Professional Documents
Culture Documents
InterpretingtheWISC IV
InterpretingtheWISC IV
analysis
y Evaluate for differences between the four Indexes
y Determine whether the subtest scaled scores differ
significantly from each other
y Obtain the base rates for differences between the
I d
Indexes
y Obtain the base rates for differences between some of
the subtest scaled scores
y Determine base rates for inter‐subtest scatter
y Develop hypotheses and make interpretations.
y Full Scale
y Verbal Comprehension
y Perceptual Reasoning,
y Working Memory
y Processing Speed
y Global estimate of a child's current level of cognitive ability
y Usually the most reliable and valid estimate of the child
Usually the most reliable and valid estimate of the child's intellectual ability
s intellectual ability.
y Provides information about the child's relative standing in the general
(standardization) population
y Usually used to obtain a descriptive classification of the child's IQ level
y Very Superior
y Superior
y High Average
y Average
y Low Average
y Borderline
y Extremely Low; see
y Converting the Full Scale IQ to a percentile rank often helpful in explaining it
g Q p p p g
to individuals unfamiliar with standard scores
y Use the Full Scale IQ as the primary index of a child's intellectual ability unless
there is a compelling reason to use one of the Indexes
y Measures
y verbal comprehension
y application of verbal skills and information to the solution of new
problems
y ability to process verbal information
y ability to think with words
y crystallized knowledge
y cognitive flexibility (including the ability to shift mental
operations)
y ability to self‐monitor.
y Oral input (questions)
y Oral output (answers)
y Nonverbal factors‐such as forming a mental picture of the words
or questions‐also may playa role in solving Verbal
Comprehension tasks.
y Measures
y Perceptual reasoning
Perceptual reasoning,
y ability to think in terms of visual images and manipulate them with fluency
y cognitive flexibility (including the ability to shift mental operations)
y relative cognitive speed, ability to interpret or organize visually perceived
material within a time limit
y nonverbal ability
y ability to form abstract concepts and relationships without the use of words
y fluid reasoning,
y ability to self‐monitor. The four subtests
y
y Verbal factors also may play a role in solving Perceptual Reasoning tasks.
y using verbal descriptions in thinking about blocks and block placement
y categorizing the pictures into logical groups on Picture Concepts
y Using verbal processing to solve Matrix Reasoning problems
y verbally identifying parts of objects on Picture Completion
y Measures
y working memory
y short‐term memory
y the ability to sustain attention,
y Numerical ability
y encoding ability,
y auditory processing skills
yp g
y Cognitive flexibility (including the ability to shift mental
operations),
y Ability to self‐monitor.
y
y Verbal and nonverbal factors play a role in solving Working
Memory tasks.
y Measures
y Processing speed
P i d
y rate of test taking
y perceptual discrimination
y speed of mental operation
speed of mental operation,
y psychomotor speed
y attention
y Concentration
y short‐term visual memory
y visual‐motor coordination,
y numerical ability,y,
y cognitive flexibility (including the ability to shift mental
operations)
y ability to self‐monitor.
y Looks at a child's unique ability pattern, going beyond
the information contained in the Full Scale IQ or
h f d h ll l
Indexes
y Knowledge of ability patterns can help in formulating
teaching strategies and other types of interventions.
y The Full Scale IQ is a valuable measure of general
i ll
intellectual ability
l bili
y Tells us little about the specific underlying abilities on
which it is based.
y Examining the subtest scale scores can show strengths
or weaknesses.
y Example Profiles
y 1. A flat profile with all subtest scaled scores far above average (e.g., from 14 to
1 A flat profile with all subtest scaled scores far above average (e g from 14 to
16) suggests that a child is intellectually gifted and may profit from instruction
that capitalizes on the child's exceptional intellectual skills.
y 2. A flat profile with all subtest scaled scores far below average (e.g., from 2 to 4)
suggests that a child has limited intellectual ability and needs specialized
i t ti
instruction appropriate for the child's low level of functioning.
i t f th hild' l l l f f ti i
y 3. A variable profile, with subtest scaled scores varying over a large range of
scaled scores (e.g., from 3 to 16), suggests that a child has unique strengths and
weaknesses and may benefit from specialized instruction designed to capitalize
on the strengths and remediate the weaknesses.
y 4. A profile of subtest scaled scores within normal limits (e.g., from 8 to 12)
suggests average ability across all areas measured and suggests that a child
needs a standard program of instruction.
y The goal of profile analysis is to generate hypotheses about a child's abilities,
g fp f y g yp ,
which then need to be checked against other information about the child (e.g.,
parent and teacherreports, records of academic performance).
y The simplest approach to subtest profile analysis
y Evaluate subtest scores in reference to the norm group
y A mean of 10 with a standard deviation of 3 serves as the
reference point for the norm group.
reference point for the norm group
y You can describe subtest scaled scores using a categorical
approach
y Subtest scaled scores of 13 to 19 always indicate a strength
(one to three standard deviations above the mean).
y Subtest scaled scores of 8 to 12 always indicate average
ability (within one standard deviation of the mean).
ability (within one standard deviation of the mean)
y Subtest scaled scores of I to 7 always indicate a weakness
(one to three standard deviations below the mean).
y In applying a “significant difference” approach, you will need to
answer questions like the following:
ti lik th f ll i
y Do the Indexes of interest differ significantly from each other (e.g.,
Verbal Comprehension vs. Perceptual Reasoning)?
y Do the subtest scaled scores of interest differ significantly from each
other (e.g., Vocabulary vs. Block Design)?
y Do the subtest scaled scores of interest differ significantly from the
p p g
mean of their respective Composites (e.g., Similarities vs. the Verbal
Comprehension mean)?
y Do the subtest scaled scores of interest differ significantly from the
mean of the other subtests administered (e.g., Similarities vs. the
mean of the other nine subtests administered)?
y Whatever comparisons you choose to make you must determine
whether the differences are statistically significant (i.e., too large
to be likely to have occurred by chance)
to be likely to have occurred by chance).
y A second approach to profile analysis is to determine
the frequency with which the differences between
scores in a child‘s prolile occurred in the
standardization sample; this is called the Base rate
Approach or the Probability of Occurrence Approach.
1. Compare the VCI, PRI, WMI, and PSI with each other.
2. Compare the subtest scaled scores within each
Composite with the child's mean scaled score for that
Composite and for the Full Scale.
Composite and for the Full Scale
3. Compare sets of individual subtest scaled scores (i.e.,
planned paired comparisons).
4. Compare the range of subtest scaled scores with the base
rate found in the standardization sample.
5. C
Compare sets of individual Process scaled scores.
f i di id l P l d
6. Compare Process scaled‐score differences with the base
rates found in the standardization sample.
y Verbal comprehension skills are better developed than
perceptual reasoning skills
perceptual reasoning skills.
y Verbal processing is better developed than visual‐spatial
processing.
y A dit
Auditory‐vocal processing is better developed than visual
l i i b tt d l d th i l
discrimination processing.
y Knowledge acquired through accumulated experience is
b tt d l
better developed than knowledge needed to solve
d th k l d d d t l
nonverbal problems.
y Retrieval of verbal information from long‐term memory is
better developed than nonverbal problem solving.
better developed than nonverbal problem solving
y Crystallized knowledge is better developed than fluid
reasoning.
y • Perceptual reasoning skills are better developed than
verbal comprehension skills
verbal comprehension skills.
y Visual‐spatial processing is better developed than verbal
processing.
y Vi l di i i ti
Visual‐discrimination processing is better developed than
i i b tt d l d th
auditory‐vocal processing.
y Knowledge needed to solve nonverbal problems is better
d l
developed than knowledge acquired through accumulated
d th k l d i d th h l t d
experience.
y Nonverbal problem solving is better developed than
retrieval of verbal information from long term memory
retrieval of verbal information from long‐term memory.
y Fluid reasoning is better developed than crystallized
knowledge.
y Verbal comprehension is. better developed than working
memory
memory.
y Verbal processing is better developed than short‐term
auditory memory.
y A dit
Auditory‐vocal processing is better developed than use of
l i i b tt d l d th f
encoding strategies.
y Long‐term verbal memory is better developed than short‐
t
term auditory memory.
dit
y Retrieval of verbal information from long‐term memory is
better developed than retrieval of information from short‐
term memory.
term memory
y Crystallized knowledge is better developed than short‐term
auditory memory.
y Working memory is better developed than verbal
comprehension
comprehension.
y Short‐term auditory memory is better developed than
verbal processing.
y U f
Use of encoding strategies is better developed than
di t t i i b tt d l d th
auditory‐vocal processing.
y Short‐term auditory memory is better developed than
l
long‐term verbal memory.
t b l
y Retrieval of information from short‐term memory is better
developed than retrieval of verbal information from long‐
term memory.
term memory
y Short‐term auditory memory is better developed than
crystallized knowledge.
y Verbal comprehension is better developed than processing
speed.
d
y Verbal processing is better developed than speed of mental
p
operation.
y Auditory‐vocal processing is better developed than
visualmotor coordination.
y Processing of verbal stimuli is better developed than
processing of nonverbal stimuli.
y Long‐term verbal memory is better developed than short‐
term visual memory.
i l
y Crystallized knowledge is better developed than processing
p
speed.
y Processing speed is better developed than verbal
comprehension.
h i
y Speed of mental operation is better developed than verbal
p
processing.
g
y Visual‐motor coordination is better developed than
auditory‐vocal processing.
y Processing of nonverbal stimuli is better developed than
processing of verbal stimuli.
y Short‐term visual memory is better developed than long‐
term verbal memory.
b l
y Processing speed is better developed than crystallized
g
knowledge.
y Perceptual reasoning is better developed than working
g g
memory.
y Visual‐spatial processing is better developed than
short‐term auditory memory.
h di
y Immediate problem‐solving ability is better developed
than use of encoding strategies.
than use of encoding strategies
y Interpretation or organization of visually perceived
material is better developed than short‐term auditory
p y
memory.
y Digit Span vs. Letter Number Sequencing
g g
y Coding vs. Symbol Search
y Similarities vs. Picture Concepts
y DS > LN
y This pattern may suggest that short‐term auditory
memory for tasks that require rote memorization with
minimal information processing is better developed
p g p
than short‐term auditory memory for tasks that require
rote memorization and information processing.
y LN > DS
y This pattern may suggest that short‐term auditory
memory for tasks that require rote memorization and
information processing is better developed than short‐
information processing is better developed than short
term auditory memory for tasks that require rote
memorization with minimal information processing.
y CD > SS
y This pattern may suggest that visual‐perceptual symbol‐
associative skills are better developed than visual‐
perceptual discrimination skills that do not involve
association.
y SS > CD
y This pattern may suggest that visual‐perceptual
discrimination skills that do not involve association are
better developed than visual perceptual symbol
better developed than visual‐perceptual symbol‐
associative skills.
y SI >PCn
y This pattern may suggest that abstract reasoning ability
with verbal stimuli is better developed than abstract
reasoning ability with visual stimuli involving familiar
objects.
y PCn > SI
y This pattern may suggest that abstract reasoning ability
with visual stimuli involving familiar objects is better
developed than abstract reasoning ability with verbal
stimuli.