Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-3
Construct Validity of the German Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the 15 Primary and Secondary Subtests
The latent factor structure of the German Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth edition (German WISC-V) was examined using complementary hierarchical exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) with Schmid and Leiman transformation and confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) for all reported models from the German WISC-V Technical Manual and rival bifactor models using the standardization sample (N = 1,087) correlation matrix of the 15 primary and secondary subtests. EFA results did not support a fifth factor (Fluid Reasoning). A four-factor model with the dominant general intelligence (g) factor resembling the WISC-IV was supported by EFA. CFA results indicated the best representation was a bifactor model with four group factors, complementing EFA results. Present EFA and CFA results replicated other independent assessments of standardization and clinical samples of the United States and international versions of the WISC-V and indicated primary, if not exclusive, interpretation of the Full Scale IQ as an estimate of g.
American Educational Research Association, American Psycho-logical Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (Eds.). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psycho-logical Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
3.
BartlettM. S. (1954). A further note on the multiplying factors for various chi-square approximations in factor analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 16(2), 296-298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1954.tb00174.x
4.
BeaujeanA. A. (2015a). Adopting a new test edition: Psychometric and practical considerations. Research and Practice in the Schools, 3(1), 51-57.
5.
BeaujeanA. A. (2015b). John Carroll’s views on intelligence: Bi-factor vs. higher-order models. Journal of Intelligence, 3(4), 121-136. http://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3040121
6.
BeaujeanA. A. (2016). Reproducing the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition: Factor model results. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(4), 404-408. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916642679
7.
BeaujeanA. A. (2019). General and specific intelligence attributes in the two-factor theory: A historical review. In McFarlandD. J. (Ed.), General and specific mental abilities (pp. 25-58). Cambridge Scholars.
8.
BeaujeanA. A.BensonN. F. (2019). Theoretically-consistent cognitive ability test development and score interpretation. Contemporary School Psychology, 23(2), 126-137. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-018-0182-1
9.
BentlerP. M.WuE. J. C. (2016). EQS for Windows. Multivariate Software.
10.
BodinD.PardiniD. A.BurnsT. G.StevensA. B. (2009). Higher order factor structure of the WISC-IV in a clinical neuropsychological sample. Child Neuropsychology, 15(5), 417-424. http://doi.org/10.1080/09297040802603661
11.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
BurnhamK. P.AndersonD. R. (2004). Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Socio-logical Methods & Research, 33(2), 261-304. http://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644
14.
ByrneB. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
CanivezG. L. (2008). Orthogonal higher-order factor structure of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales-Fifth Edition for children and adolescents. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 533-541. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0012884
16.
CanivezG. L. (2013a). Incremental validity of WAIS–IV factor index scores: Relationships with WIAT–II and WIAT–III subtest and composite scores. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 484-495. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0032092
17.
CanivezG. L. (2013b). Psychometric versus actuarial interpretation of intelligence and related aptitude batteries. In SaklofskeD. H.ReynoldsC. R.SchweanV. L. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of child psychological assessments (pp. 84-112). Oxford University Press.
18.
CanivezG. L. (2014). Construct validity of the WISC-IV with a referred sample: Direct versus indirect hierarchical structures. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 38-51. http://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000032
19.
CanivezG. L. (2016). Bifactor modeling in construct validation of multifactored tests: Implications for understanding multidimensional constructs and test interpretation. In SchweizerK.DiStefanoC. (Eds.), Principles and methods of test construction: Standards and recent advancements (pp. 247-271). Hogrefe.
20.
CanivezG. L.DombrowskiS. C.WatkinsM. W. (2018). Factor structure of the WISC-V for four standardization age groups: Exploratory and hierarchical factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Psychology in the Schools, 55(7), 741-769. http://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22138
21.
CanivezG. L.KonoldT. R.CollinsJ. M.WilsonG. (2009). Construct validity of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence and Wide Range Intelligence Test: Convergent and structural validity. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(4), 252-265. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0018030
22.
CanivezG. L.KushJ. C. (2013). WISC–IV and WAIS–IV structural validity: Alternate methods, alternate results: Commentary on Weiss et al. (2013a) and Weiss et al. (2013b). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(2), 157-169. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913478036
23.
CanivezG. L.McGillR. J. (2016). Factor structure of the Differential Ability Scales-Second Edition: Exploratory and hierarchical factor analyses with the core subtests. Psychological Assessment, 28(11), 1475-1488. http://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000279
24.
CanivezG. L.McGillR. J.DombrowskiS. C. (2020). Factor structure of the Differential Ability Scales-Second Edition core subtests: Standardization sample confirmatory factor analyses. Advance online publication. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(7), 791-815. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282920914792
25.
CanivezG. L.McGillR. J.DombrowskiS. C.WatkinsM. W.PritchardA. E.JacobsonL. A. (2018). Construct validity of the WISC-V in clinical cases: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the 10 primary subtests. Assessment, 27(2), 274-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118811609
26.
CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W. (2010a). Exploratory and higher-order factor analyses of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV) adolescent subsample. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(4), 223-235. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0022046
27.
CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W. (2010b). Investigation of the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV): Exploratory and higher order factor analyses. Psychological Assessment, 22(4), 827-836. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0020429
28.
CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W. (2016). Review of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition: Critique, commentary, and independent analyses. In KaufmanA. S.RaifordS. E.CoalsonD. L. (Eds.), Intelligent testing with the WISC-V (pp. 683-702). Wiley.
29.
CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W.DombrowskiS. C. (2016). Factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth edition: Exploratory factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Psychological Assessment, 28(8), 975-986. http://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000238
30.
CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W.DombrowskiS. C. (2017). Structural validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth edition: Confirmatory factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 458-472. http://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000358
31.
CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W.GoodR.JamesK.JamesT. (2017). Construct validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth UK edition with a referred Irish sample: Wechsler and Cattell–Horn–Carroll model comparisons with 15 subtests. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 383-407. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12155
32.
CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W.JamesT.JamesK.GoodR. (2014). Incremental validity of WISC-IVUK factor index scores with a referred Irish sample: Predicting performance on the WIAT-IIUK. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 667-684. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12056
33.
CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W.McGillR. J. (2019). Construct validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth UK Edition: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the 16 primary and secondary subtests. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 195-224. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12230
34.
CanivezG. L.YoungstromE. A. (2019). Challenges to the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory: Empirical, clinical, and policy implications. Applied Measurement in Education, 32(3), 232-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2019.1619562
35.
CarrollJ. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. Cambridge University Press.
36.
CarrollJ. B. (1995). On methodology in the study of cognitive abilities. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(3), 429-452. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3003_6
37.
CarrollJ. B. (2003). The higher-stratum structure of cognitive abilities: Current evidence supports g and about ten broad factors. In NyborgH. (Ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (pp. 5-21). Pergamon Press.
CattellR. B.HornJ. L. (1978). A check on the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence with description of new subtest designs. Journal of Educational Measurement, 15(3), 139-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1978.tb00065.x
40.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
41.
ChenF. F.HayesA.CarverC. S.LaurenceauJ.-P.ZhangZ. (2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 219-251. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x
42.
ChenF. F.WestS. G.SousaK. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(2), 189-225. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5
43.
ChenH.KeithT. Z.WeissL.ZhuJ.LiY. (2010). Testing for multigroup invariance of second-order WISC–IV structure across China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(7), 677-682. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.004
44.
ChenH.ZhangO.RaifordS. E.ZhuJ.WeissL. G. (2015). Factor invariance between gender on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition. Personality and Individual Differences, 86(November), 1-5. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.020
45.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
46.
ChildD. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Continuum.
47.
CrawfordA. V.GreenS. B.LevyR.LoW. J.ScottL.SvetinaD.ThompsonM. S. (2010). Evaluation of parallel analysis methods for determining the number of factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(6), 885-901. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410379332
48.
CucinaJ. M.ByleK. (2017). The bifactor model fits better than the higher-order model in more than 90% of comparisons for mental abilities test batteries. Journal of Intelligence, 5(27), 1-21. http://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5030027
49.
CucinaJ. M.HowardsonG. N. (2017). Woodcock-Johnson-III, Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT), Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC), and Differential Ability Scales (DAS) support Carroll but not Cattell-Horn. Psychological Assessment, 29(8), 1001-1015. http://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000389
DombrowskiS. C. (2013). Investigating the structure of the WJ-III Cognitive at school age. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(2), 154-169. http://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000010
52.
DombrowskiS. C. (2014a). Exploratory bifactor analysis of the WJ-III Cognitive in adulthood via the Schmid–Leiman procedure. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32(4), 330-341. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913508243
53.
DombrowskiS. C. (2014b). Investigating the structure of the WJ-III cognitive in early school age through two exploratory bifactor analysis procedures. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32(6), 483-494. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914530838
54.
DombrowskiS. C.CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W. (2018). Factor structure of the 10 WISC-V primary subtests across four standardization age groups. Contemporary School Psychology, 22(1), 90-104. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-017-0125-2
55.
DombrowskiS. C.CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W.BeaujeanA. (2015). Exploratory bifactor analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Intelligence, 53(November), 194-201. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.10.009
56.
DombrowskiS. C.McGillR. J.CanivezG. L. (2017). Exploratory and hierarchical factor analysis of the WJ IV Cognitive at school age. Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 394-407. http://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000350
57.
DombrowskiS. C.McGillR. J.CanivezG. L. (2018a). An alternative conceptualization of the theoretical structure of the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities at school age: A confirmatory factor analytic investigation. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6(1), 1-13. http://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000039
58.
DombrowskiS. C.McGillR. J.CanivezG. L. (2018b). Hierarchical exploratory factor analyses of the Woodcock-Johnson IV Full Test Battery: Implications for CHC application in school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 235-250. http://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000221
59.
DombrowskiS. C.McGillR. J.CanivezG. L.PetersonC. H. (2019). Investigating the theoretical structure of the Differential Ability Scales—Second Edition through hierarchical exploratory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(1), 94-104. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282918760724
60.
DombrowskiS. C.WatkinsM. W. (2013). Exploratory and higher order factor analysis of the WJ-III full test battery: A school aged analysis. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 442-455. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0031335
61.
DombrowskiS. C.WatkinsM. W.BroganM. J. (2009). An exploratory investigation of the factor structure of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(6), 494-507. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282909333179
62.
Federal Statistical Office of the Federal Republic of Germany. (Eds.). (2014). Statistisches Jahrbuch Deutschland und Internationales [Statistical yearbook]. Statistisches Bundesamt.
63.
Fenollar-CortésJ.WatkinsM. W. (2019). Construct validity of the Spanish version of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-VSpain). International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 7(3), 150-164. http://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2017.1414006
FrazierT. W.YoungstromE. A. (2007). Historical increase in the number of factors measured by commercial tests of cognitive ability: Are we overfactoring?Intelligence, 35(2), 169-182. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.07.002
66.
FrisbyC. L.BeaujeanA. A. (2015). Testing Spearman’s hypotheses using a bi-factor model with WAIS–IV/WMS–IV standardization data. Intelligence, 51(July), 79-97. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.04.007
67.
GeorgasJ.vandeVijverF. J. R.WeissL. G.SaklofskeD. H. (2003). A cross-cultural analysis of the WISC–III. In GeorgasJ.WeissL. G. (Eds.), Culture and children’s intelligence (pp. 277-313). Academic Press. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012280055-9/50021-7
68.
GignacG. E. (2005). Revisiting the factor structure of the WAIS-R: Insights through nested factor modeling. Assessment, 12(3), 320-329. http://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105278118
69.
GignacG. E. (2006). The WAIS-III as a nested factors model: A useful alternative to the more conventional oblique and higher-order models. Journal of Individual Differences, 27(2), 73-86. http://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.27.2.73
70.
GignacG. E. (2008). Higher-order models versus direct hierarchical models:g as superordinate or breadth factor? Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(1), 21-43.
71.
GignacG. E. (2016). The higher-order model imposes a proportionality constraint: That is why the bifactor model tends to fit better. Intelligence, 55(March-April), 57-68. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.01.006
72.
GignacG. E.WatkinsM. W. (2013). Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS-IV. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48(5), 639-662. http://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2013.804398
73.
GlorfeldL. W. (1995). An improvement on Horn’s parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(3), 377-393. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055003002
74.
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 WIAI-II. Journal of Special Education, 40(2), 103-114. http://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400020101
75.
GolayP.LecerfT. (2011). Orthogonal higher order structure and confirmatory factor analysis of the French Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III). Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 143-152. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0021230
76.
GolayP.ReverteI.RossierJ.FavezN.LecerfT. (2013). Further insights on the French WISC-IV factor structure through Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM). Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 496-508. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0030676
77.
GorsuchR. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
78.
GottfredsonL. S. (2016). A g theorist on why Kovacs and Conway’s process overlap theory amplifies, not opposes, g theory. Psychological Inquiry, 27(3), 210-217. http://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1203232
79.
GustafssonJ.-E.BalkeG. (1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28(4), 407-434. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2804_2
80.
Hagmann-von ArxP.GrobA. (2014). Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales and Screening (RIAS)TM: German adaptation of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS)TM & the Reynolds Intellectual Screening Test (RIST)TM from Cecil R. Reynolds and Randy W. Kamphaus. Hans Huber.
81.
HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In CudeckR.Du ToitS.SorbomD. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future (pp. 195-216). Scientific Software International.
HornJ. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrica, 30(2), 179-185. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
84.
HornJ. L. (1991). Measurement of intellectual capabilities: A review of theory. In McGrewK. S.WerderJ. K.WoodcockR. W. (Eds.), Woodcock-Johnson technical manual (Rev. ed., pp. 197-232). Riverside.
85.
HornJ. L.BlanksonN. (2005). Foundations for better understanding of cognitive abilities. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 41-68). Guilford Press.
86.
HornJ. L.CattellR. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(5), 253-270. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023816
87.
HuL.-T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
88.
JensenA. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
KaiserH. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151. http://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
KanK.-J.van der MaasH. L. J.LevineS. Z. (2019). Extending psychometric network analysis: Empirical evidence against g in favor of mutualism?Intelligence, 73(March-April), 52-62. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.12.004
94.
KaufmanA. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC–III. Wiley.
95.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2015). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children–II (German Version of P. Melchers & M. Melchers). Pearson Assessment.
96.
KeithT. Z. (2005). Using confirmatory factor analysis to aid in understanding the constructs measured by intelligence tests. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 581-614). Guilford Press.
97.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
98.
KovacsK.ConwayA. R. A. (2016). Process overlap theory: A unified account of the general factor of intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 27(3), 151-177. http://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1153946
99.
KranzlerJ. H.BensonN.FloydR. G. (2015). Using estimated factor scores from a bifactor analysis to examine the unique effects of the latent variables measured by the WAIS-IV on academic achievement. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1402-1416. http://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000119
100.
LecerfT.CanivezG. L. (2018). Complementary exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the French WISC-V: Analyses based on the standardization sample. Psychological Assessment, 30(6), 793-808. http://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000526
101.
LecerfT.RossierJ.FavezN.ReverteI.ColeauxL. (2010). The four- vs. alternative six-factor structure of the French WISC–IV. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69(4), 221-232. http://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000026
102.
LittleT. D.LindenbergerU.NesselroadeJ. R. (1999). On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: When “good” indicators are bad and “bad” indicators are good. Psychological Methods, 4(2), 192-211. http://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.2.192
103.
LuechtR. M.GierlM. J.TanX.HuffK. (2006, April). Scalability and the development of useful diagnostic scales [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
104.
MacCallumR. C.AustinJ. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 201-226. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201
105.
MacCallumR. C.RoznowskiM.NecowitzL. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalizing on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490-504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490
106.
MansolfM.ReiseS. P. (2017). When and why the second-order and bifactor models are distinguishable. Intelligence, 61(March-April), 120-129. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.01.012
107.
McDonaldR. P. (2010). Structural models and the art of approximation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 675-686. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610388766
108.
McGillR. J.CanivezG. L. (2016). Orthogonal higher order structure of the WISC-IV Spanish using hierarchical exploratory factor analytic procedures. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(6), 600-606. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915624293
109.
McGillR. J.CanivezG. L. (2018). Confirmatory factor analyses of the WISC-IV Spanish core and supplemental Subtests: Validation evidence of the Wechsler and CHC models. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 6(4), 239-351. http://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2017.1327831
110.
McGrewK. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37, 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004
111.
MorganG. B.HodgeK. J.WellsK. E.WatkinsM. W. (2015). Are fit indices biased in favor of bi-factor models in cognitive ability research? A comparison of fit in correlated factors, higher-order, and bi-factor models via Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Intelligence, 3(1), 2-20. http://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3010002
112.
MorinA. J. S.ArensA. K.MarshH. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 116-139. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.961800
113.
MorinA. J. S.ArensA. K.TranA.CaciH. (2016). Exploring sources of construct-relevant multidimensionality in psychiatric measurement: A tutorial and illustration using the composite scale of morningness. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 25(4), 277-288. http://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1485
114.
MurrayA. L.JohnsonW. (2013). The limitations of model fit in comparing the bi-factor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure. Intelligence, 41(5), 407-422. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.06.004
115.
NasserF.BensonJ.WisenbakerJ. (2002). The performance of regression-based variations of the visual scree for determining the number of common factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(3), 397-419. http://doi.org/10.1177/00164402062003001
116.
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. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0024878
117.
NelsonJ. MCanivezG. LLindstromW.HattC. (2007). Higher-order exploratory factor analysis of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales with a referred sample. Journal of School Psychology, 45(4), 439-456. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.03.003
118.
NelsonJ. M.CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W. (2013). Structural and incremental validity of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth edition (WAIS-IV) with a clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 618-630. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0032086
119.
OaklandT.DouglasS.KaneH. (2016). Top ten standardized tests used internationally with children and youth by school psychologists in 64 countries: A 24-year follow-up study. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(2), 166-176. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915595303
120.
O’ConnorB. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396-402. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200807
121.
PaulsF.DasekingM.PetermannF. (2020). Measurement invariance across gender on the second-order five-factor model of the German Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth edition. Assessment, 27(8), 1836-1852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119847762
ReiseS. P.BonifayW. E.HavilandM. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129-140. http://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
127.
ReiseS. P.MooreT. M.HavilandM. G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(6), 544-559. http://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.496477
128.
ReynoldsM. R.KeithT. Z. (2013). Measurement and statistical issues in child assessment research. In SaklofskeD. H.SchweanV. L.ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of child psychological assessment (pp. 48-83). Oxford University Press.
129.
ReynoldsM. R.KeithT. Z. (2017). Multi-group and hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth edition: What does it measure?Intelligence, 62(May), 31-47. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.02.005
130.
RodriguezA.ReiseS. P.HavilandM. G. (2016). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223-237. http://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249
131.
SattlerJ. (2008a). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations (5th ed.). Author.
132.
SattlerJ. (2008b). Resource guide to accompany assessment of children (5th ed.). Author.
133.
SchmidJ.LeimanJ. M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22(1), 53-61. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289209
134.
SchneiderW. J.McGrewK. S. (2012). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll model of intelligence. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 99-144). Guilford Press.
135.
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: Fourth edition (pp. 73-163). Guilford Press.
136.
SchreiberJ. B.StageF. K.KingJ.NoraA.BarlowE. A. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-337. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
137.
SpearmanC. (1927). The abilities of man. Cambridge.
138.
StricklandT.WatkinsM. W.CaterinoL. C. (2015). Structure of the Woodcock-Johnson III cognitive tests in a referral sample of elementary school students. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 689-697. http://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000052
139.
StyckK. M.WatkinsM. W. (2016). Structural validity of the WISC-IV for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(2), 216-224. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414539565
140.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
141.
ThompsonB. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.
142.
ThurstoneL. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.
143.
UllmanJ. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
144.
VelicerW. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321-327. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293557
WatkinsM. W. (2004). MacOrtho. [Computer software]. Ed & Psych Associates.
147.
WatkinsM. W. (2006). Orthogonal higher order structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth edition. Psychological Assessment, 18(1), 123-125. http://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.1.123
148.
WatkinsM. W. (2007). SEscree [Computer software]. Ed & Psych Associates.
149.
WatkinsM. W. (2010). Structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth edition among a national sample of referred students. Psychological Assessment, 22(4), 782-787. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0020043
150.
WatkinsM. W. (2013). Omega [Computer software]. Ed & Psych Associates.
151.
WatkinsM. W. (2017). The reliability of multidimensional neuropsychological measures: From alpha to omega. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(6-7), 1113-1126. http://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1317364
152.
WatkinsM. W. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3), 219-246. http://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807
153.
WatkinsM. W.BeaujeanA. A. (2014). Bifactor structure of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Fourth edition. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 52-63. http://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000038
154.
WatkinsM. W.CanivezG. L.JamesT.GoodR.JamesK. (2013). Construct validity of the WISC-IV-UK with a large referred Irish sample. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 1(2), 102-111. http://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2013.794439
155.
WatkinsM. W.DombrowskiS. C.CanivezG. L. (2018). Reliability and factorial validity of the Canadian Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 6(4), 252-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2017.1342580
156.
WatkinsM. W.WilsonS. M.KotzK. M.CarboneM. C.BabulaT. (2006). Factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition among referred students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(6), 975-983. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406288168
157.
WechslerD. (2014a). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth edition. NCS Pearson.
158.
WechslerD. (2014b). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth edition: Canadian manual. Pearson Canada Assessment.
159.
WechslerD. (2014c). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth edition: Technical and interpretive manual. NCS Pearson.
160.
WechslerD. (2015a). Escala de inteligencia de Wechsler para niños-V. Pearson Educación.
161.
WechslerD. (2015b). Escala de inteligencia de Wechsler para niños-V: Manual técnico y de interpretación. Pearson Educación.
162.
WechslerD. (2016a). Echelle d’intelligence de Wechsler pour enfants-5e édition. Pearson France-ECPA.
163.
WechslerD. (2016b). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth UK Edition. Harcourt Assessment.
164.
WechslerD. (2016c). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth UK edition: Administration and scoring manual. Harcourt Assessment.
165.
WechslerD. (2017a). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V). Durchführungs- und Auswertungsmanual (German version of F. Petermann). Pearson.
166.
WechslerD. (2017b). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V): Technisches Manual. (German version of F. Petermann). Pearson.
167.
WeinerI. B. (1989). On competence and ethicality in psychodiagnostic assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(4), 827-831. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5304_18
168.
WeissL. G.KeithT. Z.ZhuJ.ChenH. (2013a). WAIS–IV and clinical validation of the four- and five-factor interpretative approaches. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(2), 94-113. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913478030
169.
WeissL. G.KeithT. Z.ZhuJ.ChenH. (2013b). WISC–IV and clinical validation of the four- and five-factor interpretative approaches. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(2), 114-131. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913478032
170.
WoodJ. M.TatarynD. J.GorsuchR. L. (1996). Effects of under- and overextraction on principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation. Psychological Methods, 1(4), 254-265. http://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.4.354
171.
YungY.-F.ThissenD.McLeodL. D. (1999). On the relationship between the higher-order factor model and the hierarchical factor model. Psychometrika, 64(2), 113-128. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294531
172.
ZinbargR. E.RevelleW.YovelI.LiW. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ωH: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123-133. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7
173.
ZinbargR. E.YovelI.RevelleW.McDonaldR. P. (2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30(2), 121-144. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146621605278814
174.
ZoskiK. W.JursS. (1996). An objective counterpart to the visual scree test for factor analysis: The standard error scree. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(3), 443-451. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056003006
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
