WISC-V - Spanish y WPSSI - IV

ASSESSMENT WITH THE
WISC– V AND WPPSI– IV
2016
JEROME M. SATTLER
Copyright © 2016 Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc.
Opening Poem Reflecting
Childhood
Put Something In
“Draw a crazy picture,
Write a nutty poem,
Sing a mumble-gumble song,
Whistle through your comb.
Do a loony-goony dance
'Cross the kitchen floor,
Put something silly in the world
That ain't been there before.”
― Shel Silverstein
Controversy of Intelligence
 https://youtu.be/9xTz3QjcloI
Thoughts about Intelligence
“Intelligence is important in psychology for two
reasons. First, it is one of the most scientifically
developed corners of the subject, giving the student
as complete a view as is possible anywhere of the way
scientific method can be applied to psychological
problems. Secondly, it is of immense practical
importance, educationally, socially, and in regard to
physiology and genetics.”
— Raymond Cattell
Thoughts about Intelligence
“Our purpose is to be able to measure the
intellectual capacity of a child who is brought to us
in order to know whether he is normal or retarded.
... We do not attempt to establish or prepare a
prognosis and we leave unanswered the question of
whether this retardation is curable, or even
improveable. We shall limit ourselves to ascertaining
the truth in regard to his present mental state.”
— Alfred Binet
Life Outcomes and Intelligence
[1](not in text)
Research shows a strong relationship between
intelligence test scores and life outcomes such as
economic and social competence (see Sattler, 2008
for studies and for most cited research in this
section).
Examples
• Annual income of 32-year-olds in 1993 in U.S.
dollars was $5,000 for individuals with IQs below
75, $20,000 for individuals with IQs of 90 to 110,
and $36,000 for individuals with IQs above 125 125
(Murray, 1998).
[2](not in text)
Examples (Cont.)
• Measures of general intelligence predict
occupational level and job performance “better
than any other ability, trait, or disposition and
better than job experience” (Schmidt & Hunter,
2004, p. 162).
• There is a moderate relationship between IQs
obtained in childhood (as early as 3 years of age)
and later occupational level and job performance,
with an overall correlation of about r = .50
(Schmidt & Hunter, 2004).
[3](not in text)
Examples (Cont.)
 General intelligence predicts job performance
better in more complex jobs (about r = .80) than in
less complex jobs (about r = .20; Gottfredson,
2003).
 Intelligence is related to health and longevity
(Gottfredson & Deary, 2004).
 IQs in childhood predict substantial differences in
adult morbidity and mortality, including deaths
from cancers and cardiovascular disease
Gottfredson & Deary, 2004).
[4](not in text)
Examples (Cont.)
• Children obtaining high scores on intelligence
tests at ages 7, 9, and 11 (N = 11,103) had fewer adult
hospitalizations for unintentional injuries than
those who obtained lower scores (Lawlor et al.,
2007).
• Those with higher intelligence test scores
probably had more education, which in turn
likely increased their ability to process
information and assess risks
[5](not in text)
Examples (Cont.)
• Youth identified before age 13 (N = 320) as having
profound mathematical or verbal reasoning
abilities (top 1 in 10,000 on SAT) were tracked for
three decades (Kell et al., 2013):
• At age 38 many have leadership positions in
business, health care, law, higher education,
science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. Results mirror those of Galton
(1869)
[6](not in text)
Examples (Cont.)
• (Gifted, Kell et al., 2013; Continued):
• To identify individuals with profound human
potential requires assessing multiple cognitive
abilities and using atypical measurement
procedures.
• These individuals hold extraordinary potential
for enriching society by contributing creative
products and competing in global economies
[7](not in text)
Source
• Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2013).
Who rises to the top? Early indicators.
Psychological Science, 24(5), 648–659. doi:
10.1177/0956797612457784
US Department of Education,
Office of Civil Rights [1](not in text)
Dear Colleague letter, July 26, 2016
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability
and requires school districts to provide an equal
educational opportunity to students with
disabilities
Deficiencies of Schools
• Students are not being referred or identified as
needing an evaluation to determine whether they
have a disability and need special education or
related services
• Students not being evaluated in a timely manner
once identified as needing an evaluation
• School districts are conducting inadequate
evaluations of students
Responsibilities of Schools
• School districts must conduct individualized
evaluations of students who, because of disability,
including ADHD, need or are believed to need
special education or related services
• Must ensure that qualified students with
disabilities receive appropriate services that are
based on specific needs, not cost
Aim of “Dear Colleague” letter
• Help school districts properly evaluate and provide
timely and appropriate services to students with
ADHD
Dept of Ed Resource Guide ADHD & 504
Evaluation Considerations
• A school district must evaluate students who are
suspected of having a disability in all related or all
specific areas of educational need
• An evaluation must consist of more than IQ tests
• An evaluation must measure specific areas of
educational need, such as speech processing,
inability to concentrate, and behavioral concerns
Evaluation Considerations (Cont.)
• Tests must be selected and administered so that
the results accurately reflect the student’s aptitude
or achievement or other factors being measured
• Test results should not reflect the student’s
disability, except where those are the factors being
measured
Evaluation Considerations (Cont.)
• Tests and other evaluation materials are validated
for the specific purpose for which they are used
• Tests are appropriately administered by trained
personnel
Evaluations Must be Timely
• Intervention strategies must not deny or delay
evaluation of students suspected of having a
disability
• School districts violate Section 504 when they
deny or delay conducting an evaluation of a
student when a disability, and the resulting need
for special education or related services, is
suspected
Evaluations Must be Timely (Cont.)
• School districts run afoul of Section 504 when they
• Rigidly insist on first implementing
interventions before conducting an evaluation
• Insist that each tier of a multi-tiered model of
intervention must be implemented first
• Categorically require that data from an
intervention strategy must be collected and
incorporated as a necessary element of an
evaluation
Summary
• Section 504 requires a school district to identify
and conduct an evaluation of any student who
needs or is believed to need special education or
related services because of a disability
Summary (Cont.)
• A school district must evaluate students who are
suspected of having any kind of disability in all
specific or all related areas of educational need,
even if the students do not fit into one suspected
disability category or fit into multiple disability
categories
Summary (Cont.)
• Students who achieve satisfactory, or even
demonstrate above-average, academic
performance may still have a disability that
substantially limits a major life activity and be
eligible for special education or related aids and
services because the school district is not meeting
their needs as adequately as the needs of
nondisabled students are met
Summary (Cont.)
• Implementation of intervention strategies, such as
interventions contained within a school’s RTI
program, must not be used to delay or deny the
Section 504 evaluation of a student suspected of
having a disability and needing regular or special
education and related aids and services as a result
of that disability
Source:
 U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil
Rights. (2016). Students with ADHD and
Section504: A Resource Guide. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/
colleague-201607-504-adhd.pdf
Court Case Showing Need of a
Thorough Evaluation [1](not in text)
 In Phyllene W. v. Huntsville City (AL) Bd. of Ed.
(11th Cir. 2015) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision of a Hearing
Officer and of a U. S. District Court and ruled in
favor of the parent and child. The Court explained
that:
"[T]he Board violated . . . IDEA by failing to evaluate
M.W. when faced with evidence that she suffered
from a suspected hearing impairment.
As a result of its failure to obtain necessary medical
information regarding M.W.'s hearing, the Board
further failed to provide her with a FAPE.
The lack of medical information rendered the
accomplishment of the IDEA's goals impossible
because no meaningful IEP was developed, and the
IEPs put into place lacked necessary elements with
respect to the services that M.W. should have been
provided.
In short, the Board's failure to evaluate M.W. with
respect to her hearing loss deprived M.W. of the
opportunity to benefit educationally from an
appropriate IEP."
Overview of
Assessment of Children:
WISC–V and WPPSI–IV
• Contents: pp. iv to v
• List of Tables: pp. vi to ix
• List of Exhibits and Figures: p. x
• Appendixes A, B, and C: pp. 473 to 517
• References, Name Index, and Subject Index: pp.
519 to 529
• Tables BC-1, BC-2, BC-3, BC-4: Inside back cover
Study Suggestions [1]
Before you read a chapter
• Read summary at the end of the chapter
• Look at key terms, concepts, and names at the end
of the chapter (Note that each of these terms,
concepts, and names have a page number)
• Look at the study questions
Study Suggestions [2]
After you read a chapter
• Read summary at the end of the chapter
• Look at key terms, concepts, and names at the end
of the chapter and define each one (Note that
each of these terms, concepts, and names have a
page number)
• Look at the study questions
• If you can’t define a term, concept, or name or
answer the study questions, go back and read the
material again
Role of the Evaluator in
the Assessment Process
Chapter 1 Major Heads[1]
• Evaluator Characteristics
• Preparing for the First Meeting
• Establishing Rapport
• Observing Children
• General Suggestions for Administering Tests
• Administering Tests to Children with Special
Needs
• Computer-Based Administration, Scoring, and
Interpretation
Chapter 1 Major Heads[2]
• Accounting for Poor Test Performance
• Strategies for Becoming an Effective Evaluator
• Confidentiality of Assessment Findings and
Records
• Concluding Comment on the Role of the Evaluator
in the Assessment Process
• Thinking Through the Issues
• Summary
• Key Terms, Concepts, and Names
• Study Questions
Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children–V (WISC–V):
Description
Goals & Objectives (p. 55)
Chapter designed to enable you to:
• Evaluate psychometric properties of the WISC–V
• Administer the WISC–V competently and
professionally
• Evaluate and select short forms of the WISC–V
• Choose between the WISC–V and the WPPSI–IV at
the overlapping ages
• Choose between the WISC–V and the WAIS–IV at
History of the WISC–V (not in text)
Revisions of the WISC
WISC–V
WISC–IV latest
next revision
WISC–III revision published
* next published in 2014
WISC–R revision in 2003
first published
revision in 1991
WISC published
1st in 1974
published
in 1949 *David Wechsler, the original author,
died in 1982.
WISC–V Structure
For information about the structure of the
WISC–V review:
• Table 2-1 (p. 56)
• Figs. 2-1 and 2-2 (p. 59)
• Fig. 2-3 (p. 60)
• Fig. 2-4 (p. 61)
Subtests in the WISC–V [1](pp. 56–58)
• Block Design • Picture Span
• Similarities • Symbol Search
• Matrix Reasoning • Information
• Digit Span • Picture Concepts
• Coding • Letter-Number
• Vocabulary Sequencing
• Figure Weights • Cancellation
• Visual Puzzles
Subtests in the WISC–V [2](pp. 56–58)
• Naming Speed Literacy
• Naming Speed Quantity
• Immediate Symbol Translation
• Comprehension
• Arithmetic
• Delayed Symbol Translation
• Recognition Symbol Translation
• Exhibit 2-1 (pp. 57 and 58) presents items similar
to those on the WISC–V subtests
Definition of Cognitive
Proficiency Index (not in text)
Definition of the word “Cognitive”
• “of or relating to the mental processes of
perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning, as
contrasted with emotional and volitional
processes.”
• From: dictionary.com
Definition of the word “Proficiency”
• “a high degree of competence or skill; expertise”
• From: google.com
Definition of General Ability
Index (not in text)
Definition of the term “General Ability”
• “a term that is used to describe the measurable
ability believed to underlie skill in handling all
types of intellectual tasks.”
• “Our general ability is the skill underlying all
tasks.”
• From: psychologydictionary.org
Diagnostic Utility of GAI and CPI
(WISC–IV) [1] (not in text)
Devena and Watkins (2012) reported the following:
• Study sample: 5 groups of children (hospital
sample with ADHD = 78, nondiagnosed hospital
sample = 66, school sample with ADHD = 196,
school matched comparison sample = 196,
simulated standardization sample = 2,200)
• A discrepancy analysis between the GAI and CPI
was found to have “low accuracy in identifying
children with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder.” (p. 133)
Diagnostic Utility of GAI and CPI
Source:
• Devena, S. E., & Watkins, M. W. (2012). Diagnostic
utility of WISC–IV General Abilities Index and
Cognitive Proficiency Index difference scores among
children with ADHD. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 28(2), 133–154. doi:
10.1080/15377903.2012.669743
Predictive Ability of GAI vs FSIQ
Rowe, Kingsley, and Thompson (2010) reported the
following:
• Study sample = 88 children tested for gifted
programming
• Both the FSIQ and GAI significantly predicted
reading and math scores
• However, the FSIQ explained more of the variance
than the GAI
• Conclusion
• Working memory and verbal comprehension
explained significant, unique variance in
reading and math
• Processing speed and perceptual reasoning did
not account for significant amounts of variance
over and above working memory and verbal
comprehension
• Working memory in the FSIQ was the main
difference between FSIQ and GAI
Source:
• Rowe, E. W., Kingsley, J. M., & Thompson, D. F.
(2010). Predictive ability of the General Ability
Index (GAI) versus the Full Scale IQ among gifted
referrals. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 119–
128. doi:10.1037/a0020148
FSIQ vs GAI in Intellectual
Disability (WISC–IV) [1] (not in text)
Koriakin et al. (2013) reported the following:
• Study sample: 543 males and 290 females
• Fewer children were identified as having
intellectual disability using the GAI (n = 159) than
when using the FSIQ (n = 196)
• “The use of GAI for intellectual disability
diagnostic decision-making may be of limited
value.” (p. 840)
FSIQ vs GAI in Intellectual
Disability (WISC–IV) [2] (not in text)
Source:
• Koriakin, T. A., McCurdy, M. D., Papazoglou, A.,
Pritchard, A. E., Zabel, T. A., Mahone, E. M., &
Jacobson, L. A. (2013). Classification of intellectual
disability using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children: Full Scale IQ or General Abilities Index?
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology,
55(9), 840-845. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12201
Items Similar to Those on the
WISC–V (pp. 57–58)
• See Exhibit 2-1
Same Subtests Used to Derived
Several Index Scores (p. 61)
• Overlap of subtests means that these ancillary
indexes are not independent.
Available Manuals and Technical
Reports [1] (p. 61)
• At present, there are 7 publications related to the
WISC–V
• 4 WISC–V Manuals
• 4 WISC–V Technical Reports
• The website for obtaining 3 of the 4 Technical
Reports can be found in the page 61 of the text.
Available Manuals and Technical
Reports [2] (not in text)
• The reference for the 4th Technical Report is as
follows:
• Raiford, S. E., Zhang, O., Drozdick, L. W., Getz, K.,
Wahlstrom, D., Gabel, A., Holdnack, J. A., &
Daniel, M. (2016). WISC–V Coding and Symbol
Search in digital format: Reliability, validity, special
group studies, and interpretation. Technical Report
#12. Retrieved from
http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/Assets/
WISC-V/Qi-Processing-Speed-Tech-Report.pdf
Useful Psychometric Tables
• Demographic characteristics (Table 2-2; p. 62)
• Various types of reliability (Table 2-3; pp. 63–71)
• Criterion validity studies (Table 2-7; pp. 72–73)
Concurrent Validity of WISC–V
Subtests and KTEA–3 Composite[1]
Subtest Academic Skills Battery
Similarities .66
Vocabulary .70
Information .66
Comprehension .58
Block Design .52
Visual Puzzles .41
Matrix Reasoning .51
Figure Weights .54
Subtests and KTEA–3 Composite[2]
Subtest Academic Skills Battery
Picture Concepts .44
Arithmetic .68
Digit Span .59
Picture Span .42
Letter-Number Seq. .55
Coding .23
Symbol Search .34
Cancellation .11
Subtests and WIAT–3 Composite[1]
Subtest Total Achievement
Similarities .65
Vocabulary .63
Information .57
Comprehension .52
Block Design .43
Visual Puzzles .37
Matrix Reasoning .35
Figure Weights .33
Subtests and WIAT–3 Composite[2]
Subtest Total Achievement
Picture Concepts .34
Arithmetic .64
Digit Span .65
Picture Span .45
Letter-Number Seq. .62
Coding .34
Symbol Search .28
Cancellation .05
Source:
Slide: Concurrent Validity of WISC–V Subtests and
KTEA–3 Composite (Wechsler, 2014c)
Slide: Concurrent Validity of WISC–V Subtests and
WIAT–3 Composite (Wechsler, 2014c)
VCI, VECI, FRI, and EFI [1] (not in text)
Criterion WIAT–III VCI VECI FRI EFI
Oral Language .78 .80 .33 .55
Total Reading .65 .70 .32 .50
Basic Reading .53 .60 .30 .45
Reading Comprehension .65 .65 .25 .45
and Fluency
Written Expression .60 .60 .33 .55
Mathematics .53 .55 .45 .65
Math Fluency .36 -- .31 .55
Total Achievement .74 .80 .40 .65
Concurrent Validity of WISC-V
VCI, VECI, FRI, and EFI [2]
Abbreviations:
VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index
VECI = Verbal Expanded Crystallized Index
FRI = Fluid Reasoning Index
EFI = Expanded Fluid Index
Sources:
• Raiford, Drozdick, Zhang, & Zhou (2015)
• Wechsler (2014c)
Relationship of Complementary
Indexes and FSIQ to WIAT–III
Total Achievement (not in text)
WIAT–III Total
WISC–V Index Achievement
Naming Speed Index (NSI) .29
Symbol Translation Index (STI) .39
Storage and Retrieval Index (SRI) .45
FSIQ .81
See Table 5.14 on p. 104 of the Technical
and Interpretive Manual
Age Equivalents (p. 63)
• Table A.9 in the Administration and Scoring

Manual (pp. 337–340) provides age equivalents for
all the subtests and some process scores (see left
column p. 63 in text for discussion)
• No validity data are provided in any of the WISC–V
manuals for age equivalents
• Recommend that they only be used in an informal
manner
Special Group Studies with
WISC– V (pp. 75–76)
• 13 special groups compared across the primary
index scales (Table 2-8; p. 75)
• VCI
• VSI
• FRI
• WMI
• PSI
Standardization of the WISC–V
(pp. 61–62)
• Standardized on 2,200 children who were selected
to represent the school-age population in the
United States in 2012
• Used a stratified sample based on demographic
characteristics of age, sex, ethnicity, geographic
region, and parental education (as a measure of
socioeconomic status)
WISC-V FSIQs for
5 Ethnic Groups (1) [not in text]
Ethnic Group FSIQ
European American 103.5
African American 91.9
Hispanic American 94.4
Asian American 108.6
Other 100.4
WISC-V FSIQs for
5 Ethnic Groups (2) [not in text]
 Note: Adapted from Table 5.3 (p. 157) in Weiss et al
(2016)
Source:
 Weiss, L. G., Locke, V., Pan, T., Harris, J. G.,
Saklofske, D. H., & Prifitera, A. (2016). WISC–V use
in societal context. In L. G. Weiss, D. H. Saklofske,
J. A., Holdnack, & A. Prifitera (Eds.), WISC–V
assessment and interpretation: Scientist-
practitioner perspectives (pp. 123–185). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Descriptive Statistics for
the WISC–V (pp. 62–76)
The WISC-V uses:
• Standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15) for each of the
primary, ancillary, and complementary index
scores and for the FSIQ
• Scaled scores (M = 10, SD = 3) for the 16 primary
and secondary subtests
• Standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15) for the five
complementary subtests (Note that the
complementary subtests have standard scores,
not scaled scores)
Confidence Intervals [1](p. 71)
• Table A-1 (pp. 372–373) shows confidence intervals
based on the obtained score and the SEM for
• 68%
• 85%
• 90%
• 95%
• 99%
• Confidence intervals are shown for the VCI, VSI,
FRI, WMI, PSI, and the FSIQ
Confidence Intervals [2](p. 71)
• Table A-2 (pp. 374–375) shows confidence intervals
for the 7 ancillary indexes and 3 complementary
indexes
• These confidence intervals are based on the child’s
obtained score, whereas those in the
Administration and Scoring Manual are obtained
on the child’s estimated true score
Description of the Five Factors
[1](pp. 76–81; based on Sattler et al., 2016)
Verbal Comprehension
• Measures verbal knowledge and understanding
obtained primarily through both formal and
informal education and reflects the application of
verbal skills to new situations
Visual Spatial/Fluid Reasoning
• Measures the ability to interpret and organize
visually perceive material, the ability to perform
nonverbal inductive reasoning, and the ability to
analyze and solve novel problems involving
conceptual thinking
Working Memory
• Measures the ability to hold and manipulate
information as well as the ability to pay attention
and concentrate on tasks at hand
Processing Speed
• Measures the ability to process visually perceived
nonverbal information quickly, with concentration
and rapid eye-hand coordination being important
components
Unknown Factor
• Has only one subtest in the total group with a high
loading: Cancellation
• We advise that this factor not be used in
interpreting the WISC–V
Measurement of g (p. 81)
Good Fair Measures Poor
Measures of g of g Measures of g
Vocabulary Visual Puzzles

Symbol Search
Information Block Design
Similarities Comprehension
Arithmetic Matrix Reasoning Coding
Digit Span Figure Weights
Picture Span
Letter–Number Cancellation
Sequencing Picture Concepts
WISC–V Subtests as Measures
of g (p. 82)
Table 2-12
• Verbal Comprehension and Working Memory
subtests (the exception is Picture Span) are good
measures of g
• Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning subtests are
fair measures of g
• Processing Speed subtests are poor measures of g
(Note: Average loading of g for Cancellation is
.24—the poorest measure of g in the WISC–V)
Amount of Specificity in
WISC–V Subtests (p. 83)
Table 2-13
• Most subtests have ample or adequate specificity at
all ages
• The three exceptions where specificity is
inadequate are
• Vocabulary at ages 8 and 10
• Information at age 11
• Symbol Search at ages 12 and 13
WISC–V Factor Structure [1]
Research Studies
• The Technical and Interpretive Manual (Wechsler,
2014c) performed a confirmatory factor analysis on
the WISC–V on the standardization sample for 16
subtests and reported 5 factors:
• Verbal Comprehension
• Visual Spatial
• Fluid reasoning
• Working Memory
• Processing Speed
Research Studies (Cont.)
• Sattler et al. (2016; p.76 in text) performed an
exploratory factor analysis of the WISC–V
standardization sample for the 16 subtests and
found a set of 5 factors that differed from those
Wechsler (2014c)
• Canivez et al. (2016a) performed an exploratory
factor analysis of the WISC–V standardization
sample for the 16 subtests and found that g
accounts for most of the variance
• However, some minimal support was found for a 4-
factor model:
• Verbal Comprehension: Similarities, Vocabulary,
Information, and Comprehension
• Working Memory: Arithmetic, Digit Span,
Picture Span, and Letter–Number Sequencing
• Perceptual Reasoning: Block Design, Visual
Puzzles, Matrix Reasoning, and Figure Weights
• Processing Speed: Coding, Symbol Search, and
Cancellation
• Picture Concepts did not load on any factor
 Canivez et al. (2016b) also performed a
confirmatory factor analysis of the WISC
standardization sample for 16 subtests and
reported that the g factor was more dominant than
any other factors
• Dombrowski et al. (2105) performed an exploratory
bifactor analysis of the WISC–V standardization
sample for the 16 subtests and reported that the g
factor accounted for the largest portions of the
total and common subtest variance
Sources:
• Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., & Dombrowski, S.
C. (2016a). Factor structure of the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition:
Exploratory factor analyses with the 16 primary
and secondary subtests. Psychological Assessment.
Psychological Assessment, 28(8), 975–986.
doi:10.1037/pas0000238
Sources: (Cont.)
• Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., & Dombrowski, S.
C. (2016b, July 21). Structural validity of the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth
Edition: Confirmatory factor analyses with the 16
primary and secondary subtests. Psychological
Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1037/pas0000358
Sources: (Cont.)
• Dombrowski, S. C., Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W.,
& Beaujean, A. (2015). Exploratory bifactor
analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children–Fifth Edition with the 16 primary and
secondary subtests. Intelligence, 53, 194–201.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.10.009
Scaled Score Ranges for
WISC–V Subtests [1] (p. 84)
Table 2-14
• 14 of the 16 subtests have a scaled score range of 1
to 19
• Picture Concepts has a range of
• 1 to 19 at ages 6-0 to 16-11
• 2 to 19 at ages 6-0 to 6-3
Scaled Score Ranges for
WISC–V Subtests [2] (p. 84)
Table 2-14 (Cont.)
• Letter-Number Sequencing has a range of
• 1 to 19 at ages 7-4 to 16-11
• 2 to 19 at ages 7-0 to 7-3
• 3 to 19 at ages 6-4 to 6-11
• 4 to 19 at ages 6-0 to 6-3
• This means that you can’t automatically
compare Letter-Number Sequencing scores at
ages 6-0 to 7-3 with those of older ages
Range of Index Scores (p. 84)
Table 2-15
• All primary index scales have a range of 45 to 155
• The FSIQ has a range of 40 to 160
• Ancillary index scores have ranges of 40 to 160 and
45 to 155
• Complementary index scores have a range of 45 to
155
Guidelines for Computing
Index Scores and FSIQs (pp. 84–85)
• Study the guidelines for computing the following
index scores on p. 85
• Primary index scores
• FSIQ
• Ancillary index scores
• Complementary index scores
Test Administration Guidelines
[1](pp. 85–88)
• Use suitable testing location
• Maintain good rapport
• Be flexible
• Be alert to the child’s mood and needs
• Be professional
• Follow standardization process
• Maintain steady pace
[2](pp. 85–88)
• Make smooth transitions

• Be organized
• Shield your writing
• Take breaks, as needed between, not during,
subtests
• Praise effort
• Empathize and encourage
• Use the exact wording of the directions, questions,
and items
[3](pp. 85–88)
• Observe the child’s performance carefully
throughout the test
• Record responses correctly using
• (Q) for queries
• (P) for prompts
• (R) for repeated instructions
• Score each item after the child answers so that you
know when to use a reverse procedure and when to
discontinue the subtest
Supplementary Instructions
for Administration (pp. 86–87)
Exhibit 2-2
• Study carefully the supplementary instructions for
administering the WISC–V
• The instructions cover the following areas:
• Preparing to administer the WISC–V
• Administering the WISC–V
• Scoring
• Record Form
• General guidelines for completing the Record Form
• Miscellaneous information and suggestions
Subtest Sequence (p. 89)
The primary subtests that make up the Full Scale are
administered in the following order:
Block Design
Similarities
Matrix Reasoning
Digit Span
Coding
Vocabulary
Figure Weights
Administration Issues [1](pp. 89–94)
Specific guidelines are provided in the WISC–V
Administration and Scoring Manual for:
• Queries
• Prompts
• Instructions
• Repeating items
• Additional help
• Waiting time
• Start point
(Cont.)
• Reverse Sequence rule
• Start-Point scoring rule
• Discontinue-Point scoring rule
• Discontinue criterion
• Scoring
(Cont.)
• Perfect scores
• Points for items not administered
• Spoiled responses
• Subtest substitution
• Proration
Subtest Substitution in the
WISC–V (p. 93)
• Only substitute a subtest if absolutely necessary
• When you substitute,
• Psychometric properties of the FSIQ may
change
• Reliabilities and validities of the FSIQ may
change
• Confidence intervals of the FSIQ may change
• No empirical data for substitutions
• No empirical data for number of substitutions
• Follow the subtest substitution guidelines on p. 93
Substitution, Proration, and Retest
on the WPPSI–IV [1] (not in text)
• Zhu et al. (2016) using the standardization data
reported that substituting, prorating, and retesting
resulted in
• An increase of the FSIQ SEM by .61 to 1.92
points, a 20% to 64% increase
• Wider confidence intervals by 1.2 to 3.8 IQ
points
• Misclassifications as high as 22%
• Conclusion: Substitution, proration, or retesting
introduces additional measurement error
Substitution, Proration, and Retest
on the WPPSI–IV [1] (not in text)
Source:
• Zhu, J., Cayton, T. G., & Chen, H. (2016).
Substitution, proration, or a retest? The optimal
strategy when standard administration of the
WPPSI–IV is infeasible. Psychological Assessment.
Advance online publication.
doi:10.1037/pas0000272
• Original paper was given at the American
Psychological Association, July 2013 in Honolulu,
HI (Zhu and Cayton, 2013; reference in text)
Potential Problems in
Administering the WISC–V
(pp. 94–97) [1]
Potential problems (see Table 2-17, pp. 95–96)

include difficulties in :
• Establishing rapport
• Administering test items
• Scoring test items
• Completing the Record Form
(pp. 94–97) [2]
McDermott et al. (2014) pointed out that:
 Compromised administration and scoring is not
unique to cognitive tests
 It is endemic to psychological assessment in general
and affects a broad collection of measuring devices
 Characteristics of the examiner, examinee, or
examiner–examinee relationship also affect the test
results
 They cite Terman (1918) who said that “there are
innumerable sources of error in giving and scoring
mental tests of whatever kind” (p. 33)
(pp. 94–97) [3]
Sources:
 McDermott, P. A., Watkins, M. W., & Rhoad, A. M.
(2014). Whose IQ is it? Assessor bias variance in
high-stakes psychological assessment.
doi:10.1037/a0034832
 Terman, L. M. (1918). Errors in scoring Binet tests.
Psychological Clinic, 12, 33–39.
Using Portfolios to Teach Test-
Scoring Skills [1] (not in text)
• Egan et al. (2003) reported that students
• Who maintained a portfolio with completed
protocols
• And reviewed them prior to each practice
administration
• Made fewer errors than the control group
Using Portfolios to Teach Test-
Scoring Skills [2] (not in text)
Source:
• Egan, P., McCabe, P., Semenchuk, D., & Butler, J.
(2003). Using portfolios to teach test scoring skills:
A preliminary investigation. Teaching of
Psychology, 30(3), 233–235.
doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP3003_08
Short Forms of WISC–V (pp. 97–98)
• See Table A-5 in Appendix A (pp. 387–388) for
short form reliability and validity coefficients
• See Tables A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10 and A-11 in
Appendix A (pp. 391–401) for 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-
subtest short forms
Reliable and Unusual Scaled-
Score Ranges (pp. 389–390)
• See Table A-6 for reliable and unusual scaled-score
ranges for 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 7-, 10-, and 16-subtest
combinations
• For the FSIQ, a reliable range is 5 points
(statistically significant at .05 level)
• For the FSIQ, an unusual range is 9 points (occurs
in less than 10% of the population)
Choosing Between the WISC–V
and the WPPSI–IV or the
WAIS–IV (p. 98)
WISC–V or WPPSI–IV WISC–V or WAIS–IV
• The WISC–V and the • The WISC–V also
WPPSI–IV overlap at overlaps with the
the ages 6-0 to 7-7 WAIS–IV at ages 16-0
• Specific to 16-11
recommendations • Specific
are provided for recommendations are
choosing which test provided for choosing
to use (see page 98 which test to use (see
for recommended page 98 for
tests) recommended tests)
Administering the WISC–V to
Children with Disabilities (pp. 98–100)
• Chapter 1 (pp. 36–39) provides general suggestions
for administering tests to children with special
needs, while Chapter 2 (pp. 98–100) focuses on the
WISC–V
• Prior to making any modifications in
administration procedures
• Evaluate the sensory-motor abilities of children
with disabilities
• Closely examine how suitable the subtests are
for a child with special needs
Strengths of WISC–V (p. 100)
1. Excellent standardization
2. Good overall psychometric properties
3. Useful diagnostic information
4. Good administration procedures
5. Good manuals and interesting test materials
6. Helpful scoring criteria
7. Usefulness for children with some disabilities
Limitations of WISC–V [1]
(pp. 100–101)
1. Limited breadth of coverage of the FSIQ
2. Failure to provide conversion tables when
substitutions are made
3. Failure to provide a psychometric basis for
requiring raw scores of 1 in order to compute
FSIQ
4. Limited range of scores for extremely low or
high functioning children
5. Limited criterion validity studies
6. Possible difficulties in scoring responses
Limitations of WISC–V [2]
(pp. 100–101)
7. Somewhat large practice effects
8. Occasional confusing guidelines
9. Poor quality of some test materials
How Am I Going to Score
These?
Question: What are 12, 14, and 16?
Answer: That’s easy; MTV, Fox, and Cartoon
network.
Question: What is celebrated on Thanksgiving Day?
Answer: My cousin’s birthday.
Question: What is the capital of Greece?
Answer: G.
These?
Biology question: List three examples of marine life
Answer: Marching, Barracks inspection, running the
obstacle course.
Astronomy question: Where is the milky way
located?
Answer: In the checkout aisle next to the rest of the
candy bars.
These?
Question: What does imitate mean?
Answer: What does imitate mean?
Question: What would you do if you were lost in the
woods?
Answer: I’d use my cell phone, pager, or my global
positioning satellite device.
These?
Question: What ended in 1945?
Answer: 1944
Question: Where was the American Declaration of
Independence signed?
Answer: At the bottom
Question: How do you change centimeters to
meters?
Answer: Take out centi
These?
Question: Explain the phrase “free press.”
Answer: When your mom irons trousers for you
Question: What is a fibula?
Answer: A little lie
Question: What is a stand alone computer system?
Answer: It does not come with a chair
Reflections on Intelligence and
Childhood
“Too often we give children answers to remember
rather than problems to solve.”
—Roger Lewin
WISC–V Subtests
• Critically evaluate the 21 WISC–V primary,
secondary, and complementary subtests
• Understand the rationales, factor analytic findings,
reliability and correlational highlights,
administration guidelines, and interpretive
suggestions for the 21 WISC–V subtests
Skills a Child Needs to be
Successful on the WISC–V (p. 108)
Retain the
directions while
solving problems
Adequate Ability to pay
fine- and attention and
gross-motor understand
skills directions
Adequate Adequate
hearing vision
Scoring WISC–V Items (p. 108)
Important considerations in scoring:
• Score each item as it is administered
• Do not to discontinue administering a subtest
prematurely
• This is particularly important when you are unsure
how to score a response immediately
• Better to administer more items in a subtest, even
though some may not be counted in the final score
• You do not want to short-change the child by
discontinuing the subtest too soon
Evaluating and Interpreting a
Child’s Performance [1](p. 108)
Consider:
• Child’s scores and responses
• Quality of child’s responses
• Child’s response style, motivation, and effort
• How child handles frustration
• Child’s problem-solving approach
• Child’s fine-motor skills
• Child’s pattern of successes and failures
Consider: (Cont.)
• How child handles test materials
• How child handles tasks of each subtest
• Responding to difficult items
• Responding to time limits

Block Design [1](pp. 109–113)
• Primary Visual Spatial subtest
• Key areas of measurement:
• Nonverbal reasoning
• Visual-spatial organization
• Other areas of measurement: See page 109
Other Considerations
• Fair measure of g
• Contributes moderately to the visual spatial/fluid
reasoning factor
• A reliable subtest
• Somewhat difficult to administer and score
Similarities [1](pp. 113–116)
• Primary Verbal Comprehension subtest
• Key area of measurement:
• Verbal concept formation
• Good measure of g
• Contributes substantially to the verbal
comprehension factor
• Relatively easy to administer, but some responses
may be difficult to score
Matrix Reasoning [1](pp. 116–118)
• Primary Fluid Reasoning subtest
• Visual-perceptual analogic reasoning ability
without a speed component
• Contributes substantially to the visual spatial/fluid
reasoning factor
• Relatively easy to administer and score
Digit Span [1](pp. 118–122)
• Primary Working Memory subtest
• Auditory short-term memory
• Auditory sequential processing
Digit Span [2](pp. 118–122)
• Contributes substantially to the working memory
factor
• A highly reliable subtest
Coding [1](pp. 122–125)
• Primary Processing Speed subtest
• Ability to learn an unfamiliar task involving
speed of mental operation and graphomotor
speed
Coding [2](pp. 122–125)
• Poor measure of g
• Contributes substantially to the processing speed
factor
Vocabulary [1](pp. 125–129)
• Primary Verbal Comprehension subtest
• Knowledge of words
• Best measure of g in the WISC–V
• Relatively easy to administer but some responses
Figure Weights [1](pp. 129–131)
• Primary Fluid Reasoning subtest
• Visual-perceptual quantitative reasoning
Figure Weights [2](pp. 129–131)
reasoning factor
Visual Puzzles [1](pp. 131–134)
• Primary Visual Spatial subtest
• Visual-perceptual reasoning
Visual Puzzles [2](pp. 131–134)
reasoning factor
Picture Span [1](pp. 134–136)
• Primary Working Memory subtest
• Short-term memory
Picture Span [2](pp. 134–136)
factor
Symbol Search [1](pp. 136–140)
• Primary Processing Speed subtest
• Processing speed
Symbol Search [2](pp. 136–140)
• Poor measure of g
factor
Information [1](pp. 140–142)
• Secondary Verbal Comprehension subtest
• Long-term memory for factual information
• Easy to administer and score
Picture Concepts [1](pp. 142–145)
• Secondary Fluid Reasoning subtest
• Abstract, categorical reasoning based on visual-
perceptual recognition process
• Contributes moderately to the visual spatial/fluid
reasoning factor
Letter-Number Sequencing
[1](pp. 145–147)
• Secondary Working Memory subtest
• Short-term working memory
• Auditory sequential processing
Letter-Number Sequencing
[2](pp. 145–147)
factor
Cancellation [1](pp. 147–150)
• Secondary Working Memory subtest
• Visual-perceptual recognition
• Speed of visual processing
• Poorest measure of g
• Contributes minimally to the processing speed
factor
Naming Speed Literacy
[1](pp. 150–153)
• Complementary subtest
• Naming fluency
Naming Speed Literacy
[2](pp. 150–153)
• Considered to be a measure of
• Long-Term Storage and Retrieval
• Combines with Naming Speed Quantity to form
the Naming Speed Index
Naming Speed Quantity
[1](pp. 153–156)
• Naming fluency involving quantities
Naming Speed Quantity
[2](pp. 153–156)
• Combines with Naming Speed Literacy to form the
Naming Speed Index
• Relatively easy to administer and easy to score
Immediate Symbol Translation
[1](pp. 156–158)
•Short-term memory
Immediate Symbol Translation
[2](pp. 156–158)
• Short-Term Memory
• Visual Processing
• Relatively easy to score, but somewhat difficult to
administer
Comprehension [1](pp. 158–160)
• Secondary Verbal Comprehension subtest
• Practical reasoning
• Judgment in social situations
• Relatively easy to administer, but somewhat
difficult to score
Arithmetic [1](pp. 160–163)
• Secondary Fluid Reasoning subtest
• Numerical reasoning
Arithmetic [2](pp. 160–163)
• Contributes moderately to the working memory
factor
Delayed Symbol Translation
[1](pp. 163–165)
•Delayed visual recall
• Other areas of measurement: See pages 163–164
Delayed Symbol Translation
[2](pp. 163–165)
• Considered to be a measure of Long-Term Storage
and Retrieval
Recognition Symbol
Translation [1](pp. 165–167)
• Delayed visual recall
Recognition Symbol
Translation [2](pp. 165–167)
• Considered to be a measure of Long-Term Storage
and Retrieval
Childhood
“Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless,
and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and
dreadful.”
— Samuel Johnson
“Intelligence without ambition is a bird without
wings.”
— Salvador Dali
“You might be poor, your shoes might be broken, but
your mind is a palace.”
—Frank McCourt
Interpreting the WISC–V
• Describe profile analysis for the WISC–V
• Analyze and evaluate WISC–V scores from
multiple perspectives
• Develop hypotheses about WISC–V scores and
responses
• Report WISC–V findings to parents and others
What does the WISC–IV IQ
Represent? [1](not in the text)
McDermott et al. (2014) reported that WISC–IV
FSIQs:
 Are associated with the assessor’s bias (multilevel
linear modeling)
 Sample size: N = 2,783 children evaluated by 448
regional school psychologists for possible special
education placements
Chen et al. (2016), in contrast, reported that WISC–
IV FSIQs:
 Are valid measures of children’s intellectual
abilities and are not related to the assessor’s bias
(hierarchical linear modeling)
 Sample size: N = 2,200 in the standardization
sample
 The only subtest that showed some assessor bias
was Comprehension
Source:
 McDermott, P. A., Watkins, M. W., & Rhoad, A. M.
(2014). Whose IQ is it? Assessor bias variance in
high-stakes psychological assessment.
doi:10.1037/a0034832
 Chen, H., Pan, T., & Zhu, J. (2016). It is the
examinee’s IQ. Psychological Assessment. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1037/pas0000298
Factors to Consider in
Interpreting the WISC–V [1](p. 172)
1. Perform a profile analysis
2. Determine whether the five primary index scores
differ significantly from each other
3. Determine whether the subtest scaled scores
4. Obtain base rates for differences between the
index scores
5. Obtain base rates for differences between some
of the subtest scaled scores
Factors to Consider in
Interpreting the WISC–V [2](p. 172)
7. Determine base rates for intersubtest scatter
8. Develop hypotheses and interpretations
Full Scale IQ [1](p. 172)
Includes measures of:
• Verbal comprehension
• Visual spatial reasoning
• Fluid reasoning
• Working memory
Similarities
Vocabulary
Block Design
The seven subtests that
comprise the Full Scale Matrix Reasoning
are:
Figure Weights
Digit Span
Coding
Verbal Comprehension Index
[1](p. 172)
Measures:
• Application of verbal skills and information to the
solution of new problems
• Ability to process verbal information
• Retrieval of information from long-term memory
• Crystallized knowledge
• Conceptual reasoning ability
• Language development
[2](p. 172)
The two subtests that comprise the

Verbal Comprehension Index are:
Similarities Vocabulary
Visual Spatial Index [1](pp. 172–173)
Measures:
• Ability to think in visual images and manipulate
them with fluency and speed
• Ability to interpret or organize visually perceived
material quickly
• Visual-perceptual discrimination
• Visual spatial reasoning ability
Visual Spatial Index [2](pp. 172–173)

Visual Spatial Index are:
Block Design Visual Puzzles

Fluid Reasoning Index [1](p. 173)
Measures:
• Fluid reasoning ability
• Visual-perceptual reasoning and organization
them with fluency and relative speed
material quickly

Fluid Reasoning Index are:
Matrix Reasoning Figure Weights

Working Memory Index [1](p. 173)
Measures:
• Short-term memory • Rote memory
• Visual processing • Immediate visual
• Working memory memory
• Memory span • Attention
• Visual spatial memory • Concentration

Working Memory Index are:
Digit Span Picture Span

Processing Speed Index [1](p. 173)
Measures:
• Processing speed • Psychomotor speed
• Perceptual speed • Short-term visual
• Visual-motor memory
coordination and • Visual-perceptual
dexterity discrimination
• Speed of mental • Attention
operation • Concentration
• Scanning ability

Processing Speed Index are:
Coding Symbol Search

Ancillary Indexes (pp. 173–175)
Seven Ancillary Indexes
• Quantitative Reasoning Index
• Auditory Working Memory Index
• Nonverbal Index
• General Ability Index
• Cognitive Proficiency Index
• Verbal (Expanded Crystallized) Index
• Expanded Fluid Index
Quantitative Reasoning Index
(p. 173)
• Provides additional information regarding a
child’s reasoning skills, specifically those
involving numeric information

Quantitative Reasoning Index are:
Figure Weights Arithmetic

Auditory Working Memory
Index (p. 173)
• Provides additional information regarding a child’s
memory skills.

Auditory Working Memory Index are:
Letter-Number
Digit Span
Sequencing
Nonverbal Index (p. 174)
• Provides additional information about thinking
abilities that do not require expressive responses
and an estimate of intellectual ability, with
reduced demands on verbal comprehension
abilities
The six subtests that comprise the
Nonverbal Index are:
Block Visual Matrix Figure Picture

Coding
Design Puzzles Reasoning Weights Span
General Ability Index (p. 174)
• May be useful when a means of estimating
intellectual ability is needed that places
reduced demands on working memory and
processing speed
The five subtests that comprise the
General Ability Index are:
Block Matrix Figure

Similarities Vocabulary
Design Reasoning Weights
Cognitive Proficiency Index (p. 174)
• May be useful when a means of estimating
intellectual ability is needed that places reduced
demands on verbal comprehension, visual spatial,
or fluid reasoning abilities
The four subtests that comprise the
Cognitive Proficiency Index are:
Digit Picture Symbol

Coding
Span Span Search
Verbal (Expanded Crystallized)
Index [1](p. 174)
Measures:
• Verbal comprehension • Fund of information
• Receptive and • Range of factual
expressive language knowledge
• Application of verbal • Logical reasoning
skills and information • Cognitive flexibility
to the solution of new (including the ability to
problems shift mental
• Verbal concept operations)
formation • Ability to self-monitor
Verbal (Expanded Crystallized)
Index [2](p. 174)
• Subtests draw on a child’s accumulated
experience

Verbal (Expanded Crystallized) Index are:
Similarities Vocabulary Information Comprehension

Expanded Fluid Index [1](pp. 174–175)
Measures:
• Perceptual reasoning • Conceptual thinking
• Ability to think in terms • Ability to form abstract
of visual images and concepts and
manipulate them with relationships without
fluency the use of words
• Cognitive flexibility • Fluid reasoning
(including the ability to • Attention
shift mental operations)
• Concentration
• Nonverbal ability
• Ability to self-monitor
• Mental computation
Expanded Fluid Index [2](pp. 174–175)
• Index requires nonverbal problem-solving ability
with use of previously acquired skills to solve a
novel set of problems

Expanded Fluid Index are:
Matrix Figure Picture

Arithmetic
Reasoning Weights Concepts
Complementary Indexes (p. 175)
The three Complementary Indexes are
• Naming Speed Index
• Symbol Translation Index
• Storage and Retrieval Index
Naming Speed Index [1](p. 175)
Measures:
• Processing speed • Number sense
• Long-term storage and • Ability to identify size,
retrieval color, letters, and
• Naming facility numbers
• Perceptual speed • Automaticity in visual-
verbal associations
• Rate of test taking
• Attention
• Visual-perceptual
discrimination • Concentration
Naming Speed Index [2](p. 175)
Naming Speed Index are:
Naming Speed Naming Speed

Literacy Quantity
Symbol Translation Index [1]
(p. 175)
Measures:
• Long-term storage • Visual memory
and retrieval • Visual-perceptual
• Short-term memory discrimination
• Visual processing • Learning ability
• Associative memory • Scanning ability
• Working memory • Recognition memory
• Visualization • Rote learning
Symbol Translation Index [2]
(p. 175)
The three subtests that comprise the

Symbol Translation Index are:
Immediate Delayed Recognition

Symbol Symbol Symbol
Translation Translation Translation
Storage and Retrieval Index [1]
(p. 175)
Measures:
• Naming facility • Long-term storage and
• Processing speed retrieval
• Perceptual speed • Short-term memory
• Rate of test taking • Working memory
• Visual processing • Visual memory
• Visualization • Visual-perceptual
discrimination
• Associative memory
• Learning ability
(p. 175)
Measures: (Cont.)
• Scanning ability • Retrieval speed
• Number sense • Immediate and delayed
• Ability to identify size, visual recall skills
color, letters, and • Paired-associates
numbers learning
• Automaticity of visual- • Attention and
verbal associations concentration
• Recognition memory
(p. 175)

Storage and Retrieval Index are:
Naming Speed Symbol Translation

Index Index
Rapid Automatized Naming
(RAN) [1](not in text)
Review of Literature
Norton and Wolf (2012) reviewed the literature on
Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and reading
fluency. They concluded the following:
 RAN provides an index of one’s abilities to
integrate multiple neural processes
 RAN and phonological awareness are both robust
early predictors of reading ability, and one or both
are often impaired in people with dyslexia
• Fluent reading can be conceptualized as a complex
ability that depends on automaticity across all
levels of cognitive and linguistic processing
involved in reading, allowing the individual time
and thought to be devoted to comprehension
• Successful intervention depends on accurate
assessment of both accuracy and speed across all
levels of reading
• Best interventions involve multicomponential
intervention programs that target phonology
and multiple levels of language, including:
• Best interventions: (Cont.)
 Orthography—study of letters and spelling of
words
 Morphology—study of how words are formed
 Syntax—study how words are ordered to form
logical, meaningful sentences
 Semantics—study of the meaning and
interpretation of words
Example of Research
Willburger et al. (2008) reported the following:
 Sample size: N = 267 children
 Children with dyslexia had a deficit in rapid
naming of items
 Children with dyscalculia had a deficit in rapid
naming of quantities
 Children with both dyslexia and dyscalculia had
deficits in both rapid naming of items and rapid
naming of quantities
Sources:
• Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid
Automatized Naming (RAN) and Reading
Fluency: Implications for understanding and
treatment of reading disabilities. Annual Review
Psychology, 63, 427–452. doi:10.1146/annurev-
psych-120710-100431
• Willburger, E., Fussenegger, B., Moll, K., Wood, G.,
& Landerl, K. (2008). Naming speed in dyslexia
and dyscalculia. Learning and Individual
Differences, 18(2), 224–236.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.01.003
Profile Analysis [1](p. 175)
Aims of Profile Analysis
• To look at a child’s unique ability pattern
(including strengths and weaknesses), going
beyond the information contained in the FSIQ or
the index scores
• To help in formulating teaching strategies,
accommodations, and other types of interventions
• Cannot reliably be used to arrived at a clinical or
psychoeducational diagnosis
• Results on any one test should never be used as the
sole basis for a clinical or psychoeducational
diagnosis
Goal of Profile Analysis
• To generate hypotheses about a child’s abilities,
which then need to be verified using other scores
and information about the child
Relatively Large Intersubtest Variability
May Indicate
• Special aptitudes or weaknesses
• Acquired deficits or disease processes
• Temporary inefficiencies
• Motivational difficulties
• Vision or hearing problems
• Concentration difficulties
• Rebelliousness
Profile Analysis [5](pp. 176)
May Indicate (Cont.)
• Learning disabilities
• Particular school or home experiences
Scaled Scores
• 13 to 19 always indicate a strength (84th to 99th
percentile rank)
• 8 to 12 always indicate average ability (25th to 75th
percentile rank)
• 1 to 7 always indicate a weakness (1st to 16th
percentile rank)
Base Rates
Determining the frequency with which the
differences between scores occurred in the
normative sample
• Base rate approach
• Probability-of-occurrence approach
Profile Analysis [8](pp. 179–198)
Methods of Profile Analysis
1. Compare the primary index scores—VCI, VSI,
FRI, WMI, and PSI—with each other
2. Compare each primary index score with the
mean of the child’s primary index scores and/or
the FSIQ, using critical values and base rates
3. Compare each primary index subtest scaled score
with the child’s mean scaled score on the primary
index subtests (MSS-P) and/or the FSIQ subtests
(MSS-F), using critical values and base rates
Methods of Profile Analysis (Cont.)
4. Compare sets of individual primary and
secondary subtest scaled scores
5. Compare the range of subtest scaled scores with
the base rate found in the normative sample
6. Compare the Cancellation Random and
Cancellation Structured process scores and other
process scores
7. Compare the GAI and the CPI
8. Compare the VECI and the EFI
9. Compare the NSI and the STI
10. Compare sets of individual complementary
subtest standard scores
A Successive Level of Approach
to Test Interpretation (pp. 198–200)
• The use of a successive-level approach to test
interpretation can help you better understand a
child’s performance on the WISC–V (see Figure 4-1,
p. 199) by providing
• Quantitative and qualitative data
• An analysis of both general and specific areas of
intellectual functioning
Steps in Analyzing a Protocol
(pp. 199–200)
• See pages 199–200
Estimated Percentile Ranks and
Age Equivalents (p. 200)
• Estimated percentile ranks can be obtained for the
FSIQ, index scores, and subtest scaled scores
• Age equivalents cam be obtained for the total raw
scores
• Qualitative descriptions of the index scores and
FSIQ can be found on p. 200
Profile Variability [1] (p. 201)
Research Studies
• Is the FSIQ valid when the index scores show
extreme variability? Two research reports shed
light on this question
• Daniel (2007) used stimulation methodology to
investigate the effect of index score “scatter” on the
construct validity on the WISC–IV FSIQ
• He found that the FSIQ was “equally valid at all
levels of scatter, supporting the interpretability of
the FSIQ in populations characterized by variable
index-score profiles” (p.291)
• Watkins, Glutting, and Lei (2007) showed that
WISC–III and WISC–IV FSIQs have robust
correlations with measures of reading and math,
even when test profiles have at least one
statistically significant difference in factor or index
scores:
• 82% to 85% of the 4,044 children in study had at
least one statistically significant difference in
factor or index scores
Comment
• The above studies argue against the position of
Fiorello et al. (2007) and Hale et al. (2007) who
contended that the WISC–IV FSIQ should not be
interpreted for children with disabilities when
index scores are diverse
Sources:
• Daniel, M. H. (2007). ‘Scatter’ and the construct
validity of FSIQ: Comment on Fiorello et al.
(2007). Applied Neuropsychology, 14(4), 291–295.
• Fiorello, C. A., Hale, J. B., Holdnack, J. A.,
Kavanagh, J. A., Terrell, J., & Long, L. (2007).
Interpreting intelligence test results for children
with disabilities: Is global intelligence relevant?
Applied Neuropsychology, 14(1), 2–12.
Sources: (Cont.)
• Hale, J. B., Fiorello, C. A., Kavanagh, J. A.,
Holdnack, J. A., & Aloe, A. M. (2007). Is the demise
of IQ interpretation justified? A response to
special issue authors. Applied Neuropsychology,
14(1), 37–51.
• Watkins, M. W., Glutting, J. J., & Lei, P. W. (2007).
Validity of the Full-Scale IQ when there is a
significant variability among WISC–III and WISC–
IV factor scores. Applied Neuropsychology, 14(1),
13–20.
Reflection on Intelligence and
Childhood
“It takes a long time to grow young.”
—Pablo Picasso
“I not only use all the brains that I have, but all I can
borrow.”
—Woodrow Wilson
Remembering and Forgetting
 https://youtu.be/HVWbrNls-Kw
Wechsler Preschool and Primary
Scale of Intelligence–Fourth Edition
(WPPSI–IV): Description
• Evaluate the psychometric properties of the
WPPSI–IV
• Administer the WPPSI–IV competently and
professionally
• Evaluate and select short forms of the WPPSI–IV
• Choose between the WPPSI–IV and the WISC–V at
History of the WPPSI–IV (not in text)
• Revisions of the WPPSI
WPPSI–IV
latest
WPPSI–III
revision
next
published in
WPPSI–R revision
2012
* revision published
published in 2002
WPPSI in 1989
first
published *David Wechsler, the original author,
in 1967 died 1982.
WPPSI–IV Structure (pp. 208–212)
See:
• Table 5-1 (p. 208)
• Figs. 5-1 and 5-2 (p. 209)
• Figs. 5-3 and 5-4 (p. 210)
• Fig. 5-5 (p. 211)
• Fig. 5-6 (p. 212)
Standardization of WPPSI–IV
(p. 213)
• Standardized on 1,700 children selected to

represent preschool and young school-age
population in the US between 2010 and 2012 (see
Table 5-2, p. 213)
• Obtained a stratified sample using demographic
characteristics of age, sex, ethnicity, geographic
region, and parental education (used as a measure
of socioeconomic status)
Descriptive Statistics for
the WPPSI–IV (pp. 214–218)
The WPPSI–IV uses:
• Standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15) for each of the
primary and ancillary index scores and for the
FSIQ
• Scaled scores (M = 10, SD = 3) for the 15 subtests
and 2 process scores
Reliability (pp. 214–218)
Internal consistency reliabilities for subtests, process
scores, and index scales:
• See Table 5-3 (pp. 215–216)
Test-retest reliabilities for index scores and FSIQ:

• See Table 5-5 (pp. 217–218)
Test-retest point gains for subtests and process

scores
• See Table 5-6 (p. 219)
Validity [1] (pp. 218–232)
• Criterion validity, see Table 5-7 (pp. 220–221)
• Special group studies, see Table 5-8 (p. 222)
• Subtest and index score correlations, ages 2-6 to 3-
11, see Table 5-9 (p. 223)
• Picture Naming, highest with FSIQ .66
• Information, next highest with FSIQ .63
• Receptive Vocabulary, next highest with FSIQ
.61
Validity [2] (pp. 218–232)
• Subtest, process score, and index score correlations
ages 4-0 to 7-7, see Table 5-10 (p. 224)
• Vocabulary, highest with FSIQ .67
• Information and Similarities, next highest with
FSIQ .64
Description of the Factors [1]
(pp. 225, 228)
Three factors at ages 2-6 to 3-11 (see Table 5-11, p.
225):
• Verbal Comprehension: measures verbal
knowledge and understanding obtained through
informal education and reflects the application of
verbal skills to new situations
• Visual Spatial: measures the ability to interpret
and organize visually perceived material and to
generate and test hypotheses related to problem
solutions
(p. 228)
Three factors at ages 2-6 to 3-11 (see Table 5-11, p.
225): (Cont.)
• Working Memory: measures the ability to hold
and manipulate information in the mind as well as
the ability to pay attention and concentrate on
tasks at hand
(p. 228)
Five factors at ages 4-0 to 7-7 (see Table 5-12,
pp.226–228):
• Verbal Comprehension: measures verbal
knowledge and understanding obtained primarily
through both formal and informal education and
reflects the application of verbal skills to new
situations
• Visual Spatial: measures the ability to interpret
and organize visually perceived material and to
generate and test hypotheses related to problem
solutions
(p. 228)
pp.226–228): (Cont.)
• Fluid Reasoning: measures nonverbal ability,
inductive reasoning ability, and the ability to
analyze and solve novel problems
• Working Memory: measures the ability to hold
and manipulate information in the mind as well as
the ability to pay attention and concentrate on
tasks at hand
(p. 229)
pp.226–228): (Cont.)
• Processing Speed: measures the ability to process
visually perceived nonverbal information quickly,
with concentration and rapid eye-hand
coordination being important components
Subtest Loadings of .30 or
Higher (p. 229)
• See Table 5-13 (p. 229)
• Ages 2-6 to 3-11, subtests differ in their loadings on
the three scales at different ages
• Ages 4-0 to 7-7, subtests differ in their loadings on
the five scales at different ages
Measures of g at Ages 2-6 to 3-11
(see Table 5-14, pp. 230–231)
Good Measures of g Fair Measures of g
Information Picture Memory
Block Design
Picture Naming
Object Assembly
Receptive
Vocabulary Zoo Locations
Measures of g at Ages 4-0 to 7-7
(see Table 5-14, pp. 230–231)
Good Measures of g Fair Measures of g

Matrix Reasoning
Information
Block Design
Similarities
Object Assembly
Vocabulary Picture Memory
Bug Search
Comprehension
Picture Concepts
Picture Naming Animal Coding
Receptive Vocabulary Zoo Locations
Cancellation
Amount of Specificity (p. 232)
Nine Age Groups and Total Group
• See Table 5-15 (p. 232)
• Overall subtest specificity adequate
• Exceptions are (inadequate)
• Picture Naming at ages 7-0 to 7-7
• Animal Coding at ages 5-0 to 5-5
Subtest Scaled-Score Ranges
(p. 233)
• See Table 5-16 (p. 233)
• Ranges 1 to 19 for 9 subtests
• Ranges 1 to 18 for 1 subtest
• Variable ranges for 7 subtests
• Use caution in comparing subtests and evaluating
developmental changes when subtests have
different ranges
Computing Index Scores and
FSIQs (pp. 232–233)
• Follow special guidelines for ages 2-6 to 3-11 and
ages 4-0 to 7-7 on p. 233
Index Score Ranges (p. 234)
• See Table 5-17 (p. 234)
• Ages 2-6 to 3-11, FSIQ extensive ranges
• 49-160 at ages 2-6 to 2-8
• 46-160 at ages 2-9 to 2-11
• 44-160 at ages 3-0 to 3-2
• 40-160 at ages 3-3 to 3-11
• Ages 4-0 to 7-7, FSIQ minimal ranges
• 40-160 at ages 4-0 to 6-7
• 40-159 at ages 6-8 to 7-7
Supplementary Instructions
for Administration (pp. 235–237)
Exhibit 5-1
• Study carefully the supplementary instructions for
administering the WPPSI–IV
• The instructions cover the following areas:
• Preparing to administer the WPPSI–IV
• Administering the WPPSI–V
• Scoring
• Record Form for ages 2-6 to 3-11 and 4-0 to 7-7
• General guidelines for completing the Record Form
• Miscellaneous information and suggestions
Overall Guidelines for Test
Administration [1](pp. 237–238)
• Use a suitable testing location
• Maintain good rapport
• Be flexible
• Be alert to the child’s mood and needs
• Be professional
• Follow standard order of subtest administration
• Maintain steady pace
• Make smooth transitions
• Shield your writing
• Take short breaks, as needed between, not during,
subtests
• Praise effort
• Empathize and encourage the child
• Use the exact wording of the directions, questions,
and items
• Be sure to observe the child’s performance
carefully throughout the test
• Be sure to record responses correctly using
• (Q) for queries
• (P) for prompts
• (R) for repeated instructions
• Score each item after the child answers so that you
know when to use a reverse procedure and when to
discontinue a subtest
Subtest Sequence [1](p. 238)
At ages 2-6 to 3-11, the core subtests for the Full
Scale are administered in the following order:
Receptive Vocabulary
Block Design
Picture Memory
Information
Object Assembly
Subtest Sequence [2](p. 238)
At ages 4-0 to 7-7, the core subtests for the Full
Scale are administered in the following order:
Block Design
Information
Matrix Reasoning
Bug Search
Picture Memory
Similarities
Administration and Scoring Manual provides
specific guidelines for:
• Queries
• Prompts
• Repeating instructions
• Repeating items
• Additional help
• Waiting time
• Start point
specific guidelines for : (Cont.)
• Reverse sequence rule
• Start-point scoring rule
• Discontinue-point scoring rule
• Discontinue criterion
• Scoring
• Perfect scores
specific guidelines for : (Cont.)
• Points for items not administered
• Spoiled responses
• Subtest substitution
• Proration
Perfect Scores (p.241)
• See Table 5-18 (p. 241)
• Perfect scores vary
• Pay careful attention to perfect scores on each
subtest
• Perfect scores usually are 1 or 2 points
• But, on Object Assembly, perfect scores can range
from 1 to 5 points
Subtest Substitution
Guidelines (p. 242)
• See page 242
• Guidelines differ at ages 2-6 to 3-11 and at ages 4-0
to 7-7
Administering the WPPSI–IV
(p. 243)
• Study potential problems in administering the
WISC–V in Chapter 2 (pp. 94–97)
• Make videos of your test administration
• Become thoroughly familiar with the
administrative and scoring guidelines
• Learn from your mistakes and from other’s
feedback
Short Forms (pp. 243–244)
• See Tables B-6 (p. 437) and B-7 (p. 438) in
Appendix B for a list of short forms
Subtest Scatter [1] (p. 245)
• See Table B-8 (p. 439) for ages 2-6 to 3-11 for
reliable and unusual scaled-score ranges for 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, and 7 subtests
• For 6 subtests
• Reliable scaled-score range is 5
• Unusual scaled-score range is 8
Subtest Scatter [2] (p. 245)
• See Table B-9 (pp 440–441) for ages 4-0 to 7-7 for
reliable and unusual scaled-score ranges for 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, and 10 subtests
• For 6 subtests
• Reliable scaled-score range is 5
• Unusual scaled-score range is 9
Choosing Between the
WPPSI–IV and the WISC–V
[1](p. 245)
• The WPPSI–IV, because of its lower floor,
should be used with three specific groups of
children 6-0 to 7-7 years of age:
• Children who may have below-average
cognitive ability
• Children who are English language learners
• Children with language handicaps
Choosing Between the
WPPSI–IV and the WISC–V
[2](p. 245)
• The WISC–V, because of its higher ceiling,
should be used with children 6-0 to 7-7 years of
age who, based on clinical judgment, are
suspected to have above-average cognitive
ability
• Either the WPPSI–IV or the WISC–V can be
used with children 6-0 to 7-7 years of age who,
based on clinical judgment, are suspected to
have average cognitive ability
Administering the WPPSI–IV to
Children with Disabilities
(pp. 245–246)
• See Chapter 1 for general suggestions for
administering tests to children with special needs
• Prior to making any modifications, evaluate the
sensory-motor abilities of children with special
needs
• Closely examine how suitable the subtests are for a
child with special needs
Strengths of WPPSI–IV (pp. 246–247)
1. Excellent standardization
2. Good overall psychometric properties
3. Useful diagnostic information
4. Inclusion of process scores
5. Good administration procedures
6. Good manuals and interesting test materials
7. Helpful scoring criteria
8. Usefulness for children with some disabilities
Limitations of WPPSI–IV [1](p. 247)
1. Limited breadth of coverage of the FSIQ
2. Failure to provide conversion tables
3. Failure to provide a psychometric basis for
requiring a certain number raw scores of 1 in
order to compute FSIQ
4. Limited range of score for children who are
extremely low or high functioning
5. Variable ranges of subtest scaled scores at
ages 4-0 to 7-7
6. Limited criterion validity studies
Limitations of WPPSI–IV [2](p. 247)
7. Possible difficulties in scoring responses
8. Somewhat large practice effects
9. Occasional confusing guidelines
Childhood
“Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to
doubt.”
― Clarence Darrow
WPPSI–IV Subtests
• Critically evaluate the 15 WPPSI–IV core,
supplemental, and optional subtests
• Understand the rationales, factor analytic findings,
reliability and correlational highlights, and
administration and interpretive considerations for
the 15 WPPSI–IV subtests
Skills Needed to be successful
on the WPPSI–IV (p. 254)
A child must be able to:
Hear
Retain the
directions
See
while solving
problems
Understand
Pay attention
directions
• Some subtests also require motor skills
• Although several subtests have time limits, none
provide additional points for speed
Scoring WPPSI–IV Items (p. 254)
Important considerations in scoring:
• Score each item as it is administered
• Do not to discontinue administering a subtest
prematurely
• This is particularly important when you are unsure
how to score a response immediately
• Better to administer more items in a subtest, even
though some may not be counted in the final score
• You do not want to short-change the child by
discontinuing the subtest too soon
Consider:
• Child’s scores and responses
• Quality of child’s responses
• Child’s response style, motivation, and effort
• How child handles frustration
• Child’s problem-solving approach
• Child’s fine-motor skills
• Child’s pattern of successes and failures
Consider: (Cont.)
• How child handles test materials
• How child handles tasks of each subtest
• Responding to difficult items
• Responding to time limits

• Core Visual Spatial subtest at all ages of the test
• Requires reproducing designs with colored blocks
• Visual-spatial organization
• Contributes moderately to the visual spatial factor
• Core Verbal Comprehension subtest at all ages
• Requires answering questions about different
topics, such as body parts, uses of common
objects, and calendar information.
• Long-term memory for factual information
• Other areas of measurement: See pages 259–260
• Core Fluid Reasoning subtest for ages 4-0 to 7-7
• Not administered at ages 2-6 to 3-11
• Visual-perceptual analogic reasoning ability
without a speed component
• Contributes minimally to the fluid reasoning
factor
Bug Search [1](pp. 264–266)
• Core Processing Speed subtest for ages 4-0 to 7-7
• Visual-perceptual discrimination and scanning
Bug Search [2](pp. 264–266)
factor
• Relatively easy to administer and to score
Picture Memory [1](pp. 266–268)
• Core Working Memory subtest at all ages
• Requires identifying one or more previously shown
objects
• Visual short-term memory
Picture Memory [2](pp. 266–268)
• Contributes either minimally (at ages 2-6 to 3-11)
or moderately (at ages 4-0 to 7-7) to the working
memory factor
• Core Verbal Comprehension subtest for ages 4-0 to
7-7
• Relatively easy to administer, but some responses
• Supplemental Fluid Reasoning subtest for ages 4-0
to 7-7
• Abstract, categorical reasoning based on visual-
perceptual recognition processes
• Contributes moderately to the visual spatial factor
• Supplemental Processing Speed subtest for ages 4-
0 to 7-7
• Visual-perceptual recognition
• Speed of visual processing

• Fair (but the poorest) measure of g
factor
Zoo Locations [1](pp. 276–278)
• Supplemental Working Memory subtest for all
ages of the test
• Short-term visual memory
Zoo Locations [2](pp. 276–278)
factor
• Somewhat difficult to administer but relatively
easy to score
Object Assembly [1](pp. 278–281)
• Core Visual Spatial subtest for ages 2-6 to 3-11
• Supplemental subtest for ages 4-0 to 7-7
• Requires assembling puzzle pieces to form
common objects
• Visual-perceptual organization
• Other areas of measurement: See page278
Object Assembly [2](pp. 278–281)
• Contributes either substantially (at ages 2-6 to 3-11)
or moderately (at ages 4-0 to 7-7) to the visual
spatial factor
• Optional subtest for ages 4-0 to 7-7
• Not administered at children ages 2-6 to 3-11
• Relatively easy to administer but some responses
Animal Coding [1](pp. 284–286)
• Ability to learn an unfamiliar task involving
speed of mental operation and psychomotor
speed
Animal Coding [2](pp. 284–286)
factor
• Practical social reasoning and judgment in
social situations
• Relatively easy to administer but somewhat
difficult to score
Receptive Vocabulary [1](pp. 289–291)
• Core Verbal Comprehension subtest for ages 2-6 to
3-11
• Word knowledge
Receptive Vocabulary [2](pp. 289–291)
• Contributes either substantially (at ages 2-6 to 3-11)
or moderately (at ages 4-0 to 7-7) to the verbal
Picture Naming [1](pp. 291–293)
• Supplemental subtest at all ages
Picture Naming [2](pp. 291–293)
Childhood
“The soul is healed by being with children.”
—Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Interpreting the WPPSI–IV
• Describe profile analysis for the WPPSI–IV
• Analyze and evaluate WPPSI–IV scores from
multiple perspectives
• Develop hypotheses about WPPSI–IV scores and
responses
• Report WPPSI–IV findings to parents and others
Steps in Interpreting the
WPPSI–IV [1](p. 298)
1. Perform a profile analysis
2. Determine whether the three primary index
scores at ages 2-6 to 3-11 or the five primary index
scores at ages 4-0 to 7-7 differ significantly from
each other
3. Determine whether the subtest scaled scores
4. Obtain base rates for differences between the
index scores
5. Obtain base rates for differences between some
of the subtest scaled scores
Steps in Interpreting the
WPPSI–IV [2](p. 298)
6. Determine base rates for intersubtest scatter
7. Develop hypotheses and interpretations
At ages 2-6 to 3-11, it includes measures of:
• Working memory
At ages 4-0 to 7-7, it includes measures of:
• Fluid reasoning
• Working memory

Full Scale at ages 2-6 to 3-11 are:
Receptive Block Object Picture

Information
Vocabulary Design Assembly Memory
Information
Similarities
The six subtests that Block Design

comprise the Full Scale
Matrix
at ages 4-0 to 7-7 are: Reasoning
Picture
Memory
Bug Search
[1](p. 298)
Measures:
• Application of verbal skills and information to the
solution of new problems
• Ability to process verbal information
• Retrieval of information from long-term memory
• Conceptual reasoning ability
[2](p. 298)

Verbal Comprehension Index at ages 2-6 to 3-11 are:
Receptive Vocabulary Information

[3](p. 298)

Verbal Comprehension Index at ages 4-0 to 7-7 are:
Information Similarities
Visual Spatial Index [1](p. 298)
Measures:
them with fluency and speed
material quickly
• Visual spatial reasoning ability
Visual Spatial Index [2](p. 298)

Visual Spatial Index at both age bands are:
Block Design Object Assembly

Measures:
• Visual-perceptual reasoning and organization
them with fluency and relative speed
material quickly

Fluid Reasoning Index at ages 4-0 to 7-7 are:
Matrix Reasoning Picture Concepts

Measures:
• Visual processing
• Working memory
• Memory span
• Visual spatial memory
• Rote memory
• Immediate visual memory
• Attention
• Concentration

Working Memory Index at both age bands are:
Picture Memory Zoo Locations

Measures:
• Perceptual speed
• Visual-motor coordination and dexterity
• Speed of mental operation
• Psychomotor speed
• Short-term visual memory
• Attention and concentration

Processing Speed Index at ages 4-0 to 7-7 are:
Bug Search Cancellation

Vocabulary Acquisition Index
[1](p. 299)
Measures:
• Word knowledge
• Fund of information
• Long-term memory
• Perception of meaningful stimuli
• Visual memory
• Receptive and expressive language
Vocabulary Acquisition Index
[2](p. 299)

Vocabulary Acquisition Index at both age bands are:
Receptive Vocabulary Picture Naming

Nonverbal Index [1](pp. 299–300)
Measures:
• Visual-perceptual analogic reasoning
• Speed of mental operation
• Symbol-associative skills
• Analysis and synthesis
Measures: (Cont.)
• Attention
• Concentration

Nonverbal Index at ages 2-6 to 3-11 are:
Block Object Picture Zoo

Design Assembly Memory Locations

Nonverbal Index at ages 4-0 to 7-7 are:
Block Matrix Picture Picture Bug

Design Reasoning Concepts Memory Search
General Ability Index [1](p. 300)
Measures:
• Lexical knowledge
• Visualization
• Induction
Measures: (Cont.)
• Attention
• Concentration

General Ability Index at ages 2-6 to 3-11 are:
Receptive Block Object

Information
Vocabulary Design Assembly

General Ability Index at ages 4-0 to 7-7 are:
Matrix
Information Similarities Block Design
Reasoning
Cognitive Proficiency Index [1]
(p. 300)
Measures:
• Working memory
• Memory span
• Visualization
• Visual memory
• Speed of mental processing
(p. 300)
Measures: (Cont.)
• Attention
• Concentration
(p. 300)

Cognitive Proficiency Index at ages 4-0 to 7-7 are:
Picture Zoo Bug

Cancellation
Memory Locations Search
Aims of Profile Analysis
• To look at a child’s unique ability pattern
(including strengths and weaknesses), going
beyond the information contained in the FSIQ or
the index scores
• To help in formulating teaching strategies,
accommodations, and other types of interventions
• Cannot reliably be used to arrived at a clinical or
psychoeducational diagnosis
• Results on any one test should never be used as the
sole basis for a clinical or psychoeducational
diagnosis
Goal of Profile Analysis
• To generate hypotheses about a child’s abilities,
which then need to be verified using other scores
and information about the child
• Special aptitudes or weaknesses
• Acquired deficits or disease processes
• Temporary inefficiencies
• Motivational difficulties
• Vision or hearing problems
• Concentration difficulties
• Rebelliousness
Relatively Large Intersubtest Variability (Cont.)
• Learning disabilities
• Particular school or home experiences
Scaled Scores
• 13 to 19 always indicate a strength (84th to 99th
percentile rank)
• 8 to 12 always indicate average ability (25th to 75th
percentile rank)
• 1 to 7 always indicate a weakness (1st to 16th
percentile rank)
Base Rates
Determining the frequency with which the
differences between scores occurred in the
normative sample
• Base rate approach
• Probability-of-occurrence approach
Methods of Profile Analysis
1. Compare the primary index scores—VCI, VSI,
FRI, WMI, and PSI—with each other
2. Compare each primary index score with the
mean of the child’s primary index scores and/or
the FSIQ, using critical values and base rates
3. Compare each primary index subtest scaled score
with the child’s mean scaled score on the primary
index subtests and/or the FSIQ subtests, using
critical values and base rates
4. Compare sets of individual subtest scaled scores
5. Compare the range of subtest scaled scores with
the base rate found in the normative sample
6. Compare the Cancellation Random and
Cancellation Structured process scores
7. Compare the GAI and the CPI
A Successive Level Of Approach
To Test Interpretation (pp. 319–320)
The use of a The six levels provide

successive-level quantitative and
approach to test qualitative data and
interpretation can an analysis of both
help you better general and specific
understand a child’s areas of intellectual
performance on the functioning
WPPSI–IV (see Figure 7-1, p. 319)
Childhood
“There is in every child at every stage a new miracle
of vigorous unfolding.”
— Erik Erikson
Report Writing
• Understand the purposes of a psychological report
• Understand the sections of a psychological report
• Develop appropriate skills for communicating
findings and making recommendations in a report
• Write a psychological report
Potential Sources of Report
Information [1](p. 326)
• Psychological tests
• Interviews with the child, his or her parents,
teachers, and others
• Questionnaires and rating forms completed by a
parent, teacher, and/or evaluator
• Self-monitoring forms completed by the child
• Systematic behavioral observations
• School records
• Prior psychological or psychiatric reports
Potential Sources of Report
Information [2](p. 326)
• Medical reports
• Other relevant sources
Qualities of a Good Report (p. 326)
A report should be:
• Well organized
• Objective
• Unbiased
• Based upon all of the assessment data you
gathered
Purposes of a Report [1](pp. 326–331)
• To provide accurate and understandable
assessment-related information to the referral
source and others
• To serve as a basis for clinical hypotheses,
appropriate interventions, and information for
program evaluation and research
Purposes of a Report [2](pp. 326–331)
• To furnish meaningful baseline information
• For evaluating the child’s progress after
interventions have been implemented
• For changes in the child that have occurred over
time
• To serve as a legal document
Formulating the Report [1](p. 331)
Four considerations:
1. Who will be the primary audiences for the
report?
• After reading the report, what new
understanding will the readers have?
• What new action will the readers take?
2. Consider the circumstances under which the
assessment took place
Formulating the Report [2](p. 331)
Four considerations: (Cont.)
3. Include examples to illustrate or document
selected statements you make in the report
4. Make your recommendations with an
appreciation of the needs and values of the child,
the family, and the extended family; the family’s
resources; the child’s ethnic and cultural group;
the school; and the community
Other Considerations (p. 331)
• Subjective Elements in the Report
• Although you should strive for objectivity and
accuracy in writing a report, remember that no
report can be completely objective
• Every report has elements of subjectivity
• Promptness in Writing the Report
• Write the report as soon as possible after you
complete the assessment to ensure that you
record all important details and do not forget
any
Sections of a Report (pp. 332–339)
• Report Title
• Identifying Information
• Assessment Instruments
• Reason for Referral
• Background Information
• Observations During Assessment
• Assessment Results
• Clinical Impressions
• Recommendations
• Summary
• Signature
22 Principles of Report Writing
[1](pp. 339–364)
The 22 principles cover:
• How to organize, interpret, and present the
assessment findings
• Exercises are included to help you apply some of
the principles
[2](pp. 339–364)
Principle 1 (pp. 339–340)

• Organize the assessment findings by looking for
common themes that run through them,
integrating the main findings, and adopting an
eclectic perspective
• Include only relevant material in the report; omit
potentially damaging material not germane to the
evaluation
[3](pp. 339–364)
• Be extremely cautious in making interpretations

based on a limited sample of behavior
• Consider all relevant sources of information

about the child as you generate hypotheses and
formulate interpretations
[4](pp. 339–364)

• Be definitive in your writing when the findings are
clear; be cautious in your writing when the
findings are not clear
Principle 6 (p. 344)
• Cite specific behaviors and sources and quote the
child directly to enhance the report’s readability
[5](pp. 339–364)

• Consider the FSIQ, in most cases, to be the best
estimate of the child’s present level of intellectual
functioning
• Interpret the meaning and implications of a
child’s scores, rather than simply citing test
names and scores
[6](pp. 339–364)

• Obtain the classification of FSIQs and other test
scores from the numerical ranges given in the test
manuals
Principle 10 (p. 345–346)
• Use percentile ranks whenever possible to
describe a child’s scores
[7](pp. 339–364)

• Provide clear descriptions and interpretations of
abilities measured by the subtests when
appropriate
• Relate inferences based on subtest or index scores
to the cognitive processes measured by them; use
caution in making generalizations
[8](pp. 339–364)

• Describe the profile of scores clearly and
unambiguously

• Make recommendations carefully, using all
available sources of information
[9](pp. 339–364)

• Provide justification for each classification or
diagnosis and address all relevant diagnostic
criteria explicitly
• Communicate clearly, and do not include
unnecessary technical material in the report
[10](pp. 339–364)

• Describe and use statistical concepts
appropriately; make sure to check all calculations
carefully and to report the reliability and validity
of the test results accurately
• Avoid biased language
[11](pp. 339–364)

• Write a report that is concise but adequate

• Attend carefully to grammar and writing style
[12](pp. 339–364)

• Develop strategies to improve your writing, such
as using an outline, revising your first draft, using
word-processor editing tools, and proofreading
your final report
• Maintain security of confidential information
• Treat confidential electronic files as carefully
as you would treat confidential paper files
Checklist (p. 363)
• See Table 8-3 (p. 363) for a checklist for evaluating
accuracy, quality, and completeness of the first draft of
your assessment report
A Good Report (p. 364)
• Is understandable and interesting to read
• Presents information in a logical manner
• Interprets test results accurately and explains them
clearly
• Answers specific referral questions
• Provides recommendations that are realistic and
feasible
• Provides a useful summary
• Is concise yet thorough
Childhood
“You might be poor, your shoes might be broken, but
your mind is a palace.”
—Frank McCourt
Reflections on Development
The Little Boy and the Old Man
Said the little boy, "Sometimes I drop my spoon."
Said the old man, "I do that too."
The little boy whispered, "I wet my pants."
I do that too," laughed the little old man.
Said the little boy, "I often cry."
The old man nodded, "So do I."
But worst of all," said the boy, "it seems
Grown-ups don't pay attention to me."
And he felt the warmth of a wrinkled old hand.
I know what you mean," said the little old man.”
― Shel Silverstein

WISC-V - Spanish y WPSSI - IV

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

WISC-V - Spanish y WPSSI - IV

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ASSESSMENT WITH THE

WISC– V AND WPPSI– IV

• Table A.9 in the Administration and Scoring

Vocabulary Visual Puzzles

Arithmetic Matrix Reasoning Coding

Digit Span Figure Weights

• Make smooth transitions

Potential problems (see Table 2-17, pp. 95–96)

• Responding to time limits

The two subtests that comprise the

The two subtests that comprise the

Block Design Visual Puzzles

The two subtests that comprise the

Matrix Reasoning Figure Weights

The two subtests that comprise the

Digit Span Picture Span

The two subtests that comprise the

Coding Symbol Search

The two subtests that comprise the

Figure Weights Arithmetic

The two subtests that comprise the

Block Visual Matrix Figure Picture

Block Matrix Figure

Digit Picture Symbol

The four subtests that comprise the

Similarities Vocabulary Information Comprehension

The four subtests that comprise the

Matrix Figure Picture

Naming Speed Naming Speed

The three subtests that comprise the

Immediate Delayed Recognition

The two subtests that comprise the

Naming Speed Symbol Translation

• Standardized on 1,700 children selected to

Test-retest reliabilities for index scores and FSIQ:

Test-retest point gains for subtests and process

Good Measures of g Fair Measures of g

Information Picture Memory

Good Measures of g Fair Measures of g

Receptive Vocabulary Zoo Locations

• Responding to time limits

• Speed of visual processing

• Other areas of measurement: See page 274

The five subtests that comprise the

Receptive Block Object Picture

The six subtests that Block Design

The two subtests that comprise the

Receptive Vocabulary Information

The two subtests that comprise the

The two subtests that comprise the

Block Design Object Assembly

The two subtests that comprise the

Matrix Reasoning Picture Concepts

The two subtests that comprise the

Picture Memory Zoo Locations

The two subtests that comprise the

Bug Search Cancellation

The two subtests that comprise the

Receptive Vocabulary Picture Naming

The four subtests that comprise the

Block Object Picture Zoo

The five subtests that comprise the

Block Matrix Picture Picture Bug