Sie sind auf Seite 1von 40

AppendixA

STEP 1.

A.1:WAISIVInterpretiveWorksheet

Report the Persons 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. Step 2a. Determine the Best Way to Summarize Overall Intellectual Ability. To determine whether the FSIQ is interpretable, subtract the Lowest Index from the Highest Index. Is the difference < 23 points? Y or N

Highest Index Standard Scores:

Lowest

Difference =

If YES, the FSIQ may be interpreted as a reliable and valid estimate of a persons overall intellectual ability. Proceed directly to Step 3. Step 2b.

If NO, then proceed to 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. Is the difference < 23 points? Y or N

VCI Index Standard Scores:

PRI

Absolute Difference =

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

If NO, then proceed to Step 3.

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 Scaled Score +

SI +

IN +

MR +

BD +

VP

GAI

AppendixA
STEP 3.

A.1:WAISIVInterpretiveWorksheet

Determine Whether the Difference between the Persons 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. Is the difference < 23 points? Y or N

VCI Index Standard Scores:

PRI

Absolute Difference =

If YES, the GAI can be calculated and interpreted as a reliable and valid estimate of the persons 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.

Determine whether the CPI represents a unitary ability by calculating the difference between the WMI and the PSI. Is the difference < 23 points? Y or N If NO, the GAI-CPI comparison cannot be made. Go to Step 4.

WMI Index Standard Scores:

PSI

Absolute Difference =

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

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). Sum of Subtest Scaled Scores = =

VC Scaled Score +

SI +

IN +

MR +

BD +

VP

GAI

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.

AppendixA

A.1:WAISIVInterpretiveWorksheet
Sum of Subtest Scaled Scores = =

DS Scaled Score +

AR +

SS +

CD

CPI

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). Is the difference significant? 9 points Y or N Is the difference uncommon? 19 points Y or N

GAI Index Standard Scores

CPI

Absolute Difference =

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? Y or N 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? Y or N 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? Y or N STEP 5. 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.

Determine Whether Each of the Four Wechsler Indexes Is Unitary, and Thus Interpretable

SkipthisstepifyouareinterpretingthepersonsprofileviatheKeithFiveFactorApproach.ProceedtoStep6. Step 5a5d. Calculate the difference between the highest and lowest subtest scaled scores for the VCI, PRI, WMI, and PSI.

AppendixA

A.1:WAISIVInterpretiveWorksheet
Is the difference < 5 points? Y or N Y or N Y or N Y or N

Highest 5a. VCI Subtest Scores: 5b. PRI Subtest Scores: 5c. WMI Subtest Scores: 5d. PSI Subtest Scores:

Lowest

Difference = = = =

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.

STEP 6. Determine Whether Each of the Five Keith Factors Is Unitary, and Thus Interpretable. SkipthisstepifyouinterpretedthepersonsprofileviatheWechslerFourIndexmethod.ProceedtoStep7. 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.3A.6 of the CD-ROM.
Scaled Score 2

Factor Gc Gsm Gf Gv Gs VC DS MR BD SS

Scaled Score 1

Sum of Scaled Scores = = = = =

Factor Standard Score

+ + + + +

IN LN FW VP 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).

AppendixA

A.1:WAISIVInterpretiveWorksheet
Is the difference < 5 points? Y or N Y or N Y or N Y or N Y or N

Factor 6b. Gc 6c. Gsm 6d. Gf 6e. Gv 6f. Gs VC DS MR BD SS

Scaled Score 1

Scaled Score 2

Absolute Difference = = = = =

IN LN FW VP CD

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 6a6f.

Step 6g.

Determine how many of Keiths Five Factors are interpretable by reviewing the results of Steps 6b6f. Is the number < 3

Number of interpretable Keith factors:

Y or N

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

If YES, only one or two of Keiths 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. 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 checkmark in the box corresponding to the appropriate normative category for each index or factor. Normative Weakness < 85 Within Normal Limits 85115 Normative Strength > 115

Wechsler Index VCI PRI WMI PSI

Standard Score

AppendixA

A.1:WAISIVInterpretiveWorksheet
Within Normal Limits 85115

Keith Factor Gc Gsm Gv Gf Gs

Standard Score

Normative Weakness < 85

Normative Strength > 115

STEP 8. Step 8a.

Determine Personal Strengths and Personal Weaknesses in the Index Profile. Compute the mean of the persons indexes or factors and round to the nearest tenth of a point. Note that all indexes or factors (interpretable and noninterpretable) are included in the computation of the mean. Wechsler Index VCI PRI WMI PSI Sum of Indexes Number of Indexes Mean of Indexes Standard Score Keith Factor Gc Gsm Gv Gf Gs Sum of Factors Standard Score

Number of Factors 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.

AppendixA

A.1:WAISIVInterpretiveWorksheet

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.
Personal Strength or Personal Weakness (PS or PW) (6)

Interpretable Wechsler Index (1)

Standard Score (2)

Rounded Mean of All Indexes (3)

Difference Score (4)

Critical Value Needed for Significance (5)

Uncommon (U) or Not Uncommon (NU) (7)

VCI PRI WMI PSI


Personal Strength or Personal Weakness (PS or PW) (6)

Interpretable Keith Factor (1)

Standard Score (2)

Rounded Mean of All Factors (3)

Difference Score (4)

Critical Value Needed for Significance (5)

Uncommon (U) or Not Uncommon (NU) (7)

Gc Gsm Gv Gf Gs Critical Value Needed for Significance for Ages 1690 (p <.05 level of significance)
Wechsler Indexes Age 1617 1819 2024 2529 3034 3544 4554 5564 6569 7074 7579 8084 8590 VCI 6.5 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.5 5.1 4.6 PRI 6.1 6.3 6.4 5.5 5.6 6.0 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.9 6.2 6.9 6.6 WMI 6.8 6.3 7.0 5.8 6.0 6.0 5.9 6.2 6.2 6.6 5.8 6.3 6.6 PSI 8.3 7.6 7.6 7.5 8.4 8.4 8.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 6.9 6.9 6.9 Gc 6.2 6.0 5.6 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.0 4.9 4.9 Gf 7.0 6.8 7.2 6.3 5.9 6.8 6.4 6.7 6.3 Keith Factors Gv 7.0 6.8 7.2 6.3 6.4 6.8 5.9 6.7 6.3 Gsm 6.6 6.4 6.8 5.9 5.5 6.4 5.9 6.3 6.3 Gs 8.7 7.8 7.9 7.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 7.4 7.4

AppendixA
Step 8d.

A.1:WAISIVInterpretiveWorksheet
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 VCI PRI WMI PSI NS (Step 7) NW (Step 7) PS (Step 8b) PW (Step 8b) Uncommon (Step 8c) Key Asset High-Priority Concern

Gc Gsm Gv Gf Gs Notes: NS = Normative Strength; NW = Normative Weakness; PS = Personal Strength; PW = Personal Weakness. STEP 9. Interpret Fluctuations in the Persons 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.

AppendixA

A.1:WAISIVInterpretiveWorksheet
Highest Scaled Score Lowest Scaled Score

9
Is the difference < 5 points? Y or N

CLUSTER Visual-Motor Speed


Block Design + Coding + Symbol Search

Difference

= = = = = = = = = =

Problem Solving without Visual-Motor Speed


Matrix Reasoning + VIsual Puzzles + Picture Completion +Figure Weights (ages1669)

Y or N

Mental Manipulation
Letter- Number Sequencing + Digit Span (ages 1669)

Y or N Y or N Y or N Y or N Y or N Y or N Y or N Y or N

Verbal Fluid Reasoning (Gf-verbal)


Similarities + Comprehension

Lexical Knowledge (Gc-VL)


Vocabulary + Similarities

General Information (Gc-K0)


Comprehension + Information

Long-Term Memory (Gc-LTM)


Vocabulary + Information

Short-Term Memory (Gsm-MW)


Letter-Number Sequencing + Digit Span (ages 1669)

Fluid Reasoning (Gf)


Matrix Reasoning + Figure Weights (ages 1669)

Visual Processing (Gv)


Block Design + Visual Puzzles

AppendixA
Step 10b.

A.1:WAISIVInterpretiveWorksheet

10

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.9A.17. Record the clusters percentile Rank and Confidence Interval (also available in Appendixes A.9A.17).

Subtest BD SI DS MR VC AR SS VP IN CD LN FW CO CA PCm
Sum of Scaled Scores Cluster Standard Score Percentile Rank Confidence Interval

VisualMotor Speed

Problem Solving without Visual Motor Speed

Mental Manipulation

Verbal Fluid Reason -ing

Lexical Knowledge

General Information

LongTerm Memory

ShortTerm Memory

Fluid Reasoning

Visual Processing

AppendixA
Step 10c.

A.1:WAISIVInterpretiveWorksheet
Conduct planned clinical comparisons.

11

Only interpretable Clinical Clusters may be used in Step 10c. (See Step 10as 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
Visual-Motor Speed (BD+CD+SS) Visual-Motor Speed (BD+CD+SS) Mental Manipulation (LN+DS) Fluid Reasoning (MR+FW) Verbal Fluid Reasoning (SI+CO) Lexical Knowledge (VC+SI) Long-Term Memory (VC+IN) Verbal Fluid Reasoning (SI+CO)

vs.

Cluster 2
Problem Solving w/o Visual-Motor Speed (MR+VP+PC+FW) Mental Manipulation (LN+DS) Problem Solving w/o Visual-Motor Speed (MR+VP+PC+FW) Visual Processing (BD+VP) Fluid Reasoning (MR+FW) General Information (CO+IN) Short-Term Memory (LN+DS) Long-Term Memory (VC+IN)

Score 1

Score 2

= = = = = = = = =

Difference

Critical Value 20

Uncommon (U) or Not Uncommon (NU)

vs.

vs.

24

vs.

22

vs.

20

vs.

22

vs.

15

vs.

24

vs.

16

Note:Differencescoresthatexceedthecriticalvaluelistedincolumn3shouldbedenotedasUncommon.

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 persons Clinical Cluster comparisons.

Appendix A Appendix A.2


Sum of Scaled Scores for DS+AR+CD+SS 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

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

12

CPI 40 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 71 72 74 75 77 78 79 80 82 83 85 87 89 91 93 94 96 98 99 100 101 102 103 105 106 108 110 112

%tile <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 16 19 23 27 32 34 39 45 47 50 53 55 58 63 66 70 75 79

90% CI 38-48 39-49 41-51 43-53 44-55 46-57 48-59 50-61 52-62 54-64 55-65 57-67 59-69 61-71 62-73 64-75 66-77 67-78 68-79 70-81 71-81 73-83 74-84 75-85 76-86 78-88 79-89 81-91 82-93 84-95 86-97 88-99 89-100 91-101 93-103 94-104 95-105 96-106 97-107 98-108 100-110 100-111 102-113 104-115 106-117

95% CI 37-49 38-50 40-52 42-54 43-56 45-58 47-60 49-62 51-63 53-65 54-66 56-68 58-70 60-72 61-74 63-76 65-78 66-79 67-80 69-82 70-82 72-84 73-85 74-86 75-87 77-89 78-90 80-92 81-94 83-96 85-98 87-100 88-101 90-102 92-104 93-105 94-106 95-107 96-108 97-109 99-111 99-112 101-114 103-116 105-118

Appendix A
Sum of Scaled Scores for DS+AR+CD+SS 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

A.2: CPI Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

13

CPI 114 116 118 120 121 123 125 126 128 129 131 133 135 137 139 141 143 146 148 150 152 155 157 160 160 160 160 160

%tile 82 86 88 91 92 94 95 96 97 97 98 99 99 99 99.5 99.7 99.8 99.9 99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9

90% CI 108-119 110-120 112-122 114-124 115-125 117-127 119-129 119-130 121-132 122-133 124-135 126-137 128-138 130-140 132-142 134-144 136-146 138-149 140-151 142-153 144-155 147-157 149-159 152-162 152-162 152-162 152-162 152-162

95% CI 107-120 109-121 111-123 113-125 114-126 116-128 118-130 118-131 120-133 121-134 123-136 125-138 127-139 129-141 131-143 133-145 135-147 137-150 139-152 141-154 143-156 146-158 148-160 151-163 151-163 151-163 151-163 151-163

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 Appendix A.3

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

14

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.

Sum of Scaled Scores for VC+IN 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Gc Factor 50 53 56 59 62 65 68 71 74 76 79 81 84 87 89 92 95 97 100 102 105 107 110 113 116 118 121 124 127 130 133 136 139 142 145 148 150

%tile <0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1 1 2 3 4 5 8 10 14 19 23 30 37 42 50 55 63 68 75 81 86 88 92 95 96 98 99 99 99.5 99.7 99.9 99.9 >99.9

90% CI 47-57 50-60 53-62 56-65 59-68 62-71 65-74 67-77 70-80 72-82 75-85 77-86 80-89 83-92 85-94 88-97 90-100 92-102 95-105 97-107 100-110 102-111 105-114 108-117 111-120 113-122 115-125 118-128 121-131 124-134 127-136 130-139 133-142 136-145 138-148 141-151 143-153

95% CI 46-58 49-61 52-63 55-66 58-69 61-72 64-75 67-78 69-81 71-83 74-85 76-87 79-90 82-93 84-95 87-98 90-101 91-103 94-106 96-108 99-110 101-112 104-115 107-118 110-121 112-123 115-126 117-129 120-132 123-134 126-137 129-140 132-143 135-146 138-149 140-152 142-154

Appendix A Appendix A.4

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

15

Sum of Scaled Scores for


LN+DS

Gsm Factor

%tile

90% CI

95% CI

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.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

50 52 55 58 61 64 67 69 72 74 77 79 83 86 89 92 95 98 100 103 105 108 110 112 115 118 121 124 127 130 133 136 139 142 145 148 150

<0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1 1 2 3 4 6 8 13 18 23 30 37 45 50 58 63 70 75 79 84 88 92 95 96 98 99 99 99.5 99.7 99.9 99.9 >99.9

47-59 49-61 52-63 55-66 58-69 60-72 63-75 65-77 68-79 70-81 73-84 75-86 78-90 81-93 84-95 87-98 90-101 92-104 94-106 97-109 99-110 102-113 104-115 106-117 108-120 111-123 114-125 117-128 120-131 123-134 125-137 128-140 131-142 134-145 137-148 139-151 141-153

46-60 48-62 51-64 54-67 57-70 59-73 62-76 64-78 67-80 69-82 72-85 73-87 77-91 80-94 83-96 86-99 89-102 91-105 93-107 96-110 98-111 101-114 103-116 105-118 107-121 110-124 113-127 116-129 119-132 121-135 124-138 127-141 130-143 133-146 136-149 138-152 140-154

Appendix A Appendix A.5

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

16

Sum of Scaled Scores for


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

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

50 52 55 58 61 64 67 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 89 92 94 97 100 102 105 107 110 113 116 119 122 125 128 131 134 137 140 143 146 149 150

<0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1 1 2 3 5 7 10 14 19 23 30 34 42 50 55 63 68 75 81 86 90 93 95 97 98 99 99 99.6 99.8 99.9 99.9 >99.9

47-60 49-61 52-64 55-67 58-70 60-73 63-75 65-77 68-80 71-83 73-86 76-88 79-91 82-94 84-96 86-99 88-100 91-103 94-106 96-108 99-111 100-113 103-115 106-118 109-121 112-124 114-127 117-129 120-132 123-135 126-138 128-140 131-143 134-146 137-149 139-152 140-153

46-61 48-63 51-65 54-68 56-71 59-74 62-77 64-78 67-81 70-84 72-87 75-90 78-92 81-95 83-97 85-100 87-102 90-104 93-107 95-109 97-112 99-114 102-117 105-119 108-122 110-125 113-128 116-130 119-133 122-136 124-139 127-142 130-144 133-147 136-150 138-153 139-154

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 Appendix A.6


Sum of Scaled Scores for
BD+VP

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

17

Gv Factor

%tile

90% CI

95% CI

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.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

50 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 75 78 81 84 87 90 92 95 97 100 102 105 107 110 113 116 119 122 125 128 131 134 137 140 143 146 149 150

<0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1 1 2 4 5 7 10 14 19 25 30 37 42 50 55 63 68 75 81 86 90 93 95 97 98 99 99 99.6 99.8 99.9 99.9 >99.9

47-60 49-61 52-64 55-67 58-70 60-73 63-75 66-78 69-81 71-83 73-86 76-88 79-91 82-94 85-97 86-99 89-101 91-103 94-106 96-108 99-111 100-113 103-115 106-118 109-121 112-124 114-127 117-129 120-132 123-135 126-138 128-140 131-143 134-146 137-149 139-152 140-153

46-61 48-63 51-65 54-68 56-71 59-74 62-77 65-79 68-82 70-84 72-87 75-90 78-92 81-95 83-98 85-100 88-103 90-104 93-107 95-109 97-112 99-114 102-117 105-119 108-122 110-125 113-128 116-130 119-133 122-136 124-139 127-142 130-144 133-147 136-150 138-153 139-154

Appendix A
Denitions of CHC Abilities and Processes

CHC THEORY AND THE STRUCTURE OF COGNITIVE ABILITIES AND PROCESSES

In this section, the denitions of the broad and some of the narrow abilities included in CHC theory are presented. These denitions 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 denitions of all of them in this text. Practitioners are referred to Carroll (1993), Flanagan, and colleagues (2007), and McGrew (2005) for denitions 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 relationships 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 dened in Table A.1.
Crystallized Intelligence (Gc)

Crystallized Intelligence (Gc) refers to the breadth and depth of a persons 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).
A1

2 APPENDIX A

Table A.1 Description of Select Gf Narrow Ability Denitions Narrow stratum I name (code) General Sequential Reasoning (RG) Induction (I) De nition 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. Ability to discover the underlying characteristic (e.g., rule, concept, process, trend, class membership) that governs a problem or a set of materials. Ability to inductively and deductively reason with concepts involving mathematical relations and properties.

Quantitative Reasoning (RQ)

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

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 includes 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 transform knowledge. For example, a childs knowledge of his or her street address would reect declarative knowledge, while a childs ability to 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 Comprehension Index (VCI), which is composed of Vocabulary, Similarities, and Comprehension, provides an assessment of several Gc narrow abilities, including Lexical Knowledge (VL), Language Development (LD), and General Information (K0). The WISC-IV Information (K0), Word Reasoning (VL), Picture Concepts (K0), and Picture Completion (K0) subtests also involve the use of specic 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 dened 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 collection of processing abilities (e.g., oral production and uency). Although Gc is probably most often conceptualized much like Gq and Grw as an ability that is highly

APPENDIX A 3

Table A.2 Description of Select Gc Narrow Ability Denitions Narrow stratum I name (code) Language Development (LD) Lexical Knowledge (VL) Listening Ability (LS) General (verbal) Information (K0) Information About Culture (K2) De nition General development, or the understanding of words, sentences, and paragraphs (not requiring reading), in spoken native language skills. Extent of vocabulary that can be understood in terms of correct word meanings. Ability to listen and comprehend oral communications. Range of general knowledge. Range of cultural knowledge (e.g., music, art).

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

dependent upon learning experiences (especially formal, classroom-type experiences), 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 repository of learned information. Yet, Listening Ability, as another example of a narrow ability under Gc, not only appears to represent learned material but reects another ability as wellthe 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 therefore 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 individuals store of acquired quantitative, 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

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 individuals 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 basic 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, __). Although most achievement batteries measure specic 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 dened in Table A.3.
Short-Term Memory (Gsm)

Short-Term Memory (Gsm) is the ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate 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 directions long enough to complete the tasks specied in the directions, are examples

Table A.3 Description of Select Gq Narrow Ability Denitions Narrow stratum I name (code) Mathematical Knowledge (KM) Mathematical Achievement (A3) De nition Range of general knowledge about mathematics. Measured mathematics achievement.

Note: Narrow ability denitions 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 difcult to remember an unfamiliar telephone number for more than a few seconds unless one consciously uses a cognitive 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 shortterm 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 temporary storage and processing of information (Richardson, 1996, p. 23). It has been referred to as the minds scratchpad (Jensen, 1998, p. 220), and most models of working memory postulate a number of subsystems or temporary buffers. The phonological or articulatory loop processes auditory-linguistic information, 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 coordinates and manages the activities and subsystems in working memory. Carroll (1993) is skeptical of the working memory construct, as reected 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 sufcient work on measuring working memory, and the validity and generality of the concept have not yet been well established in the individual differences research (p. 647). Leffard, Miller, Bernstein, DeMann, Mangis, and McCoy (2006) found that many of the cognitive batteries only measure one aspect of working memoryeither the phonological loop or the visuospatial sketchpadbut not both. Notwithstanding these issues, the working memory construct has been related empirically to a variety of different outcomes, including many specic 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 construct was included in current CHC theory primarily for practical application

6 APPENDIX A

and ease of communication. Additional research is necessary before denitive 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 dened in Table A.4.
Visual Processing (Gv)

Visual Processing (Gv) is the ability to generate, perceive, analyze, synthesize, store, retrieve, 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 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 congurations, and maintain spatial orientation 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 primarily Flexibility of Closure (CF). Select Gv narrow abilities are dened 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 reect the degree to which the individual can cognitively control the

Table A.4 Description of Select Gsm Narrow Ability Denitions Narrow stratum I name (code) Memory Span (MS) De nition Ability to attend to and immediately recall temporally ordered elements in the correct order after a single presentation. Ability to temporarily store and perform a set of cognitive operations on information that requires divided attention and the management of the limited capacity of short-term memory.

Working Memory (MW)

Note: Narrow ability denitions 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

Table A.5 Description of Select Gv Narrow Ability Denitions Narrow stratum I name (code) Spatial Relations (SR) De nition Ability to rapidly perceive and manipulate relatively simple visual patterns or to maintain orientation with respect to objects in space. Ability to form and store a mental representation or image of a visual stimulus and then recognize or recall it later. 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. Ability to mentally manipulate objects or visual patterns and to see how they would appear under altered conditions. Ability to nd, apprehend, and identify a visual gure or pattern embedded in a complex visual array, when knowing in advance what the pattern is. Ability to accurately and quickly survey a spatial eld or pattern and identify a path through the visual eld or pattern. Ability to apprehend and identify a pictorial or visual pattern when parts of the pattern are presented rapidly in serially or successive order.

Visual Memory (MV)

Closure Speed (CS)

Visualization (Vz)

Flexibility of Closure (CF) Spatial Scanning (SS)

Serial Perceptual Integration (PI)

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

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., phonetic coding) are found typically on achievement batteries. In fact, the number of tests specically designed to measure phonological processing has increased signicantly in recent years, presumably as a result of the consistent nding

8 APPENDIX A

that phonological awareness/processing appears to be the core decit in individuals with reading difculties (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 narrow abilities subsumed by Ga) and, thus, extends far beyond phonetic coding ability (McGrew, 2005). In CHC theory, Carrolls 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 (synthesis) 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 samplea 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, Yopps (1988) simple phonemic factor appears to be analogous to Wagner and colleagues (1993) synthesis factor and the factor Stankov and Horn (1980) identied with the aid of sound-blending tasks. Also, Yopps compound phonemic factor bears similarities to Wagner and colleagues analysis factor and the Stankov and Horn factor, identied, 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 dened 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 analysis/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 dened in Table A.6.

APPENDIX A 9

Table A.6 Description of Select Ga Narrow Ability Denitions Narrow stratum I name (code) Phonetic Coding: Analysis (PC:A) Phonetic Coding: Synthesis (PC:S) Speech Sound Discrimination (US) Resistance to Auditory Stimulus Distortion (UR) Memory for Sound Patterns (UM) General Sound Discrimination (U3) De nition Ability to segment larger units of speech sounds into smaller units of speech sounds. Ability to blend smaller units of speech together into larger units of speech. Ability to detect differences in speech sounds under conditions of little distraction or distortion. Ability to understand speech and language that has been distorted or masked in one or more ways. Ability to retain on a short-term basis auditory events such as tones, tonal patterns, and voices. Ability to discriminate tones, tone patterns, or musical materials with regard to pitch, intensity, duration, and rhythm.

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

Long-Term Storage and Retrieval (Glr)

Long-Term Storage and Retrieval (Glr) is the ability to store information in and uently 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 uency, or associational uency. It is important not to confuse Glr with Gc, Gq, and Grw, an individuals stores of acquired knowledge: Gc, Gq, and Grw represent what is stored in long-term memory, while Glr is the efciency 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. Although 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 dening Glr. More important 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;

10 APPENDIX A

Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). Although Glr is measured directly by several major intelligence batteries, the WISC-IV does not assess Glr. In the present CHC model, 13 narrow memory and uency abilities are included under Glr. Select Glr narrow abilities are dened in Table A.7.
Table A.7 Description of Select Glr Narrow Ability Denitions Narrow stratum I name (code) Associative Memory (MA) De nition 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). Ability to recall a set of items where there is a meaningful relation between items or the items comprise a meaningful story or connected discourse. Ability to recall as many unrelated items as possible, in any order, after a large collection of items is presented. Ability to rapidly produce a series of ideas, words, or phrases related to a specic condition or object. Quantity not quality is emphasized. Ability to rapidly produce words or phrases associated in meaning (semantically associated) with a given word or concept. Ability to rapidly think of and organize words or phrases into meaningful complex ideas under high general or more specic cueing conditions. Ability to rapidly produce names for concepts when presented with a pictorial or verbal cue. Ability to rapidly produce words that have specic phonemic, structural, or orthographic characteristics (independent of word meanings). Ability to rapidly draw or sketch several examples or elaborations when given a starting visual or descriptive stimulus.

Meaningful Memory (MM)

Free Recall Memory (M6)

Ideational Fluency (FI)

Associational Fluency (FA)

Expressional Fluency (FE)

Naming Facility (NA) Word Fluency (FW)

Figural Fluency (FF)

Note: Narrow ability denitions 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

Table A.8 Description of Select Gs Narrow Ability Denitions Narrow stratum I name (code) Perceptual Speed (P) De nition Ability to rapidly search for and compare known visual symbols or patterns presented side-by-side or separated in a visual eld. Ability to rapidly perform tests which are relatively easy or that require very simple decisions. 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 dividing numbers.

Rate-of-Test-Taking (R9) Number Facility (N)

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

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 uently 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 xed-interval, timed tasks that require little in the way of complex thinking or mental processing. The WISC-IV provides three Gs tasksnamely, 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 limited processing resources (e.g., the limited capacities of short-term or working memory). That is, many cognitive activities require a persons 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 determines 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 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 speedof-processing abilities are subsumed by Gs in the present CHC model. Select Gs narrow abilities are dened in Table A.8.

Appendix A Appendix A. 8
Sum of Scaled Scores for
BD+CD+SS

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

29

Visual-Motor Speed Cluster

%tile

90% CI

95% CI

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

50 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 68 70 72 73 75 77 78 80 82 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 101 104 106 108 110 112 115 117 119 121 123 125 127 130 132 134

<0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 12 13 16 19 23 27 32 37 42 47 53 61 66 70 75 79 84 87 90 92 94 95 96 98 98 99

48-60 48-61 50-63 52-65 54-67 56-69 58-71 60-72 61-74 63-76 64-77 66-79 68-81 69-82 71-83 72-85 73-86 75-88 77-90 78-91 80-93 82-94 83-96 85-98 87-100 89-102 91-104 93-106 94-107 97-110 99-112 101-114 103-116 105-117 107-120 109-122 111-124 113-126 115-128 117-129 118-131 121-134 123-136 125-138

46-62 47-63 49-64 51-66 53-68 55-70 56-72 58-74 60-75 62-77 63-78 65-80 67-82 68-83 69-85 71-86 72-87 74-89 76-91 77-92 79-94 80-96 82-98 84-99 86-101 88-103 90-105 91-107 93-109 96-111 98-113 100-115 102-117 103-119 106-121 108-123 110-125 112-127 114-129 115-131 117-132 120-135 122-137 124-139

Appendix A
Sum of Scaled Scores for
BD+CD+SS

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

30

Visual-Motor Speed Cluster

%tile

90% CI

95% CI

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.

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 150 150 150

99 99 99.6 99.7 99.8 99.9 99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9

127-140 129-141 130-143 132-145 134-147 136-149 138-151 140-152 140-152 140-152 140-152

125-141 127-143 129-144 131-146 133-148 135-150 137-152 138-154 138-154 138-154 138-154

Appendix A Appendix A.9

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

31

Problem Solving without Visual-Motor Speed Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores
Problem Solving without VisualMotor Speed Cluster

Sum of Scaled Scores for


MR+VP+FW+PC

90% CI

95% CI

%tile

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

40 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 71 73 74 76 77 79 80 82 83 85 86 88 89 91 93 94 96 97 99 100 101 102 103 105 106 108 110

38-48 39-49 41-51 43-53 44-55 46-57 48-59 50-61 52-62 54-64 55-65 57-67 59-69 61-71 62-73 64-75 66-77 67-78 69-80 70-81 72-82 73-83 75-85 76-86 78-88 79-89 81-91 81-92 83-94 84-95 86-97 88-99 89-100 91-101 92-102 94-104 95-105 96-106 97-107 98-108 100-110 100-111 102-113 104-115

37-49 38-50 40-52 42-54 43-56 45-58 47-60 49-62 51-63 53-65 54-66 56-68 58-70 60-72 61-74 63-76 65-78 66-79 68-81 69-82 71-83 72-84 74-86 75-87 77-89 78-90 80-92 80-93 82-95 83-96 85-98 87-100 88-101 90-102 91-103 93-105 94-106 95-107 96-108 97-109 99-111 99-112 101-114 103-116

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 8 9 12 13 16 18 21 23 27 32 34 39 42 47 50 53 55 58 63 66 70 75

Appendix A
Sum of Scaled Scores for
MR+VP+FW+PC

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


Problem Solving without VisualMotor Speed Cluster

32

90% CI

95% CI

%tile

48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

111 113 115 117 119 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 152 154 156 158 160 160 160 160

105-116 107-118 109-119 111-121 113-123 114-124 116-126 118-128 119-130 121-132 123-134 125-136 127-138 129-139 131-141 133-143 135-145 137-147 138-149 140-151 142-153 144-155 146-157 148-158 150-160 152-162 152-162 152-162 152-162

104-117 106-119 108-120 110-122 112-124 113-125 115-127 117-129 118-131 120-133 122-135 124-137 126-139 128-140 130-142 132-144 134-146 136-148 137-150 139-152 141-154 143-156 145-158 147-159 149-161 151-163 151-163 151-163 151-163

77 81 84 87 90 91 93 95 96 97 98 98 99 99 99 99.6 99.7 99.8 99.9 99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9

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 Appendix A.10


Sum of Scaled Scores for
LN+DS

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

33

Mental Manipulation Cluster

%tile

90% CI

95% CI

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.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

50 52 55 58 61 64 67 69 72 74 77 79 83 86 89 92 95 98 100 103 105 108 110 112 115 118 121 124 127 130 133 136 139 142 145 148 150

<0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1 1 2 3 4 6 8 13 18 23 30 37 45 50 58 63 70 75 79 84 88 92 95 96 98 99 99 99.5 99.7 99.9 99.9 >99.9

47-59 49-61 52-63 55-66 58-69 60-72 63-75 65-77 68-79 70-81 73-84 75-86 78-90 81-93 84-95 87-98 90-101 92-104 94-106 97-109 99-110 102-113 104-115 106-117 108-120 111-123 114-125 117-128 120-131 123-134 125-137 128-140 131-142 134-145 137-148 139-151 141-153

46-60 48-62 51-64 54-67 57-70 59-73 62-76 64-78 67-80 69-82 72-85 73-87 77-91 80-94 83-96 86-99 89-102 91-105 93-107 96-110 98-111 101-114 103-116 105-118 107-121 110-124 113-127 116-129 119-132 121-135 124-138 127-141 130-143 133-146 136-149 138-152 140-154

Appendix 11 Appendix A.11


Sum of Scaled Scores for
SI+CO

A.11: Verbal Fluid Reasoning Cluster

34

Verbal Fluid Reasoning Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

Verbal Fluid Reasoning Cluster

%tile

90% CI

95% CI

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

50 53 56 59 62 65 68 71 73 76 78 81 84 86 88 91 94 97 100 102 105 108 111 113 116 119 122 125 128 132 135 138 141 144 147 150 150

<0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1 1 2 3 4 5 7 10 14 18 21 27 34 42 50 55 63 70 77 81 86 90 93 95 97 98 99 99 99.7 99.8 99.9 >99.9 >99.9

48-60 50-63 53-66 56-69 59-71 61-74 64-77 67-80 69-82 71-84 73-86 76-89 79-92 81-94 83-95 85-98 88-101 91-104 94-106 95-108 98-111 101-114 104-117 106-118 108-121 111-124 114-127 117-129 119-132 123-136 126-139 129-141 131-144 134-147 137-150 140-152 140-152

46-62 49-64 52-67 55-70 57-73 60-75 63-78 66-81 68-83 70-86 72-87 75-90 78-93 79-95 81-97 84-99 87-102 90-105 92-108 94-109 97-112 100-115 102-118 104-120 107-122 110-125 113-128 115-131 118-133 122-137 125-140 127-143 130-145 133-148 136-151 138-154 138-154

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 Appendix A.12


Sum of Scaled Scores for VC+SI 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

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

35

Lexical Knowledge Cluster 50 53 56 59 62 65 68 71 73 76 78 81 84 86 88 91 94 97 100 102 105 108 111 113 116 119 122 125 128 132 135 138 141 144 147 150 150

%tile <0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1 1 2 3 4 5 7 10 14 18 21 27 34 42 50 55 63 70 77 81 86 90 93 95 97 98 99 99 99.7 99.8 99.9 >99.9 >99.9

90% CI 47-58 50-61 53-63 56-66 59-69 62-72 64-75 67-78 69-80 72-82 74-84 77-87 80-90 81-92 83-94 86-97 89-100 92-102 95-105 97-107 100-110 102-113 105-116 107-118 110-120 113-123 116-126 119-129 121-132 125-136 128-138 131-141 134-144 137-147 139-150 142-153 142-153

95% CI 46-59 49-62 52-64 55-67 58-70 61-73 63-76 66-79 68-81 71-83 73-85 76-88 79-91 80-93 82-95 85-98 88-101 91-103 94-106 96-108 99-111 101-114 104-117 106-119 109-121 112-124 115-127 118-130 120-133 124-137 127-139 130-142 133-145 136-148 138-151 141-154 141-154

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 Appendix A.13


Sum of Scaled Scores for CO+IN 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

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

36

General Information Cluster 50 53 56 59 62 65 68 71 74 76 79 81 84 86 88 91 94 97 100 102 105 107 110 113 116 119 122 125 128 132 135 138 141 144 147 150 150

%tile <0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1 1 2 3 4 5 8 10 14 18 21 27 34 42 50 55 63 68 75 81 86 90 93 95 97 98 99 99 99.7 99.8 99.9 >99.9 >99.9

90% CI 47-59 50-62 53-64 56-67 59-70 61-73 64-76 67-78 70-81 72-83 75-86 76-88 79-91 81-93 83-94 86-97 89-100 91-103 94-106 96-108 99-110 101-112 104-115 107-118 109-121 112-124 115-126 118-129 121-132 124-136 127-139 130-141 133-144 136-147 138-150 141-153 141-153

95% CI 46-60 49-63 52-65 55-68 58-71 60-74 63-77 66-80 69-82 71-84 73-87 75-89 78-92 80-94 82-95 85-98 88-101 90-104 93-107 95-109 98-111 100-113 103-116 105-119 108-122 111-125 114-127 117-130 120-133 123-137 126-140 129-142 132-145 135-148 137-151 140-154 140-154

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 Appendix A.14


Sum of Scaled Scores for VC+IN 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 LongTerm Memory Cluster 50 53 56 59 62 65 68 71 74 76 79 81 84 87 89 92 95 97 100 102 105 107 110 113 116 118 121 124 127 130 133 136 139 142 145 148 150

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

37

%tile <0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1 1 2 3 4 5 8 10 14 19 23 30 37 42 50 55 63 68 75 81 86 88 92 95 96 98 99 99 99.5 99.7 99.9 99.9 >99.9

90% CI 47-57 50-60 53-62 56-65 59-68 62-71 65-74 67-77 70-80 72-82 75-85 77-86 80-89 83-92 85-94 88-97 90-100 92-102 95-105 97-107 100-110 102-111 105-114 108-117 111-120 113-122 115-125 118-128 121-131 124-134 127-136 130-139 133-142 136-145 138-148 141-151 143-153

95% CI 46-58 49-61 52-63 55-66 58-69 61-72 64-75 67-78 69-81 71-83 74-85 76-87 79-90 82-93 84-95 87-98 90-101 91-103 94-106 96-108 99-110 101-112 104-115 107-118 110-121 112-123 115-126 117-129 120-132 123-134 126-137 129-140 132-143 135-146 138-149 140-152 142-154

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 Appendix A.15


Sum of Scaled Scores for
LN+DS

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

38

ShortTerm Memory Cluster

%tile

90% CI

95% CI

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

50 52 55 58 61 64 67 69 72 74 77 79 83 86 89 92 95 98 100 103 105 108 110 112 115 118 121 124 127 130 133 136 139 142 145 148 150

<0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1 1 2 3 4 6 8 13 18 23 30 37 45 50 58 63 70 75 79 84 88 92 95 96 98 99 99 99.5 99.7 99.9 99.9 >99.9

47-59 49-61 52-63 55-66 58-69 60-72 63-75 65-77 68-79 70-81 73-84 75-86 78-90 81-93 84-95 87-98 90-101 92-104 94-106 97-109 99-110 102-113 104-115 106-117 108-120 111-123 114-125 117-128 120-131 123-134 125-137 128-140 131-142 134-145 137-148 139-151 141-153

46-60 48-62 51-64 54-67 57-70 59-73 62-76 64-78 67-80 69-82 72-85 73-87 77-91 80-94 83-96 86-99 89-102 91-105 93-107 96-110 98-111 101-114 103-116 105-118 107-121 110-124 113-127 116-129 119-132 121-135 124-138 127-141 130-143 133-146 136-149 138-152 140-154

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 Appendix A.16


Sum of Scaled Scores for
MR+FW

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

39

Fluid Reasoning Cluster

%tile

90% CI

95% CI

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.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

50 52 55 58 61 64 67 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 89 92 94 97 100 102 105 107 110 113 116 119 122 125 128 131 134 137 140 143 146 149 150

<0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1 1 2 3 5 7 10 14 19 23 30 34 42 50 55 63 68 75 81 86 90 93 95 97 98 99 99 99.6 99.8 99.9 99.9 >99.9

47-60 49-61 52-64 55-67 58-70 60-73 63-75 65-77 68-80 71-83 73-86 76-88 79-91 82-94 84-96 86-99 88-100 91-103 94-106 96-108 99-111 100-113 103-115 106-118 109-121 112-124 114-127 117-129 120-132 123-135 126-138 128-140 131-143 134-146 137-149 139-152 140-153

46-61 48-63 51-65 54-68 56-71 59-74 62-77 64-78 67-81 70-84 72-87 75-90 78-92 81-95 83-97 85-100 87-102 90-104 93-107 95-109 97-112 99-114 102-117 105-119 108-122 110-125 113-128 116-130 119-133 122-136 124-139 127-142 130-144 133-147 136-150 138-153 139-154

Appendix A Appendix A.17


Sum of Scaled Scores for
BD+VP

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

40

Visual Processing Cluster

%tile

90% CI

95% CI

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

50 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 75 78 81 84 87 90 92 95 97 100 102 105 107 110 113 116 119 122 125 128 131 134 137 140 143 146 149 150

<0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1 1 2 4 5 7 10 14 19 25 30 37 42 50 55 63 68 75 81 86 90 93 95 97 98 99 99 99.6 99.8 99.9 99.9 >99.9

47-60 49-61 52-64 55-67 58-70 60-73 63-75 66-78 69-81 71-83 73-86 76-88 79-91 82-94 85-97 86-99 89-101 91-103 94-106 96-108 99-111 100-113 103-115 106-118 109-121 112-124 114-127 117-129 120-132 123-135 126-138 128-140 131-143 134-146 137-149 139-152 140-153

46-61 48-63 51-65 54-68 56-71 59-74 62-77 65-79 68-82 70-84 72-87 75-90 78-92 81-95 83-98 85-100 88-103 90-104 93-107 95-109 97-112 99-114 102-117 105-119 108-122 110-125 113-128 116-130 119-133 122-136 124-139 127-142 130-144 133-147 136-150 138-153 139-154

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.