WAIS-IV Interpretive Worksheet

Appendix A A.1: WAIS‐IV Interpretive Worksheet 1

STEP 1. Report the Person’s WAIS-IV Standard Scores (FSIQ and Indexes) and Subtest Scaled Scores.

For IQ and indexes, report standard score, confidence interval, percentile rank, and descriptive category. For subtests, report scaled scores and percentile ranks only. (See Rapid Reference 5.2 for descriptive categories.)

STEP 2. Determine the Best Way to Summarize Overall Intellectual Ability.

Step 2a. To determine whether the FSIQ is interpretable, subtract the Lowest Index from the Highest Index.

Highest Lowest Difference

Is the difference

< 23 points?

Index Standard Scores: – = Y or N

Step 2b. To determine whether the General Ability Index (GAI) may be used to summarize overall intellectual ability, calculate the difference between the VCI and PRI.

VCI PRI Absolute

Difference

Is the difference

< 23 points?


To calculate the GAI, sum 6 subtest scaled scores of the 3 VCI subtests and 3 PRI subtests, and locate the GAI that corresponds to this sum in Table C.1 of the WAIS-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual (Psychological Corporation, 2008, p. 169).

Sum of Subtest Scaled Scores

VC SI IN MR BD VP GAI

Scaled Score

+ + + + + = =

If YES, the FSIQ may be interpreted as a reliable and valid estimate of a person’s overall intellectual ability. Proceed directly to

Step 3.

If NO, then proceed to Step 2b.

If YES, the GAI can be calculated and interpreted as a reliable and valid estimate of the person’s overall intellectual ability.

If NO, then proceed to Step 3.


STEP 3. Determine Whether the Difference between the Person’s GAI and Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI) Is Unusually Large.

Step 3a. Determine whether the GAI and CPI represent unitary abilities or processes.

If you have not already done so in Step 2b, determine whether the GAI represents a unitary ability by calculating the difference between the VCI and PRI. If you completed this calculation in Step 2b, then transfer those results here.

VCI PRI Absolute

Difference

Is the difference

< 23 points?


Determine whether the CPI represents a unitary ability by calculating the difference between the WMI and the PSI.

WMI PSI Absolute

Difference

Is the difference

< 23 points?


Step 3b. Calculate the GAI and CPI if they represent unitary abilities or processes. If the GAI has been calculated in Step 2b, use the value for Step 3c. Otherwise use the tables below to calculate the GAI and CPI.

To calculate the GAI, sum 6 subtest scaled scores of the 3 VCI subtests and 3 PRI subtests and locate the GAI that corresponds to this sum in Table C.1 of the WAIS-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual (Psychological Corporation, 2008, p. 169).


VC SI IN MR BD VP GAI Scaled Score

+ + + + + = =

To calculate the CPI, sum 4 subtest scaled scores of the 2 Core WMI subtests and 2 Core PSI subtests and locate the CPI that corresponds to this sum in Appendix A.2 the CD-ROM.

If YES, then the CPI can be calculated and interpreted as a reliable and valid estimate of the person’s overall ability for proficient information processing, through quick visual speed and good mental control.

If NO, the GAI-CPI comparison cannot be made. Go to Step 4.

If YES, the GAI can be calculated and interpreted as a reliable and valid estimate of the person’s overall intellectual ability. Proceed to the next part of this step to determine whether the CPI can be interpreted.

If NO, the GAI-CPI comparison cannot be made. Go to Step 4.



DS AR SS CD CPI Scaled Score

+ + + = =

Step 3c. Record the size of the difference between the GAI and CPI in the table below. If it is 9 points or more, it should be considered statistically different (at the p < .05 level).

Step 3d. Determine whether the size of the difference between the GAI and CPI is uncommonly large. If it is 19 points or more, it should be considered uncommonly large (occurring less than 10% of the time in the standardization sample).

GAI CPI Absolute

Difference

Is the difference

significant? ≥ 9 points

Is the difference

uncommon? ≥ 19 points

Index Standard Scores – = Y or N Y or N

STEP 4. Select the Wechsler Four-Index Model or the Keith Five-Factor Model.

Step 4 is designed to help you determine if use of the Keith Five-Factor model is appropriate or if the Wechsler Four-Index model should be your choice for interpretation. Answering the next three questions will help you select the appropriate model.

Step 4a. Question: Is the person you tested between the ages of 16 and 69?

• If no, proceed to Step 5 to interpret data with the Wechsler Four-Index Model. • If yes, answer the Step 4b question below.

Step 4b. Question: Did you administer the supplementary subtests, Letter-Number Sequencing, and Figure Weights?

• If no, proceed to Step 5 to interpret data with the Wechsler Four-Index Model. • If yes, answer the Step 4c question below.

Step 4c. Question: Considering your personal theoretical and clinical foundations, do you

choose to interpret the WAIS-IV data with the Keith Five-Factor model?

• If no, proceed to Step 5 to interpret data with the Wechsler Four-Index model. • If yes, continue to Step 6 to interpret the data with the Keith Five-Factor model.

STEP 5. Determine Whether Each of the Four Wechsler Indexes Is Unitary, and Thus

Interpretable

Skip this step if you are interpreting the person’s profile via the Keith Five‐Factor Approach. Proceed to Step 6.

Step 5a–5d. Calculate the difference between the highest and lowest subtest scaled scores for the VCI, PRI, WMI, and PSI.

Y or N

Y or N

Y or N


Highest Lowest Difference

Is the difference < 5

points?

5a. VCI Subtest Scores: – = Y or N

5b. PRI Subtest Scores: – = Y or N

5c. WMI Subtest Scores: – = Y or N

5d. PSI Subtest Scores: – = Y or N

STEP 6. Determine Whether Each of the Five Keith Factors Is Unitary, and Thus Interpretable.

Skip this step if you interpreted the person’s profile via the Wechsler Four‐Index method. Proceed to Step 7.

Step 6a. Calculate the standard scores for the five Keith Factors by summing the scaled scores for the two subtests that comprise each cluster and converting the sum to a standard score using the norms in Appendixes A.3–A.6 of the CD-ROM.

Factor Scaled

Score 1

Scaled Score

2

Sum of Scaled Scores

Factor Standard

Score

Gc VC + IN =

Gsm DS + LN =

Gf MR + FW =

Gv BD + VP =

Gs SS + CD =

Step 6b-6f. Calculate the absolute difference among subtest scaled scores within each of the factors, and determine if the size of the difference less than 1.5 standard deviations (< 5 points).

If YES, the ability presumed to underlie the index is unitary and may be interpreted.

If NO, the index cannot be interpreted as representing a unitary ability. Proceed to

Step 7 after completing Step 5d.


Factor

Scaled Score

1

Scaled Score

2 Absolute

Difference

Is the difference < 5 points?

6b. Gc VC – IN = Y or N

6c. Gsm DS – LN = Y or N

6d. Gf MR – FW = Y or N

6e. Gv BD – VP = Y or N

6f. Gs SS – CD = Y or N

Step 6g. Determine how many of Keith’s Five Factors are interpretable by reviewing the results of Steps 6b–6f.

Is the number < 3

Number of interpretable Keith factors: Y or N

STEP 7. Determine Normative Strengths and Normative Weaknesses in the Index or Factor Profile.

Record the standard score for each interpretable index or factor in the table below. Place a check-mark in the box corresponding to the appropriate normative category for each index or factor.

Wechsler Index

Standard Score

Normative Weakness

< 85

Within Normal Limits 85–115

Normative Strength

> 115 VCI PRI WMI

PSI

If YES, the ability presumed to underlie the factor is unitary and can be interpreted.

If NO, the factor cannot be interpreted as representing a unitary ability. Proceed to

Step 6g after completing Steps 6a–6f.

If YES, only one or two of Keith’s factors are interpretable, so we strongly recommend using the Wechsler Four-Index model to interpret the WAIS-IV data. Go back to Step 5 to complete

interpretation of the Wechsler Four-Index model.

If NO, then proceed to Step 7 to interpret the Keith Five Factors.


Keith Factor

Standard Score

Normative Weakness

< 85

Within Normal Limits 85–115

Normative Strength

> 115 Gc

Gsm

Gv

Gf

Gs

STEP 8. Determine Personal Strengths and Personal Weaknesses in the Index Profile.

Step 8a. Compute the mean of the person’s indexes or factors and round to the nearest tenth of a point. Note that all indexes or factors (interpretable and noninter-pretable) are included in the computation of the mean.

Wechsler Index

Standard Score

Keith Factor

Standard Score

Gc

VCI Gsm

PRI Gv

WMI Gf

PSI Gs

Sum of Indexes Sum of Factors

Number of Indexes ÷ 4 Number of Factors ÷ 5

Mean of Indexes Mean of Factors

Step 8b. Fill in the table as follows:

• Record the interpretable index or factor standard score in column (2). • Record the rounded mean of all indexes or factors in column (3) (from Step 5a or 6a). • Record the difference Score (i.e., Standard Score minus Mean) in column (4). • Record the critical value needed for the difference score to be considered significant in

column (5). (See below for p < .05 values, and see Tables 5.4 and 5.5 for p < .01 level of significance.)

• If the difference score equals or exceeds the critical value, record “PS” for a positive (+) difference score or “PW” for a negative (–) difference score.


Step 8c. Determine whether the personal strength/weakness is uncommon (base rate < 10%) in the general population. If the difference score is ≥ 15 points, it is uncommon.

• Record “Uncommon (or U)” in column (7) for difference scores that are ≥ 15 points.

Interpretable Wechsler

Index (1)

Standard Score

(2)

Rounded Mean of

All Indexes

(3)

Difference Score

(4)

Critical Value

Needed for Significance

(5)

Personal Strength

or Personal

Weakness (PS or PW)

(6)

Uncommon (U) or Not

Uncommon (NU) (7)

VCI PRI WMI PSI

Interpretable Keith Factor

(1)

Standard Score

(2)

Rounded Mean of

All Factors

(3)

Difference Score

(4)

Critical Value

Needed for Significance

(5)

Personal Strength

or Personal

Weakness (PS or PW)

(6)

Uncommon (U) or Not

Uncommon (NU) (7)

Gc Gsm Gv Gf Gs

Critical Value Needed for Significance for Ages 16–90

(p <.05 level of significance)

Wechsler Indexes Keith Factors

Age VCI PRI WMI PSI Gc Gf Gv Gsm Gs

16–17 6.5 6.1 6.8 8.3 6.2 7.0 7.0 6.6 8.7

18–19 5.6 6.3 6.3 7.6 6.0 6.8 6.8 6.4 7.8

20–24 5.7 6.4 7.0 7.6 5.6 7.2 7.2 6.8 7.9

25–29 5.5 5.5 5.8 7.5 5.9 6.3 6.3 5.9 7.8

30–34 5.6 5.6 6.0 8.4 5.9 5.9 6.4 5.5 8.8

35–44 5.6 6.0 6.0 8.4 5.6 6.8 6.8 6.4 8.8

45–54 5.1 5.5 5.9 8.3 5.0 6.4 5.9 5.9 8.8

55–64 5.0 5.8 6.2 7.2 4.9 6.7 6.7 6.3 7.4

65–69 5.0 5.8 6.2 7.2 4.9 6.3 6.3 6.3 7.4

70–74 5.1 5.9 6.6 7.2

75–79 5.5 6.2 5.8 6.9

80–84 5.1 6.9 6.3 6.9

85–90 4.6 6.6 6.6 6.9


Step 8d. Determine whether any of the interpretable Wechsler indexes or Keith factors are Key Assets or High-Priority Concerns.

Review your findings from Steps 7, 8b, and 8c. For each relevant index or factor, place a checkmark in the column that accurately describes the findings for that index or factor. Indexes or factors that represent an uncommon, normative, and personal strength should be identified as a “Key Asset.” Indexes that represent an uncommon, normative, and personal weakness should be identified as a “High-Priority Concern.”

Index or Factor

NS (Step 7)

NW (Step 7)

PS (Step 8b)

PW (Step 8b)

Uncommon (Step 8c)

Key Asset

High-Priority Concern

VCI PRI WMI PSI Gc Gsm Gv Gf Gs Notes: NS = Normative Strength; NW = Normative Weakness; PS = Personal Strength; PW = Personal Weakness.

STEP 9. Interpret Fluctuations in the Person’s Index Profile.

Review Rapid Reference 5.10 for a description of all the terms that are used to classify Indexes or Factors. See Rapid Reference 5.11 for examples of how to describe indexes or factors that are classified as strengths. Rapid Reference 5.12 gives examples of how to describe indexes or factors that are classified as weaknesses. Basic definitions of CHC Broad and Narrow Abilities are also summarized in Appendix A.7 on the CD-ROM. An overview of neuropsychological theory and CHC theory related to the interpretation of the Keith Five-Factor model is presented in Rapid Reference 5.7. The information in Rapid Reference 5.7 can also provide a useful outline for neuropsychologically based and CHC-based interpretation of the Wechsler Four-Index model.

STEP 10. Conduct Planned Clinical Comparisons.

There are 8 possible clinical comparisons. Either conduct all comparisons or select those that are most appropriate for a given individual based on the referral questions and assessment results. Step 10a. Determine whether each Clinical Cluster is unitary.

• Using the tables that follow, record the scaled scores for each relevant subtest. • Subtract the lowest from the highest scaled score to compute the difference. • If the difference equals or exceeds 5 points, the Clinical Cluster is not unitary and

cannot be used to conduct clinical comparisons. • If the difference is less than 5 points, the Clinical Cluster is unitary. • Clinical comparisons may be made only if both clusters comprising the comparison

have been determined to be unitary.


CLUSTER

Highest Scaled Score

Lowest Scaled Score

Differ-ence

Is the difference < 5 points?

Visual-Motor Speed Block Design + Coding + Symbol Search

– = Y or N

Problem Solving without Visual-Motor Speed Matrix Reasoning + VIsual Puzzles + Picture Completion +Figure Weights (ages16–69)

–

=

Y or N

Mental Manipulation Letter- Number Sequencing + Digit Span (ages 16–69)

– = Y or N

Verbal Fluid Reasoning (Gf-verbal) Similarities + Comprehension

– = Y or N

Lexical Knowledge (Gc-VL) Vocabulary + Similarities

– = Y or N

General Information (Gc-K0) Comprehension + Information

– = Y or N

Long-Term Memory (Gc-LTM) Vocabulary + Information

– = Y or N

Short-Term Memory (Gsm-MW) Letter-Number Sequencing + Digit Span (ages 16–69)

– = Y or N

Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Matrix Reasoning + Figure Weights (ages 16–69)

– = Y or N

Visual Processing (Gv) Block Design + Visual Puzzles

– = Y or N


Step 10b. For unitary clusters only, calculate the Clinical Cluster by following the steps below.

• Sum the scaled scores in each column for the subtests that comprise the Clinical Cluster. • Convert the sum of scaled scores to a Clinical Cluster standard score using Appendixes A.9–A.17. • Record the cluster’s percentile Rank and Confidence Interval (also available in Appendixes A.9–A.17).

Subtest

Visual-Motor Speed

Problem Solving without Visual Motor Speed

Mental Manip-ulation

Verbal Fluid

Reason-ing

Lexical Know-ledge

General Infor-

mation

Long-Term

Memory

Short- Term

Memory

Fluid Reason-

ing

Visual Pro-

cessing

BD SI DS MR VC AR SS VP IN CD LN FW CO CA

PCm

Sum of Scaled Scores Cluster

Standard Score

Percent- ile Rank Confid- ence

Interval


Step 10c. Conduct planned clinical comparisons.

• Only interpretable Clinical Clusters may be used in Step 10c. (See Step 10a’s results.) • Calculate the difference between the clusters in the comparison by completing the next table with the

cluster standard scores that were determined in Step 10b. • If the size of the difference is equal to or greater than the value reported in the next table, then the

difference is Uncommon (U). • If the size of the difference between the two clusters in the comparison is less than the table value, then

the difference is Not Uncommon (NU).

Cluster 1 vs. Cluster 2 Score 1

– Score 2

= Differ-ence

Critical Value

Uncommon (U) or Not Uncommon

(NU) Visual-Motor Speed (BD+CD+SS)

vs. Problem Solving w/o Visual-Motor Speed (MR+VP+PC+FW)

–

=

20

Visual-Motor Speed (BD+CD+SS)

vs. Mental Manipulation (LN+DS)

–

=

24

Mental Manipulation (LN+DS)

vs. Problem Solving w/o Visual-Motor Speed (MR+VP+PC+FW)

–

=

22

Fluid Reasoning (MR+FW)

vs. Visual Processing (BD+VP)

–

=

20

Verbal Fluid Reasoning (SI+CO)

vs. Fluid Reasoning (MR+FW)

–

=

22

Lexical Knowledge (VC+SI)

vs. General Information (CO+IN)

–

=

15

Long-Term Memory (VC+IN)

vs. Short-Term Memory (LN+DS)

–

=

24

Verbal Fluid Reasoning (SI+CO)

vs. Long-Term Memory (VC+IN)

–

=

16

Note: Difference scores that exceed the critical value listed in column 3 should be denoted as “Uncommon.”

Step 10d. Describe results of planned clinical comparisons. Regardless of the outcome of Step 10c, review the information in Rapid Reference 5.18 and 5.19 in chapter 5 of this book to help develop interpretive statements that appropriately describe the results of the person’s Clinical Cluster comparisons.

Appendix A A.2: CPI Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores 12

Appendix A.2 CPI Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

Sum of Scaled Scores for

DS+AR+CD+SS CPI %tile 90% CI 95% CI 4 40 <0.1 38-48 37-49 5 41 <0.1 39-49 38-50 6 43 <0.1 41-51 40-52 7 45 <0.1 43-53 42-54 8 47 <0.1 44-55 43-56 9 49 <0.1 46-57 45-58 10 51 0.1 48-59 47-60 11 53 0.1 50-61 49-62 12 55 0.1 52-62 51-63 13 57 0.2 54-64 53-65 14 58 0.3 55-65 54-66 15 60 0.4 57-67 56-68 16 62 1 59-69 58-70 17 64 1 61-71 60-72 18 66 1 62-73 61-74 19 68 2 64-75 63-76 20 70 2 66-77 65-78 21 71 3 67-78 66-79 22 72 3 68-79 67-80 23 74 4 70-81 69-82 24 75 5 71-81 70-82 25 77 6 73-83 72-84 26 78 7 74-84 73-85 27 79 8 75-85 74-86 28 80 9 76-86 75-87 29 82 12 78-88 77-89 30 83 13 79-89 78-90 31 85 16 81-91 80-92 32 87 19 82-93 81-94 33 89 23 84-95 83-96 34 91 27 86-97 85-98 35 93 32 88-99 87-100 36 94 34 89-100 88-101 37 96 39 91-101 90-102 38 98 45 93-103 92-104 39 99 47 94-104 93-105 40 100 50 95-105 94-106 41 101 53 96-106 95-107 42 102 55 97-107 96-108 43 103 58 98-108 97-109 44 105 63 100-110 99-111 45 106 66 100-111 99-112 46 108 70 102-113 101-114 47 110 75 104-115 103-116 48 112 79 106-117 105-118

Appendix A A.2: CPI Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores 13

Sum of Scaled Scores for

DS+AR+CD+SS CPI %tile 90% CI 95% CI 49 114 82 108-119 107-120 50 116 86 110-120 109-121 51 118 88 112-122 111-123 52 120 91 114-124 113-125 53 121 92 115-125 114-126 54 123 94 117-127 116-128 55 125 95 119-129 118-130 56 126 96 119-130 118-131 57 128 97 121-132 120-133 58 129 97 122-133 121-134 59 131 98 124-135 123-136 60 133 99 126-137 125-138 61 135 99 128-138 127-139 62 137 99 130-140 129-141 63 139 99.5 132-142 131-143 64 141 99.7 134-144 133-145 65 143 99.8 136-146 135-147 66 146 99.9 138-149 137-150 67 148 99.9 140-151 139-152 68 150 >99.9 142-153 141-154 69 152 >99.9 144-155 143-156 70 155 >99.9 147-157 146-158 71 157 >99.9 149-159 148-160 72 160 >99.9 152-162 151-163 73 160 >99.9 152-162 151-163 74 160 >99.9 152-162 151-163 75 160 >99.9 152-162 151-163 76 160 >99.9 152-162 151-163

Source: Standardization data and analysis results from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV). Copyright © 2008 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

Appendix A A.3: Gc Factor Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores 14

Appendix A.3 Crystallized Intelligence (Gc) Factor Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores


for VC+IN

Gc Factor %tile 90% CI 95% CI

2 50 <0.1 47-57 46-58 3 53 0.1 50-60 49-61 4 56 0.2 53-62 52-63 5 59 0.3 56-65 55-66 6 62 1 59-68 58-69 7 65 1 62-71 61-72 8 68 2 65-74 64-75 9 71 3 67-77 67-78 10 74 4 70-80 69-81 11 76 5 72-82 71-83 12 79 8 75-85 74-85 13 81 10 77-86 76-87 14 84 14 80-89 79-90 15 87 19 83-92 82-93 16 89 23 85-94 84-95 17 92 30 88-97 87-98 18 95 37 90-100 90-101 19 97 42 92-102 91-103 20 100 50 95-105 94-106 21 102 55 97-107 96-108 22 105 63 100-110 99-110 23 107 68 102-111 101-112 24 110 75 105-114 104-115 25 113 81 108-117 107-118 26 116 86 111-120 110-121 27 118 88 113-122 112-123 28 121 92 115-125 115-126 29 124 95 118-128 117-129 30 127 96 121-131 120-132 31 130 98 124-134 123-134 32 133 99 127-136 126-137 33 136 99 130-139 129-140 34 139 99.5 133-142 132-143 35 142 99.7 136-145 135-146 36 145 99.9 138-148 138-149 37 148 99.9 141-151 140-152 38 150 >99.9 143-153 142-154


Appendix A A.4: Gsm Factor Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores 15

Appendix A.4 Short-Term Memory (Gsm) Factor Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores


for LN+DS

Gsm Factor %tile 90% CI 95% CI

2 50 <0.1 47-59 46-60 3 52 0.1 49-61 48-62 4 55 0.1 52-63 51-64 5 58 0.3 55-66 54-67 6 61 0.5 58-69 57-70 7 64 1 60-72 59-73 8 67 1 63-75 62-76 9 69 2 65-77 64-78 10 72 3 68-79 67-80 11 74 4 70-81 69-82 12 77 6 73-84 72-85 13 79 8 75-86 73-87 14 83 13 78-90 77-91 15 86 18 81-93 80-94 16 89 23 84-95 83-96 17 92 30 87-98 86-99 18 95 37 90-101 89-102 19 98 45 92-104 91-105 20 100 50 94-106 93-107 21 103 58 97-109 96-110 22 105 63 99-110 98-111 23 108 70 102-113 101-114 24 110 75 104-115 103-116 25 112 79 106-117 105-118 26 115 84 108-120 107-121 27 118 88 111-123 110-124 28 121 92 114-125 113-127 29 124 95 117-128 116-129 30 127 96 120-131 119-132 31 130 98 123-134 121-135 32 133 99 125-137 124-138 33 136 99 128-140 127-141 34 139 99.5 131-142 130-143 35 142 99.7 134-145 133-146 36 145 99.9 137-148 136-149 37 148 99.9 139-151 138-152 38 150 >99.9 141-153 140-154


Appendix A A.5: Gf Factor Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores 16

Appendix A.5 Fluid Reasoning Intelligence (Gf) Factor Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores


for MR+FW Gf Factor %tile 90% CI 95% CI

2 50 <0.1 47-60 46-61 3 52 0.1 49-61 48-63 4 55 0.1 52-64 51-65 5 58 0.3 55-67 54-68 6 61 0.5 58-70 56-71 7 64 1 60-73 59-74 8 67 1 63-75 62-77 9 69 2 65-77 64-78 10 72 3 68-80 67-81 11 75 5 71-83 70-84 12 78 7 73-86 72-87 13 81 10 76-88 75-90 14 84 14 79-91 78-92 15 87 19 82-94 81-95 16 89 23 84-96 83-97 17 92 30 86-99 85-100 18 94 34 88-100 87-102 19 97 42 91-103 90-104 20 100 50 94-106 93-107 21 102 55 96-108 95-109 22 105 63 99-111 97-112 23 107 68 100-113 99-114 24 110 75 103-115 102-117 25 113 81 106-118 105-119 26 116 86 109-121 108-122 27 119 90 112-124 110-125 28 122 93 114-127 113-128 29 125 95 117-129 116-130 30 128 97 120-132 119-133 31 131 98 123-135 122-136 32 134 99 126-138 124-139 33 137 99 128-140 127-142 34 140 99.6 131-143 130-144 35 143 99.8 134-146 133-147 36 146 99.9 137-149 136-150 37 149 99.9 139-152 138-153 38 150 >99.9 140-153 139-154


Appendix A A.6: Gv Factor Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores 17

Appendix A.6 Visual Processing (Gv) Factor Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores


for BD+VP

Gv Factor %tile 90% CI 95% CI

2 50 <0.1 47-60 46-61 3 52 0.1 49-61 48-63 4 55 0.1 52-64 51-65 5 58 0.3 55-67 54-68 6 61 0.5 58-70 56-71 7 64 1 60-73 59-74 8 67 1 63-75 62-77 9 70 2 66-78 65-79 10 73 4 69-81 68-82 11 75 5 71-83 70-84 12 78 7 73-86 72-87 13 81 10 76-88 75-90 14 84 14 79-91 78-92 15 87 19 82-94 81-95 16 90 25 85-97 83-98 17 92 30 86-99 85-100 18 95 37 89-101 88-103 19 97 42 91-103 90-104 20 100 50 94-106 93-107 21 102 55 96-108 95-109 22 105 63 99-111 97-112 23 107 68 100-113 99-114 24 110 75 103-115 102-117 25 113 81 106-118 105-119 26 116 86 109-121 108-122 27 119 90 112-124 110-125 28 122 93 114-127 113-128 29 125 95 117-129 116-130 30 128 97 120-132 119-133 31 131 98 123-135 122-136 32 134 99 126-138 124-139 33 137 99 128-140 127-142 34 140 99.6 131-143 130-144 35 143 99.8 134-146 133-147 36 146 99.9 137-149 136-150 37 149 99.9 139-152 138-153 38 150 >99.9 140-153 139-154


A 1

Appendix ADefi nitions of CHC Abilities and Processes

CHC THEORY AND THE STRUCTURE OF

COGNITIVE ABILITIES AND PROCESSES

In this section, the defi nitions of the broad and some of the narrow abilities in-cluded in CHC theory are presented. These defi nitions are consistent with those presented in Flanagan, Ortiz, and Alfonso (2007). Given the number of narrow abilities and processes comprising the theory (more than 70), it is not practical to include defi nitions of all of them in this text. Practitioners are referred to Carroll (1993), Flanagan, and colleagues (2007), and McGrew (2005) for defi nitions of all CHC narrow abilities and processes.

Fluid Intelligence (Gf )

Fluid Intelligence (Gf) refers to mental operations that an individual uses when faced with a relatively novel task that cannot be performed automatically. These mental operations may include forming and recognizing concepts, perceiving relation-ships among patterns, drawing inferences, comprehending implications, problem solving, extrapolating, and reorganizing or transforming information. Inductive and deductive reasoning are generally considered to be the hallmark narrow-ability indicators of Gf. The WISC-IV provides three distinct reasoning tests: Picture Concepts and Word Reasoning (which involve the use of inductive reasoning) and Matrix Reasoning (which involves the use of general sequential reasoning, i.e., deductive reasoning). Select Gf narrow abilities are defi ned in Table A.1.

Crystallized Intelligence (Gc)

Crystallized Intelligence (Gc) refers to the breadth and depth of a person’s acquired knowledge of a culture and the effective application of this knowledge. This store of primarily verbal or language-based knowledge represents those abilities that have been developed largely through the investment of other abilities during educational and general life experiences (Horn & Blankson, 2005).

2 APPENDIX A

Gc includes both declarative (static) and procedural (dynamic) knowledge. Declarative knowledge is held in long-term memory (Glr) and is activated when related information is in working memory (Gsm). Declarative knowledge in-cludes factual information, comprehension, concepts, rules, and relationships, especially when the information is verbal in nature. Procedural knowledge refers to the process of reasoning with previously learned procedures in order to trans-form knowledge. For example, a child’s knowledge of his or her street address would refl ect declarative knowledge, while a child’s ability to fi nd his or her way home from school would require procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge refers to knowledge “that something is the case, whereas procedural knowledge is knowledge of how to do something” (Gagne, 1985, p. 48). The WISC-IV measures many different aspects of Gc. For example, the WISC-IV Verbal Com-prehension Index (VCI), which is composed of Vocabulary, Similarities, and Comprehension, provides an assessment of several Gc narrow abilities, includ-ing Lexical Knowledge (VL), Language Development (LD), and General Infor-mation (K0). The WISC-IV Information (K0), Word Reasoning (VL), Picture Concepts (K0), and Picture Completion (K0) subtests also involve the use of specifi c Gc narrow abilities. The breadth of Gc is apparent from the number of narrow abilities (i.e., 11) that it subsumes. Select Gc narrow abilities are defi ned in Table A.2.

A rather unique aspect of Gc not seen in the other broad abilities is that it appears to be both a store of acquired knowledge (e.g., lexical knowledge) as well as a col-lection of processing abilities (e.g., oral production and fl uency). Although Gc is probably most often conceptualized much like Gq and Grw as an ability that is highly

Table A.1 Description of Select Gf Narrow Ability Defi nitions

Narrow stratum I name (code) Defi nitionGeneral Sequential Reasoning (RG)

Ability to start with stated rules, premises, or conditions, and to engage in one or more steps to reach a solution to a novel problem.

Induction (I) Ability to discover the underlying characteristic (e.g., rule, concept, process, trend, class membership) that governs a problem or a set of materials.

Quantitative Reasoning (RQ)

Ability to inductively and deductively reason with con-cepts involving mathematical relations and properties.

Note: Narrow ability defi nitions were adapted from McGrew (1997) with permission from Guilford. All rights reserved. Two letter factor codes (e.g., RG) are from Carroll (1993a).

APPENDIX A 3

dependent upon learning experiences (especially formal, classroom-type experi-ences), it also seems to encompass a few narrow constructs that are more process oriented. General Information, as one example of a narrow ability, is clearly a reposi-tory of learned information. Yet, Listening Ability, as another example of a narrow ability under Gc, not only appears to represent learned material but refl ects another ability as well—the ability to comprehend information presented orally. Although comprehension is of course dependent on knowledge of the words being presented, the natures of these abilities are clearly not identical. Assessment of Gc abilities there-fore may require that closer attention be paid to the narrow abilities and processes it subsumes. Despite the interrelatedness of all narrow abilities under Gc, there may well be times when focus on the narrow constructs that are more process oriented as opposed to those that are more knowledge or ability oriented is important.

Quantitative Knowledge (Gq)

Quantitative Knowledge (Gq) represents an individual’s store of acquired quantita-tive, declarative, and procedural knowledge. The Gq store of acquired knowledge represents the ability to use quantitative information and manipulate numeric symbols. Gq abilities are typically measured by achievement tests. For example, most comprehensive tests of achievement include measures of math calculation, applied problems, and general math knowledge. Although intelligence batteries

Table A.2 Description of Select Gc Narrow Ability Defi nitions

Narrow stratum I name (code) Defi nition

Language Development (LD)

General development, or the understanding of words, sentences, and paragraphs (not requiring reading), in spoken native language skills.

Lexical Knowledge (VL)

Extent of vocabulary that can be understood in terms of correct word meanings.

Listening Ability (LS)

Ability to listen and comprehend oral communica-tions.

General (verbal) Information (K0)

Range of general knowledge.

Information About Culture (K2)

Range of cultural knowledge (e.g., music, art).

Note: Narrow ability defi nitions were adapted from McGrew (1997) with permission from Guilford. All rights reserved. Two letter factor codes (e.g., LD) are from Carroll (1993a).

4 APPENDIX A

(e.g., the Wechsler Scales, SB-IV) have measured aspects of Gq, they typically do not measure them comprehensively. The WISC-IV contains one Gq subtest—namely, Arithmetic, which measures primarily Math Achievement (A3).

It is important to understand the difference between Gq and the Quantitative Reasoning (RQ) ability that is subsumed by Gf. On the whole, Gq represents an individual’s store of acquired mathematical knowledge, including the ability to perform mathematical calculations correctly. Quantitative Reasoning represents only the ability to reason inductively and deductively when solving quantitative problems. Recall that RQ is a narrow ability that is typically found to fall under Gf. However, because RQ, as discussed previously, is dependent on possession of ba-sic mathematical concepts and knowledge, it seems to be as much a narrow ability under Gq as it is under Gf. Quantitative Reasoning is most evident when a task requires mathematical skills and general mathematical knowledge (e.g., knowing what the square-root symbol means). Quantitative Reasoning would be required in order to solve for a missing number in a number-series task (e.g., 3, 6, 9, __). Al-though most achievement batteries measure specifi c math skills and general math knowledge, some also require individuals to solve quantitative problems through inductive or deductive reasoning. Therefore, it may be best to conceptualize RQ as being a narrow ability that falls under both Gf and Gq broad abilities. Select Gq narrow abilities are defi ned in Table A.3.

Short-Term Memory (Gsm)

Short-Term Memory (Gsm) is the ability to apprehend and hold information in im-mediate awareness and then use it within a few seconds. It is a limited-capacity system, as most individuals can retain only seven chunks of information (plus or minus two chunks) in this system at one time. The ability to remember a telephone number long enough to dial it, or the ability to retain a sequence of spoken direc-tions long enough to complete the tasks specifi ed in the directions, are examples

Table A.3 Description of Select Gq Narrow Ability Defi nitions


Mathematical Knowledge (KM) Range of general knowledge about mathematics.

Mathematical Achievement (A3) Measured mathematics achievement.

Note: Narrow ability defi nitions were adapted from McGrew (1997) with permission from Guilford. All rights reserved. Two letter factor codes (e.g., KM) are from Carroll (1993a).

APPENDIX A 5

of Gsm. Given the limited amount of information that can be held in short-term memory, information is typically retained for only a few seconds before it is lost. As most individuals have experienced, it is diffi cult to remember an unfamiliar telephone number for more than a few seconds unless one consciously uses a cog-nitive learning strategy (e.g., continually repeating or rehearsing the numbers) or other mnemonic device. When a new task requires an individual to use his or her Gsm abilities to store new information, the previous information held in short-term memory is either lost or must be stored in the acquired stores of knowledge (i.e., Gc, Gq, Grw) through the use of Glr.

In the CHC model, Gsm subsumes the narrow construct of working memory, which has received considerable attention in the cognitive psychology literature. Working Memory is considered to be the “mechanism responsible for the tempo-rary storage and processing of information” (Richardson, 1996, p. 23). It has been referred to as the “mind’s scratchpad” (Jensen, 1998, p. 220), and most models of working memory postulate a number of subsystems or temporary buf-

fers. The phonological or articulatory loop processes auditory-linguistic informa-tion, while the visuospatial sketch- or scratchpad (Baddeley, 1986, 1992; Logie, 1996) is the temporary buffer for visually processed information. Most working memory models also posit a central executive or processor mechanism that co-ordinates and manages the activities and subsystems in working memory.

Carroll (1993) is skeptical of the working memory construct, as refl ected in his conclusion that “although some evidence supports such a speculation, one must be cautious in accepting it because as yet there has not been suf-fi cient work on measuring working memory, and the validity and generality of the concept have not yet been well established in the individual differ-ences research” (p. 647). Leffard, Miller, Bernstein, DeMann, Mangis, and McCoy (2006) found that many of the cognitive batteries only measure one aspect of working memory—either the phonological loop or the visuospatial sketchpad—but not both. Notwithstanding these issues, the working memory construct has been related empirically to a variety of different outcomes, in-cluding many specifi c reading and math skills. Therefore, despite the questions that have been raised regarding its validity as a measurable construct, Flanagan and colleagues (2000, 2006, 2007), as well as others (e.g., McGrew, 1997, 2005; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001), included working memory in the CHC taxonomy in light of the current literature that argues strongly for its predictive utility. Nevertheless, given that Carroll has raised questions about the validity of the construct of working memory, it is important to remember that this con-struct was included in current CHC theory primarily for practical application

6 APPENDIX A

and ease of communication. Additional research is necessary before defi nitive decisions can be reached about the inclusion or exclusion of working memory in CHC theory. Even so, the WISC-IV Letter-Number Sequencing subtest is purported to measure working memory and the WISC-IV Digit Span subtest is purported to measure memory span, in addition to working memory (viz., Digits Backward). Select Gsm narrow abilities are defi ned in Table A.4.

Visual Processing (Gv)

Visual Processing (Gv) is the ability to generate, perceive, analyze, synthesize, store, re-trieve, manipulate, transform, and think with visual patterns and stimuli (Lohman, 1992). These abilities are measured frequently by tasks that require the perception and manipulation of visual shapes and forms, usually of a fi gural or geometric nature (e.g., a standard Block Design task). An individual who can mentally reverse and rotate objects effectively, interpret how objects change as they move through space, perceive and manipulate spatial confi gurations, and maintain spatial orienta-tion would be regarded as having a strength in Gv abilities. The WISC-IV provides two Gv measures, including Block Design, which assesses the Gv narrow ability of Spatial Relations (SR), and the Picture Completion subtest, which assesses primar-ily Flexibility of Closure (CF). Select Gv narrow abilities are defi ned in Table A.5.

Auditory Processing (Ga)

In the broadest sense, auditory abilities “are cognitive abilities that depend on sound as input and on the functioning of our hearing apparatus” (Stankov, 1994, p. 157) and refl ect “the degree to which the individual can cognitively control the

Table A.4 Description of Select Gsm Narrow Ability Defi nitions


Memory Span (MS) Ability to attend to and immediately recall tempo-rally ordered elements in the correct order after a single presentation.

Working Memory (MW) Ability to temporarily store and perform a set of cognitive operations on information that requires divided attention and the management of the lim-ited capacity of short-term memory.

Note: Narrow ability defi nitions were adapted from McGrew (1997) with permission from Guilford. All rights reserved. Two letter factor codes (e.g., MS) are from Carroll (1993a).

APPENDIX A 7

perception of auditory stimulus inputs” (Gustafsson & Undheim, 1996, p. 192). Auditory Processing (Ga) is the ability to perceive, analyze, and synthesize patterns among auditory stimuli and discriminate subtle nuances in patterns of sound (e.g., complex musical structure) and speech when presented under distorted conditions. While Ga abilities do not require the comprehension of language (Gc) per se, they may be very important in the development of language skills. Auditory Processing subsumes most of those abilities referred to as phonological

awareness/processing and, therefore, tests that measure these abilities (viz., pho-netic coding) are found typically on achievement batteries. In fact, the number of tests specifi cally designed to measure phonological processing has increased signifi cantly in recent years, presumably as a result of the consistent fi nding

Table A.5 Description of Select Gv Narrow Ability Defi nitions


Spatial Relations (SR) Ability to rapidly perceive and manipulate relatively simple visual patterns or to maintain orientation with respect to objects in space.

Visual Memory (MV) Ability to form and store a mental representation or image of a visual stimulus and then recognize or recall it later.

Closure Speed (CS) Ability to quickly combine disconnected, vague, or partially obscured visual stimuli or patterns into a meaningful whole, without knowing in advance what the pattern is.

Visualization (Vz) Ability to mentally manipulate objects or visual patterns and to “see” how they would appear under altered conditions.

Flexibility of Closure (CF)

Ability to fi nd, apprehend, and identify a visual fi gure or pattern embedded in a complex visual array, when knowing in advance what the pattern is.

Spatial Scanning (SS) Ability to accurately and quickly survey a spatial fi eld or pattern and identify a path through the visual fi eld or pattern.

Serial Perceptual Integration (PI)

Ability to apprehend and identify a pictorial or visual pattern when parts of the pattern are presented rapidly in serially or successive order.

Note: Narrow ability defi nitions were adapted from McGrew (1997) with permission from Guil-ford. All rights reserved. Two letter factor codes (e.g., SR) are from Carroll (1993a).

8 APPENDIX A

that phonological awareness/processing appears to be the core defi cit in in-dividuals with reading diffi culties (e.g., Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007; Fletcher-Janzen & Reynolds, 2008; Morris et al., 1998; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000). However, the Ga domain is very broad (i.e., it contains many nar-row abilities subsumed by Ga) and, thus, extends far beyond phonetic coding ability (McGrew, 2005).

In CHC theory, Carroll’s Phonetic Coding (PC) narrow ability was split into separate analysis (PC:A) and synthesis (PC:S) abilities. Support for two different PC abilities comes from a growing number of sources. First, in a sample of kindergarten students, Yopp (1988) reported evidence in favor of two phonemic awareness factors: simple phonemic awareness (required one operation to be performed on sounds) and compound phonemic awareness (required holding sounds in memory while performing another operation on them). Second, in what appears to be one of the most comprehensive Ga

factor-analytic studies, Stankov and Horn (1980) presented evidence for seven different auditory abilities, two of which had tests of sound blending (synthe-sis) and incomplete words (analysis) as factor markers. Third, the WJ-R Sound Blending and Incomplete Words tests (which are almost identical in format to the tests used by Stankov & Horn) correlated only moderately (.37 or 13.7% shared or common variance) across the kindergarten to adult WJ-R norm sample—a correlation that suggests that these tests are measuring different aspects of PC. Fourth, using confirmatory factor-analytic methods, Wagner, Torgesen, Laughton, Simmons, and Rashotte (1993) presented a model of phonological processing that included separate auditory analysis and synthesis factors.

Although the features of these different auditory factors across respective studies are not entirely consistent, there are many similarities. For example, Yopp’s (1988) simple phonemic factor appears to be analogous to Wagner and colleagues’ (1993) synthesis factor and the factor Stankov and Horn (1980) identifi ed with the aid of sound-blending tasks. Also, Yopp’s compound phonemic factor bears similarities to Wagner and colleagues’ analysis factor and the Stankov and Horn factor, identifi ed, in part, by an incomplete words task. Presently, it appears that Wagner and colleagues’ analysis/synthesis distinction is likely the most useful. According to Wagner and colleagues, analysis and synthesis can be defi ned as “the ability to segment larger units of speech into smaller units” and “the ability to blend smaller units of speech to form larger units” (p. 87), respectively. The analy-sis/synthesis distinction continues to be empirically supported, as demonstrated by the separate Phonetic Coding: Analysis and Phonetic Coding: Synthesis tests included in the new WJ III (Woodcock et al., 2001). Select Ga narrow abilities are defi ned in Table A.6.

APPENDIX A 9

Long-Term Storage and Retrieval (Glr)

Long-Term Storage and Retrieval (Glr) is the ability to store information in and fl u-ently retrieve new or previously acquired information (e.g., concepts, ideas, items, names) from long-term memory. Glr abilities have been prominent in creativity research, where they have been referred to as idea production, ideational fl uency, or associational fl uency. It is important not to confuse Glr with Gc, Gq, and Grw, an in-dividual’s stores of acquired knowledge: Gc, Gq, and Grw represent what is stored in long-term memory, while Glr is the effi ciency by which this information is initially stored in and later retrieved from long-term memory.

It is important to note that different processes are involved in Glr and Gsm. Al-though the expression long-term frequently carries with it the connotation of days, weeks, months, and years in the clinical literature, long-term storage processes can begin within a few minutes or hours of performing a task. Therefore, the time lapse between the initial task performance and the recall of information related to that task is not necessarily of critical importance in defi ning Glr. More impor-tant is the occurrence of an intervening task that engages short-term memory before the attempted recall of the stored information (e.g., Gc; Woodcock, 1993;

Table A.6 Description of Select Ga Narrow Ability Defi nitions


Phonetic Coding: Analysis (PC:A)

Ability to segment larger units of speech sounds into smaller units of speech sounds.

Phonetic Coding: Synthesis (PC:S)

Ability to blend smaller units of speech together into larger units of speech.

Speech Sound Discrimination (US)

Ability to detect differences in speech sounds under conditions of little distraction or distor-tion.

Resistance to Auditory Stimulus Distortion (UR)

Ability to understand speech and language that has been distorted or masked in one or more ways.

Memory for Sound Patterns (UM)

Ability to retain on a short-term basis auditory events such as tones, tonal patterns, and voices.

General Sound Discrimination (U3)

Ability to discriminate tones, tone patterns, or musical materials with regard to pitch, intensity, duration, and rhythm.

Note: Narrow ability defi nitions were adapted from McGrew (1997) with permission from Guilford. All rights reserved. Two letter factor codes (e.g., PC:A) are from Carroll (1993a).

10 APPENDIX A

Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). Although Glr is measured directly by sev-eral major intelligence batteries, the WISC-IV does not assess Glr. In the present CHC model, 13 narrow memory and fl uency abilities are included under Glr. Select Glr narrow abilities are defi ned in Table A.7.

Table A.7 Description of Select Glr Narrow Ability Defi nitions


Associative Memory (MA) Ability to recall one part of a previously learned but unrelated pair of items when the other part is presented (i.e., paired-associative learning).

Meaningful Memory (MM) Ability to recall a set of items where there is a meaningful relation between items or the items comprise a meaningful story or con-nected discourse.

Free Recall Memory (M6) Ability to recall as many unrelated items as possible, in any order, after a large collection of items is presented.

Ideational Fluency (FI) Ability to rapidly produce a series of ideas, words, or phrases related to a specifi c con-dition or object. Quantity not quality is emphasized.

Associational Fluency (FA) Ability to rapidly produce words or phrases as-sociated in meaning (semantically associated) with a given word or concept.

Expressional Fluency (FE) Ability to rapidly think of and organize words or phrases into meaningful complex ideas under high general or more specifi c cueing conditions.

Naming Facility (NA) Ability to rapidly produce names for concepts when presented with a pictorial or verbal cue.

Word Fluency (FW) Ability to rapidly produce words that have specifi c phonemic, structural, or orthographic characteristics (independent of word meanings).

Figural Fluency (FF) Ability to rapidly draw or sketch several ex-amples or elaborations when given a starting visual or descriptive stimulus.

Note: Narrow ability defi nitions were adapted from McGrew (1997) with permission from Guilford. All rights reserved. Two letter factor codes (e.g., MA) are from Carroll (1993a).

APPENDIX A 11

Processing Speed (Gs)

Processing Speed (Gs), or mental quickness, is often mentioned when one is talking about intelligent behavior (Nettelbeck, 1992). Processing speed is the ability to fl u-ently and automatically perform cognitive tasks, especially when under pressure to maintain focused attention and concentration. Attentive speediness encapsulates the essence of Gs, which is measured typically by fi xed-interval, timed tasks that require little in the way of complex thinking or mental processing. The WISC-IV provides three Gs tasks—namely, Coding, Symbol Search, and Cancellation.

Recent interest in information-processing models of cognitive functioning has resulted in a renewed focus on Gs (Kail, 1991; Lohman, 1989; Woodcock et al., 2001). A central construct in information-processing models is the idea of lim-ited processing resources (e.g., the limited capacities of short-term or working memory). That is, “many cognitive activities require a person’s deliberate efforts and . . . people are limited in the amount of effort they can allocate. In the face of limited processing resources, the speed of processing is critical because it deter-mines in part how rapidly limited resources can be reallocated to other cognitive tasks” (Kail, p. 152). Woodcock (1993) likens Gs to a valve in a water pipe. The rate in which water fl ows in the pipe (i.e., Gs) increases when the valve is opened wide and decreases when the valve is partially closed. Three different narrow speed-of-processing abilities are subsumed by Gs in the present CHC model. Select Gs narrow abilities are defi ned in Table A.8.

Table A.8 Description of Select Gs Narrow Ability Defi nitions


Perceptual Speed (P) Ability to rapidly search for and compare known visual symbols or patterns presented side-by-side or separated in a visual fi eld.

Rate-of-Test-Taking (R9) Ability to rapidly perform tests which are relatively easy or that require very simple decisions.

Number Facility (N) Ability to rapidly and accurately manipulate and deal with numbers, from elementary skills of counting and recognizing numbers to advanced skills of adding, subtracting, multiplying, and di-viding numbers.

Note: Narrow ability defi nitions were adapted from McGrew (1997) with permission from Guilford. All rights reserved. Two letter factor codes (e.g., R9) are from Carroll (1993a).

Appendix A A.8: Visual-Motor Speed Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores 29

Appendix A. 8 Visual-Motor Speed Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

Sum of Scaled

Scores for BD+CD+SS

Visual-Motor Speed Cluster %tile 90% CI 95% CI

3 50 <0.1 48-60 46-62 4 51 0.1 48-61 47-63 5 53 0.1 50-63 49-64 6 55 0.1 52-65 51-66 7 57 0.2 54-67 53-68 8 59 0.3 56-69 55-70 9 61 0.5 58-71 56-72 10 63 1 60-72 58-74 11 65 1 61-74 60-75 12 67 1 63-76 62-77 13 68 2 64-77 63-78 14 70 2 66-79 65-80 15 72 3 68-81 67-82 16 73 4 69-82 68-83 17 75 5 71-83 69-85 18 77 6 72-85 71-86 19 78 7 73-86 72-87 20 80 9 75-88 74-89 21 82 12 77-90 76-91 22 83 13 78-91 77-92 23 85 16 80-93 79-94 24 87 19 82-94 80-96 25 89 23 83-96 82-98 26 91 27 85-98 84-99 27 93 32 87-100 86-101 28 95 37 89-102 88-103 29 97 42 91-104 90-105 30 99 47 93-106 91-107 31 101 53 94-107 93-109 32 104 61 97-110 96-111 33 106 66 99-112 98-113 34 108 70 101-114 100-115 35 110 75 103-116 102-117 36 112 79 105-117 103-119 37 115 84 107-120 106-121 38 117 87 109-122 108-123 39 119 90 111-124 110-125 40 121 92 113-126 112-127 41 123 94 115-128 114-129 42 125 95 117-129 115-131 43 127 96 118-131 117-132 44 130 98 121-134 120-135 45 132 98 123-136 122-137 46 134 99 125-138 124-139

Appendix A A.8: Visual-Motor Speed Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores 30

Sum of Scaled

Scores for BD+CD+SS

Visual-Motor Speed Cluster %tile 90% CI 95% CI

47 136 99 127-140 125-141 48 138 99 129-141 127-143 49 140 99.6 130-143 129-144 50 142 99.7 132-145 131-146 51 144 99.8 134-147 133-148 52 146 99.9 136-149 135-150 53 148 99.9 138-151 137-152 54 150 >99.9 140-152 138-154 55 150 >99.9 140-152 138-154 56 150 >99.9 140-152 138-154 57 150 >99.9 140-152 138-154


Appendix A A.9: Problem Solving without Visual-Motor Speed Cluster 31

Appendix A.9 Problem Solving without Visual-Motor Speed Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

Sum of Scaled

Scores for MR+VP+FW+PC

Problem Solving without Visual-Motor Speed Cluster 90% CI 95% CI %tile

4 40 38-48 37-49 <0.1 5 41 39-49 38-50 <0.1 6 43 41-51 40-52 <0.1 7 45 43-53 42-54 <0.1 8 47 44-55 43-56 <0.1 9 49 46-57 45-58 <0.1 10 51 48-59 47-60 0.1 11 53 50-61 49-62 0.1 12 55 52-62 51-63 0.1 13 57 54-64 53-65 0.2 14 58 55-65 54-66 0.3 15 60 57-67 56-68 0.4 16 62 59-69 58-70 1 17 64 61-71 60-72 1 18 66 62-73 61-74 1 19 68 64-75 63-76 2 20 70 66-77 65-78 2 21 71 67-78 66-79 3 22 73 69-80 68-81 4 23 74 70-81 69-82 4 24 76 72-82 71-83 5 25 77 73-83 72-84 6 26 79 75-85 74-86 8 27 80 76-86 75-87 9 28 82 78-88 77-89 12 29 83 79-89 78-90 13 30 85 81-91 80-92 16 31 86 81-92 80-93 18 32 88 83-94 82-95 21 33 89 84-95 83-96 23 34 91 86-97 85-98 27 35 93 88-99 87-100 32 36 94 89-100 88-101 34 37 96 91-101 90-102 39 38 97 92-102 91-103 42 39 99 94-104 93-105 47 40 100 95-105 94-106 50 41 101 96-106 95-107 53 42 102 97-107 96-108 55 43 103 98-108 97-109 58 44 105 100-110 99-111 63 45 106 100-111 99-112 66 46 108 102-113 101-114 70 47 110 104-115 103-116 75

Appendix A A.9: Problem Solving without Visual-Motor Speed Cluster 32

Sum of Scaled

Scores for MR+VP+FW+PC

Problem Solving without Visual-Motor Speed Cluster 90% CI 95% CI %tile

48 111 105-116 104-117 77 49 113 107-118 106-119 81 50 115 109-119 108-120 84 51 117 111-121 110-122 87 52 119 113-123 112-124 90 53 120 114-124 113-125 91 54 122 116-126 115-127 93 55 124 118-128 117-129 95 56 126 119-130 118-131 96 57 128 121-132 120-133 97 58 130 123-134 122-135 98 59 132 125-136 124-137 98 60 134 127-138 126-139 99 61 136 129-139 128-140 99 62 138 131-141 130-142 99 63 140 133-143 132-144 99.6 64 142 135-145 134-146 99.7 65 144 137-147 136-148 99.8 66 146 138-149 137-150 99.9 67 148 140-151 139-152 99.9 68 150 142-153 141-154 >99.9 69 152 144-155 143-156 >99.9 70 154 146-157 145-158 >99.9 71 156 148-158 147-159 >99.9 72 158 150-160 149-161 >99.9 73 160 152-162 151-163 >99.9 74 160 152-162 151-163 >99.9 75 160 152-162 151-163 >99.9 76 160 152-162 151-163 >99.9


Appendix A A.10: Mental Manipulation Cluster 33

Appendix A.10 Mental Manipulation Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores


for LN+DS

Mental Manipulation

Cluster %tile 90% CI 95% CI 2 50 <0.1 47-59 46-60 3 52 0.1 49-61 48-62 4 55 0.1 52-63 51-64 5 58 0.3 55-66 54-67 6 61 0.5 58-69 57-70 7 64 1 60-72 59-73 8 67 1 63-75 62-76 9 69 2 65-77 64-78 10 72 3 68-79 67-80 11 74 4 70-81 69-82 12 77 6 73-84 72-85 13 79 8 75-86 73-87 14 83 13 78-90 77-91 15 86 18 81-93 80-94 16 89 23 84-95 83-96 17 92 30 87-98 86-99 18 95 37 90-101 89-102 19 98 45 92-104 91-105 20 100 50 94-106 93-107 21 103 58 97-109 96-110 22 105 63 99-110 98-111 23 108 70 102-113 101-114 24 110 75 104-115 103-116 25 112 79 106-117 105-118 26 115 84 108-120 107-121 27 118 88 111-123 110-124 28 121 92 114-125 113-127 29 124 95 117-128 116-129 30 127 96 120-131 119-132 31 130 98 123-134 121-135 32 133 99 125-137 124-138 33 136 99 128-140 127-141 34 139 99.5 131-142 130-143 35 142 99.7 134-145 133-146 36 145 99.9 137-148 136-149 37 148 99.9 139-151 138-152 38 150 >99.9 141-153 140-154


Appendix 11 A.11: Verbal Fluid Reasoning Cluster 34

Appendix A.11 Verbal Fluid Reasoning Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores


for SI+CO

Verbal Fluid

Reasoning Cluster %tile 90% CI 95% CI

2 50 <0.1 48-60 46-62 3 53 0.1 50-63 49-64 4 56 0.2 53-66 52-67 5 59 0.3 56-69 55-70 6 62 1 59-71 57-73 7 65 1 61-74 60-75 8 68 2 64-77 63-78 9 71 3 67-80 66-81 10 73 4 69-82 68-83 11 76 5 71-84 70-86 12 78 7 73-86 72-87 13 81 10 76-89 75-90 14 84 14 79-92 78-93 15 86 18 81-94 79-95 16 88 21 83-95 81-97 17 91 27 85-98 84-99 18 94 34 88-101 87-102 19 97 42 91-104 90-105 20 100 50 94-106 92-108 21 102 55 95-108 94-109 22 105 63 98-111 97-112 23 108 70 101-114 100-115 24 111 77 104-117 102-118 25 113 81 106-118 104-120 26 116 86 108-121 107-122 27 119 90 111-124 110-125 28 122 93 114-127 113-128 29 125 95 117-129 115-131 30 128 97 119-132 118-133 31 132 98 123-136 122-137 32 135 99 126-139 125-140 33 138 99 129-141 127-143 34 141 99.7 131-144 130-145 35 144 99.8 134-147 133-148 36 147 99.9 137-150 136-151 37 150 >99.9 140-152 138-154 38 150 >99.9 140-152 138-154


Appendix A A.12: Lexical Knowledge Cluster 35

Appendix A.12 Lexical Knowledge Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores


for VC+SI

Lexical Knowledge

Cluster %tile 90% CI 95% CI 2 50 <0.1 47-58 46-59 3 53 0.1 50-61 49-62 4 56 0.2 53-63 52-64 5 59 0.3 56-66 55-67 6 62 1 59-69 58-70 7 65 1 62-72 61-73 8 68 2 64-75 63-76 9 71 3 67-78 66-79 10 73 4 69-80 68-81 11 76 5 72-82 71-83 12 78 7 74-84 73-85 13 81 10 77-87 76-88 14 84 14 80-90 79-91 15 86 18 81-92 80-93 16 88 21 83-94 82-95 17 91 27 86-97 85-98 18 94 34 89-100 88-101 19 97 42 92-102 91-103 20 100 50 95-105 94-106 21 102 55 97-107 96-108 22 105 63 100-110 99-111 23 108 70 102-113 101-114 24 111 77 105-116 104-117 25 113 81 107-118 106-119 26 116 86 110-120 109-121 27 119 90 113-123 112-124 28 122 93 116-126 115-127 29 125 95 119-129 118-130 30 128 97 121-132 120-133 31 132 98 125-136 124-137 32 135 99 128-138 127-139 33 138 99 131-141 130-142 34 141 99.7 134-144 133-145 35 144 99.8 137-147 136-148 36 147 99.9 139-150 138-151 37 150 >99.9 142-153 141-154 38 150 >99.9 142-153 141-154


Appendix A A.13: General Information Cluster 36

Appendix A.13 General Information Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores


for CO+IN

General Information

Cluster %tile 90% CI 95% CI 2 50 <0.1 47-59 46-60 3 53 0.1 50-62 49-63 4 56 0.2 53-64 52-65 5 59 0.3 56-67 55-68 6 62 1 59-70 58-71 7 65 1 61-73 60-74 8 68 2 64-76 63-77 9 71 3 67-78 66-80 10 74 4 70-81 69-82 11 76 5 72-83 71-84 12 79 8 75-86 73-87 13 81 10 76-88 75-89 14 84 14 79-91 78-92 15 86 18 81-93 80-94 16 88 21 83-94 82-95 17 91 27 86-97 85-98 18 94 34 89-100 88-101 19 97 42 91-103 90-104 20 100 50 94-106 93-107 21 102 55 96-108 95-109 22 105 63 99-110 98-111 23 107 68 101-112 100-113 24 110 75 104-115 103-116 25 113 81 107-118 105-119 26 116 86 109-121 108-122 27 119 90 112-124 111-125 28 122 93 115-126 114-127 29 125 95 118-129 117-130 30 128 97 121-132 120-133 31 132 98 124-136 123-137 32 135 99 127-139 126-140 33 138 99 130-141 129-142 34 141 99.7 133-144 132-145 35 144 99.8 136-147 135-148 36 147 99.9 138-150 137-151 37 150 >99.9 141-153 140-154 38 150 >99.9 141-153 140-154


Appendix A A.14: Long-Term Memory Cluster 37

Appendix A.14 Long-Term Memory Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores


for VC+IN

Long-Term

Memory Cluster %tile 90% CI 95% CI

2 50 <0.1 47-57 46-58 3 53 0.1 50-60 49-61 4 56 0.2 53-62 52-63 5 59 0.3 56-65 55-66 6 62 1 59-68 58-69 7 65 1 62-71 61-72 8 68 2 65-74 64-75 9 71 3 67-77 67-78 10 74 4 70-80 69-81 11 76 5 72-82 71-83 12 79 8 75-85 74-85 13 81 10 77-86 76-87 14 84 14 80-89 79-90 15 87 19 83-92 82-93 16 89 23 85-94 84-95 17 92 30 88-97 87-98 18 95 37 90-100 90-101 19 97 42 92-102 91-103 20 100 50 95-105 94-106 21 102 55 97-107 96-108 22 105 63 100-110 99-110 23 107 68 102-111 101-112 24 110 75 105-114 104-115 25 113 81 108-117 107-118 26 116 86 111-120 110-121 27 118 88 113-122 112-123 28 121 92 115-125 115-126 29 124 95 118-128 117-129 30 127 96 121-131 120-132 31 130 98 124-134 123-134 32 133 99 127-136 126-137 33 136 99 130-139 129-140 34 139 99.5 133-142 132-143 35 142 99.7 136-145 135-146 36 145 99.9 138-148 138-149 37 148 99.9 141-151 140-152 38 150 >99.9 143-153 142-154


Appendix A A.15: Short-Term Memory Cluster 38

Appendix A.15 Short-Term Memory Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores


for LN+DS

Short-Term

Memory Cluster %tile 90% CI 95% CI

2 50 <0.1 47-59 46-60 3 52 0.1 49-61 48-62 4 55 0.1 52-63 51-64 5 58 0.3 55-66 54-67 6 61 0.5 58-69 57-70 7 64 1 60-72 59-73 8 67 1 63-75 62-76 9 69 2 65-77 64-78 10 72 3 68-79 67-80 11 74 4 70-81 69-82 12 77 6 73-84 72-85 13 79 8 75-86 73-87 14 83 13 78-90 77-91 15 86 18 81-93 80-94 16 89 23 84-95 83-96 17 92 30 87-98 86-99 18 95 37 90-101 89-102 19 98 45 92-104 91-105 20 100 50 94-106 93-107 21 103 58 97-109 96-110 22 105 63 99-110 98-111 23 108 70 102-113 101-114 24 110 75 104-115 103-116 25 112 79 106-117 105-118 26 115 84 108-120 107-121 27 118 88 111-123 110-124 28 121 92 114-125 113-127 29 124 95 117-128 116-129 30 127 96 120-131 119-132 31 130 98 123-134 121-135 32 133 99 125-137 124-138 33 136 99 128-140 127-141 34 139 99.5 131-142 130-143 35 142 99.7 134-145 133-146 36 145 99.9 137-148 136-149 37 148 99.9 139-151 138-152 38 150 >99.9 141-153 140-154


Appendix A A.16: Fluid Reasoning Cluster 39

Appendix A.16 Fluid Reasoning Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores


for MR+FW

Fluid Reasoning



Appendix A A.17: Visual Processing Cluster 40

Appendix A.17 Visual Processing Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores


for BD+VP

Visual Processing



WAIS-IV Interpretive Worksheet

Documents

Transcript of WAIS-IV Interpretive Worksheet