WAIS-IV Interpretive Worksheet

Appendix A  STEP 1.

A.1: WAIS‐IV Interpretive Worksheet 

1 

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

For IQ and indexes, report standard score, confidence interval, percentile rank, and descriptive category. For subtests, report scaled scores and percentile ranks only. (See Rapid Reference 5.2 for descriptive categories.) STEP 2.

Determine the Best Way to Summarize Overall Intellectual Ability.

Step 2a.

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

Highest

Lowest

–

Index Standard Scores:

Is the difference < 23 points?

Difference =

Y or N

If NO, then proceed to Step 2b. 

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

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

VCI

Absolute Difference

PRI

–

Index Standard Scores:

Is the difference < 23 points?

=

Y or N

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

If NO, then proceed to Step 3.  

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

VC Scaled Score

 

SI +

IN +

MR +

BD +

Sum of Subtest Scaled Scores

VP +

=

GAI =

Appendix A  STEP 3.

A.1: WAIS‐IV Interpretive Worksheet 

2 

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

Step 3a. Determine whether the GAI and CPI represent unitary abilities or processes. If you have not already done so in Step 2b, determine whether the GAI represents a unitary ability by calculating the difference between the VCI and PRI. If you completed this calculation in Step 2b, then transfer those results here.

VCI

Absolute Difference

PRI

–

Index Standard Scores:

Is the difference < 23 points?

=

Y or N

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

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

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

WMI

Absolute Difference

PSI

–

Index Standard Scores:

Is the difference < 23 points?

=

Y or N

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

Step 3b.

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

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

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

VC Scaled Score

SI +

IN +

MR +

BD +

Sum of Subtest Scaled Scores

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.

 

Appendix A 

A.1: WAIS‐IV Interpretive Worksheet 

DS Scaled Score

AR +

SS +

Sum of Subtest Scaled Scores

CD +

3 

=

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).

GAI Index Standard Scores

STEP 4.

Absolute Difference

CPI

–

=

Is the difference significant? ≥ 9 points

Is the difference uncommon? ≥ 19 points

Y or N

Y or N

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

Skip this step if you are interpreting the person’s profile via the Keith Five‐Factor Approach. Proceed to Step 6.  Step 5a–5d.

 

Calculate the difference between the highest and lowest subtest scaled scores for the VCI, PRI, WMI, and PSI.

Appendix A 

A.1: WAIS‐IV Interpretive Worksheet 

Highest

Lowest

Difference

4  Is the difference < 5 points?

5a. VCI Subtest Scores:

–

=

Y or N

5b. PRI Subtest Scores:

–

=

Y or N

5c. WMI Subtest Scores:

–

=

Y or N

5d. PSI Subtest Scores:

–

=

Y or N

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. Skip this step if you interpreted the person’s profile via the Wechsler Four‐Index method. Proceed to Step 7.  Step 6a. Calculate the standard scores for the five Keith Factors by summing the scaled scores for the two subtests that comprise each cluster and converting the sum to a standard score using the norms in Appendixes A.3–A.6 of the CD-ROM.

Factor

Sum of Scaled Scores

Scaled Score 2

Scaled Score 1

Gc

VC

+

IN

=

Gsm

DS

+

LN

=

Gf

MR

+

FW

=

Gv

BD

+

VP

=

Gs

SS

+

CD

=

Step 6b-6f.

 

Factor Standard Score

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).

Appendix A 

A.1: WAIS‐IV Interpretive Worksheet 

Scaled Score 1

Factor

Scaled Score 2

5  Is the difference < 5 points?

Absolute Difference

6b. Gc

VC

–

IN

=

Y or N

6c. Gsm

DS

–

LN

=

Y or N

6d. Gf

MR

–

FW

=

Y or N

6e. Gv

BD

–

VP

=

Y or N

6f. Gs

SS

–

CD

=

Y or N

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

Step 6g.

If NO, the factor cannot be interpreted as representing a unitary ability. Proceed to Step 6g after completing Steps 6a–6f.

Determine how many of Keith’s Five Factors are interpretable by reviewing the results of Steps 6b–6f. Is the number < 3

Number of interpretable Keith factors:

Y or N

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

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

Wechsler Index VCI PRI WMI PSI

 

Standard Score

Normative Weakness < 85

Within Normal Limits 85–115

Normative Strength > 115

Appendix A 

A.1: WAIS‐IV Interpretive Worksheet 

Keith Factor Gc

Standard Score

Normative Weakness < 85

Within Normal Limits 85–115

6 

Normative Strength > 115

Gsm Gv Gf Gs

STEP 8. Step 8a.

Determine Personal Strengths and Personal Weaknesses in the Index Profile. Compute the mean of the person’s indexes or factors and round to the nearest tenth of a point. Note that all indexes or factors (interpretable and noninterpretable) are included in the computation of the mean. Wechsler Index

Standard Score

Keith Factor

Standard Score Gc

VCI

Gsm

PRI

Gv

WMI

Gf

PSI

Gs

Sum of Indexes Number of Indexes

Sum of Factors

÷4

Mean of Indexes

Number of Factors

÷5

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.

Appendix A 

A.1: WAIS‐IV Interpretive Worksheet 

7 

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

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

Interpretable Wechsler Index (1)

Rounded Mean of All Indexes (3)

Standard Score (2)

Difference Score (4)

Critical Value Needed for Significance (5)

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

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

Critical Value Needed for Significance (5)

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

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

VCI PRI WMI PSI

Interpretable Keith Factor (1)

Rounded Mean of All Factors (3)

Standard Score (2)

Difference Score (4)

Gc Gsm Gv Gf Gs Critical Value Needed for Significance for Ages 16–90 (p 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

13

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

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

Appendix A.3

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

14

Crystallized Intelligence (Gc) Factor Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

%tile 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

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

Appendix A.4

Sum of Scaled Scores for

15

Short-Term Memory (Gsm) Factor Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

LN+DS

Gsm 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 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

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

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

Appendix A.5

16

Fluid Reasoning Intelligence (Gf) Factor Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

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

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

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

Appendix A.6 Sum of Scaled Scores for

17

Visual Processing (Gv) Factor Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

BD+VP

Gv 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 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

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.

Appendix A Definitions of CHC Abilities and Processes

CHC THEORY AND THE STRUCTURE OF COGNITIVE ABILITIES AND PROCESSES

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

Crystallized Intelligence (Gc) refers to the breadth and depth of a person’s acquired knowledge of a culture and the effective application of this knowledge. This store of primarily verbal or language-based knowledge represents those abilities that have been developed largely through the investment of other abilities during educational and general life experiences (Horn & Blankson, 2005). A1

2 APPENDIX A

Table A.1 Description of Select Gf Narrow Ability Definitions Narrow stratum I name (code) General Sequential Reasoning (RG) Induction (I)

Quantitative Reasoning (RQ)

Defi 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.

Note: Narrow ability definitions 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 child’s knowledge of his or her street address would reflect declarative knowledge, while a child’s ability to find 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 specific 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 defined 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 fluency). 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 Definitions Narrow stratum I name (code) Language Development (LD) Lexical Knowledge (VL) Listening Ability (LS) General (verbal) Information (K0) Information About Culture (K2)

Defi 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 definitions 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 reflects another ability as well—the ability to comprehend information presented orally. Although comprehension is of course dependent on knowledge of the words being presented, the natures of these abilities are clearly not identical. Assessment of Gc abilities 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 individual’s 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 individual’s store of acquired mathematical knowledge, including the ability to perform mathematical calculations correctly. Quantitative Reasoning represents only the ability to reason inductively and deductively when solving quantitative problems. Recall that RQ is a narrow ability that is typically found to fall under Gf. However, because RQ, as discussed previously, is dependent on possession of 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 specific 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 defined 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 specified in the directions, are examples

Table A.3 Description of Select Gq Narrow Ability Definitions Narrow stratum I name (code)

Defi nition

Mathematical Knowledge (KM)

Range of general knowledge about mathematics.

Mathematical Achievement (A3)

Measured mathematics achievement.

Note: Narrow ability definitions 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 difficult 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 “mind’s 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 reflected 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 sufficient 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 memory—either the phonological loop or the visuospatial sketchpad—but not both. Notwithstanding these issues, the working memory construct has been related empirically to a variety of different outcomes, including many specific 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 definitive 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 defined 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 figural 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 configurations, 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 defined 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 reflect “the degree to which the individual can cognitively control the

Table A.4 Description of Select Gsm Narrow Ability Definitions Narrow stratum I name (code) Memory Span (MS)

Working Memory (MW)

Defi 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.

Note: Narrow ability definitions 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 Definitions Narrow stratum I name (code) Spatial Relations (SR)

Visual Memory (MV)

Closure Speed (CS)

Visualization (Vz)

Flexibility of Closure (CF) Spatial Scanning (SS)

Serial Perceptual Integration (PI)

Defi 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 fi nd, apprehend, and identify a visual figure or pattern embedded in a complex visual array, when knowing in advance what the pattern is. Ability to accurately and quickly survey a spatial field or pattern and identify a path through the visual field 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.

Note: Narrow ability definitions 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 specifically designed to measure phonological processing has increased significantly in recent years, presumably as a result of the consistent finding

8 APPENDIX A

that phonological awareness/processing appears to be the core deficit in individuals with reading difficulties (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, Carroll’s Phonetic Coding (PC) narrow ability was split into separate analysis (PC:A) and synthesis (PC:S) abilities. Support for two different PC abilities comes from a growing number of sources. First, in a sample of kindergarten students, Yopp (1988) reported evidence in favor of two phonemic awareness factors: simple phonemic awareness (required one operation to be performed on sounds) and compound phonemic awareness (required holding sounds in memory while performing another operation on them). Second, in what appears to be one of the most comprehensive Ga factor-analytic studies, Stankov and Horn (1980) presented evidence for seven different auditory abilities, two of which had tests of sound blending (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 sample—a correlation that suggests that these tests are measuring different aspects of PC. Fourth, using confirmatory factor-analytic methods, Wagner, Torgesen, Laughton, Simmons, and Rashotte (1993) presented a model of phonological processing that included separate auditory analysis and synthesis factors. Although the features of these different auditory factors across respective studies are not entirely consistent, there are many similarities. For example, Yopp’s (1988) simple phonemic factor appears to be analogous to Wagner and colleagues’ (1993) synthesis factor and the factor Stankov and Horn (1980) identified with the aid of sound-blending tasks. Also, Yopp’s compound phonemic factor bears similarities to Wagner and colleagues’ analysis factor and the Stankov and Horn factor, identified, 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 defined 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 defined in Table A.6.

APPENDIX A 9

Table A.6 Description of Select Ga Narrow Ability Definitions 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)

Defi 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 definitions 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 fluently 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 fluency, or associational fluency. It is important not to confuse Glr with Gc, Gq, and Grw, an individual’s stores of acquired knowledge: Gc, Gq, and Grw represent what is stored in long-term memory, while Glr is the efficiency 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 defining 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 fluency abilities are included under Glr. Select Glr narrow abilities are defined in Table A.7. Table A.7 Description of Select Glr Narrow Ability Definitions Narrow stratum I name (code) Associative Memory (MA)

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)

Defi 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 specific 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 specific cueing conditions. Ability to rapidly produce names for concepts when presented with a pictorial or verbal cue. Ability to rapidly produce words that have specific 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.

Note: Narrow ability definitions 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 Definitions Narrow stratum I name (code) Perceptual Speed (P)

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

Defi nition Ability to rapidly search for and compare known visual symbols or patterns presented side-by-side or separated in a visual field. 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.

Note: Narrow ability definitions 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 fluently 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 fixed-interval, timed tasks that require little in the way of complex thinking or mental processing. The WISC-IV provides three Gs tasks—namely, Coding, Symbol Search, and Cancellation. Recent interest in information-processing models of cognitive functioning has resulted in a renewed focus on Gs (Kail, 1991; Lohman, 1989; Woodcock et al., 2001). A central construct in information-processing models is the idea of limited processing resources (e.g., the limited capacities of short-term or working memory). That is, “many cognitive activities require a person’s deliberate efforts and . . . people are limited in the amount of effort they can allocate. In the face of limited processing resources, the speed of processing is critical because it 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 flows 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 defined in Table A.8.

Appendix A Appendix A. 8 Sum of Scaled Scores for

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

BD+CD+SS

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

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

30

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.9

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

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

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

90% CI

95% CI

%tile

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

99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9

32

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

Appendix A

A.10: Mental Manipulation Cluster

Appendix A.10 Sum of Scaled Scores for

33

Mental Manipulation Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

LN+DS

Mental Manipulation 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

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 11

A.11: Verbal Fluid Reasoning Cluster

Appendix A.11 Sum of Scaled Scores for

34

Verbal Fluid Reasoning Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

SI+CO

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

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

35

Lexical Knowledge Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

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 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

36

General Information Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

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 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

37

Long-Term Memory Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

%tile 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

A.15: Short-Term Memory Cluster

Appendix A.15 Sum of Scaled Scores for

38

Short-Term Memory Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

LN+DS

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

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

A.16: Fluid Reasoning Cluster

Appendix A.16 Sum of Scaled Scores for

39

Fluid Reasoning Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

MR+FW

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 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

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

A.17: Visual Processing Cluster

Appendix A.17 Sum of Scaled Scores for

40

Visual Processing Cluster Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores

BD+VP

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

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.