This study investigated the incremental validity of the successive-level approach to intelligence test interpretation, specifically within the context of school psychology. The successive-level approach assumes that unique information is captured at various levels of intelligence tests (e.g., full scale, index-level, subtest-level). However, previous research has indicated that lower-level scores often fail to explain significant or meaningful variance in achievement outcomes beyond what is accounted for by the global score, suggesting potential redundancy in interpreting lower-level scores. Using the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV) standardization sample, this study examined the relationship between cognitive ability scores (GIA and CHC clusters) and achievement outcomes. The results indicated that, although the CHC subscale scores contributed some unique variance in achievement, their incremental validity was limited and frequently overshadowed by the GIA composite. These findings align with previous research, suggesting that clinicians may unwittingly commit a duplication fallacy when relying on successive-level score interpretation or related guidance in clinical practice.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement on Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
2.
BensonN. F.FloydR. G.KranzlerJ. H.EckertT. L.FeferS. A.MorganG. B. (2019). Test use and assessment practices of school psychologists in the United States: Findings from the 2017 National Survey. Journal of School Psychology, 72, 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.12.004
3.
BreitM.BrunnerM.MolenaarD.PreckelF. (2022). Differentiation hypotheses of intelligence: A systematic review of the empirical evidence and an agenda for future research. Psychological Bulletin, 148(7-8), 518–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000379
4.
BreitM.BrunnerM.PreckelF. (2019). Spearman's law of diminishing returns and its implications for theories of general intelligence and intelligence testing. In McFarlandD. J (Ed.), General and specific mental abilities (pp. 340–358). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
5.
BreitM.ScherrerV.PreckelF. (2024). How useful are specific cognitive ability scores? An investigation of their stability and incremental validity beyond general intelligence. Intelligence, 103, 101816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2024.101816
6.
CaemmererJ. M.MaddocksD. L. S.KeithT. Z.ReynoldsM. R. (2018). Effects of cognitive abilities on child and youth academic achievement: Evidence from the WISC-V and WIAT-III. Intelligence, 68, 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.02.005
7.
CanivezG. L. (2013). Incremental criterion validity of WAIS-V factor index scores: Relationships with WIAT-II and WIAT-III subtest and composite scores. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032092
8.
CanivezG. L. (2017). Review of the woodcock–Johnson IV. In CarlsonJ. F.GeisingerK. F.JonsonJ. L. (Eds.), The twentieth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 875–882). Buros center for testing.
9.
CanivezG. L. (2025). Ethics, test standards, and test interpretation: Measurement matters. In CanivezG. L. (Ed.), Assessing psychometric fitness of intelligence tests: Toward evidence-based interpretation practices (pp. 1–84). Rowman and Littlefield.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
CormierD. C.BulutO.McGrewK. S.FrisonJ. (2016). The role of cattell-horn-carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities in predicting writing achievement during the school age years. Psychology in the Schools, 53(8), 787–803. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21945
13.
CormierD. C.BulutO.McGrewK. S.SinghD. (2017). Exploring the relations between cattell-horn-carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and mathematics achievement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(5), 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3350
14.
DombrowskiS. C.BeaujeanA. A.McGillR. J.BensonN. F. (2019). The Woodcock-Johnson IV tests of achievement provides too many scores for clinical interpretation. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(7), 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282918800745
15.
DombrowskiS. C.McGillR. J. (2024). Clinical assessment in school psychology: Impervious to scientific reform?Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 39(4), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735231224052
16.
FarmerR. L.McGillR. J.DombrowskiS. C.CanivezG. L. (2021). Why questionable assessment practices remain popular in school psychology: Instructional materials as pedagogic vehicles. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 36(2), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573520978111
17.
FlanaganD. P.AlfonsoV. C. (2017). Essentials of WISC-V assessment. Wiley.
18.
GarbH. N.LilienfeldS. O.FowlerK. A. (2008). Psychological assessment and clinical judgment. In MadduxJ. E.WinsteadB. A. (Eds.), Psychopathology: Foundations for a contemporary understanding (2nd ed., pp. 103–124). Routledge.
19.
GluttingJ. J.WatkinsM. W.KonoldT. R.McDermottP. A. (2006). Distinctions without a difference: The utility of observed versus latent factors from the WISC-IV in estimating reading and math achievement on the WIAT-II. The Journal of Special Education, 40(2), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400020101
20.
HaleJ. B.FiorelloC. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner's handbook. Guilford Press.
21.
HaleJ. B.FiorelloC. A.KavanaghJ. A.HoldnackJ. A.AloeA. M. (2007). Is the demise of IQ interpretation justified? A response to special issue authors. Applied Neuropsychology, 14(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09084280701280445
22.
HaynesS. N.SmithG. T.HunsleyJ. D. (2019). Scientific foundations of clinical assessment (2nd ed.). Routledge.
23.
KaufmanA. S. (1979). Intelligent testing with the WISC-R. Wiley.
24.
KranzlerJ. H.FloydR. G. (2020). Assessing intelligence in children and adolescents: A practical guide for evidence-based assessment (2nd ed.). Rowman and Littlefield.
25.
KranzlerJ. H.MakiK. E.BensonN. F.EckertT. L.FloydR. G.FeferS. A. (2020). How do school psychologists interpret intelligence tests for the identification of specific learning disabilities?Contemporary School Psychology, 24(4), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00274-0
26.
LockwoodA. B.BensonN.FarmerR. L.KlatkaK. (2022). Test use and assessment practices of school psychology training programs: Findings from a 2020 survey of US faculty. Psychology in the Schools, 59(4), 698–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22639
27.
McGillR. J. (2015). Interpretation of KABC-II scores: An evaluation of the incremental validity of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) factor scores in predicting achievement. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1417–1426. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000127
28.
McGillR. J.BusseR. T. (2015). Incremental validity of the WJ III COG: Limited predictive effects beyond the GIA-E. School Psychology Quarterly: The Official Journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association, 30(3), 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000094
29.
McGrewK. S.LaForteE. M.ShrankF. A. (2014). Technical manual: Woodcock-johnson IV. Riverside.
30.
McGrewK. S.SchneiderW. J.DeckerS. L.BulutO. (2023). A psychometric network analysis of CHC intelligence measures: Implications for research, theory, and interpretation of broad CHC scores beyond g. Journal of Intelligence, 11(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11010019
31.
McGrewK. S.WendlingB. J. (2010). Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive-achievement relations: What we have learned from the past 20 years of research. Psychology in the Schools, 47(7), 651–675. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20497
32.
NelsonJ. M.CanivezG. L. (2012). Examination of the structural, convergent, and incremental validity of the reynolds intellectual assessment scales (RIAS) with a clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024878
33.
PedhazurE. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). Harcourt Brace.
SattlerJ. M. (2024). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations and applications (7th ed.). Sattler Publishing.
36.
SchneiderW. J. (2008). Playing statistical ouija board with commonality analysis: Good questions, wrong assumptions. Applied Neuropsychology, 15(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09084280801917566
37.
SchneiderW. J.McGrewK. S. (2018). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In FlanaganD. P.McDonoughE. M. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed., pp. 73–163). Guilford Press.
38.
SchrankF. A.MatherN.McGrewK. S. (2014a). Woodcock-johnson IV tests of achievement. Riverside.
39.
SchrankF. A.MatherN.McGrewK. S. (2014b). Woodcock-Johnson IV tests of oral language. Riverside.
40.
SchrankF. A.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2014a). Woodcock-Johnson IV. Riverside.
41.
SchrankF. A.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2014b). Woodcock-Johnson IV tests of cognitive abilities. Riverside.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
44.
TaubG. E.McGrewK. S. (2014). The Woodcock–Johnson tests of cognitive abilities III's cognitive performance model: Empirical support for intermediate factors within CHC theory. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32(3), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913504808
45.
Tucker-DrobE. M. (2009). Differentiation of cognitive abilities across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 1097–1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015864
46.
VanDerHeydenA. M. (2018). Why do school psychologists cling to ineffective practices? let’s do what works. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 12(1), 44–52.
47.
YoungstromE. A.KogosJ. L.GluttingJ. J. (1999). Incremental efficacy of differential ability scales factor scores in predicting individual achievement criteria. School Psychology Quarterly, 14(1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088996
48.
ZaboskiB. A. I. I.KranzlerJ. H.GageN. A. (2018). Meta-analysis of the relationship between academic achievement and broad abilities of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.001
