Applied Neuropsychology: Child

ISSN: 2162-2965 (Print) 2162-2973 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hapc20

Examination of five- and four-subtest short form

IQ estimations for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children-Fifth edition (WISC-V) in a mixed
clinical sample

John W. Lace, Zachary C. Merz, Erin E. Kennedy, Dylan J. Seitz, Tara A. Austin,
Bradley J. Ferguson & Michael D. Mohrland

To cite this article: John W. Lace, Zachary C. Merz, Erin E. Kennedy, Dylan J. Seitz, Tara A.
Austin, Bradley J. Ferguson & Michael D. Mohrland (2020): Examination of five- and four-subtest
short form IQ estimations for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth edition (WISC-V) in
a mixed clinical sample, Applied Neuropsychology: Child, DOI: 10.1080/21622965.2020.1747021

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2020.1747021

Published online: 16 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hapc20
APPLIED NEUROPSYCHOLOGY: CHILD
https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2020.1747021

Examination of five- and four-subtest short form IQ estimations for the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth edition (WISC-V) in a mixed clinical sample
John W. Lacea,b, Zachary C. Merzc, Erin E. Kennedyb, Dylan J. Seitzb, Tara A. Austinb, Bradley J. Fergusonb,d,e,
and Michael D. Mohrlandb,e
a
Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA; bDepartment of Health Psychology, Univerisity of Missouri,
Columbia, MO, USA; cDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; dDepartment
of Radiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA; eThompson Center for Autism & Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Columbia,
MO, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Evaluating general cognitive ability (i.e., intelligence) is common in neuropsychological practice, Psychological assessment;
and identifying abbreviated assessments of intelligence is often advantageous. Despite the WISC-V; short form; IQ;
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition’s (WISC-V) widespread contemporary use, lim- test validation
ited research has identified clinically useful short form (SF) full scale IQ (FSIQ) estimations in clin-
ical samples. This study sought to address this gap in the literature. Two hundred sixty-eight
pediatric participants (M age ¼ 9.79; 69% male; 88% Caucasian/White) who underwent psycho-
logical/neuropsychological evaluation were included. Mean scores for WISC-V scores fell in the low
average-to-average ranges, consistent with the clinical nature of this sample (e.g., M FSIQ ¼ 85.3).
Ten unique SF combinations with five (pentad) and four (tetrad) subtests, each intentionally
selected to represent a breadth of domains subsumed by WISC-V FSIQ, were described by sum-
ming subtest age-corrected scaled scores. Regression-based and prorated FSIQ estimates were cal-
culated, and mean differences suggested some prorated estimates should be arithmetically
adjusted. Both regression-based and prorated/adjusted methods provided FSIQ estimates that
were accurate within five Standard Score points of true FSIQ for approximately 81–92% (pentad)
and 65–76% (tetrads) of participants. Prorated/adjusted estimates appeared to provide somewhat
better accuracy than regression-based estimates. Relationships between SFs and true FSIQ did not
appear to be moderated by participant age, gender, nor how many WISC-V subtests were adminis-
tered to participants within this archival sample (i.e., 7 vs. 10). Implications of these findings,
including benefits, detriments, and other considerations of each SF combination, in addition to
limitations of this study, are discussed in detail.

The assessment of general cognitive ability (i.e., intelligence)
as part of psychological and neuropsychological evaluation is
clinically valuable (Flanagan & McDonough, 2018), particu-
larly for children and adolescents (Weiss et al., 2015), given
its relationship with various neurocognitive abilities (Lung
et al., 2018; Seidenberg et al., 1983), academic achievement
(Mayes et al., 2009; Mayes & Calhoun, 2007), and other
domains of life success (Bergman et al., 2014; Firkowska-
Mankiewicz, 2011). While some may critique the inclusion
of measures of intelligence in neuropsychological assessment
(Ardila, 1999; Lezak, 1988), others argue that it is critical
and provides rich, clinically meaningful data in psycho-
logical evaluations (Keith, 1994; Pfeiffer et al., 2000).
Notably, derivations of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children (WISC; see Cormier et al., 2016, Kaufman et al.,
2006, and Na & Burns, 2016 for histories and reviews of the
WISC and its various iterations) remain the most frequently
used assessment tools designed specifically for use with chil-
dren and adolescent examinees (Egeland et al., 2016; Rabin
et al., 2016).
Identifying psychometrically appropriate short forms
(SFs) for routinely used assessment batteries is a prudent
task for several reasons. First, SFs reduce clinical time spent
measuring a single cognitive construct (Donders, 2001).
Given that obtaining WISC-V FSIQ may require
“administration time of approximately 65-80 minutes”
(Doyle & Mattson, 2015, p. 176), minimizing testing time
may result in reduced costs to the examinee or their payor,
which is an important consideration in many neuropsycho-
logical settings (Ricker, 1998; Soldner et al., 2009).
Moreover, by reducing time spent assessing one cognitive
construct, more attention may be paid to administering tests
assessing other clinically relevant domains not thoroughly
assessed by the WISC (e.g., executive functioning, learning/
memory) that may be specifically related to the examinee’s
presenting concerns or to be used to expand the clinical
interview (Donders, 2001). Second, given that “long cogni-
tive tests … can be stressful to [examinees] suffering from,
for example, concentration and attention problems, chronic
physical fatigue, or brain damage due to hereditary defects

CONTACT John W. Lace John.Lace@slu.edu Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO 63103, USA.
ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 J. W. LACE ET AL.
or traumatic events” (Emons et al., 2007, p. 105), reducing
the testing burden on individuals may reduce excessive
fatigue and prevent diminished tolerance toward testing.
These burden reductions may be particularly beneficial for
examinees with notable behavioral disturbances (e.g., exter-
nalizing behavior) or other difficulties engaging in testing
and those with gross cognitive impairments for whom pro-
longed neuropsychological testing may pose problems
(Calhoun & Newson, 1984; Stuss et al., 1996).
Given the mainstream contemporary use of short or
quick IQ tests (Thompson et al., 2004), extensive work has
been dedicated to the topic of identifying appropriate SFs,
with decades of literature focusing on this topic (Aubry &
Bourdin, 2018; Campbell, 1998; Goh, 1980; Merz et al.,
2019). Specifically regarding early versions of the WISC,
several studies have sought to describe, validate, and critique
various SFs in diverse samples (Carleton & Stacey, 1954;
Dirks et al., 1980; Kaufman, 1976; Ortiz & Gonzalez,
1989; Ryan, 1981; Silverstein, 1970; Yalowitz & Armstrong,
1955; Yudin, 1966). Similarly, the WISC-III received exten-
sive attention in the context of SF development, with several
possible combinations proposed and validated during and
beyond the WISC-III’s period of contemporary use (Beal
et al., 1996; Comninel & Bordieri, 2001; Connery et al.,
1996;; Donders, 1997; 2001; Donders & Warschausky, 1996;
Dumont & Faro, 1993; Kaufman et al., 1996; Mark et al.,
1998; van Ool et al., 2018).
Regarding the WISC-IV, which required the administra-
tion of 10 subtests in deriving FSIQ, Crawford et al. (2010)
described a seven-subtest SF (including Vocabulary,
Similarities, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Digit Span,
Coding, and Symbol Search) from WISC-IV normative data.
Later research validated this seven-subtest SF in samples of
children referred for possible intellectual disability
(McKenzie et al., 2014) and in those with epilepsy, the latter
suggesting that 85% of FSIQ estimates were within 5 points
of true FSIQ (Hrabok et al., 2014). Hrabok and colleagues
(20144) also suggested that a five-subtest SF (Block Design,
Similarities, Coding, Vocabulary, and Letter-Number
Sequencing) provided similar accuracy, as 81% of FSIQ esti-
mates were correct within 5 points. Donders et al. (2013)
described an eight-subtest SF that yielded excellent compar-
ability with the full-length FSIQ and demonstrated clinical
utility in identifying children with intellectual disability
(Murray et al., 2016). In a sample of Spanish children, Dasi
et al. (2014) reported that prorated sums of scores for the
four-subtest SF of Vocabulary, Block Design, Letter-Number
Sequencing, and Coding provided strong accuracy compared
to true FSIQ.
Regarding the WISC-V, relatively less work has investi-
gated SFs within this most recent iteration. Review of extant
literature identified only two articles exploring SFs in this
regard. One described a motor-free, six-subtest SF
(Vocabulary, Similarities, Visual Puzzles, Figure Weights,
Digit Span, and Letter-Number Sequencing; Piovesana et al.,
2019) based on normative data. Another identified adjusted
formulas for two- and four-subtest SFs using simulated data
in the context of intellectually gifted children with IQs at or
above 125 (Aubry & Bourdin, 2018). Importantly, these SFs
have marked limitations and possibly low generalizability, as
they have not been validated in clinical samples. Moreover,
Piovesana and colleagues’ (2019) formula includes scores
from subtests that do not normally contribute to WISC-V
FSIQ (i.e., Visual Puzzles and Letter-Number Sequencing)
and altogether omits all subtests corresponding to processing
speed. Aubry and Bourdin (2018) formulas utilized simu-
lated data for IQs not representative of the general popula-
tion. Overall, the identification and validation of clinically
applicable SFs in the WISC-V remains a notable gap in
the literature.
Of note, the WISC-V underwent meaningful alterations
compared to previous versions (see Na & Burns, 2016 for a
review), including notable changes to available subtests (e.g.,
adding Picture Span), number of index scores (i.e., five
instead of four, though this structure is strongly disputed;
Canivez et al., 2016, 2017; Canivez et al., 2018; Dombrowski
et al., 2018), and an alteration in the calculation of FSIQ.
That is, the WISC-V uses seven subtests to calculate FSIQ
(Similarities, Vocabulary, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning,
Figure Weights, Digit Span, and Coding) rather than a
weighted sum of index scores (which required administra-
tion of 10 subtests) in its predecessor. Practitioners may
employ clinical preference in deciding to administer either
only these seven or more subtests (Wechsler, 2014).
Nonetheless, there appears to be notable scholarly and
clinical interest in the identification and validation of SF
FSIQ estimates for WISC iterations to increase efficiency
across settings. The interest in streamlined assessment proc-
esses, perhaps in part, led to the creation of the Wechsler
Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) and its newer ver-
sion (WASI-II; Wechsler, 2011), which are distinct, compen-
dious instruments in obtaining an estimate of global
cognitive ability. Unfortunately, the WASI-II, while efficient,
may not be psychometrically equivalent to longer form
Wechsler measures of intelligence (Adaki, 2009; Axelrod,
2002) as it captures only certain aspects of cognitive ability
(i.e., verbal compression and perceptual reasoning) while
ignoring the contributions of the domains of working mem-
ory and processing speed. Importantly, working memory
and processing speed may be particularly sensitive to neuro-
developmental, neurological, and psychiatric dysfunction
and may be important to consider when estimating global
cognitive ability (Allen et al., 2010; Calhoun & Mayes, 2005;
De Clercq-Quaegebeur et al., 2010; San Miguel Montes
et al., 2010). Thus, it is important to be mindful of domain
coverage and subtest selection when considering validity and
utility of derived FSIQ estimations.
Unfortunately, to date, no previous work has sought to
identify SF FSIQ estimations in the WISC-V that provide
broad domain coverage and utility in a clinical sample. As
such, the goal of the present study was to examine the clin-
ical utility of 10 unique five- and four-subtest short forms
that offer appropriate domain/construct coverage for the
WISC-V in a mixed clinical sample of pediatric examinees.

Method
Participants
Participant data were extracted from an IRB-approved arch-
ival dataset of examinees who were referred for and com-
pleted a psychological or neuropsychological evaluation at
the Thompson Center for Autism and Neurodevelopmental
Disorders between 2015 and 2019. The Thompson Center is
an outpatient, pediatric clinic at the University of Missouri.
Participants with complete data for WISC-V FSIQ and the
seven subtests comprising it were of interest. Of 288 avail-
able cases, 268 participants were included in the final data-
set. Twenty cases with questionable or noncredible
performance (as determined by either Test of Memory
Malingering Trial 2 scores <45 or Rey Fifteen Item Test
recall scores <9; Green et al., 2014; Rees et al., 1998) were
excluded; of note, clinical judgment was used to decide
whether or not to include a standalone performance validity
test, and not every examinee was administered one. While
consistent with trends in contemporary clinical practice
(DeRight & Carone, 2015; MacAllister et al., 2019), this limi-
tation is discussed in greater detail in the discussion section.
Relatedly, reliable digit span was not considered as an indi-
cator of performance validity as previous work has identified
high levels of false positives in clinical samples when consid-
ering this variable (Blaskewitz et al., 2008; Ventura et al.,
2019; Welsh et al., 2012).
The final sample included 185 males and 83 females.
Participants ages ranged from 6 to 16 (M ¼ 9.79, SD ¼ 2.48).
Most participants were Caucasian/White (88.4%), with 5.6%
Black/African-American, 1.1% Hispanic/Latinx, 0.4% Asian/
Asian-American, and 2.6% reporting other racial/ethnic
identity. Regarding diagnoses, 7.8% did not receive any clin-
ical diagnosis, 19.8% received only one diagnosis, 22.8%
received two diagnoses, 24.3% received three diagnoses, and
25.4% received four or more diagnoses. For brevity and suc-
cinctness, regarding primary diagnoses (i.e., those listed first
in examinee’s charts), 30.9% were autism spectrum disor-
ders, 19.4% attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders, 16.8%
specific learning disorders, 7.8% psychiatric (e.g., depressive/
anxiety/trauma- and stressor-related) disorders, 6.3% other
medical/neurocognitive/neurodevelopmental disorder (e.g.,
cerebral palsy, chromosomal abnormality, seizures), and
5.2% intellectual disability or borderline intellectual
functioning.
Measures
WISC-V
The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition
(WISC-V; Wechsler, 2014) is the most widely used cognitive
assessment for children (Rabin et al., 2016). It provides
scores representing full scale intelligence (FSIQ), Verbal
Comprehension (VCI), Visual Spatial (VSI), Fluid Reasoning
(FRI), Working Memory (WMI), and Processing Speed
(PSI). Good reliability and validity have been reported for
the WISC-V across various populations (Flanagan &
Alfonso, 2017; Kaufman et al., 2015; Watkins, Dombrowski,
APPLIED NEUROPSYCHOLOGY: CHILD 3
& Canivez, 2018). While its five-factor structure is reported
in the standardization sample (Chen et al., 2015; Wechsler,
2014), other empirical work has suggested it better repre-
sents four factors combining VSI and FRI (Canivez et al.,
2016, 2018; Dombrowski et al., 2018). In the present study,
FSIQ was calculated according to Wechsler (2014), such that
the sum of scaled scores (Ms ¼ 10, SDs ¼ 3) for
Vocabulary, Similarities, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning,
Figure Weights, Digit Span, and Coding was converted to a
FSIQ (Wechsler, 2014, Table A.7) represented by a Standard
Score (M ¼ 100, SD ¼ 15).
Procedures
The present study was approved Health Sciences
Institutional Review Board at the University of Missouri. All
participants were referred for and completed a neuropsycho-
logical evaluation between 2015 and 2019. Participants were
administered either the seven- or 10-subtest WISC-V as part
of clinical assessment by either a trained psychometrist, doc-
toral level clinical psychology graduate student, predoctoral
intern, or postdoctoral neuropsychology fellow proficient in
WISC-V administration under supervision by a licensed
psychologist. Those who were administered either seven or
10 subtests did not significantly differ in terms of age
[t(266) ¼ 1.20, p ¼ .233], gender (Fisher’s Exact Test p ¼
.144), nor racial/ethnic identity (coded as White or
Nonwhite; Fisher’s Exact Test p ¼ .848). Thus, all partici-
pants were collapsed. All participants had complete data for
the seven subtests comprising FSIQ.
Statistical analyses
Data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0. All analyses were per-
formed using standardized scores for WISC-V subtests and
FSIQ. Prior to performing analyses, data were examined for
univariate outliers (i.e., > j3.29j SD from mean; Field, 2013).
No data points for FSIQ or subtest scores were identified as
univariate outliers.
Ten unique SF combinations were created by summing
scaled scores for included subtests. Five-subtest SFs (i.e.,
pentads) were identified, each of which included one subtest
contributing to FSIQ from each WISC-V index. Given that
WMI and PSI only contain one subtest which contribute to
the FSIQ calculation (i.e., Digit Span and Coding, respect-
ively), only four unique pentad combinations were possible.
Next, in the context of previous work suggesting that the
WISC-V may better fit a four-factor model merging VSI
and FRI (Canivez et al., 2016, 2018; Dombrowski et al.,
2018), several four-subtest SFs (i.e., tetrads) were created
using one subtest contributing to FSIQ from each factor
(i.e., VCI, VSI/FRI, WMI, PSI). Again, because the latter
two indices contribute only one subtest each to the FSIQ,
only six unique tetrad combinations were possible. Of note,
three- and two-subtest SFs were not considered as part of
the present study, as they would likely underrepresent the
breadth of domain coverage assessed by FSIQ and may yield
4 J. W. LACE ET AL.

inaccurate estimations (Herrera-Graf et al., 1996; Wheaton approximately one standard deviation below the normative
& Vandergriff, 1987). mean (see Table 1). These relatively low scores (compared
FSIQ estimates (expressed in Standard Scores, M ¼ 100, to normative means) appeared consistent with the present
SD ¼ 15) for each SF were calculated via separate direct study’s inclusion of a mixed clinical sample. Correlations
entry linear regression equations; each SF sum of scaled between subtests and FSIQ are displayed in Table 2.
scores was entered as the sole predictor and WISC-V FSIQ Consistent with the excellent psychometric properties by the
was always entered as the outcome (Merz et al., 2019). WISC-V, all correlations between subtests and FSIQ were
Additionally, prorated sums of scaled scores for each SF significant at p < .01.
combination were calculated according to how many subt-
ests were included in each SF (Glass et al., 2008). That is,
pentad SFs were multiplied by 7/5 and tetrads by 7/4.These Estimating IQ from short forms
prorated sums of scaled scores were converted to FSIQ esti- Table 3 lists short form abbreviations and the subtests com-
mates according to WISC-V scoring manual (see Wechsler, prising each. Individual linear regression models were per-
2014, Table A.7). Paired-samples t-tests (with Holm- formed for each possible SF. Using these models, regression
Bonferroni-corrected p values, as needed) were calculated to equations were calculated, allowing for the sums of scaled
determine if SF estimates for regression-based and prorated scores for each SF to convert to a Standard Score (M ¼ 100,
methods differed significantly from true FSIQ scores. SD ¼ 15) akin to traditional FSIQ. Formulas derived from
Adjustments to select prorated FSIQ estimates were each of these individual linear regression analyses were pro-
described, as needed, according to t-test results. Tables vided in Table 3 for readers to calculate their own regres-
describing conversions between SFs and estimated FSIQ for sion-based estimated FSIQ according to these results.
both methods were provided. Frequencies of discrepancies Further results may be made available upon reasonable
between estimated and true FSIQ were calculated for each request from the first author. Additionally, sums of scaled
SF for both regression-based and prorated/adjusted esti- scores for each SF were prorated; that is, the sum of scaled
mates. Several demographic variables (e.g., participant age, scores for pentad and tetrad SFs were multiplied by 7/5 and
gender, and 7- vs. 10-subtest WISC-V administration) were 7/4 respectively. These prorated values were then used to
examined as possible moderator variables via hierarchical estimate FSIQ for each participant according to normative
regressions. Acronyms for SF combinations were created data from the WISC-V manual (Wechsler, 2014, Table A.7).
according to the subtests included within each. For example, As expected, Pearson’s correlations between true FSIQ and
SBMDC is the five-subtest SF comprised of the sum of both regression-based (rs ranged from .94 to .98) and pro-
scaled scores for Similarities, Block Design, Matrix rated estimated FSIQ (rs ranged from .94 to .98) were
Reasoning, Digit Span, and Coding. very strong.
The possible moderating effects of three demographic
Results variables on the relationship between SFs and true FSIQ
were examined. The possible moderating variables of interest
Descriptive results and correlations were: 7- vs. 10-subtest WISC-V administration, participant
age, and participant gender. Statistically, these variables were
Overall, average performance in this sample across WISC-V
examined as moderating factors via a traditional, two-block,
FSIQ, indices, and subtests appeared to be in the low aver-
hierarchical regression method. That is, true FSIQ was
age-to-average ranges, with mean FSIQ scores falling
always entered as the outcome variable. Dependent variables
Table 1. WISC-V full scale, index, and subtest level descriptive data.
were entered in two blocks: the first included the SF com-
N M SD Range (Min.–Max.)
bination of interest and the moderator variable; the second
FSIQ 268 85.34 15.91 43–128
included a new variable equal to the product of the SF com-
VCI 268 89.58 16.91 45–127 bination of interest and moderator variable of interest (i.e.,
Similarities 268 8.03 3.28 1–16
Vocabulary 268 8.21 3.34 1–16
Table 2. Correlations between WISC-V FSIQ and subtests.
VSI 158 90.41 15.07 57–129
Block design 268 8.17 3.29 1–18 SIM VOC BD VP MR FW DS PS CD SS
Visual puzzles 158 9.03 3.04 3–16 FSIQ .80 .75 .72 .66 .77 .77 .75 .63 .52 .44
FRI 267 90.43 16.27 55–147 Similarities (SIM) — .74 .47 .46 .47 .54 .58 .43 .25 .30
Matrix reasoning 268 7.85 3.10 1–17 Vocabulary (VOC) — .42 .54 .46 .47 .49 .50 .25 .27
Figure weights 268 8.77 3.16 2–19 Block Design (BD) — .53 .58 .50 .44 .38 .24 .18
WMI 157 84.67 15.28 51–130 Visual Puzzles (VP) — .57 .58 .40 .44 .24 .15^
Digit span 268 7.12 2.94 1–16 Matrix Reasoning (MR) — .64 .50 .47 .28 .31
Picture span 157 7.98 3.36 1–19 Figure Weights (FW) — .49 .54 .34 .28
PSI 161 85.48 15.23 45–123 Digit Span (DS) — .58 .36 .40
Coding 268 7.15 3.05 1–16 Picture Span (PS) — .32 .42
Symbol search 159 7.86 2.97 1–14 Coding (CD) — .47
FSIQ: full scale IQ; VCI: verbal comprehension index; VSI: visuospatial index; Symbol Search (SS) —
FRI: fluid reasoning index; WMI: working memory index; PSI: processing FSIQ: Full Scale IQ. Correlations were conducted with pairwise exclusion, such
speed index. Subtests contributing to FSIQ calculation. FSIQ and Index that the n for each bivariate correlation is equivalent to the lower n for
scores are expressed as Standard Scores (M ¼ 100, SD ¼ 15) and subtest either variable indicated in Table 2. All correlations are significant at p < .05
scores are expressed as scaled scores (M ¼ 10, SD ¼ 3). except for that marked by ^.
 APPLIED NEUROPSYCHOLOGY: CHILD 5

an interaction term). Moderation occurs “if (and only if)

Cohen’s d

These formulas are derived from individual linear regression analyses. x in each formula equals the sum of scaled scores for each short form combination and the solution is expressed in Standard Score units (i.e.,
M ¼ 100, SD ¼ 15). bThis difference is the average difference expressed in Standard Score units between true FSIQ and prorated estimated FSIQ. Positive values in this column indicate that the prorated estimated FSIQ
underestimated true FSIQ. SIM: Similarities scaled score; BD: Block Design scaled score; MR: Matrix Reasoning scaled score; DS: Digit Span scaled score; CD: Coding scaled score; VOC: Vocabulary Scaled Score; FW:
.46
.12
.39
.04
.37

.15
.50

.29
.41
.10
this [interaction] term is significant” (Dawson, 2014, p. 2).
Given that 30 total hierarchical regression analyses were per-
formed to explore possible moderating effects of these three
variables for each of the 10 SFs, significances for each inter-
action term were compared to a conservative critical p value
of .01, which was chosen to minimize Type 1 error.
t (Bonferroni-adjusted p)

Regarding 7- vs. 10-subtest WISC-V administration, none

7.45 (< .001)

6.35 (< .001)

6.02 (< .001)

8.25 (< .001)

4.83 (< .001)

6.83 (< .001) of the interaction terms in the 10 moderation analyses
1.87 (.126)

.61 (.542)

2.43 (.032)

1.60 (.111) emerged as statistically significant (ps ranged from .024 to

.830); only one interaction term in the moderation analysis
for VBFDC trended toward significance (p ¼ .024), though
the interaction term explained no additional variance within
the model and moderation was not identified. Similarly,
regarding age, none of the interaction terms in the 10 mod-
eration analyses emerged as significant (ps ranged from .018
(i.e., True FSIQ—Prorated Estimated FSIQ)

to .678); only one interaction term in the moderation ana-

lysis for SBDC trended toward significance, though
explained negligible additional variance (.002%) to the
regression model, and moderation was not identified.
Mean differenceb

Finally, sex did not emerge as a moderator for the relation-

1.62
.41
1.40
.12
1.88
2.41
.79
1.49
2.04
.50

ship between SF and true FSIQ in any moderation analysis

(ps ranged from .060 to .964). In sum, neither 7- vs 10-subt-
est WISC-V administration, participant age, nor participant
gender appeared to moderate the relationship between SF
combination and true FSIQ. To preserve journal space, pres-
entation of these null moderation analyses and specific
regression results are not presented herein, though may be
made available upon request from the first author.1
Formulas to calculate Regression-based Estimated FSIQa

Comparing estimated FSIQs to true FSIQ

Regarding regression-based estimates, paired-samples t-tests
revealed no significant differences between true FSIQ and
estimated FSIQ for all SFs (ps > .99). Regarding prorated
FSIQ estimates for pentad SFs, paired-samples t-tests (dis-
33.476 þ 1.354(x)
32.640 þ 1.343(x)
32.796 þ 1.365(x)
31.442 þ 1.367(x)
35.747 þ 1.628(x)

35.705 þ 1.598(x)
35.749 þ 1.645(x)

34.792 þ 1.649(x)
35.279 þ 1.651(x)
34.528 þ 1.626(x)

played in Table 3) revealed significant differences between

true FSIQ and prorated FSIQ for SBMDC and VBMDC (ps
< .001; Cohen’s ds ranged from .39 to .46). Regarding tetrad
Table 3. Paired-samples t-tests between true FSIQ and prorated estimates.

SFs, paired-samples t-tests revealed significant differences

between SBDC, SMDC, SFDC, VBDC, and VMDC (ps <
.001; Cohen’s ds ranged from .15 to .50). Of note, Holm-
Bonferroni stepdown procedure was used to correct p values
for the set of pentad SFs and tetrad SFs separately. Analysis
of mean difference scores indicated that estimated FSIQ for
these six prorated SFs appeared to underestimate true FSIQ
by 0.79  2.41 Standard Score points, on average. As such,
to adjust for these underestimations, prorated and arithmet-
ically adjusted estimated FSIQs were additionally calculated
VBMDC (VOC þ BD þ MR þ DS þ CD)
SBMDC (SIM þ BD þ MR þ DS þ CD)

VBFDC (VOC þ BD þ FW þ DS þ CD)

SBFDC (SIM þ BD þ FW þ DS þ CD)

for each of these SFs. That is, an integer was added the pro-
Figure Weights Scaled Score.

rated FSIQ derived from WISC-V manual (see Wechsler,

VMDC (VOC þ MR þ DS þ CD)
Estimated FSIQ combinations

SMDC (SIM þ MR þ DS þ CD)

VFDC (VOC þ FW þ DS þ CD)

VBDC (VOC þ BD þ DS þ CD)
SFDC (SIM þ FW þ DS þ CD)
SBDC (SIM þ BD þ DS þ CD)

2014, Table A.7) for SBMDC (þ2), VBMDC (þ1), SBDC

(þ2), SMDC (þ2), SFDC (þ1), VBDC (þ1), and VMDC

1
The authors thank an anonymous reviewer for their suggestion to perform
these moderation analyses and describe their results. The relationships
between SF combinations and true FSIQ did not appear to be moderated by
how many subtests were administered, participant age, nor
participant gender.
a
6 J. W. LACE ET AL.
(þ2). For example, consider an examinee whose sum of
scaled scores for SBMDC is 40, which converts to prorated
sum of scaled scores of 56. The unadjusted FSIQ derived
from the WISC-V manual is 85, and the prorated/adjusted
estimated FSIQ is 87 (i.e., 85 þ 2).
A method for converting sums of scaled scores to pro-
rated sums of scaled scores in order to obtain estimated
FSIQ is provided in Table 4. Regarding accuracy of regres-
sion-based, prorated, and prorated/adjusted FSIQ estimates,
for each participant and SF, concordance rates between true
and estimated FSIQ were calculated and these results are
displayed in Table 5. For pentads, most participants’ regres-
sion-based estimated FSIQ (81.3  85.4%) fell within 5
Standard Score points of true FSIQ and 100% fell within
one standard deviation (i.e., 15 Standard Score points) for
each pentad. Prorated and prorated/adjusted estimated FSIQ
appeared to provide somewhat improved accuracy, with
85.4–91.8% of estimated FSIQ falling within 5 Standard
Score points. VBFDC and SBMDC (with a two-point adjust-
ment to the latter) appeared to be the best perform-
ing pentads.
Regarding tetrads, most participants’ regression-based
estimated FSIQ (64.9  70.1%) fell within 5 Standard Score
points of true FSIQ and 99.6–100% fell within one standard
deviation. Similarly, prorated and prorated/adjusted esti-
mated FSIQ appeared to be somewhat more accurate, with
69.4–76.1% of estimated FSIQ falling within 5 Standard
Score points. VMDC, SMDC (with two-point adjustments to
both), and VFDC appeared to be the best perform-
ing tetrads.
Discussion
Despite the widespread contemporary use of the newest iter-
ation of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (i.e.,
WISC-V; Wechsler, 2014) in clinical practice (Rabin et al.,
2016), limited research to date has explored clinically applic-
able short form (SF) combinations for estimating full scale
IQ (FSIQ). Only two previous articles have explored this
topic (Aubry & Bourdin, 2018; Piovesana et al., 2019),
though each pose methodological and practical limitations
including not utilizing mixed clinical samples. To address
this gap in the literature, the present study identified several
SF combinations for the WISC-V, each of which represented
an intentionally broad range of cognitive abilities, within a
mixed clinical sample. Several findings deserve fur-
ther discussion.
First, regarding the pattern of performance on WISC-V
indices and subtests, mean scores appeared to be between
two-thirds and one standard deviation below the normative
mean within the low average-to-average ranges. Given the
present study’s inclusion of examinees referred for clinical
purposes, most of whom received neurodevelopmental diag-
noses, such mean scores are commensurate with those
reported in other clinical samples with various versions of
the WISC (Bremner et al., 2011; Mayes & Calhoun, 2006;
Nader et al., 2015; Serenius et al., 2016; Toffalini
et al., 2017).
Second, the SFs described above provided various possibil-
ities for estimating FSIQ. Importantly, each SF combination
represents a broad range of cognitive abilities, each of which
are likely important to consider when estimating general cog-
nitive ability (Wechsler, 2014). Regarding the five-subtest SFs,
VBFDC (Vocabulary þ Block Design þ Figure Weights þ
Digit Span þ Coding) appeared to provide the most consist-
ently accurate performance regardless of estimation method
used (i.e., regression-based or prorated/adjusted), with
approximately 85–92% of examinees’ FSIQ being estimated
correctly within 5 Standard Score points. Similarly, SBMDC
(Similarities þ Block Design þ Matrix Reasoning þ Digit
Span þ Coding) estimated FSIQ provided good accuracy with
81% to 88% of examinees’ estimates within 5 Standard Score
points. Regarding tetrad SFs, the best performing tetrads
appeared to be VMDC (Vocabulary þ Matrix Reasoning þ
Digit Span þ Coding), SMDC (Similarities þ Matrix
Reasoning þ Digit Span þ Coding), and VFDC
(Vocabulary þ Figure Weights þ Digit Span þ Coding), with
approximately 75% of examinees’ prorated or prorated/
adjusted FSIQ falling within 5 Standard Score points of true
FSIQ. These accuracies are consistent with values reported in
other SF validation studies with similar aims (Hrabok et al.,
2014; Hwang & Oh, 2017; Merz et al., 2019).
Of course, the cognitive domains represented within the
pentads (i.e., including one subtest from every WISC-V
index) are broader than those represented by tetrads.
Additionally, the use of five subtests in pentads understand-
ably accounts for more variance in FSIQ and yields
improved accuracy. As such, it follows that the most accur-
ate FSIQ estimation can be obtained when considering per-
formance on more subtests, especially those across all five
indices. Unfortunately, given that pentads require five subt-
ests for its calculation, they provide the least abbreviated
and most time-consuming option of those presented. In
contrast, the tetrads SFs, while providing more abbreviated
options as they require the fewest subtests, yielded lower
accuracies, perhaps (at least in part) because they represent
a relatively narrower selection of available cognitive
domains. Of note, while these results suggested that the
regression-based estimation methods may provide adequate/
acceptable accuracy in the present sample, the prorated and
prorated/adjusted estimates generally appeared to provide
greater concordance with true FSIQ, and it may be that the
latter method provides greater generalizability to
other samples.
Importantly, as described at the outset of this paper, the
primary benefit of using abbreviated or shortened forms of
tests is twofold. First, reducing time spend measuring a sin-
gle cognitive construct (i.e., general cognitive ability) may
allow for increased clinical time assessing other neurocogni-
tive domains of interest. For example, the utilization of a
pentad to estimate FSIQ instead of the seven- or 10-subtest
WISC-V could easily save well over 15 min of test adminis-
tration time by eliminating, for example, Similarities and
Matrix Reasoning (Ryan et al., 2007) or those two subtests
plus Visual Puzzles, Picture Span, and Symbol Search.
Tetrad combinations logically provide even greater clinical
Table 4. Prorated sums of scaled scores for pentads and tetrads.
Sum of pentad Prorated sum of Sum of pentad Prorated sum of Sum of tetrad Prorated sum of Sum of tetrad Prorated sum of
Scaled Scores scaled scoresa Scaled Scores scaled scoresa Scaled Scores scaled scoresa Scaled Scores scaled scoresa
5 7 51 71 4 7 50 88
6 8 52 73 5 9 51 89
7 10 53 74 6 11 52 91
8 11 54 76 7 12 53 93
9 13 55 77 8 14 54 95
10 14 56 78 9 16 55 96
11 15 57 80 10 18 56 98
12 17 58 81 11 19 57 100
13 18 59 83 12 21 58 102
14 20 60 84 13 23 59 103
15 21 61 85 14 25 60 105
16 22 62 87 15 26 61 107
17 24 63 88 16 28 62 109
18 25 64 90 17 30 63 110
19 27 65 91 18 32 64 112
20 28 66 92 19 33 65 114
21 29 67 94 20 35 66 116
22 31 68 95 21 37 67 117
23 32 69 97 22 39 68 119
24 34 70 98 23 40 69 121
25 35 71 99 24 42 70 123
26 36 72 101 25 44 71 124
27 38 73 102 26 46 72 126
28 39 74 104 27 47 73 128
29 41 75 105 28 49 74 130
30 42 76 106 29 51 75 131
31 43 77 108 30 53 76 133
32 45 78 109 31 54
33 46 79 111 32 56
34 48 80 112 33 58
35 49 81 113 34 60
36 50 82 115 35 61
37 52 83 116 36 63
38 53 84 118 37 65
39 55 85 119 38 67
40 56 86 120 39 68
41 57 87 122 40 70
42 59 88 123 41 72
43 60 89 125 42 74
44 62 90 126 43 75
45 63 91 127 44 77
46 64 92 129 45 79
47 66 93 130 46 81
48 67 94 132 47 82
49 69 95 133 48 84
50 70 49 86
a
These prorated sums of scaled scores was calculated by multiplying the sum of scaled scores for pentad SFs by 7/5 and for tetrad SFs by 7/4. The prorated sum of scaled scores may be converted to an FSIQ estimate
according to WISC-V manual Table A.7 (Wechsler, 2014) and adjusted as necessary according to Table 5.
APPLIED NEUROPSYCHOLOGY: CHILD
7
8 J. W. LACE ET AL.

Table 5. Percentage of regression-based and prorated/adjusted FSIQ estimates within 5, 10, and 15 standard score points of true FSIQ.
D±5 D ± 10 D ± 15 r True FSIQ
Regression-based estimates
SBMDCa 81.3 99.6 100 .97
SBFDC 83.6 99.6 100 .97
VBMDC 83.6 100 100 .97
VBFDC 85.4 99.3 100 .98
SBDC 64.9 94.0 100 .95
SMDC 68.3 97.8 100 .95
SFDC 64.9 94.4 99.6 .94
VBDC 64.9 96.3 99.6 .95
VMDC 70.1 95.9 100 .95
VFDC 68.7 95.9 99.6 .95
Prorated and prorated/adjusted estimates
SBMDC (þ2) 83.6 (88.1) 98.9 (99.6) 100 (100) .98
SBFDC 86.2 99.3 100 .97
VBMDC (þ1) 81.3 (85.4) 100 (100) 100 (100) .95
VBFDC 91.8 99.6 100 .98
SBDC (þ2) 70.1 (71.3) 95.5 (94.8) 99.6 (100) .95
SMDC (þ2) 69.4 (75.4) 96.3 (97.4) 99.6 (100) .95
SFDC (þ1) 71.3 (69.4) 94.4 (95.5) 99.3 (99.6) .94
VBDC (þ1) 67.2 (72.4) 97.4 (97.0) 99.6 (100) .95
VMDC (þ2) 68.3 (76.1) 94.8 (97.0) 100 (100) .95
VFDC 73.9 95.6 99.6 .95
N ¼ 268. For short forms followed by parentheses, concordance rates for the prorated/unadjusted estimated FSIQ are presented in plain
text and adjusted concordance rates corresponding to prorated/adjusted estimated FSIQ are presented in parentheses.
a
These acronyms are consistent with those displayed in Table 1.

time saving, though at a cost of possible estimation accur-
acy. Nonetheless, such time savings could allow practitioners
to focus more assessment time on individually relevant cog-
nitive domains (e.g., memory, executive functioning, aca-
demic achievement, language) that are not properly assessed
by the WISC-V (Donders, 2001). Second, abbreviating test-
ing time results in less stressful and cognitively draining
experiences for examinees, especially those who are particu-
larly sensitive to fatigue (Emons et al., 2007). Minimizing
the testing burden on such individuals may prevent reduced
tolerance toward testing, reduce suspicions of decreased test
engagement throughout the evaluation, and lessen the
chance of problem behaviors (e.g., temper tantrums) during
testing. The routine administration of an abbreviated SF for
estimating WISC-V FSIQ may be a natural extension of
other accommodated assessment procedures and appropriate
for clinical populations that are traditionally “hard-to-test”
(Calhoun & Newson, 1984).
Each SF described in the present study may provide dif-
ferential pragmatic clinical utility given the subtests repre-
sented within each. As noted above, pentads may provide
the broadest and most representative estimate of FSIQ given
they sample subtests across each of WISC-V’s domains.
Furthermore, for example, VBFDC’s inclusion of Vocabulary
may make it less influenced by marked deficits in verbally
mediated executive functioning or abstraction ability (in
comparison to Similarities) which may be more negatively
impacted by neurological insult (Ong et al., 1998).
Additionally, VBFDC’s inclusion of Figure Weights may
provide utility over Matrix Reasoning given its timed nature
(and possible additive time-saving properties) and relation-
ships with quantitative reasoning-related outcomes, includ-
ing academic achievement, creativity, and standardized test
performance (Wechsler, 2014). Regarding tetrads (which
merged Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning Indices), VMDC
and SMDC included Matrix Reasoning over Block Design,
such that these tetrads may be more applicable with examin-
ees for whom manipulating blocks poses marked difficulties,
including those with gross/fine motor or other coordination
deficits, or for whom suspected decrements in completion of
timed tasks may possibly markedly misidentify cognitive
ability. Additionally, SF’s that include Matrix Reasoning
over Figure Weights may reduce the linguistic demand on
examinees and be more culturally appropriate in certain
cases (Cormier et al., 2016). While not an exhaustive discus-
sion of comparisons between subtests included in each SF,
these examples illustrate the possible benefits and detriments
and required considerations when choosing to implement
one SF over another. Importantly, clinical judgment should
be used to determine which of these SF combinations, if
any, is appropriate in each individual case, and the authors
refrain from making generalized recommendations in this
regard. Furthermore, given that none of the three variables
examined as possible moderators (i.e., 7- vs. 10-subtest
WISC-V administration, age, gender) emerged as such, it is
possible and perhaps likely that each SF combination may
be applicable within many diverse clinical settings for both
boys and girls across the WISC-V’s age span.
Of note, some may critique the need for identifying short
forms in the WISC-V for two reasons. First, some may
argue that the revision to FSIQ’s calculation in the WISC-V
(i.e., using sum of scaled scores for seven subtests) negates
the need for identifying short forms. That is, according to
the WISC-V manual, FSIQ is now calculated from seven
subtests rather than 10 (as is needed in previous WISC iter-
ations and in the most recent adult-focused analogous meas-
ures [i.e., WAIS-IV]), and it may be argued that the
administration of seven subtests is sufficiently brief for most
clinical settings. However, the authors believe that identify-
ing subtest combinations that offer even more abbreviated
estimates of FSIQ is in line with remote and recent research
(e.g., Aubry & Bourdin, 2018; Clements, 1965; Piovesana

et al., 2019; Ryan, 1981) and appropriate to continue to do
so with this measure. Moreover, as stated above, the ability
to estimate FSIQ using an abbreviated battery is clinically
relevant, particularly given the opportunity to reduce testing
burden on patients for whom fatigue or behavioral distur-
bances are paramount and to focus clinical assessment time
on other cognitive domains more important to the present-
ing concerns of each examinee (e.g., memory, executive
functioning, academic achievement, language). As such, the
practice of describing appropriate SFs is in line with recom-
mendations to use abbreviated tests as part of routine clin-
ical assessment whenever possible (Donders, 2001) and to
maximize brevity more broadly within the pediatric neuro-
psychological assessment process (Donders, 1999).
Additionally, some may suggest that identifying short
forms in the WISC-V is redundant or unnecessary given the
existence of instruments such as the Wechsler Abbreviated
Intelligence Scale, Second Edition (WASI-II; Wechsler, 2011).
However, while the end goal of the WASI-II and the WISC-V
are similar (i.e., to quantify general cognitive ability), the
methods employed by each test are unique. That is, the WASI-
II, while streamlined and efficient, may assess a psychometric-
ally distinct construct from WISC-V FSIQ, and these variables
cannot be equated (McCrimmon & Smith, 2013). For
example, the WASI-II’s FSIQ calculation represents only subt-
ests purportedly tapping dimensions of verbal comprehension
(i.e., Vocabulary and Similarities) and perceptual reasoning
(i.e., Block Design and Matrix Reasoning) while altogether
omitting tests of working memory (e.g., digit or picture span
paradigms) and processing speed (e.g., digit-symbol coding or
cancelation tests); the construct assessed by the WASI-II may
be more akin to WISC-V General Ability Index. In contrast,
the WISC-V’s FSIQ calculation includes subtests across the
breadth of these cognitive domains (regardless of the WISC-
V’s disputed four- or five-factor structure; Canivez et al., 2016,
2018; Dombrowski et al., 2018; Lecerf & Canivez, 2018).
Importantly, aspects of working memory and processing speed
are particularly fragile in the context of neurodevelopmental,
neurological, and psychiatric insult in children (e.g., Allen
et al., 2010; Calhoun & Mayes, 2005; De Clercq-Quaegebeur
et al., 2010; San Miguel Montes et al., 2010) and may be
important to consider when describing intellectual ability in
children presenting for neuropsychological assessment. Thus,
the present study’s emphasis on SF combinations that
included subtests across many cognitive domains representa-
tive of FSIQ is noteworthy.
Various limitations deserve mentioning. First, the utiliza-
tion of a mixed clinical sample may limit generalizability to
other populations of interest, including those of specialized
or homogenous clinical presentations or those with high
rates of examinees presumably at the upper end of IQ distri-
butions. Future work may seek to replicate and extend these
findings and SF combinations into other samples of interest.
Second, and relatedly, given these data were extracted from
a clinic in the rural Midwestern United States and that an
overwhelming majority of participants identified as White/
Caucasian, these results may not adequately generalize to
nationally representative samples or those with higher
APPLIED NEUROPSYCHOLOGY: CHILD 9
proportions of examinees of racial/ethnic minorities.
Additionally, nearly one-third of participants had a primary
diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, which may limit the
generalizability to samples with higher proportions of
acquired neurological injury (e.g., traumatic brain injuries,
strokes, tumors). Relatedly, high levels of diagnostic comor-
bidity were noted, with nearly half of participants receiving
three or more diagnoses. Nonetheless, the authors purport
that this is characteristic of a mixed clinical sample and, in
fact, represents likely ecological validity of these findings.
Regardless, future research should attempt to recruit samples
that are representative of the demographic and diagnostic
diversity (or homogeneity, depending on future research
goals) seen across geographic and clinical settings.
Third, variability in performance validity test use was
noted in the archival dataset, such that not every examinee
was administered a standalone measure of test engagement;
this observation was consistent with noted trends in con-
temporary clinical practice (DeRight & Carone, 2015;
MacAllister et al., 2019). However, while it is possible that
some examinees included in the final dataset demonstrated
noncredible performance, this statement cannot be made
definitively. The authors chose not to consider reliable digit
span or other digit span-derived variables when determining
credibility of scores given the potential for high false posi-
tives (e.g., Blaskewitz et al., 2008; Welsh et al., 2012) and to
avoid any statistical ramifications resulting from possible
restriction of range in Digit Span subtest scaled scores.
Future work may consider prospectively including well-vali-
dated measures of performance validity to ensure examinees
are adequately screened for test engagement excluded
as needed.
Fourth, from a statistical perspective, correlations
reported in Tables 2 and 5, while not the primary focus of
the present study, were uncorrected for shared error vari-
ance and may represent an overestimate of the true relation-
ships between subtest-FSIQ and estimated FSIQ-true FSIQ
bivariate pairs. Future research that primarily focuses on
correlational results may choose to incorporate more sophis-
ticated statistical corrections (e.g., Girard & Christensen,
2008; Levy, 1967). Relatedly, the present study’s focus on 10
distinct pentad and tetrad combinations may limit other
combinations of other subtests which do not regularly con-
tribute to FSIQ or combinations with fewer than four subt-
ests. Future studies may choose to specifically consider
otherwise predetermined SF combinations of interest to the
researchers or adopt other statistical methodologies. Finally,
future researchers may choose to investigate diagnosis as a
potential moderating variable; given the archival nature of
these data and the high rates of diagnostic comorbidity rep-
resented in the present sample, this line of inquiry, unfortu-
nately, could not be meaningfully pursued.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the present study is among the first to pre-
sent short form combinations for estimating full scale IQ in
the WISC-V specifically within a mixed clinical sample.
10 J. W. LACE ET AL.
Regression-based estimated FSIQ appeared to offer accept-
able accuracy, although prorated/adjusted estimated FSIQ
scores appeared somewhat better, as the latter tended to
demonstrate good overall accuracy (generally >70% within
5 Standard Score points of true FSIQ) using short forms
with five and four subtests. Each described short form cer-
tainly presents its own benefits, detriments, and other con-
siderations. Clinicians may seek to integrate these findings
with their clinical practice, and researchers may utilize these
short form combinations to quickly and adequately estimate
cognitive ability in research samples. Future work should
validate and critique these and other WISC-V short form
combinations in demographically and diagnostically
diverse samples.
References
Adaki, K. (2009). The validity of the WASI in predicting former WISC-
IV scores for re-evaluation purposes in a sample of special education
students [Doctoral dissertation]. Farleigh Dickinson University.
Allen, D. N., Thaler, N. S., Donohue, B., & Mayfield, J. (2010). WISC-
IV profiles in children with traumatic brain injury: Similarities to
and differences from the WISC-III. Psychological Assessment, 22(1),
57–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016056
Ardila, A. (1999). A neuropsychological approach to intelligence.
Neuropsychology Review, 9(3), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1023/
a:1021674303922
Aubry, A., & Bourdin, B. (2018). Short forms of Wechsler Scales
assessing the intellectually gifted children using simulation data.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 830. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.
00830
Axelrod, B. N. (2002). Validity of the Wechsler abbreviated scale of
intelligence and other very short forms of estimating intellectual
functioning. Assessment, 9(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1073191102009001003
Beal, A. L., Dumont, R., Cruse, C. L., & Branche, A.-E. H. (1996).
Practical implications of differences between the American and
Canadian norms for WISC-III and a short form for children with
learning disabilities. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 12(1),
7–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/082957359601200103
Bergman, L. R., Corovic, J., Ferrer-Wreder, L., & Modig, K. (2014).
High IQ in early adolescence and career success in adulthood: find-
ings from a Swedish Longitudinal Study. Research in Human
Development, 11(3), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.
2014.936261
Blaskewitz, N., Merten, T., & Kathmann, N. (2008). Performance of
children on symptom validity tests: TOMM, MSVT, and FIT.
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23(4), 379–391. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.acn.2008.01.008
Bremner, D., McTaggart, B., Saklofske, D. H., & Janzen, T. (2011).
WISC-IV GAI and CPI in psychoeducational assessment. Canadian
Journal of School Psychology, 26(3), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0829573511419090
Calhoun, S. L., & Mayes, S. D. (2005). Processing speed in children
with clinical disorders. Psychology in the Schools, 42(4), 333–343.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20067
Calhoun, M. L., & Newson, E. (1984). Parents as experts: An assess-
ment approach for hard-to-test children. Diagnostique, 9(4),
239–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724778400900406
Campbell, J. M. (1998). Internal and external validity of seven
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Third Edition short forms
in a sample of psychiatric inpatients. Psychological Assessment, 10(4),
431–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.10.4.431
Canivez, G. L., Dombrowski, S. C., & Watkins, M. W. (2018). Factor
structure of the WISC-V in four standardization age groups:
Exploratory and hierarchical factor analyses with the 16 primary
and secondary subtests. Psychology in the Schools, 55(7), 741–769.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22138
Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., & Dombrowski, S. C. (2016). Factor
structure of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children-fifth edition:
Exploratory factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subt-
ests. Psychological Assessment, 28(8), 975–986. https://doi.org/10.
1037/pas0000238
Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., & Dombrowski, S. C. (2017).
Structural validity of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children-
fifth edition: Confirmatory factor analyses with the 16 primary and
secondary subtests. Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 458–472.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000358
Carleton, F. O., & Stacey, C. L. (1954). Evaluation of selected short forms
of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 10(3), 258–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-
4679(195407)10:3<258::AID-JCLP2270100314>3.0.CO;2-U
Chen, H., Zhang, O., Raiford, S. E., Zhu, J., & Weiss, L. G. (2015).
Factor invariance between genders on the Wechsler intelligence scale
for children–fifth edition. Personality and Individual Differences, 86,
1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.020
Clements, G. R. (1965). An abbreviated form of the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
29(1), 92. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020970
Comninel, M. E., & Bordieri, J. E. (2001). Estimating WISC-III scores
for special education students using the Dumont-Faro short form.
Psychology in the Schools, 38(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/
1520-6807(200101)38:1 < 11::aid-pits2 > 3.0.co;2-p
Connery, S., Katz, D., Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1996).
Correlations between two short cognitive tests and a WISC-III short
form using a sample of adolescent inpatients. Psychological Reports,
78(3_suppl), 1373–1378. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.78.3c.1373
Cormier, D. C., Kennedy, K. E., & Aquilina, A. M. (2016). Test review:
Wechsler intelligence scale for children, fifth edition: Canadian 322
(WISC-VCDN) by D. Wechsler. Canadian Journal of School
Psychology, 31(4), 322–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735166
48941
Cormier, D. C., Wang, K., & Kennedy, K. E. (2016). Linguistic
demands of the oral directions for administering the WISC-IV and
WISC-V. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 31(4), 290–304.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573516643314
Crawford, J. R., Anderson, V., Rankin, P. M., & MacDonald, J. (2010).
An index-based short-form of the WISC-IV with accompanying
analysis of the reliability and abnormality of differences. British
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(Pt 2), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.
1348/014466509X455470
Dasi, C., Soler, M. J., Bellver, V., & Ruiz, J. C. (2014). Short form of
Spanish version of the WISC–IV for intelligence assessment in elem-
entary school children. Psychological Reports, 115(3), 784–793.
https://doi.org/10.2466/03.PR0.115c32z7
Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why,
when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7
De Clercq-Quaegebeur, M., Casalis, S., Lemaitre, M.-P., Bourgois, B.,
Getto, M., & Vall
ee, L. (2010). Neuropsychological Profile on the
WISC-IV of French children with dyslexia. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 43(6), 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194103
75000
DeRight, J., & Carone, D. A. (2015). Assessment of effort in children:
A systematic review. Child Neuropsychology, 21(1), 1–24. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2013.864383
Dirks, J., Wessels, K., Quarforth, J., & Quenon, B. (1980). Can short-
form WISC-R 1Q.
Dombrowski, S. C., Canivez, G. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2018). Factor
structure of the 10 WISC-V primary subtests across four standard-
ization age groups. Contemporary School Psychology, 22(1), 90–104.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-017-0125-2
Donders, J. (1997). A short form of the WISC–III for clinical use.
Psychological Assessment, 9(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-
3590.9.1.15

Donders, J. (1999). Pediatric neuropsychological reports: Do they really
have to be so long? Child Neuropsychology, 5(1), 70–78. https://doi.
org/10.1076/chin.5.1.70.7071
Donders, J. (2001). Using a short form of the WISC-III: Sinful or
smart? Child Neuropsychol, 7(2), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1076/
chin.7.2.99.3126
Donders, J., Elzinga, B., Kuipers, D., Helder, E., & Crawford, J. R.
(2013). Development of an eight-subtest short form of the WISC-IV
and evaluation of its clinical utility in children with traumatic brain
injury. Child Neuropsychol, 19(6), 662–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09297049.2012.723681
Donders, J., & Warschausky, S. (1996). Validity of a short form of the
WISC-III in children with traumatic head injury. Child
Neuropsychology, 2(3), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049
608402255
Doyle, L. R., & Mattson, S. N. (2015). Neurobehavioral disorder associ-
ated with prenatal alcohol exposure (ND-PAE): Review of evidence
and guidelines for assessment. Current Developmental Disorders
Reports, 2(3), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-015-0054-6
Dumont, R., & Faro, C. (1993). A WISC-III short form for learning-
disabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 30(3), 212–219. https://
doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(199307)30:3<212::aid-pits2310300303>3.
0.co;2-v
Egeland, J., Lovstad, M., Norup, A., Nybo, T., Persson, B. A., Rivera,
D. F., … Arango-Lasprilla, J. C. (2016). Following international
trends while subject to past traditions: neuropsychological test use
in the Nordic countries. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 30(sup1),
1479–1500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1237675
Emons, W. H., Sijtsma, K., & Meijer, R. R. (2007). On the consistency
of individual classification using short scales. Psychological Methods,
12(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.12.1.105
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
Firkowska-Mankiewicz, A. (2011). Adult Careers: Does childhood IQ
predict later life outcome? Journal of Policy and Practice in
Intellectual Disabilities, 8(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-
1130.2011.00281.x
Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (2017). Essentials of WISC-V assess-
ment. John Wiley & Sons.
Flanagan, D. P., & McDonough, E. M. (Eds.). (2018). Contemporary
intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed). The
Guilford Press.
Girard, T. A., & Christensen, B. K. (2008). Clarifying problems and
offering solutions for correlated error when assessing the validity of
selected-subtest short forms. Psychological Assessment, 20(1), 76–80.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.1.76
Glass, L. A., Ryan, J. J., Bartels, J. M., & Morris, J. (2008). Estimating
WISC-IV indexes: proration versus linear scaling. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 64(10), 1175–1180. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20518
Goh, D. S. (1980). Note on selection of WISC-R short forms for differ-
ent uses. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36(1), 319–321. https://doi.
org/10.1002/1097-4679(198001)36:1 < 319::aid-jclp2270360144 > 3.0.
co;2-z
Green, C. M., Kirk, J. W., Connery, A. K., Baker, D. A., & Kirkwood,
M. W. (2014). The use of the Rey 15-item test and recognition trial
to evaluate noncredible effort after pediatric mild traumatic brain
injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 36(3),
261–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2013.879096
Herrera-Graf, M., Dipert, Z. J., & Hinton, R. N. (1996). Exploring the
effective use of the vocabulary/block design short form with a spe-
cial school population. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
56(3), 522–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056003014
Hrabok, M., Brooks, B. L., Fay-McClymont, T. B., & Sherman, E. M.
(2014). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-fourth edition
(WISC-IV) short-form validity: A comparison study in pediatric epi-
lepsy. Child Neuropsychol, 20(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09297049.2012.741225
Hwang, K., & Oh, S. W. (2017). Validity of K-WISC-IV short forms.
Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36(3), 381–390. https://doi.
org/10.15842/kjcp.2017.36.3.008
APPLIED NEUROPSYCHOLOGY: CHILD 11
Kaufman, A. S. (1976). A four-test short form of the WISC-R.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1(2), 180–196. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0361-476X(76)90022-9
Kaufman, A. S., Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., & Mascolo, J. T.
(2006). Test review: Wechsler intelligence scale for children, fourth
edition (WISC-IV). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(3),
278–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282906288389
Kaufman, A. S., Kaufman, J. C., Balgopal, R., & McLean, J. E. (1996).
Comparison of three WISC-III short forms: Weighing psychometric,
clinical, and practical factors. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
25(1), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2501_11
Kaufman, A. S., Raiford, S. E., & Coalson, D. L. (2015). Intelligent test-
ing with the WISC-V. John Wiley & Sons.
Keith, T. Z. (1994). Intelligence is important. School Psychology
Quarterly, 9(3), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088286
Lecerf, T., & Canivez, G. L. (2018). “Complementary exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses of the French WISC-V: Analyses based
on the standardization sample”: Correction to Lecerf and Canivez
(2018). Psychological Assessment, 30(8), 1009. https://doi.org/10.
1037/pas0000638
Levy, P. (1967). The correction for spurious correlation in the evalu-
ation of short-form tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23(1),
84–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(196701)23:1 < 84::AID-
JCLP2270230123 > 3.0.CO;2-2
Lezak, M. D. (1988). IQ: R.I.P. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 10(3), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01688638808400871
Lung, F. W., Chen, P. F., & Shu, B. C. (2018). Performance of
Wisconsin card sorting test in five-year-old children in Taiwan:
Relationship to intelligence and cognitive development. PLOS One.,
13(8), e0202099. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202099
MacAllister, W. S., Vasserman, M., & Armstrong, K. (2019). Are we
documenting performance validity testing in pediatric neuropsycho-
logical assessments? A brief report. The Journal of Pediatric
Neuropsychology, 25(8), 1035–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09297049.2019.1569606
Mark, R., Beal, A. L., & Dumont, R. (1998). Validation of a WISC-III
short-form for the identification of Canadian gifted students.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 14(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1177/082957359801400101
Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2006). WISC-IV and WISC-III profiles
in children with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 9(3),
486–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054705283616
Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2007). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children-Third and -Fourth Edition predictors of academic achieve-
ment in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School
Psychology Quarterly, 22(2), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-
3830.22.2.234
Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L., Bixler, E. O., & Zimmerman, D. N.
(2009). IQ and neuropsychological predictors of academic achieve-
ment. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 238–241. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.09.001
McCrimmon, A. W., & Smith, A. D. (2013). Review of the Wechsler
abbreviated scale of intelligence, second edition (WASI-II). Journal
of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(3), 337–341. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0734282912467756
McKenzie, K., Murray, A. L., Murray, K. R., & Murray, G. C. (2014).
Assessing the accuracy of the WISC-IV seven-subtest short form
and the child and adolescent intellectual disability screening ques-
tionnaire in identifying intellectual disability in children. Child
Neuropsychology, 20(3), 372–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.
2013.799642
Merz, Z. C., Lace, J. W., Eisenstein, A. M., & Grant, A. F. (2019).
Examination of Wechsler adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition
short-form IQ estimations in an outpatient psychoeducational sam-
ple. Applied Neuropsychology Adult. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2019.1687480
Murray, A. L., McKenzie, K., & Murray, G. C. (2016). An evaluation of
the performance of the WISC-IV eight-subtest short form with chil-
dren who may have an intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual
12 J. W. LACE ET AL.
and Developmental Disability, 41(1), 50–53. https://doi.org/10.3109/
13668250.2015.1084611
Na, S. D., & Burns, T. G. (2016). Wechsler intelligence scale for chil-
dren-V: Test review. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 5(2), 156–160.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2015.1015337
Nader, A.-M., Jelenic, P., & Soulieres, I. (2015). Discrepancy between
WISC-III and WISC-IV cognitive profile in autism spectrum: What
does it reveal about autistic cognition? PlOs One, 10(12), e0144645.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144645
Ong, L., Chandran, V., Zasmani, S., & Lye, M. (1998). Outcome of
closed head injury in Malaysian children: Neurocognitive and
behavioural sequelae. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 34(4),
363–368. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1754.1998.00239.x
Ortiz, V. Z., & Gonzalez, A. (1989). Validation of a short form of the
WISC-R with accelerated and gifted hispanic students 1. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 33(4), 152–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001698628903300405
Pfeiffer, S. I., Reddy, L. A., Kletzel, J. E., Schmelzer, E. R., & Boyer,
L. M. (2000). The practitioner’s view of IQ testing and profile ana-
lysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 15(4), 376–385. https://doi.org/
10.1037/h0088795
Piovesana, A. M., Harrison, J. L., & Ducat, J. J. (2019). The develop-
ment of a motor-free short-form of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children–Fifth Edition. Assessment, 26(8), 1564–1572. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1073191117748741
Rabin, L. A., Paolillo, E., & Barr, W. B. (2016). Stability in test-usage
practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and
Canada over a 10-year period: a follow-up survey of INS and NAN
Members. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 31(3), 206–230.
https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw007
Rees, L. M., Tombaugh, T. N., Gansler, D. A., & Moczynski, N. P.
(1998). Five validation experiments of the Test of Memory
Malingering (TOMM). Psychological Assessment, 10(1), 10–20.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.10.1.10
Ricker, J. H. (1998). Traumatic brain injury rehabilitation: is it worth
the cost? Applied Neuropsychology, 5(4), 184–193. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15324826an0504_3
Ryan, J. J. (1981). Clinical utility of a WISC-R short form. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 37(2), 389–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-
4679(198104)37:2<389::aid-jclp2270370229>3.0.co;2-#
Ryan, J. J., Glass, L. A., & Brown, C. N. (2007). Administration time
estimates for Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV subtests,
composites, and short forms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63(4),
309–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20343
San Miguel Montes, L. E., Allen, D. N., Puente, A. E., & Neblina, C.
(2010). Validity of the WISC–IV Spanish for a clinically referred
sample of Hispanic children. Psychological Assessment, 22(2),
465–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018895
Seidenberg, M., Giordani, B., Berent, S., & Boll, T. J. (1983). IQ level
and performance on the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test
Battery for Older Children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 51(3), 406–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.
406
Serenius, F., Ewald, U., Farooqi, A., Fellman, V., Hafstr€ om, M.,
Hellgren, K., Mars
al, K., Ohlin, A., Olhager, E., Stjernqvist, K.,
Str€
omberg, B., Åd
en, U., & K€all
en, K., for the Extremely Preterm
Infants in Sweden Study Group. (2016). Neurodevelopmental out-
comes among extremely preterm infants 6.5 years after active peri-
natal care in Sweden. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(10), 954–963. https://
doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1210
Silverstein, A. B. (1970). Reappraisal of the validity of WAIS, WISC,
and WPPSI short forms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 34(1), 12–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028680
Soldner, J. L., Upton, T. D., & Dunlap, P. N. (2009). Acquired brain
injury rehabilitation and managed care: Implications for rehabilita-
tion administrators. Journal of Rehabilitation Administrators, 33(1),
45–57.
Stuss, D. T., Meiran, N., Guzman, D. A., Lafleche, G., & Willmer, J.
(1996). Do long tests yield a more accurate diagnosis of dementia
than short tests?: A comparison of 5 neuropsychological tests.
Archives of Neurology, 53(10), 1033–1039. https://doi.org/10.1001/
archneur.1996.00550100119021
Thompson, A. P., LoBello, S. G., Atkinson, L., Chisholm, V., & Ryan,
J. J. (2004). Brief intelligence testing in Australia, Canada, the
United Kingdom, and the United States. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 35(3), 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-
7028.35.3.286
Toffalini, E., Giofre, D., & Cornoldi, C. (2017). Strengths and weak-
nesses in the intellectual profile of different subtypes of specific
learning disorder: A study on 1,049 diagnosed children. Clinical
Psychological Science, 5(2), 402–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2167702616672038
van Ool, J. S., Hurks, P. P. M., Snoeijen-Schouwenaars, F. M., Tan,
I. Y., Schelhaas, H. J., Klinkenberg, S., Aldenkamp, A. P., &
Hendriksen, J. G. M. (2018). Accuracy of WISC-III and WAIS-IV
short forms in patients with neurological disorders. Developmental
Neurorehabilitation, 21(2), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17518423.2016.1277799
Ventura, L. M., DeDios-Stern, S., Oh, A., & Soble, J. R. (2019). They’re
not just little adults: The utility of adult performance validity meas-
ures in a mixed clinical pediatric sample. Applied Neuropsychology:
Child. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.
2019.1685522
Watkins, M. W., Dombrowski, S. C., & Canivez, G. L. (2018).
Reliability and factorial validity of the Canadian Wechsler intelli-
gence scale for children–fifth edition. International Journal of School
& Educational Psychology, 6(4), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21683603.2017.1342580
Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence (2nd ed).
Pearson.
Wechsler, D. (2014). WISC-V: Technical and interpretive manual.
Pearson.
Weiss, L. G., Saklofske, D. H., Holdnack, J. A., & Prifitera, A. (2015).
WISC-V assessment and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspec-
tives. Elsevier.
Welsh, A. J., Bender, H. A., Whitman, L. A., Vasserman, M., &
MacAllister, W. S. (2012). Clinical utility of reliable digit span in
assessing effort in children and adolescents with epilepsy. Archives
of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27(7), 735–741. https://doi.org/10.1093/
arclin/acs063
Wheaton, P. J., & Vandergriff, A. F. (1987). Short Forms of the
Mexican version of the WISC—R in the identification of gifted stu-
dents. Psychological Reports, 61(1), 259–264. https://doi.org/10.2466/
pr0.1987.61.1.259
Yalowitz, J. M., & Armstrong, R. G. (1955). Validity of short forms of
the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 11(3), 275–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-
4679(195507)11:3<275::AID-JCLP2270110306>3.0.CO;2-P
Yudin, L. W. (1966). An abbreviated form of the WISC for use with
emotionally disturbed children. J Consult Psychol, 30(3), 272–275.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023312