC-V Assessment marks a departure from this recommendation, in response to psychometric investigations demonstrating that such a discrepancy is quite common in both normative and clinical samples (Kaufman, Raiford, & Coalson, 2016; Orsini, 2014; Raiford & Coalson, 2014) and that cognitive ability composite scores show equal predictive validity in relation to achievement whether or not such a discrepancy is present between its component parts (Daniel, 2007, 2009). In response, Essentials of WISC-V Assessment features an updated interpretation approach to the WISC-V that relies on base rates to determine what is unusual, rather than using a cutoff of 23 points. Furthermore, the FSIQ is not considered invalid, but merely lacking sufficient detail to describe the child's abilities comprehensively.
Given their works' influence on the field in general and on the Wechsler theoretical framework in particular, it should come as no surprise that XBA, the dual-discrepancy PSW approach, and the modern WISC-V are highly compatible. The test was designed from the start to accommodate XBA and to complement cutting-edge achievement instruments such as the KTEA-3 (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014) and the WIAT-III (Pearson, 2009) to optimize use within PSW approaches. When the WISC-V is administered with one of these measures, together they cover the major cognitive processes that have been shown to be important to learning and sensitive to learning problems and are necessary for PSW analyses (Breaux & Lichtenberger, 2016).
I held my breath as their presentation began. It quickly became apparent to me that they had detected the careful planning that went into the WISC-V. They discussed slide after slide that showed which WISC-V subtests and index scores would be appropriate measures of the constructs research had shown important to reading, math, and written expression skills. Their verdict? The new WISC-V has great utility within XBA. I looked around me at these school psychologists hanging on their every word and was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude because Dawn and Vinny are helping clinicians to use the WISC-V well and impacting thousands of children by helping them to learn effectively. I exhaled as I remembered what I remind myself of on a daily basis: The test isn't my kid, it's for the kids. That's why we do what we do.
Because of the WISC-V's compatibility with XBA, this book provides interpretive assistance through a link with the XBA using the Cross-Battery Assessment Software System (X-BASS; Ortiz, Flanagan, & Alfonso, 2017). Administration and scoring are reviewed in depth in Chapters 2 and 3, with the helpful “Essentials” features and callout boxes that highlight important points to remember and provide strategies to avoid common errors. New clinical composites, exclusive analyses with the actual WISC-V standardization data, and a fresh approach to interpretation arm the reader with invaluable insights in the use and interpretation of the contemporary WISC-V.
References
Breaux, K. C., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2016).
Essentials of KTEA-3 and WIAT-III assessment.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Daniel, M. H. (2007). “Scatter” and the construct validity of FSIQ: Comment on Fiorello et al. (2007).
Applied Neuropsychology, 14
(4), 291–295.
Daniel, M. H. (2009).
Subtest variability and the validity of WISC–IV composite scores.
Blue ribbon paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2005).
Essentials of WISC-IV as
sessment
. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2009).
Essentials of WISC-IV assessment
(2nd ed). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Mascolo, J. T., & Sotelo-Dynega, M. (2012). Use of ability tests in the identification of specific learning disabilities within the context of an operational definition. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.),
Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues
(pp. 643–669). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Ortiz, S. O., & Dynda, A. M. (2010). Integrating cognitive assessment in school neuropsychological evaluations. In D. C. Miller (Ed.),
Best practices in school neuropsychology: Guidelines for effective practice, assessment, and evidence-based intervention
(pp. 101–140). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Flanagan, D., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2013).
Essentials of cross-battery assessment
(3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
IBM Global Technology Systems. (2006).
The toxic terabyte: How data dumping threatens business efficiency.
London, UK: IBM United Kingdom Limited.
http://www-935.ibm.com/services/no/cio/leverage/levinfo_wp_gts_thetoxic.pdf
.
Kamphaus, R. W., Winsor, A. P., Rowe, E. W., & Kim, S. (2012). A history of intelligence test interpretation. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.),
Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues
(pp. 56–70). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2014).
Kaufman test of educational achievement
(3rd ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
Kaufman, A. S., Raiford, S. E., & Coalson, D. L. (2016).
Intelligent testing with the WISC-V.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
McCloskey, G., Hartz, E., & Slonim, J. (2016). Interpreting the WISC-V using George McCloskey's neuropsychological oriented process approach to psychoeducational evaluations. In A. S. Kaufman, S. E. Raiford, & D. L. Coalson (Authors),
Intelligent testing with the WISC-V
(pp. 493–548). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Orsini, A., Pezzuti, L., & Hulbert, S. (2014). The unitary ability of IQ in the WISC-IV and its computation.
Personality and Individual Differences, 69
, 173–175.
Ortiz, S. O., Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (2017).
The cross-battery assessment software system, version 2.0
(X-BASS v2.0). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Pearson. (2009).
Wechsler individual achievement test
(3rd ed.) Bloomington, MN: Author.
Raiford, S. E., & Coalson, D. L. (2014).
Essentials of WPPSI-IV assessment.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Wechsler, D. (2014).
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
(5th ed.). Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Susie Engi Raiford
June 25, 2016
OneOverview of the WISC-V
W. Joel Schneider, Dawn P. Flanagan, and Vincent C. Alfonso
This book was written for assessment professionals who want to use the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V; Wechsler, 2014a) to help children and adolescents by understanding their cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Such a statement should be too obvious to mention, but it is not. Too often, in the public's eye, the purpose of intelligence tests is to assign labels to people, not to help them. Among some intellectuals, it is common to view intelligence tests as tools of oppression, designed to harm the least privileged and most vulnerable among us (Carroll, 1997).
Intelligence tests are—and have always been—powerful tools, and powerful tools can be used for good or for ill. People who are uneasy about the use of intelligence tests would likely be reassured if we clearly communicate to them what we actually do with intelligence tests: We use them as one tool among many to decide how best to help people. Professionals who use individually administered intelligence tests such as the WISC-V are not callous bureaucrats mechanically rendering judgments that decide the course of people's lives. Most of us sacrificed our twenties on the altar of graduate school. We did so gladly; becoming a member of the helping professions is a great honor. The thought of using intelligence tests to harm anyone, children in particular, is frightful.
Indeed, Alfred Binet and his colleagues developed modern intelligence tests because of their egalitarian ideals. They needed to find a fair and accurate method of identifying children and adolescents who needed additional help in school (Binet & Simon, 1916). This purpose continues to motivate most practitioners. Nevertheless, there is no denying that intelligence tests have been used to perpetrate injustice, particularly in their early history (Fancher, 1985). From the beginning, though, there were thoughtful and sophisticated theorists, practitioners, and ordinary people who fought against these injustices (Lohman, 1997). Even the person who coined the term intelligence quotient or IQ, William Stern (1933), worked tirelessly to ensure that intelligence tests were used for preserving human dignity instead of degrading individuals:
Under all conditions, human beings are and remain the centers of their own psychological life and their own worth. In other words, they remain persons, even when they are studied and treated from an external perspective with respect to others' goals. . . . Working “on” a human being must always entail working “for” a human being. (Trans. Lamiell, 2003, pp. 54–55)
From Prediction to Prevention
Although it is true that intelligence tests are potent long-term predictors of a wide array of important life outcomes such as academic achievement, high school graduation, and income (Deary, Whiteman, Starr, Whalley, & Fox, 2004; Gottfredson, 1997), they do not speak with the authority of the white-robed Fates. Hardship is not inevitable, and success is never assured. Many people possess personal virtues that more than offset whatever weaknesses an IQ test might reveal. Some have liabilities that negate any intellectual advantages they might otherwise have enjoyed. Nevertheless, the forecast is still useful. The weather report is not always correct, but it helps us plan for the day.
Don't Forget
Performance on intelligence tests is a potent predictor of important life outcomes such as academic achievement, high school graduation, and income.
It is not difficult to identify struggling children and adolescents after they have already fallen behind in school—no IQ test is needed for that. What is difficult is to prevent problems before they occur. Intelligence or cognitive ability tests can help professionals prioritize scarce resources so that students most likely to fall behind are better able to keep up and succeed. As Kaufman (1979, p. 14) famously quipped, “Intelligence test scores should result ultimately in killing the prediction.” That is, the proper role of cognitive ability tests is to predict problems that never happen—because skilled professionals, dedicated teachers, and loving parents make plans and labor long hours to prevent them.
Unfortunately, not all problems, such as traumatic brain injuries, can be foreseen. Cognitive ability tests are essential tools for evaluating the nature and severity of these injuries. Sometimes they are used to monitor the rate of an individual's recovery.
Even perfectly predicted problems cannot always be completely prevented. Much can be done to improve the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities and learning disabilities, even if we cannot yet eliminate their cognitive deficits entirely (Patterson, Rapsey, & Glue, 2013). Intelligence tests help us identify children with intellectual disabilities and learning disabilities very early so that interventions can have maximal effect.
From Explanation to Enduring Empathy
Alongside prediction, the second major function of intelligence tests is explanation. That is, intelligence tests play a role in informing comprehensive case conceptualizations, and thus are particularly useful when preventative efforts are not working. Understanding why a student is performing poorly in school despite the best efforts of all involved is often the first step toward finding a better approach. More than that, understanding a student's learning difficulties often results in greater empathy for him or her.
Many students who are performing poorly in school often work hard to avoid academic activities they find to be difficult and unpleasant, sometimes by making things difficult and unpleasant for the adults who are trying to help them. When parents and teachers understand why the tasks are difficult, they are likely to be more patient. It is for this reason that one of the most important goals of writing effective psychoeducational reports is to help foster in the reader an enduring sense of empathy for the student.
Don't Forget
An important goal of writing effective psychoeducational reports is to help foster in the reader an enduring sense of empathy for the student.
General Trends in Intelligence Test Interpretation
Kamphaus and colleagues (1997, 2012) have outlined a number of long-term trends in how the use of cognitive ability tests has changed. Over the past 11 decades, there has been a shift away from the interpretation of a global IQ score toward the integrative understanding of how multiple factors of ability influence an individual's life. Multifactor tests are not exactly new, but recently developed tests are better grounded in strongly supported multifactor theories of cognitive abilities. Intuitively plausible, but haphazard and speculative interpretation systems are being replaced by systematic, empirically vetted, statistically sound approaches to interpretation. In this book, we strongly recommend one of these interpretive systems, the Cross-Battery Assessment approach (XBA; Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013), which is closely aligned with the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities (CHC Theory; McGrew, 1997, 2005, 2009; Schneider & McGrew, 2012). (For a brief overview of CHC theory, including broad and narrow ability definitions, see Appendix A.)
Don't Forget
Appendix A includes a brief description of CHC theory, definitions of broad and narrow CHC abilities, and task examples of each narrow ability.
With each new edition, the WISC has become more amenable to the application of XBA and CHC Theory—changes we applaud! That said, progress is not always linear, and sometimes psychometric advances are dearly bought. There are subtests from previous editions of the WISC that sophisticated veteran users regret losing because they afforded opportunities to observe clinically rich samples of behavior. Thus, before talking about how the XBA approach can be applied to the WISC-V, we retrace our steps and perhaps recover some half-forgotten bits of wisdom from the creator of the original WISC, David Wechsler.
Why the History of the Wechsler Scales Matters
It is possible to administer the WISC-V competently without knowing much of anything about its history. Is it really necessary to become familiar with every twist and turn the evolution of the WISC has taken? Why not just study the most recent version?
The Wechsler scales are commercial products, and businesses respond to market demands. If practitioners are unaware of what made the original WISC great, they can clamor for changes that can inadvertently ruin the test. David Wechsler had a well-articulated vision for his instruments (Kaufman, 2009, pp. 29–54). Unless we come to know and appreciate what that vision was, the test's publishers will yield to pressures to give us more of what we think we want and less of what David Wechsler thought we needed—to which, in our naiveté and ignorance, we will say, “Good riddance!”
For example, statistical training can sensitize us to the researcher's need for tests that cleanly measure unidimensional traits. From this perspective, the Wechsler scales are hopelessly messy. Why not make the Wechsler scales more like the relatively tidy tests from the Woodcock-Johnson cognitive batteries (e.g., Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities [WJ IV COG]; Schrank, McGrew, & Mather, 2014)? Because doing so would likely compromise what is special about the Wechsler scales, that they allow us to observe complex problem-solving processes as they unfold in real time. Unless we know more about what Wechsler was aiming for, we might not appreciate the fact that the “messiness” is a feature, not a bug. Wechsler did not create his tests to serve the needs of research. As he continually reminded Alan Kaufman, his former mentee, “First and foremost, the Wechsler scales are clinical tests—not psychometric tests but clinical tests” (Kaufman, 1994, p. xv).
With each revision of the WISC, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), and Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI), old subtests are retired and new ones are added. The new developers of the Wechsler scales appear to be clearing away measures with clinical clutter to make room for tests that are more psychometrically sleek. There is a clear upside to this trend in that specific abilities are more easily isolated, but the downside is also very real. We are not making a plea for sloppy psychometrics, but for a diversity of options, including complex measures that allow for clinically rich observations. It is inevitable that Wechsler's tests should change with the times, but perhaps not too much, and not too soon. Likewise, it is probably better that the WJ tests stay true to Richard Woodcock's original vision; it is better for the field as a whole that we can choose among tests with complementary virtues.
Exposure to the history of the Wechsler scales not only broadens our knowledge of the tests, but often, in subtle ways, deepens our commitment to our field. When we learn about what mattered to David Wechsler as he constructed his tests, often we come to care about those things, too, to a degree that we did not before. Even learning about the weaknesses of the original tests is helpful. The missteps along the way as the tests evolved serve as cautionary tales, ultimately affirming what is most important to us as professionals.
Don't Forget
Exposure to the history of the Wechsler scales not only broadens our knowledge of the tests, but deepens our commitment to our field.
Sometimes simply learning about the humanizing details of important figures' lives changes our outlook on their work. For example, Alan Kaufman's (2009) moving tribute to his mentor reveals Wechsler to have been a kind, thoughtful person with a sometimes imposingly strong sense of personal dignity. He was passionate about his work, if somewhat out of step with the times; as they worked to revise the WISC in the early 1970s, he bristled at Kaufman's suggestion that the Comprehension item “Why should women and children be saved first in a shipwreck?” might be perceived as sexist. Kaufman was taken aback at the inordinate intensity of Wechsler's instant response. Flushed with emotion, Wechsler objected, “Chivalry may be dying! Chivalry may be dead! But it will not die on the WISC!” Kaufman was afraid he had crossed a line he did not know was there.
In time, though, Wechsler relented. Chivalry did not die, but it was retired from the WISC-R. This anecdote says little about the theorist, but it says something about the complexity of the man. From where did this passion for a test item about protecting women and children in times of crisis come? Probably it is a manifestation of his upbringing, his experiences, and his personality as a whole. It is interesting to note, though, that his first book, The Range of Human Capacities, published in 1935, was dedicated to “the undying memory of Florence Felske,” a commercial artist who in 1934, just three weeks after becoming David Wechsler's bride, was killed in a vehicular accident (Carson, 1999).
Alfred Binet and the “First” Intelligence Tests
The fastest way to disabuse oneself of the false notion that Binet invented the first intelligence test is to read the works of Binet himself. He and his colleagues presented several attempts by previous scholars to measure intelligence and to identify children with intellectual disabilities (Binet & Simon, 1916, pp. 15–36). Indeed, it is clear that Binet's methods include many borrowings from these earlier scholars, including exact copies of specific test items. Though intelligence tests have many historical anticipations, stretching back to antiquity (Deary, 2000, p. 34), the tests designed by Binet and colleagues were superior to earlier tests along many dimensions. For example:
The procedures were standardized.
Test items were vetted by thousands of clinicians and refined over multiple editions.
The test scores were given proper norms.
The test scores were validated by correlations with multiple criteria and life outcomes (e.g., health, wealth, degrees, and grades).
Before Binet, it was common for doctors and other specialists to interview individuals suspected of having low intelligence, asking them to perform various tasks and answer test-like questions. The diagnosis of the condition now termed intellectual disability was then made based mostly on the holistic judgment of the interviewer. Binet was never against holistic judgment, just holistic judgment that was uninformed by high-quality data. The value of high-quality norms was not self-evident at the time; Binet and Simon (1905, 1916) had to write several persuasive papers and book chapters about the dangers of nonstandard procedures and the benefits of carefully compiled national norms. Although the standardization procedures used to create the norms for the Binet-Simon would be inadequate by today's standards, they were reasonably good—and vastly superior to no norms at all.
From Mental Ages to Intelligence Quotients to Standard Scores
If Binet's tests were good, why did Wechsler need to improve upon them? There were certain psychometric problems with Binet's idea of closely aligning test scores with the age of the child. Almost anyone can immediately understand what it means when we say that an 8-year-old child obtained a test score equal to that of the average 6-year-old—the child is 2 years behind the average. What is not immediately apparent is how unusual this is. No matter—norms can be compiled. Maybe 5% of 8-year-olds perform at this level or lower. Unfortunately, being 2 years behind does not mean the same thing, nor is it equally common at every age. Separate tables would need to be compiled for each age group. At some point there are too many tables. Some simplification is necessary to make the meaning of scores consistent.
Caution
Being 2 years behind in ability does not mean the same thing at every age, nor is it equally common at every age.
William Stern (1914, p. 42) addressed this problem by inventing the intelligence quotient (IQ), which originally was a fractional quantity calculated like so:
Later, this ratio was multiplied by 100 and rounded to the nearest integer. A child who is one year behind at age 4, two years behind at age 8, and three years at age 12 would at every age obtain an IQ of 75. A simple interpretation of this kind of IQ is that the mental capacities of a child with an IQ of 75 is advancing only three-quarters as fast as those of the average child. Stern knew that this was not strictly true, but believed that the IQ metric was a useful way of thinking about intellectual level.
The ratio of mental age to chronological age was more stable than Binet's measure of the difference of those values. However, the variability of intelligence quotients was not the same at all age levels (Wechsler, 1944, p. 25). For example, different percentages of children had IQs of 75 at different ages. Furthermore, the whole idea of mental age breaks down when intellectual growth tends to level off as adolescents approach adulthood. In late adulthood, intellectual decline is typical. An 80-year-old individual who scores as well as the average 40-year-old has performed better than the average 80-year-old. However, if the original IQ formula were mindlessly applied, this would result in a score of 50, which is absurd. Early test developers knew this and therefore applied other formulas for adults (e.g., comparing all adults to 14-year-olds), none of which were particularly satisfactory.
To address these problems, Wechsler reconceptualized mental age not as an age per se but as a score (i.e., the obtained score). From here, chronological age was also translated into a score (i.e., the expected mean score for a given age). Thus, the reconceptualized IQ:
Comparing obtained scores to mean scores like this is something of an improvement over the traditional IQ, especially for adults. Still, the problem with this method is that different score ratios would not always have the same meaning from test to test and from age to age. After a slight detour using a quirky type of deviation score, the Wechsler IQ scores eventually were expressed as standard scores instead of traditional intelligence quotients (Wechsler, 1958, pp. 241–242). Wechsler did not invent standard scores, but he adeptly adapted them for his tests and promoted their use.
Recall that Binet used the difference between mental age and chronological age. This tells us how far from the average a child performed. However, this distance does not have a consistent meaning. A standard score, in effect, puts this difference in the numerator and then gives it standardized meaning by dividing by the standard deviation, a measure of the typical distance a score is from the mean:
More precisely,
In this way, the Wechsler scales created intelligence scores that have a consistent meaning for all ages: They are standardized differences from the mean obtained by same-age peers. Wechsler Verbal IQ, Performance IQ, and Full Scale IQ were scaled to have means of 100 and standard deviations of 15 so that they would resemble traditional IQs. The Wechsler subtests are also standardized, but have means of 10 and standard deviations of 3.
Don't Forget
Standard intelligence scores are standardized differences from the mean obtained by same-age peers.
General Intelligence ≠ g
Binet invented a single-score test, but did not believe in general intelligence. Wechsler believed in general intelligence, but made multidimensional tests. What is going on here?
These scholars had complex views about intelligence and explicitly denied that their tests aligned perfectly with their respective definitions of intelligence (Wechsler, 1958, pp. 14–15). In fact, Binet denied that his tests measured intelligence at all! For him, intelligence was simply not amenable to measurement with the kinds of tests he and his colleagues developed (Binet & Simon, 1916):
This scale properly speaking does not permit the measure of the intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured, but are on the contrary, a classification, a hierarchy among diverse intelligences; and for the necessities of practice this classification is equivalent to a measure. (p. 40)
Binet had a very particular purpose for his test, and the mental age concept accomplished its task reasonably well. When the goal is to identify children with intellectual disabilities quickly, a summary score was all that was needed.
In contrast, Wechsler wanted his instrument to be capable of revealing highly nuanced information about how people use their intellect (indeed, their whole personalities) to solve problems (Kaufman, 1994, pp. ix–xv). Wechsler made his scales to measure what he called general intelligence. Although many scholars use this term interchangeably with the first factor that emerges in a factor analysis of cognitive tests (i.e., Spearman's g), Wechsler did not. Although he admired Spearman's (1904, 1927) theories about the general factor of intelligence, Wechsler (1944) did not equate general intelligence with Spearman's g:
We may say that “g” is a psychomathematical quantity which measures the mind's capacity to do intellectual work. Everybody will agree that the capacity to do intellectual work is a necessary and important sign of general intelligence. The question is whether it is the only important or paramount factor. In this writer's opinion it is not. (p. 8)
Truth be told, Spearman did not equate g with intelligence either (Spearman, 1927, pp. 75–76), though on this topic he was sometimes coy with his readers.
What did Wechsler mean when he used the term general intelligence? Certainly it included intellectual ability, but he asserted that it “must be regarded as a manifestation of the personality as a whole” (Wechsler, 1950, p. 83). Although general intelligence consists of many parts, it is the configuration of those parts that determines an individual's overall capacity “to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with [one's] environment” (Wechsler, 1958, p. 7). What were those parts? Wechsler did not claim to know precisely.
We do not know what the ultimate nature of the “stuff” which constitutes intelligence but . . . we know it by the “things” it enables us to do—such as making appropriate associations between events, drawing correct inferences from propositions, understanding the meaning of words, solving mathematical problems or building bridges. (pp. 7–8)
To Wechsler, intelligence encompassed numerous primary mental abilities (as tentatively revealed by factor analysis) and also many non-intellective traits and abilities, including drive, persistence, self-control, and social adaptation (Wechsler, 1950, 1958, p. 13). These more subtle aspects of intelligence tend to be difficult to detect with factor analysis, but are nevertheless observable during testing and in other settings. It was one of Wechsler's great regrets that he never succeeded in developing good measures of these non-intellective factors of intelligence, despite several attempts and considerable effort (Tulsky, Saklofske, & Zhu, 2003).
Wechsler's tests yield many different kinds of scores, all of which could be considered carefully, but ultimately he wanted the test to be an index of the individual's global capacity:
[The diverse tasks in intelligence tests] are only means to an end. Their object is not to test a person's memory, judgment or reasoning ability, but to measure something which it is hoped will emerge from the sum total of the subject's performance, namely, his general intelligence. (Wechsler, 1958, p. 9)
We begin with a series of aptitude measures, but somehow end up with an IQ. How is this possible? The suggested answer is that in the process we are using measures of ability primarily as a tool; that is, not as an end in itself but as a means for discovering something more fundamental. Then, when an examiner employs an arithmetic or a vocabulary test as part of an intelligence scale, the object of the examiner is not to discover the examinee's aptitude for arithmetic or extent of his word knowledge, although these are inevitably involved, but his capacity to function in overall areas that are assumed to require intelligence:
While intellective abilities can be shown to contain several independent factors, intelligence cannot be so broken up. Hence, no amount of refinement of tests or addition of factors will account for the total variance of an intelligence test battery, because the variance in intelligence test performance is due not only to the direct contributions of the factors themselves but also to their collective behavior or integration. (Wechsler, 1958, p. 23)
Wechsler's Subtests
To say that David Wechsler did not invent new tests but merely adapted them is to fail to discern his genius. There were hundreds of tests available when he was developing his first battery, the Wechsler-Bellevue. It was not dumb luck that the Wechsler scales displaced the Stanford-Binet to become the dominant clinical measure of intelligence and retain that position for decades.
Wechsler believed that his first intelligence test was successful because it relied so heavily on the experience of others (Wechsler, 1944, p. 76). He found that it was nearly impossible to know whether a new test format or even a particular test item was going to be a good indicator of intelligence until it had been tried out clinically and evaluated statistically. As an example, he tells how when trying out items for the Information subtest, no one could predict which of two very similar items would be better: “How many pints make a quart?” or “How many feet
