Psychological Assessment © 2010 American Psychological Association

2010, Vol. 22, No. 1, 121–130 1040-3590/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0017767

Independent Examination of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence

Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV): What Does the WAIS–IV Measure?

Nicholas Benson and David M. Hulac John H. Kranzler

The University of South Dakota University of Florida

Published empirical evidence for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV)
does not address some essential questions pertaining to the applied practice of intellectual assessment. In
this study, the structure and cross-age invariance of the latest WAIS–IV revision were examined to (a)
elucidate the nature of the constructs measured and (b) determine whether the same constructs are
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

measured across ages. Results suggest that a Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC)–inspired structure provides a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

better description of test performance than the published scoring structure does. Broad CHC abilities
measured by the WAIS–IV include crystallized ability (Gc), fluid reasoning (Gf ), visual processing (Gv),
short-term memory (Gsm), and processing speed (Gs), although some of these abilities are measured
more comprehensively than are others. Additionally, the WAIS–IV provides a measure of quantitative
reasoning (QR). Results also suggest a lack of cross-age invariance resulting from age-related differences
in factor loadings. Formulas for calculating CHC indexes and suggestions for interpretation are provided.

Keywords: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition, confirmatory factor analysis, Cattell–
Horn–Carroll theory, cross-age invariance

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition
(WAIS–IV; Wechsler, 2008a) is the latest version in a long line of
Wechsler products dating back to the Wechsler–Bellevue Intelli-
gence Scale (Wechsler, 1939). The long and rich history of re-
search and clinical application undoubtedly contributes to their
status as the most frequently used measures of intelligence for
children, adolescents, and adults (Kaufman & Lichtenberger,
2006).
David Wechsler (Wechsler, 1940) viewed intelligence as a
multifaceted, global capacity reflecting a variety of qualitatively
different intellectual abilities as well as nonintellectual qualities
such as personality. Although Wechsler’s view of intelligence has
not attracted “serious theoretical or scientific interest” (Jensen,
1987, p. 72), revisions of the Wechsler have favored continuity
with previous editions over alignment with a contemporary theory
of cognitive abilities (Zhu & Weiss, 2005). Although recent revi-
sions of the Wechsler scales retain considerable continuity with
previous editions, there has been an increased effort to reflect
research and theoretical advances. Notable content changes in-
clude (a) replacing the Verbal IQ and Performance IQ interpreta-
tion with a four factor structure (i.e., Verbal Comprehension Index,
Perceptual Reasoning Index, Working Memory Index, and Pro-
cessing Speed Index), (b) adding an additional measure of fluid
reasoning (Gf; i.e., Figure Weights), (c) replacing the Object
Assembly subtest with the new Visual Puzzles subtest, which is a
Nicholas Benson and David M. Hulac, Division of Counseling and
Psychology in Education, The University of South Dakota; John H. Kran-
zler, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Florida.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nicholas
Benson, Division of Counseling and Psychology in Education, The Uni-
versity of South Dakota, 414 East Clark Street, Delzell Education Center
Room 205D, Vermillion, SD 57069. E-mail: nicholas.benson@usd.edu
visual variation added to reduce motor demands, (d) adding an
additional measure of processing speed (Gs; i.e., Cancellation),
and (e) revising the Arithmetic and Digit Span subtests to place
greater demands on working memory (Wechsler, 2008a). The new
Visual Puzzles subtest requires examinees to view a completed
puzzle and select the response options that can be combined to
form the puzzle, the new Figure Weights subtest is a quantitative
and analogical reasoning task requiring selection of the appropriate
missing weight(s) needed to balance a scale, and the new Cancel-
lation subtest requires examinees to discriminate the color and
shape of stimuli and identify target shapes within a structured
arrangement of shapes.
Although developers of the WAIS–IV argued that the preceding
changes improve the alignment of the newest Wechsler scales with
current theoretical advances, the overall structure of the scales is
not aligned with a contemporary theory because the test’s devel-
opers believe Wechsler’s original structure should be adhered to as
closely as possible due to an abundance of evidence supporting
clinical and practical applications (Wechsler, 2008b). However, in
addition to such external validity evidence, a theoretical context is
needed in order to derive quality interpretations from IQ profiles
(Flanagan & McGrew, 1997; Kaufman, 1994). An appropriate
theoretical context is one that is scientifically supported (i.e., has
been confirmed by positive instances of its assertions and has
survived numerous attempts at refutation). Linking test perfor-
mance to a scientifically supported theory establishes support for
the assertion that performance reliably reflects the construct of
intelligence. Although a scientific theory can never be proven, the
link between test scores and a theory can be established by gath-
ering persuasive evidence supporting structural fidelity. Structural
fidelity, a necessary condition for internal validity, exists when the
interitem structure corresponds adequately to the substantive do-
main of interest (Loevinger, 1957).

121
 122 BENSON, HULAC, AND KRANZLER
Current Internal Validity Evidence
The accuracy and precision of test interpretations is dependent
on theoretical support and strong psychometric properties (Amer-
ican Educational Research Association, American Psychological
Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education,
1999). Although WAIS–IV development was influenced by con-
temporary research and theory pertaining to intelligence, the meld-
ing of Wechsler’s view of intelligence with contemporary research
yielded a structure that does not correspond to any modern theory
of intelligence.
Although the theoretical underpinnings of the WAIS–IV are
dubious, psychometric data presented in the technical and inter-
pretive manual (Wechsler, 2008b) provide empirical support for
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
use of test scores derived from WAIS–IV performance when
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
making clinical inferences about an examinee’s intellectual func-
tioning. Average internal consistency reliability coefficients for
subtests range from .78 for Cancellation to .94 for Vocabulary.
Average internal consistency reliability coefficients for the
WAIS–IV composites range from .90 for the Processing Speed
Index to .98 for the Full Scale IQ. The WAIS–IV authors provide
extensive exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic evidence
for each of 13 age-differentiated subgroups (ranging from age 16
years to age 90 years 11 months) in the technical and interpretive
manual (Wechsler, 2008b). However, empirical evidence regard-
ing the invariance of the WAIS–IV factor structure across ages is
not provided. Without such evidence, clinicians will not have the
research support necessary to determine whether subtest and com-
posite scores reflect the same constructs across age groups. More-
over, the WAIS–IV structure is not tested against a plausible,
alternative, theoretically based structural model. Strong programs
of test validation should include examination of plausible alterna-
tive theoretical models to determine whether other methods of
interpretation can better describe examinees’ test performance
(Benson, 1998).
Plausible Alternative Structure
Retention of a unique structure that is theoretically ambiguous
warrants examination of an alternative, theoretically based struc-
tural model because an empirically supported theoretical structure
is widely accepted as a prerequisite for valid interpretation of
intelligence test performance (Flanagan & McGrew, 1997; Kauf-
man, 1994). Interpreting a test through the lens of a theoretically
based structural model allows practitioners to refer to the vast
research supporting the theory when interpreting an examinee’s
test performance (Kamphaus, Winsor, Rowe, & Kim, 2005). Sim-
ilarly, linking the WAIS–IV to a commonly accepted theoretical
model allows practitioners to compare WAIS–IV scores with test
scores obtained with other assessment tools (Kamphaus et al.,
2005). As the WAIS–IV did not adopt an empirically supported
theory, interpretation of performance may be enhanced by apply-
ing a theoretically based structure derived from Cattell–Horn–
Carroll (CHC) theory (McGrew, 1997). Research pertaining to the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edition (WISC–
IV; Wechsler, 2003) suggested that a CHC-derived theoretical
structure provides a better description of the WISC–IV perfor-
mance than does the four-factor scoring model (Keith, Fine, Taub,
Reynolds, & Kranzler, 2006).
CHC theory is the most comprehensive and empirically sup-
ported psychometric theory pertaining to the structure of human
cognitive abilities (Alfonso, Flanagan, & Radwan, 2005). CHC
theory is an integrated theory that represents both CHC (Horn &
Noll, 1997) and three-stratum (Carroll, 1993) theories of cognitive
abilities; CHC theory was developed from efforts to resolve dis-
crepancies between these two theories (McGrew, 1997). CHC
theory is hierarchical and includes three strata. Psychometric g
(i.e., the general factor presumed to cause the positive correlation
of mental tasks) is located at the apex (Stratum III). Stratum II
consists of 10 broad abilities: fluid reasoning (Gf ), crystallized
intelligence (Gc), short-term memory (Gsm), long-term retrieval
(Glr), visual processing (Gv), auditory processing (Ga), processing
speed (Gs), decision speed/reaction time (Gt), quantitative knowl-
edge (Gq), and reading and writing ability (Grw). Stratum I con-
sists of narrow CHC abilities. Space does not allow for presenta-
tion of all Stratum I abilities, as more than 100 narrow CHC
abilities have been identified and defined (McGrew, 2005).
Purpose of Study
Published empirical evidence for the WAIS–IV does not address
essential questions pertaining to the applied practice of intellectual
assessment. In this study, the structure and cross-age invariance of
the latest WAIS–IV revision were examined to answer the follow-
ing research questions. First, does a CHC-based theoretical struc-
ture provide a better explanation of test performance than does the
WAIS–IV scoring structure? Second, what exactly is the nature of
the constructs measured by the WAIS–IV? The fourth revision of
the WAIS contains some substantial changes from previous ver-
sions, as described above. Do these changes influence the substan-
tive theoretical meaning of the constructs as measured by the
WAIS–IV? We specified cross-loadings for subtests a priori based
on the content of the subtests as delineated in the technical and
interpretive manual (Wechsler, 2008b), Carroll’s (1993) survey of
factor analytic research, and the substantive hypotheses formulated
by Keith et al. (2006) in their work pertaining to the WISC–IV.
Although not every possible permutation of subtest cross-loadings
was examined, note that modification indices were examined for
parameters not explicitly tested. Thus, if a substantial cross-
loading existed but was not formally tested, the modification index
for that parameter would have indicated that allowing the cross-
loading would yield a substantial improvement in model fit.
The third and final research question pertains to the cross-age
invariance (i.e., equivalence of test scores across age-differentiated
groups as established by empirical comparisons) of scores derived
from the WAIS–IV. In other words, does the WAIS–IV measure
the same constructs across age levels? The process for assessing
invariance used in this study was described by Keith (2005). This
process was used because it separates testing of cross-age invari-
ance from testing of the factor structures and thus is well-aligned
with the substantive research questions addressed in this study.
Method
Participants
In this study, we used the WAIS–IV standardization sample
(ages 16 years, 0 months to 90 years, 11 months), which included
 INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE WAIS–IV
2,200 participants. The WAIS–IV standardization sample was
selected to approximate current U.S. census projections and was
stratified according to four specific variables: census region, sex,
education level, and ethnicity. Data from these 2,200 participants
were presented in the technical and interpretive manual (Wechsler,
2008b) as 13 age-differentiated subsamples: 16 years to 17 years,
11 months (n ⫽ 200); 18 years to 19 years, 11 months (n ⫽ 200);
20 years to 24 years, 11 months (n ⫽ 200); 25 years to 29 years,
11 months (n ⫽ 200); 30 years to 34 years, 11 months (n ⫽
200); 35 years to 44 years, 11 months (n ⫽ 200); 45 years to 54
years, 11 months (n ⫽ 200); 55 years to 64 years, 11 months (n ⫽
200); 65 years to 69 years, 11 months (n ⫽ 200); 70 years to 74
years, 11 months (n ⫽ 100); 75 years to 79 years, 11 months (n ⫽
100); 80 years to 84 years, 11 months (n ⫽ 100); and 85 years to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
90 years, 11 months (n ⫽ 100). Notably, four age-differentiated
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
subgroups ranging from age 70 years to age 90 years, 11 months,
were not included in analyses relevant to the research questions
addressed in this study because three measures (i.e., Letter–
Number Sequencing, Figure Weights, and Cancellation) were not
used with participants aged 70 years or older. Thus, the current
analysis only includes age groups from 16 years to 69 years, 11
months. This decision was made because the aim of this study was
to determine what constructs the WAIS–IV measures, and includ-
ing more rather than fewer subtests is viewed as the best approach
for accomplishing this goal (Keith et al., 2006).
Analyses
In this study, we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to
answer the aforementioned research questions. The average stan-
dard deviations and intercorrelations of the WAIS–IV subtest scale
scores, which are provided in the technical and interpretive manual
(Wechsler, 2008b), were used as data input and were converted to
variance– covariance matrices to facilitate data analyses. Both core
and supplemental subtests were included in analyses, as inclusion
of supplemental subtests is likely to clarify the substantive mean-
ing of the WAIS–IV by ensuring that constructs are adequately
represented (Keith et al., 2006). Analyses were performed with
Amos 7.0 (Arbuckle, 2007) computer software following the
method of maximum-likelihood estimation. Maximum-likelihood
estimation, in which one assumes a multivariate normal distribu-
tion, is a robust (Hoyle & Panter, 1995) and widely used (Kline,
2005) approach for examining free parameters (i.e., a parameter
that is not fixed at any particular value by the model hypothesis).
The first research question was addressed by testing the
WAIS–IV scoring structure against a structural model derived
from an empirically supported theory of intelligence (i.e., CHC
theory). The second research question was addressed with a series
of analyses to examine questions regarding how these changes
may have influenced the substantive meaning of the constructs
measured by the WAIS–IV. Three averaged matrices were com-
puted to facilitate analyses. The first two of these matrices consist
of every other age-differentiated subgroup for ages 16 years to 64
years, 11 months. Thus, the first matrix was a product of the
16 years to 17 years, 11 months; 20 years to 24 years, 11 months;
30 years to 34 years, 11 months; and 45 years to 54 years, 11
months, subgroups and the second matrix was a product of the 18
years to 19 years, 11 months; 25 years to 29 years, 11 months; 35
years to 44 years, 11 months; and 55 years to 64 years, 11 months,
123
subgroups. The third matrix was the product of all subgroups
ranging from ages 16 years to 69 years, 11 months. All three of
these matrices are available from Nicholas Benson by request.
Formation of the first two averaged matrices allowed for use of
a calibration–validation approach. Use of calibration and valida-
tion samples allowed hypotheses supported by initial analyses
(calibration) to be validated with another portion of the data and
separated testing of alternative models from testing of cross-age
invariance (Keith et al., 2006). The 65 years to 69 years, 11
months, subgroup was excluded during formation of the calibra-
tion and validation samples in order to obtain samples of equal
size. However, the final model (i.e., the result of the validation
stage) was further tested against an averaged matrix for ages 16
years to 69 years, 11 months, to ensure that it provides adequate fit
across this age range. The specific hypotheses tested during this
series of model comparisons are provided in the results section.
The third research question was addressed with a series of
analyses designed to test both magnitude and location of bias
(Keith, 2005). The first step involved testing invariance of covari-
ance matrices across age-differentiated subgroups, which was ac-
complished by constraining variances and covariances to be equal
for ages 16 years to 69 years, 11 months. Invariance of covariance
matrices was examined first because all potential factor structures
are solved with these same covariance matrices. The second step
involved constraining all parameters to be equal across age-
differentiated subgroups. The first step provided a general test of
invariance that is independent of a specific factor structure, a
specific factor structure was imposed as a second step, and any
observed differences in fit between the models examined in these
steps reflect lack of invariance arising from the factor structure. If
bias is evident, then the location of this bias can be located by
systematically relaxing model parameters (i.e., factor loadings,
higher order factor loadings, factor variances, and unique vari-
ances).
Use of Fit Indices
Simulation studies suggested that multiple fit indices should be
used when evaluating model fit (Fan & Silvo, 2005). Although
some fit indices have been shown to provide redundant informa-
tion (Meade, Johnson, & Braddy, 2008), several types of fit indices
have been developed, each reflecting different facets of model fit.
Researchers must select an adequate set of indices for examin-
ing model fit in light of substantive research questions and
probable sources of bias (Miles & Shevlin, 2007). The indices
we used included the chi-squared test (␹2), the standardized
root-mean-square residual (SRMR), the root-mean-square error
of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI),
the Akaike information criterion (AIC), and the change in
chi-square value (⌬␹2).
The null hypothesis of perfect fit was tested with ␹2 in response
to Barrett’s (2007) recent call for researchers to report results of a
null hypothesis significance test. The SRMR was used because it
provides standardized residuals to convey important information
about model fit, is sensitive to model misspecification, and is
insensitive to sample size and violations of distributional assump-
tions (Bentler, 2007). The SRMR reflects similarity of the ob-
served covariance matrix to the model implied covariance matrix,
with good models displaying small residuals on average. The
 124 BENSON, HULAC, AND KRANZLER

RMSEA was used because simulation studies suggest it performs
reasonably well as a test of invariance and is fairly insensitive to
sample size, interactions among variables, and the reliability of
indicators (Meade et al., 2008). The RMSEA reflects how well the
model would fit the population covariance matrix if optimal pa-
rameter values were chosen. The CFI was used because it is
insensitive to sample size and has performed well as a test of
invariance during simulation studies (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002;
Meade et al., 2008). The CFI reflects the fit of the hypothesized
model relative to an independence model (i.e., a model in which all
correlations among variables in the model are zero). The AIC was
used to identify the most parsimonious model between the
WAIS–IV scoring structure and the alternative CHC model. Sim-
ulation studies suggest that AIC is useful when conducting model
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
of either model are consistent with the data. This finding is not
surprising, as the WAIS–IV is intentionally designed to consist of
subtests that are reliable and interrelated (i.e., influenced by psy-
chometric g), and the ␹2 statistic is known to be biased against
reliable indicators that do not have substantial unique variance
(Miles & Shevlin, 2007). Moreover, each subtest measures narrow
abilities measured insufficiently (i.e., by at least two subtests) for
inclusion as viable constructs in a model of WAIS–IV structure.
Given extensive empirical evidence supporting the existence of
narrow cognitive abilities (e.g., Carroll, 1993), it is likely that
excluding narrow cognitive abilities from the structural model
yielded a discrepancy between the model and the data. Thus,
specification of a structural model for the WAIS–IV that fits the
data perfectly, yet remains theoretically sound, is seemingly an

comparisons, including comparisons involving nonnested models
(Yuan, 2005). For nested models, ⌬␹2 was used to determine
whether adding theoretically substantive constraints resulted in a
large and statistically significant drop in ␹2 values (Keith, 2005).
Results
Research Question 1: Examination of a Plausible
Alternative (CHC) Model
The WAIS–IV scoring structure shown in Figure 1 was tes-
ted against the CHC-inspired initial structural model shown in
Figure 2. Notably, both models failed the ␹2 null hypothesis test of
perfect fit. This does not mean that all aspects of either model are
false. Rather, this finding merely refutes the claim that all aspects
unrealistic goal. A more reasonable goal is to determine whether
the WAIS–IV is consistent with a prevailing theory.
Results suggest that a CHC model provides a better explanation
of test performance than does the WAIS–IV scoring structure. As
shown in Table 1, the CHC model yielded a substantial drop in the
AIC relative to the WAIS–IV scoring structure. Because these
models are not nested, AIC is a better index for comparison than
is ⌬␹2 (Keith, 2005). The first-order and second-order factor
loadings shown in Figure 2 suggest that the subtests are robust
measures of the abilities specified in the initial CHC model.
Consistent with previous research (Bickley, Keith, & Wolfle,
1995; Gustafsson, 1984; Keith et al., 2006), the second-order
loading of psychometric g on Gf reached unity. The second-order
loadings of psychometric g on Gc, Gv, and Gsm were strong (.79,
.84, and .82, respectively), whereas the second-order loading of

Similarities u1
uf1
.81
.88 Vocabulary u2
Verbal .80
Comprehension Information u3
.84
Comprehension u4

.80 uf2 Block Design u5

.76
.70 Matrix Reasoning u6
Perceptual
.76
Reasoning
.92 Visual Puzzles u7
.78
g .57 Figure Weights u8

Picture Completion u9
.90 uf3
.82
Digit Span u10
.66 Working .79
Memory Arithmetic u11
.79
Letter-Number u12
Sequencing
uf4
.76 u13
Symbol Search
Processing .77
Speed Coding u14
.58
Cancellation u15

Figure 1. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition model, estimated with calibration data
consisting of every other age group in the standardization sample from ages 16 years to 64 years, 11 months
(ages 16 years to 17 years, 11 months, 20 years to 24 years, 11 months, 30 years, to 34 years, 11 months, and
45 years to 54 years, 11 months). The numbers next to u denote the subtest to which the unique subtest variance
(u) corresponds. The numbers next to uf denote the first-order factor to which the unique factor variance (uf)
corresponds. g ⫽ psychometric g.
 INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE WAIS–IV 125

uf1 Similarities u1
.81
.88 Vocabulary u2
Gc .80
.84 Information u3
uf2
Comprehension u4
.82
.79 Block Design u5
Gv
.81
.59 Matrix Reasoning u6
.84 uf3 .70
Visual Puzzles u7
1.00 .78
g Gf Figure Weights u8

.79 Picture Completion u9

.82 uf4
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

.86 Digit Span u10

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

.63
Gsm Arithmetic u11
.83
Letter-Number u12
Sequencing
uf5
.76 Symbol Search u13
.77
Gs Coding u14
.58
Cancellation u15

Figure 2. Initial Cattell–Horn–Carroll model, estimated with calibration data. The numbers next to u
denote the subtest to which the unique subtest variance (u) corresponds. The numbers next to uf denote the
first-order factor to which the unique factor variance (uf) corresponds. g ⫽ psychometric g; Gc ⫽
crystallized ability; Gv ⫽ visual processing; Gf ⫽ fluid reasoning; Gsm ⫽ short-term memory; and Gs ⫽
processing speed.

psychometric g on Gs was moderate (.63). Because the CHC
model appears to provide a better explanation of performance than
the WAIS–IV scoring structure does, the CHC model was used as
a baseline to test substantive questions regarding the WAIS–IV
structure.
Research Question 2: Calibration Analyses Examining
Structural Alternatives for the WAIS–IV
We examined substantive hypotheses regarding the WAIS–IV
scales on the basis of the content of the subtests as delineated in the
WAIS–IV technical and interpretive manual (Wechsler, 2008b),
Carroll’s (1993) survey of factor analytic research, and the sub-
stantive hypotheses formulated by Keith et al. (2006) in their work
pertaining to the WISC–IV. Most of these hypotheses pertained to
plausible subtest cross-loadings. Hypotheses regarding cross-
loadings were examined to determine whether subtests are pure or
mixed measures of CHC abilities.
Results from calibration analyses are shown in Table 1. Cali-
bration analyses suggest that separate Gf and Gv factors are nec-
essary. Combining the Gf and Gv factors resulted in a poor fit to

Table 1
Summary of Alternative Model Evaluation for the WAIS–IV With a Calibration Sample

Model ␹2(df) p ⌬␹2 ⌬df p RMSEA SRMR CFI AIC

WAIS–IV scoring model 431.520 (86) .000 — — — .071 .044 .947 499.520
Initial CHC model 312.698 (85) .000 — — — .058 .039 .965 382.698a
Combine Gf and Gv 433.331 (86) .000 — — — .071 .043 .935 501.331b
AR with Gsm cross-load 287.012 (84) .000 25.686b 1 .000 .055 .038 .969 359.012
AR with Gsm and Gc cross-loads 282.956 (83) .000 4.056a 1 .044 .055 .037 .969 356.956
Nonzero residual covariance for AR and FW
and FW to correlate 311.975 (84) .000 0.723b 1 .395 .058 .039 .965 383.975
MR with Gv cross-load 309.173 (84) .000 3.525b 1 .060 .058 .039 .966 381.173
PCm with Gc cross-load 308.548 (84) .000 4.150b 1 .042 .058 .038 .966 380.548
CA with Gsm cross-load 299.446 (84) .000 13.252b 1 .000 .057 .037 .967 371.446
SS with Gv cross-load 312.296 (84) .000 0.402b 1 .526 .058 .038 .965 384.296
CD with Gsm cross-load 309.685 (84) .000 3.013b 1 .083 .058 .039 .965 381.685

Note. N ⫽ 800. WAIS–IV ⫽ Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition; CHC ⫽ Cattell–Horn–Carroll; Gf ⫽ fluid reasoning; Gv ⫽ visual
processing; Gsm ⫽ short-term memory; Gc ⫽ crystallized intelligence; AR ⫽ Arithmetic; FW ⫽ Figure Weights; MR ⫽ Matrix Reasoning; PCm ⫽ Picture
Completion; CA ⫽ Cancellation; SS ⫽ Symbol Search; CD ⫽ Coding; RMSEA ⫽ root mean square error of approximation; SRMR ⫽ standardized root
mean square residual; CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; AIC ⫽ Akaike information criterion.
a
Compared with previous model. b Compared with initial CHC model.
 126 BENSON, HULAC, AND KRANZLER
the data relative to the model with separate Gf and Gv factors, as
indicated by a substantial increase in the AIC value relative to the
initial CHC model. Calibration analyses also suggest that Arith-
metic is a mixed measure of Gf and Gsm. Although Arithmetic and
Figure Weights both require reasoning with quantitative concepts,
allowing these subtests to have a nonzero residual covariance did
not yield a significant improvement in model fit, and the magni-
tude of the observed covariance was small and not statistically
significant. Thus, the relationship between Arithmetic and Figure
Weights appears to be influenced primarily by Gf. More specifi-
cally, these tests appear to measure quantitative reasoning (QR),
which has been defined as a narrow cognitive ability caused by Gf
that pertains to inductive and deductive reasoning with concepts
involving mathematical relations (Carroll, 1993). Allowing Arith-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
metic to have an additional cross-load with Gc yielded a modest
yet statistically significant (at the .05 level) drop in ␹2 value as
well as a modest drop in the AIC value, which provided some
preliminary support for this cross-loading. Calibration analyses
also supported a cross-loading of Picture Completion with Gc and
a cross-loading of Cancellation with Gsm.
Cross-Validation of Plausible Structural Alternatives
for the WAIS–IV
Factor loadings that yielded statistically significant improvements
in model fit during calibration analyses were subjected to cross-
validation. Thus, they were retested, both in isolation and in combi-
nation, with the averaged matrix for the validation sample. As can be
seen in Table 2, some of the salient findings from calibration analyses
were not replicated during cross-validation. Additionally, even though
some factor loadings yielded statistically significant drops in ␹2 when
tested in isolation the magnitudes of these loading were small and
statistically nonsignificant when tested in combination with other
salient loadings identified during calibration. The change in model fit
that resulted from adding the Cancellation with Gsm cross-loading
was small and nonsignificant. Additionally, the Picture Completion
with Gc cross-loading was not supported, as evidenced by modest
drops in ␹2 and AIC as well as a statistically nonsignificant and weak
factor loading (i.e., a standardized estimate of .09). Therefore, the
Cancellation with Gsm and Picture Completion with Gc cross-
loadings were not included in the final model shown in Figure 3.
Finally, although the Arithmetic with Gc cross-loading yielded reduc-
tion in AIC value and a statistically significant drop in ␹2, this
Table 2
Summary of Cross-Validation Results for Plausible Alternative Models
Model ␹2(df) p ⌬␹2
WAIS–IV scoring model 375.312 (86) .000 — —
Initial CHC model 313.957 (85) .000 — —
AR with Gsm cross-load 282.329 (84) .000 31.628b
AR with Gsm and Gc cross-load 259.419 (83) .000 22.910a
PCm with Gc cross-load 309.049 (84) .000 4.908b
CA with Gsm cross-load 312.460 (84) .000 1.497b
Note. N ⫽ 200. WAIS–IV ⫽ Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition; CHC ⫽ Cattell-Horn-Carroll; Gf ⫽ fluid reasoning; Gv ⫽ visual
processing; Gc ⫽ crystallized intelligence; Gsm ⫽ short-term memory; AR ⫽ Arithmetic; FW ⫽ Figure Weights; PCm ⫽ Picture Completion; CA ⫽
Cancellation; RMSEA ⫽ root mean square error of approximation; SRMR ⫽ standardized root mean square residual; TLI ⫽ Tucker Lewis index; AIC ⫽
Akaike information criterion.
a
Compared with previous model. b Compared with initial CHC model.
cross-loading was not included in the final model because the mag-
nitude of this loading (.10) was small and statistically nonsignificant
with the calibration sample and of modest magnitude with the vali-
dation sample (.25).
The final model was subjected to additional validation analysis
with the averaged matrix for all age-based groups from 16 years to 69
years, 11 months, of age. Although the final model failed the ␹2 null
hypothesis test of perfect fit, ␹2(84, N ⫽ 1800) ⫽ 615.929, p ⫽ .000,
alternative fit indices confirm that CHC theory provides a good
description of WAIS–IV performance (SRMR ⫽ .036, RMSEA ⫽
.059, CFI ⫽ .965). The final CHC model provides a far superior fit
when compared with the WAIS–IV scoring structure, as indicated by
a substantial drop in ␹2 relative to the scoring structure, ⌬␹2(2) ⫽
280.784, p ⫽ .000. Moreover, alternative fit indices suggest that the
WAIS–IV scoring structure provides inferior fit to the averaged
matrix for ages 16 years to 69 years, 11 months, relative to the CHC
structure (SRMR ⫽ .042, RMSEA ⫽ 0.072, CFI ⫽ 0.946).
As shown in Figure 3, with the exception of the Arithmetic with
Gsm loading of .28, the factor-loadings for the final model are
robust and consistent with CHC theory. Second-order factor load-
ings (i.e., broad CHC abilities with psychometric g) are all robust.
Gs was found to have the lowest second-order loading (.66),
whereas Gf was found to have the strongest (.99). In order to better
understand the nature of these second-order loadings, we examined
the indirect effects of psychometric g on subtests. These indirect
effects, which are presented in Table 3, can be interpreted as
estimates of subtests’ g loadings. Cancellation was found to have
a weak g loading of .37. All other subtests have g loadings above
.50. Figure Weights had the highest g loading (.78), followed
closely by Arithmetic (.75) and Vocabulary (.74).
The high g loadings of two Gf tasks that seemingly measure QR
led us to test an additional model with a latent QR factor consisting
of Figure Weights and Arithmetic. This model yielded a statisti-
cally significant drop in ␹2, ⌬␹2(1) ⫽ 6.630, p ⫽ .010, and a
modest drop in the AIC relative to the final CHC model. The
first-order factor loadings on QR were .80 for Figure Weights and
.54 for Arithmetic. In turn, loadings on Gf in this model consisted
of .96 for QR and .69 for Matrix Reasoning.
Research Question 3: Cross-Age Invariance
The third research question was addressed with a series of
analyses designed to test both the magnitude and location of bias
⌬df p RMSEA SRMR TLI AIC
— .065 .043 .947 443.312
— .058 .039 .957 383.957a
1 .000 .054 .037 .962 354.329
1 .000 .052 .035 .966 333.419
1 .027 .058 .037 .957 381.049
1 .221 .058 .038 .957 384.460
 INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE WAIS–IV 127

uf1 Similarities u1
.84
.89 Vocabulary u2
Gc .79
Information u3
.84
uf2
Comprehension u4
.82
.83 Block Design u5
Gv
.80
Matrix Reasoning u6
.85 uf3
.69
.62 Visual Puzzles u7
.99 .78
g Gf Figure Weights u8

Picture Completion u9
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

.78 uf4 .54

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

.85 Digit Span u10

.66 .28
Gsm Arithmetic u11
.80
Letter-Number u12
Sequencing
uf5
.79 Symbol Search u13
.79
Gs Coding u14
.56

Cancellation u15

Figure 3. Final cross-validated Cattell–Horn–Carroll interpretative model, estimated with an averaged matrix
for ages 16 years to 69 years, 11 months, of the standardization sample. The numbers next to u denote the subtest
to which the unique subtest variance (u) corresponds. The numbers next to uf denote the first-order factor to
which the unique factor variance (uf) corresponds. g ⫽ psychometic g; Gc ⫽ crystallized ability; Gv ⫽ visual
processing; Gf ⫽ fluid reasoning; Gsm ⫽ short-term memory; and Gs ⫽ processing speed.

(Keith, 2005). The first step provided a general test of invariance Results suggest that the covariance matrix is reasonably invari-
that is independent of a specific factor structure, and a specific ant across age groups (SRMR ⫽ .078, RMSEA ⫽ .024, CFI ⫽
factor structure was imposed as a second step. Thus, observed .939). Although two of the fit indices supported invariance of the
differences in fit between the models examined in these steps WAIS–IV factor structure (RMSEA ⫽ .023, CFI ⫽ .934), the
reflected lack of invariance arising from the factor structure. Next, SRMR value of .098 suggested that imposition of the WAIS–IV
the location of bias was located by systematically relaxing model factor structure resulted in a large increase in the average differ-
parameters (i.e., factor loadings, higher order factor loadings, ence between the observed subtest correlation matrix and the
factor variances, and unique variances). matrix implied by the structure. Moreover, this imposition resulted
in a large and statistically significant increase in ␹2, ⌬␹2(112) ⫽
Table 3 180.098, p ⫽ .000. This means that although the WAIS–IV
Estimated g Loadings of WAIS–IV Subtests subtests appear to measure similar constructs with similar levels of
measurement error across age levels, as indicated by consistency
Subtest g loading of subtest variance and covariance across different age groups, the
Arithmetic .75 WAIS–IV scoring structure does not provide a consistent descrip-
Block Design .70 tion of test performance across age groups. Relaxing constraints on
Cancellation .37 factor loadings resulted in a large and statistically significant drop
Coding .53 in ␹2 relative to the model with all parameters constrained,
Comprehension .69
Digit Span .67
⌬␹2(88) ⫽ 140.822, p ⫽ .000. Thus, much of the lack of invari-
Figure Weights .78 ance across age groups appears to result from age-related differ-
Information .65 ences in the strengths of relations between subtests and latent
Letter–Number Sequencing .63 constructs. Given that a CHC model fits the standardization data
Matrix Reasoning .69
Picture Completion .53
better than does the WAIS–IV scoring structure, the nature of
Similarities .70 cross-age differences in factor loadings for the WAIS–IV scoring
Symbol Search .52 structure were not explored. Instead, we tested the hypothesis that
Visual Puzzles .68 the CHC model had invariant factor loadings across age-based
Vocabulary .74
groups.
Note. WAIS–IV ⫽ Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition; Constraining factor loadings to be equal across age groups
g ⫽ psychometric g. resulted in a large and statistically significant increase in ␹2,
 128 BENSON, HULAC, AND KRANZLER
⌬␹2(88) ⫽ 128.396, p ⫽ .003, relative to an unconstrained model.
Thus, the lack of cross-age invariance for factor loadings was not
resolved merely by adopting a CHC structure. Constraints for
individual factor loadings and combinations of factor loadings
were relaxed to determine which relations between subtests and
latent constructs were accounting for the lack of invariance. Re-
laxing constraints on factor loadings for two tests hypothesized as
being sensitive to age effects (i.e., Cancellation and Letter–
Number Sequencing) while maintaining cross-age constraints for
all other factor loadings resulted in a nonsignificant increase in ␹2
relative to an unconstrained model, ⌬␹2(72) ⫽ 89.460, p ⫽ .080.
Thus, lack of cross-age invariance for factor loadings can be
attributed to the Cancellation and Letter–Number Sequencing
subtests. Inspection of factor loadings within each age group
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
revealed variation in the magnitude of factor loadings for Cancel-
lation and Letter–Number Sequencing. Standardized loadings for
Cancellation range from highs of .64 at ages 20 years to 24 years,
11 months, and .62 at ages 16 years to 17 years, 11 months, to lows
of .43 at ages 35 years to 44 years, 11 months, and .52 at ages 45
years to 54 years, 11 months. Standardized loadings for Letter–
Number Sequencing ranged from a high of .87 at ages 25 years to
29 years, 11 months, to a low of .68 at ages 18 years to 19 years,
11 months, with the majority of loadings having a magnitude
above .80. In addition to the 18 years to 19 years, 11 months age
group, standardized loadings for Letter–Number Sequencing also
fell below the .80 level for ages 35 years to 44 years, 11 months
(.78), 45 years to 54 years, 11 months (.79), and 65 years to 69
years, 11 months (.77).
Invariance was indicated by a nonsignificant increase in ␹2
relative to an unconstrained model, ⌬␹2(80) ⫽ 96.092, p ⫽ .106,
as well as alternative fit indices evident (SRMR ⫽ .056,
RMSEA ⫽ .019, CFI ⫽ 0.964) when cross-age constraints for
Cancellation were removed only at ages 16 years to 17 years, 11
months, 20 years to 24 years, 11 months, 35 years to 44 years, 11
months, and 45 years to 54 years, 11 and cross-age constraints for
Letter–Number Sequencing were removed only at ages 35 years to
44 years, 11 months, 45 years to 54 years, 11 months, and 65 years
to 69 years, 11 months. Additionally, second-order loadings are
invariant when the preceding age constraints are removed for
relations between psychometric g and broad abilities that have
first-order loadings on Letter–Number Sequencing and Cancella-
tion (i.e., Gsm and Gs, respectively), as indicated by a nonsignif-
icant increase in ␹2 relative to an unconstrained model, ⌬␹2(96) ⫽
112.081, p ⫽ .125, and alternative fit indices (SRMR ⫽ .061,
RMSEA ⫽ .019, CFI ⫽ .964).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to address some questions essen-
tial to the application of the WAIS–IV in intellectual assessment.
First, does a CHC-based theoretical structure provide a better
explanation of test performance than does the WAIS–IV scoring
structure? Second, what exactly is the nature of the constructs
measured by the WAIS–IV? Finally, does the WAIS–IV measure
the same constructs across age levels?
The results of this study reveal that (a) a CHC-inspired structure
provides a better description of test performance relative to the
published scoring structure, (b) the WAIS–IV measures several
abilities, including Gc, Gf, Gv, Gsm, Gs, and QR, (c) the scoring
structure is not invariant across age groups, (d) adopting a CHC-
inspired structure does not resolve the lack of invariance across
age groups, and (e) lack of cross-age invariance can be attributed
to inconsistent factor loadings for the Cancellation and Letter–
Number Sequencing subtests on their corresponding broad abilities
(i.e., Gs and Gsm, respectively). Implications of these findings and
interpretative considerations are discussed in the following sec-
tions.
Does CHC Theory Provide a Superior Alternative for
Test Interpretation?
The results of this study support use of an interpretative frame-
work for WAIS–IV performance that is consistent with CHC
theory. Given the popularity of CHC theory and cross-battery
assessment (Alfonso et al., 2005), many test users are likely to use
a CHC interpretive framework. Although the WAIS–IV scoring
structure is largely congruent with CHC theory, there are some
important differences to consider when interpreting test scores.
Most notably, interpretation of the Perceptual Reasoning Index is
inconsistent with CHC theory. The results of this study support
interpreting separate Gf and Gv indexes rather than the Perceptual
Reasoning Index. The remaining differences between the
WAIS–IV scoring structure and CHC theory are discussed in the
following section because these differences pertain to subtest
factor loadings.
What Does the WAIS–IV Measure?
Consistent with the results of previous research regarding recent
Wechsler revisions (Keith et al., 2006), results suggest that the
Verbal Comprehension Index can be interpreted “as measuring
verbal ability, comprehension, knowledge, and crystallized intel-
ligence” (p. 123). As noted in Table 4, the WAIS–IV Perceptual
Reasoning subtests appear to measure Gf and Gv. The analyses
indicate that Block Design, Visual Puzzles, and Picture Comple-
tion subtests can be grouped together and used as a measure of Gv.
Likewise, the Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights, and Arithmetic
subtests can be interpreted as measures of Gf. Although Arithmetic
was found to measure a complex mix of Gf and Gsm (and to a
lesser extent Gc), it appears that it is primarily a measure of Gf.
The results of this study also suggest that Figure Weights and
Arithmetic can be combined to form a viable index of QR. As the
WAIS–IV only contains three measures of Gf, two of which are
measures of QR, we did not attempt to include QR in the final
model. However, this does not preclude interpretation of the QR
factor. The results of this study also suggest that Cancellation
should not be used when calculating a Gs composite score. Finally,
Letter–Number Sequencing appears to have an unstable factor
loading across age groups and Arithmetic appears to be a second-
ary measure of Gsm. Thus, Gsm composite scores are sensitive to
age effects when using the Letter–Number Sequencing Subtest,
and Arithmetic does not appear to be an acceptable substitute when
calculating this composite.
Using methods developed by Tellegen and Briggs (1967) and
adapted by Sattler (2008), we have provided formulas in Table 5
that WAIS–IV users can use to calculate Gv, Gf, and QR compos-
ites for individuals ages 16 years to 69 years, 11 months. For Gf,
if performance on the Arithmetic subtest is inconsistent with the
 INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE WAIS–IV 129

Table 4 from this scoring system can be considered to have somewhat

CHC Abilities Measured by WAIS–IV Subscales different meanings across age groups.
Subsequent analyses revealed that the observed lack of cross-
WAIS–IV subtest CHC ability age invariance resulted from cross-age differences in the magni-
Verbal Comprehension Index tude of factor loadings. This lack of invariance was not resolved
Similarities Gc merely by adopting a CHC structure. Further analyses revealed
Vocabulary Gc that the lack of cross-age invariance for factor loadings could be
Information Gc attributed to age-related variation in the magnitudes of the Can-
Comprehension Gc
cellation and Letter–Number Sequencing subtests on correspond-
Perceptual Reasoning Index
Block Design Gv ing broad abilities (e.g., Gs and Gsm, respectively). The seemingly
Matrix Reasoning Gf erratic pattern of age-related variation observed for these factor
Visual Puzzles Gv loadings, as well as the modest sample size for each age-
Figure Weights Gf/QR differentiated subgroup, suggest that this variation may arise from
Picture Completion Gv
sampling bias rather than age-related changes in cognitive func-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Working Memory Index

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Digit Span Gsm tioning.

Arithmetic Gf/QR (primary); Gsm (secondary)
Letter–Number Gsm
Sequencing
Processing Speed Index
Symbol Search Gs
Coding Gs
Cancellation Gs
Note. CHC ⫽ Cattell–Horn–Carroll; Gc ⫽ crystallized intelligence;
Gv ⫽ visual processing; Gf ⫽ fluid reasoning; Gsm ⫽ short-term memory;
Gs ⫽ processing speed; QR ⫽ quantitative reasoning.
other two subtests, the sum of the other two scale scores (Matrix
Reasoning and Figure Weights) can be used. Similarly, a clinician
can sum Figure Weights and Arithmetic to calculate a QR com-
posite. We calculated reliability coefficients for the preceding
composites by inputting stability coefficients obtained from the
WAIS–IV technical and interpretive manual (Wechsler, 2008b) as
well as the correlation coefficients of component subtests into a
reliability formula developed by Tellegen and Briggs (1967). The
resulting reliability coefficients were .89 for the Gv composite, .89
for the Gf composite obtained from three subtests, .84 for the Gf
composite derived from two subtests, and .88 for the QR compos-
ite. The levels of reliability reflected by these coefficients suggest
it is appropriate to use these composite scores for making individ-
ual clinical decisions. Thus, these composites have usefulness for
practitioners wishing to use a CHC interpretative approach. These
composites also will be useful to practitioners wishing to use a
cross-battery approach to assessment (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso,
2007).
Does the WAIS–IV Measure the Same Constructs
Across Age Levels?
The results of this study provide modest support for the conclu-
sion that the WAIS–IV measures the same constructs across age
groups. The SRMR value of .078 obtained when constraining the
covariance matrix suggests that some age differences exist, al-
though these differences may not be large enough to be practically
meaningful. The fact that the Figure Weights and Cancellation
subtests are not given to individuals age 70 years or older suggest
that test developers were sensitive to age differences in perfor-
mance. However, the results of this study do not support invari-
ance of the WAIS–IV scoring model. Thus, test scores derived
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Understanding the factor structure of test instruments provides
valuable interpretive information for clinicians who are seeking to
understand the ideas measured through a particular instrument. To
that end, it is important to note that not every subtest of the
WAIS–IV is administered to every client. In particular, examinees
over the age of 70 years are not assessed with three of the
subscales. Because the present analysis excluded examinees age 70
years or older, practitioners will not be able to apply these findings
to clients in this age range.
It is also important to keep in mind a comparison of the
WAIS–IV with other measures was not included in this study. A
substantive study with multiple measures of intelligence is needed
to clarify the narrow and broad abilities measured, which will
improve understanding of what constructs the WAIS–IV measures
(Keith, Kranzler, & Flanagan, 2001). For example, although the
Arithmetic subtest was intended to be a Gsm measure, when the
Figure Weights subtest is included in analyses, Arithmetic appears
to be a better measure of Gf, and more narrowly QR, than it is of
Gsm. Simultaneous examination of multiple measures of intelli-
gence would help clarify other relationships such as this example
that are obscured when a the structure of a small (relative to a
Table 5
Formulas For Calculating CHC Composites From
Corresponding Subscales
Subtests
Composite (n) Formula
Visual processing (Gv) 3 1.995 ⫻ (BD ⫹ Vp ⫹ PCm) ⫹ 40.143
Fluid reasoning (Gf a) 3 1.980 ⫻ (MR ⫹ FW ⫹ AR) ⫹ 40.614
Fluid reasoning (Gf b) 2 2.822 ⫻ (MR ⫹ FW) ⫹ 43.567
Quantitative
reasoning (QR) 2 2.786 ⫻ (FW ⫹ AR) ⫹ 44.272
Note. Gf a includes all three subtests of Gf. Gf b does not include the
Arithmetic subtest. As an example, the visual processing composite for an
examinee whose BD scaled score ⫽ 8, VP scaled score ⫽ 6, and PC scaled
score ⫽ 11 would be 1.995 ⫻ 25 ⫹ 40.143 ⫽ 90.018, which rounds to a
standard score of 90. Gv ⫽ visual processing; Gf ⫽ fluid reasoning;
CHC ⫽ Cattell–Horn–Carroll; BD ⫽ Block Design scaled score; Vp ⫽
Visual Puzzles scaled score; PCm ⫽ Picture Completion scaled score;
MR ⫽ Matrix Reasoning scaled score; FW ⫽ Figure Weights scaled score;
AR ⫽ Arithmetic scaled score.
 130 BENSON, HULAC, AND KRANZLER
study with multiple measures of intelligence) set of subtests are
examined.
Despite these limitations, this study is the first known indepen-
dent confirmatory factor analysis in which the construct validity of
the WAIS–IV is investigated. This empirical study provides sup-
port for those who wish to use the WAIS–IV as a CHC measure.
Similarly, evaluators who are familiar with CHC theory now know
which subscales relate to which CHC ability and know the formu-
las necessary to calculate these composites.
References
Alfonso, V. C., Flanagan, D. P., & Radwan, S. (2005). The impact of
Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory on test development and interpretation of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
cognitive and academic abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues
(2nd ed., pp. 185–202). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological As-
sociation, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999).
Standards for educational and psychological testing (3rd ed.). Wash-
ington, DC: AERA.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). Amos 7.0 [Computer software]. Chicago, IL:
Smallwaters.
Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit.
Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815– 824.
Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: A
test anxiety example. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,
17, 10 –17.
Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models.
Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 825– 829.
Bickley, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Wolfle, L. M. (1995). The three-stratum
theory of cognitive abilities: Test of the structure of intelligence across
the life span. Intelligence, 20, 309 –328.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic
studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit
indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Mod-
eling, 9, 233–255.
Fan, X., & Silvo, S. A. (2005). Sensitivity of fit indexes to misspecified
structural or measurement model components: Rationale of two-index
strategy revisited. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 343–367.
Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1997). A cross-battery approach to
assessing and interpreting cognitive abilities: Narrowing the gap be-
tween practice and cognitive science. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft,
& P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theo-
ries, tests, and issues (pp. 314 –325). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2007). Essentials of
cross-battery assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Gustafsson, J. E. (1984). A unifying model for the structure of intellectual
abilities. Intelligence, 8, 179 –203.
Horn, J. L., & Noll, J. (1997). Human cognitive capabilities: Gf-Gc theory.
In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary
intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 53–91). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation
modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Con-
cepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158 –176). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Jensen, A. R. (1987). Individual differences in mental ability. In J. A.
Glover & R. R. Ronning (Eds.), Historical foundations of educational
psychology (pp. 61– 88). New York, NY: Plenum.
Kamphaus, R. W., Winsor, A. P., Rowe, E. W., & Kim, S. (2005). A
history of intelligence test interpretation. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L.
Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests,
and issues (2nd ed., pp. 23–38). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligence testing with the WISC–III. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2006). Assessing adolescent and
adult intelligence. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Keith, T. Z. (2005). Using confirmatory factor analysis to aid in under-
standing the constructs measured by intelligence tests. In D. P. Flanagan
& P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theo-
ries, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 581– 614). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Keith, T. Z., Fine, J. G., Taub, G. E., Reynolds, M. R., & Kranzler, J. H.
(2006). Higher order, multisample, confirmatory factor analysis of the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edition: What does it
measure? School Psychology Review, 35, 108 –127.
Keith, T. Z., Kranzler, J. H., & Flanagan, D. P. (2001). What does the
Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) measure? Joint confirmatory fac-
tor analysis of the CAS and the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive
Abilities (3rd ed.). School Psychology Review, 35, 3089 –3119.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation mod-
eling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological the-
ory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635– 694.
McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries accord-
ing to a proposed comprehensive Gf-Gc framework. In D. P. Flanagan,
J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual
assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151–179). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive
abilities: Past, present, and future. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison
(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues
(2nd ed., pp. 136 –181). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and
sensitivity of alternative indices in tests of measurement invariance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 568 –592.
Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2007). A time and place for incremental fit
indices. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 869 – 874.
Sattler, J. M. (2008). Resource guide to accompany assessment of children:
Cognitive foundations (5th ed.). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler.
Tellegen, A., & Briggs, P. F. (1967). Old wine in new skins: Grouping
Wechsler subtests into new scales. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
31, 499 –506.
Wechsler, D. (1939). Wechsler–Bellevue Intelligence Scale. New York,
NY: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1940). Nonintellective factors in general intelligence. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 37, 444 – 445.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth
Edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt.
Wechsler, D. (2008a). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition.
San Antonio, TX: Pearson Assessment.
Wechsler, D. (2008b). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition:
Technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Assess-
ment.
Yuan, K. H. (2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behav-
ioral Research, 40, 115–148.
Zhu, J., & Weiss, L. (2005). The Wechsler Scales. In D. P. Flanagan &
P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories,
tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 297–324). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Received June 25, 2009
Revision received August 25, 2009
Accepted August 30, 2009 䡲