The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 18: 559
572, 2004

Copyright # Taylor and Francis Ltd.

ISSN: 1385-4046
DOI: 10.1080/13854040490888530

Similarities and Differences in Wechsler Intelligence Scale

for Children—Third Edition (WISC-III) Profiles: Support
for Subtest Analysis in Clinical Referrals
Susan Dickerson Mayes and Susan L. Calhoun
Department of Psychiatry, The Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA

Our study supports the reliability and validity of profile analysis in children with neurobiological
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 11:49 19 April 2011

disorders. Three mutually exclusive WISC-III profiles were identified that characterized the
majority of children with autism (low coding or Freedom from Distractibility Index with low Com-
prehension), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disability (low Coding or FDI
without low comprehension), and brain injury (low Performance without low Coding or FDI).
The profiles suggest attention, writing, and performance speed deficits in autism, ADHD, and
LD; global visual-motor problems in brain injury; and specific difficulty with language comprehen-
sion and social reasoning in autism. Children with anxiety, depression, and behavior disorders did
not exhibit distinct profiles. Our profile analysis is based on the simple rank ordering of standard
scores. The profiles are clinically useful because they may alert clinicians to certain diagnostic pos-
sibilities, they reveal characteristic strengths and weaknesses that have implications for educational
intervention, and they are consistent with preliminary WISC-IV data.
Keywords: WISC-III profiles, ADHD, Autism, Brain Injury, Anxiety, Depression, Oppositional-
Defiant Disorder, LD

Profile analysis is a popular practice among
school, neuro-, and clinical psychologists
(Anastasi & Urbina, 1998; Fiorello, Hale,
McGrath, & Quinn, 2002; Pfeiffer, Reddy,
Kletzel, Schmelzler, & Boyer, 2000). How-
ever, much controversy exists regarding its
validity. Stanton and Reynolds (2000) con-
tend that ‘‘clinicians who focus on the
relationship between groups of participants
appear to support the clinical practice of pro-
file analysis, whereas statisticians who focus
on the relation between variables strongly
oppose the practice’’ (p. 434).
The literature is replete with various posi-
tions on profile analysis. Some clinicians and
researchers maintain that only Full Scale IQ
(an estimate of g) is meaningful, and they
oppose the analysis of subtest or factor scores
(Bray, Kehle, & Hintze, 1998). Others argue
that composite scores (i.e., index or factor
scores) are reliable and meaningful and can
be used in profile analysis with corroborating
evidence from other sources (Donders, 1996;
Glutting, McDermott, Prifitera, & McGrath,
1994; McDermott, Fantuzzo, & Glutting,
1990; Oh, Glutting, & McDermott, 1999).
Still others argue that profile analysis at the
subtest level with supporting data is useful
in understanding a child’s strengths and
weaknesses and in guiding treatment and

Address correspondence to: Susan Dickerson Mayes, Ph.D., Department of Psychiatry H073, Milton S.
Hershey Medical Center, P.O. Box 850, Hershey, PA 17033, USA. Tel.: þ1-717- 531-6201. Fax: þ1-717-
531-3662. E-mail: smayes@psu.edu
Accepted for publication: July 27, 2004.
 560 SUSAN DICKERSON MAYES AND SUSAN L. CALHOUN
educational programming (Hale, Fiorello,
Kavanagh, Hoeppner, & Gaither, 2001;
Kaufman, 1994; Sattler, 2002). Supporters of
subtest analysis argue that subtest scores
provide specific information that is lost if
analyses are based only on factor or index
scores (Kramer, 1993; Nyden, Billstedt,
Hjelmquist, & Gillberg, 2001). According to
Kaufman (1994) and Sattler (2002), most
WISC-III subtests have sufficient specificity
(i.e., reliability and distinctiveness) to justify
subtest analysis.
The most common method of intraindivi-
dual profile analysis is the ipsative approach
whereby specific subtest scores are compared
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 11:49 19 April 2011
with a composite score. Critical values for the
statistical significance of differences between
subtest and composite scores are found in
tables in multiple sources (e.g., Kaufman,
1994; Sattler, 2002; Wechsler, 1991). A mean
difference of 3
4 points is required for
significance at .05 when a subtest score is
compared with the mean of the subtest
scores. Another method of subtest analysis
is a variant of configural frequency analysis
(Stanton & Reynolds, 2000). This procedure
simultaneously compares multiple subtest
scores (ipsative comparisons dichotomized
as significantly different or not for each sub-
test) and uses multivariate statistics to com-
pare the expected with observed frequencies
for the subtest patterns.
Studies of clinical children show signifi-
cant differences between diagnostic groups
in WISC-R and WISC-III subtest scores.
Differences have been found between chil-
dren with attention deficit hyperactivity dis-
order (ADHD) and emotional disturbance
(Lufi, Cohen, & Parish-Plass, 1990), ADHD
and autism (Ehlers et al., 1997), ADHD
and other clinical disorders (Mayes,
Calhoun, & Crowell, 1998a), high-function-
ing autism and schizophrenia (Asarnow,
Tanguay, Bott, & Freeman, 1987), learning
disability (LD) and clinical children without
LD (Mayes, Calhoun, & Crowell, 1998b),
and reading disability and comorbid
reading and math disabilities (Ackerman &
Dykman, 1995).
More important, some distinct and reliable
subtest and index profiles have been found
across studies for specific clinical groups. Stu-
dies using the WISC-III have reported lower
Freedom from Distractibility and Processing
Speed than Verbal Comprehension and
Perceptual Organization Index mean scores
in children with ADHD, LD, and autism
(Mayes et al., 1998a, 1998b, 2003; Mealer,
Morgan, & Luscomb, 1996; Naglieri, Goldstein,
Iseman, & Schwebach, 2003; Newby, Recht,
Caldwell, & Schaefer, 1993; Nyden et al.,
2001; Prifitera & Dersh, 1993; Saklofske,
Schwean, Yackulic, & Quinn, 1994; Schwean,
Saklofske, Yackulic, & Quinn, 1993; Snow &
Sapp, 2000; Wechsler, 1991). In the aforemen-
tioned studies reporting mean subtest scores,
Coding was the lowest of the six nonverbal
subtests, followed by Symbol Search.
Another consistent profile finding across
WISC-R and WISC-III studies is lower Per-
formance relative to Verbal IQ in children
with acquired brain injury. This includes
children with severe traumatic brain injury
(Donders & Warschausky, 1997; Hoffman,
Donders, & Thompson, 2000; Kay &
Warschausky, 1999; Kinsella et al., 1995;
Mayes, Pelco, & Campbell, 1989; Tremont,
Mittenberg, & Miller, 1999) and children with
spina bifida with hydrocephalus (Fletcher
et al., 1992; Friedrich, Lovejoy, Shaffer,
Shurtleff, & Beilke, 1991; Jacobs, Northam, &
Anderson, 2001).
Eight independent studies of children with
autism reported the same WISC-III and
WISC-R subtest profiles (Allen, Lincoln, &
Kaufman, 1991; Asarnow et al., 1987;
Ehlers et al., 1997; Happe, 1994; Lincoln,
Courchesne, Kilman, Elmasian, & Allen,
1988; Mayes & Calhoun, 2003; Nyden et al.,
2001; Siegel, Minshew, & Goldstein, 1996).
In all of these studies, the mean Comprehen-
sion subtest score was lower than the other
subtests that comprise the Verbal Compre-
hension Index, and Block Design was the high-
est of the Performance subtests.
The purpose of our study is to (a) indepen-
dently replicate the profiles reported in pre-
vious studies, (b) describe profile similarities
 SUPPORT FOR SUBTEST ANALYSIS
and differences for clinical children, and
(c) determine the accuracy of WISC-III
profile types in differentiating children with
specific clinical disorders. Our study is unique
because it simultaneously analyzes profiles
for several different clinical groups, including
ADHD, LD, autism, brain injury, anxiety,
depression, oppositional-defiant disorder,
and adjustment disorder. As in previous
research, our study describes profiles based
on group mean scores. Unlike previous
studies, ours also determines the predictive
validity of profile types in identifying indi-
vidual children with different clinical disor-
ders. A strength of our profile analysis is its
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 11:49 19 April 2011
clinical utility. The analysis is based on the
simple rank ordering of subtest and index
scores and does not require mathematical
calculations or statistical procedures.
METHOD
Sample and Procedure
The sample comprised 809 clinical children with an
IQ of 80 or higher evaluated in our Department of
Psychiatry diagnostic clinic, which is in a suburban
setting. Most children were referred for learning,
attention, and=or behavior problems, Only chil-
dren with DSM-IV diagnoses agreed upon by both
a child psychologist and child psychiatrist were
included in the sample, so that there was 100%
diagnostic agreement. Components of the psycho-
logical evaluation included (a) IQ, achievement,
and neuropsychological tests; (b) teacher and par-
ent questionnaires and rating scales (Pediatric
Behavior Scale; Lindgren & Koeppl, 1987);
(c) child interview and self-report scale; (d) clinical
observations of the child; and (e) review of the
child’s developmental history, school transcripts
from kindergarten to the present, and previous
evaluations. The psychiatric evaluation was based
on independent semistructured interviews with
the parent and child and on a review of the records
and questionnaire and rating scale data obtained
from the parents and teachers used in the psycho-
logical evaluation.
Sample sizes and clinical diagnoses included:
630 children with ADHD, 93 children with autism,
48 children with brain injury, and 38 children with
mood and behavior disorders (anxiety disorder,
depression, oppositional-defiant disorder, and=or
adjustment disorder). Some of the children with
561
ADHD and autism were in previous research
studies by the authors. The children with ADHD
who were prescribed medication were off medi-
cation for testing, and none had a head injury with
loss of consciousness. In the ADHD group, 183
children had ADHD combined type without a
comorbid mood or behavior disorder, 312 had
ADHD combined type with a comorbid disorder
(e.g., oppositional-defiant disorder), 103 had
ADHD predominantly inattentive type without a
comorbid mood or behavior disorder, and 32 had
ADHD predominantly inattentive type with a
comorbid disorder. The brain injury group com-
prised 19 children with spina bifida with hydro-
cephalus, 16 with severe closed head injury, 5
with a brain tumor, 4 with a stroke, 2 with anoxic
brain injury, 1 with encephalitis, and 1 with a
gunshot wound to the brain. Time post-injury for
children with acquired injuries was 1 month to 16
years.
Children ranged in age from 6 to 16 years with a
mean of 9 years and an SD of 3. The mean IQ was
103 (SD ¼ 14), with a range of 80 to 150. Twenty-
six percent of the children were female, 92% were
White, and 8% were Black, Hispanic, or Asian.
For 37% of the children, one or both parents had
a professional or managerial occupation. The diag-
nostic subgroups did not differ significantly
(p > .05) in IQ (F ¼ 2.9), race (v2 ¼ 7.3), and
occupation (v2 ¼ 7.9). As expected, children with
ADHD and autism were younger (Bonferroni
p < .0001) than children with mood and behavior
disorders, and they had a higher percentage of
males than the other subgroups (v2 ¼ 34.5,
p < .0001). These differences were expected
because ADHD and autism are congenital disor-
ders (unlike mood and behavior disorders, which
have a later onset) and because the incidence of
ADHD and autism is far greater in males than in
females.
Instruments
All children completed the 12 WISC-III subtests
comprising the four Indexes, Verbal Comprehen-
sion (VCI), Perceptual Organization (POI), Free-
dom from Distractibility (FDI), and Processing
Speed (PSI), and the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test (WIAT) Basic Reading, Reading
Comprehension, Numerical Operations, and
Written Expression subtests.
Learning Disability Definition
All of the children in the study had a diagnosis of
ADHD, autism, brain injury, or mood and beha-
vior disorder. Within each of these groups,
 562 SUSAN DICKERSON MAYES AND SUSAN L. CALHOUN
children were classified as having or not having a
learning disability (LD). LD percentages were
76% for ADHD, 75% for autism, 67% for brain
injury, and 32% for mood and behavior disorders.
LD was defined as a WIAT word reading, reading
comprehension, math, or written expression
subtest score significantly lower (p < .05) than
predicted based on the child’s WISC-III Full Scale
IQ using the predicted achievement method speci-
fied in the WIAT manual (Wechsler, 1992). The
WISC-III and WIAT have a co-normed linking
sample allowing for direct comparison of standard
scores on the two tests (vs. comparing IQ and
achievement test scores on different tests normed
on different children at different times). The
WISC-III and WIAT regression equation controls
for the correlation between tests, measurement
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 11:49 19 April 2011
error, and regression to the mean (Glutting et al.,
1994). The predicted achievement method
(vs. simple discrepancy) is recommended so that
children with high IQs are not overidentified as
having LD. All children identified with LD had
one or more WIAT standard score that was below
the normal mean of 100. The ability-achievement
discrepancy definition used in our study is consi-
stent with the Individuals with Disabilities Edu-
cation Act (Federal Register, 1999) and is the
most conventional way to define LD (American
Psychiatric Association, 1994; Fessler, Rosenberg,
& Rosenberg, 1991; Fletcher, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz,
1999; Frankenberger & Fronzaglio, 1991; Glassberg,
Hooper, & Mattison, 1999; Gresham, MacMillan, &
Bocian, 1996; Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000; Kavale,
Fuchs, & Scruggs, 1994; Sattler, 2002; Schuerholz
et al., 1995; Tannock & Brown, 2000; Ward, Ward,
Glutting, & Hatt, 1999).
Data Analyses
Our profile analysis was based on simple visual
inspection and rank ordering of standard scores
without the need for mathematic computations
or statistical procedures. Profile types were
determined by ranking the Index and the subtest
scores from lowest to highest for each child with-
out considering the magnitude of differences
between scores. The significance of differences in
the frequency of profile types between clinical
groups was determined using chi-square and risk
and odds ratios. To compare the proportion of
clinical children with specific profiles with chance
expectancy (based on a normal mean standard
score of 100), z-scores were calculated. The accu-
racy of profile types in predicting group member-
ship was determined by calculating sensitivity
or percentage of children correctly identified as
having a specific diagnosis (i.e., number of children
with both the diagnosis and the corresponding pro-
file type divided by the total number with the diag-
nosis), specificity or percentage correctly classified
as not having the diagnosis (number without the
diagnosis who do not have that diagnostic profile
type divided by the total number without the diag-
nosis), positive predictive power (number who
have both the diagnosis and the corresponding
profile type divided by the total number with that
profile type), and negative predictive power (num-
ber without the diagnosis who do not have that
diagnostic profile type divided by the total number
who do not have that profile type).
RESULTS
Group Means and Profiles
As shown in Table 1, the pattern of mean
scores for each diagnostic group is consistent
with profiles previously reported in the litera-
ture. FDI and PSI were the lowest Index
scores for children with ADHD, LD with
mood and behavior disorders, and autism,
but not for children with brain injury or mood
and behavior disorders without LD. Of the
six nonverbal or performance subtest scores,
Coding was the lowest and Symbol Search
was the second lowest for children with
ADHD, LD, and autism, but not for the
other groups. For children in the brain injury
group, Performance scores (POI and PSI) were
lower than Verbal scores (VCI and FDI). In
the autism group, Comprehension was lower
than the other VCI subtests, and Block Design
was the highest of the POI subtests.
Low Coding and FDI Profile
The majority of children with ADHD,
autism, and LD had the low Coding profile
(coding score  Picture Completion, Picture
Arrangement, and Block Design), as shown
in Table 2. The percentage of children with
ADHD, autism, and LD who had low Coding
was approximately three times greater than
the norm or chance expectation (z ¼ 20.1,
10.1, and 6.8, p < .0001). In contrast, the per-
centage of children with other diagnoses who
had the low Coding profile did not differ sig-
nificantly from the norm (z ¼ 2.1, p ¼ .04).
 SUPPORT FOR SUBTEST ANALYSIS 563

Table 1. Mean Standard Scores for the Clinical Groups (N ¼ 809).

ADHD Autism Brain LD, mood, Mood, behavior,

injury behavior no LD

Full Scale IQ 104 103 95 92 104

Verbal Comprehension 107 107 102 93 108
Perceptual Organization 105 105 92 98 101
Freedom from Distractibility 93 95 95 90 106
Processing Speed 98 92 90 87 103
Information 10.8 11.8 10.0 8.0 10.7
Similarities 11.6 12.2 11.0 9.1 12.6
Vocabulary 11.0 11.4 10.9 8.8 10.9
Comprehension 11.4 9.0 9.5 9.1 11.4
Picture Completion 11.1 11.0 9.5 10.4 10.9
Picture Arrangement 10.4 10.0 7.7 8.8 9.2
Block Design 10.9 11.6 8.7 9.3 10.8
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 11:49 19 April 2011

Object Assembly 10.5 10.4 7.9 9.5 9.5

Arithmetic 8.7 9.0 8.7 7.2 10.1
Digit Span 8.5 8.9 9.1 9.0 11.7
Coding 9.0 7.5 7.4 7.1 10.2
Symbol Search 10.0 9.2 8.3 7.5 10.5

Note. Mood=behavior disorders include anxiety, depression, oppositional-defiant, and adjustment dis-
orders. ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), autism, and brain injury include both
children with and without LD (learning disability).

Table 2. Percentage of Children with Low Coding and Freedom from Distractibility Index (FDI) Scores.

Low codinga Low FDIb Low coding or FDI

ADHD (with or without LD) 52 57 84

Autism (with or without LD) 62 31 75
LD with mood=behavior or brain injury 70 20 73
Mood=behavior or brain injury no LD 34 20 49
Chance expectancy based on the norm 20 25 40

Note. ADHD ¼ attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, LD ¼ learning disability.

a
Coding  Picture Completion, Picture Arrangement, Object Assembly, and Block Design.
b
FDI (Freedom from Distractibility)  Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Organization, and
Processing Speed.

Children with ADHD, autism, and LD had a
two times greater risk of having the low Cod-
ing profile than children with other diagnoses
(odds ratio ¼ 2.2, v2 ¼ 5.1, p ¼ .01).
The low FDI profile was relatively unique
to children with ADHD. This profile was two
times more common in ADHD than in other
diagnoses (odds ratio ¼ 3.6, v2 ¼ 45.7,
p < .0001). Differences in frequencies were
significant when children with ADHD were
compared to children with autism
(v2 ¼ 21.2, p < .0001), LD (v2 ¼ 15.6,
p ¼ .0001), and other diagnoses (v2 ¼ 18.0,
p < .0001). The low FDI profile was two
times more common in ADHD than the
norm (z ¼ 18.5, p < .0001), but was not sig-
nificantly more common than chance expec-
tation in the other groups (z ¼ 0.6
1.3,
p > .18).
Overall, 83% of children with ADHD, aut-
ism, and LD had either the low Coding or low
FDI profile, whereas only 49% of children
with other diagnoses had one or both of these
profiles (odds ratio ¼ 5.1, v2 ¼ 25.6,
 564 SUSAN DICKERSON MAYES AND SUSAN L. CALHOUN
Table 3. Percentage of Children with Low Performance Scores.
Brain injury (with or without LD)
ADHD (with or without LD)
Autism (with or without LD)
LD with mood=behavior disorder
Mood=behavior disorder without LD
Chance expectancy based on the norm
Note. ADHD ¼ attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, LD ¼ learning disability.
a
Perceptual organization plus processing speed  verbal comprehension plus Freedom from
Distractibility.
p < .0001). The proportion of children with
either of these profiles significantly exceeded
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 11:49 19 April 2011
chance expectation for children with ADHD,
autism, and LD (z ¼ 22.0, 6.9, and 3.7,
p < .001), but not for children with other
diagnoses (z ¼ 1.1, p ¼ .26).
Low Performance Profile
As seen in Table 3, 77% of children with
brain injury had lower scores on the Perform-
ance than on the Verbal subtests, indicating a
global visual-motor weakness (in contrast to
the specific Coding weakness for children with
ADHD, LD, and autism). The low Perform-
ance profile was two times more common in
children with brain injury than in children
with other diagnoses (odds ratio ¼ 3.6,
v2 ¼ 14.6, p ¼ .0001). The percentage of chil-
dren with brain injury who had the low Per-
formance profile was significantly greater
than chance (z ¼ 3.8, p ¼ .0002), which was
not the case for children with ADHD, autism,
LD, and other diagnoses (z ¼ 2.0, 1.5, 0.6,
and 1.9, p > .05).
Low Comprehension and High Block
Design Profile
Both the low Comprehension and high block
Design profiles were more common in autism
than in other diagnoses, but only low Compre-
hension was found in the majority of children
with autism (Table 4). The low Comprehen-
sion profile was two times more prevalent in
autism than in other diagnoses (odds
ratio ¼ 5.7, v2 ¼ 60.3, p < .0001) and signifi-
cantly exceeded chance expectation for
Low performancea
77
46
58
58
69
50
autism (z ¼ 10.2, p < .0001) and brain injury
(z ¼ 4.0, p ¼ .0001). However, significantly
more children with autism had low Compre-
hension than children with brain injury
(v2 ¼ 6.0, p < .01). The low Comprehension
profile did not differ significantly from
chance occurrence for children with ADHD
(z ¼ 2.3, p ¼ .02), LD (z ¼ 0.6, p ¼ .52), and
mood and behavior disorders (z ¼ 0.2,
p ¼ .81).
Classification Accuracy Using Profile Types
Three mutually exclusive composite pro-
files were created based on study findings
(Table 5). The majority of children with
ADHD (but not other groups) had low Cod-
ing or low FDI without low Comprehension.
The majority of children with autism (but
not other diagnoses) exhibited low Coding
or low FDI with low Comprehension. The
majority of children with brain injury without
LD (but not other children) had low Perform-
ance without low Coding or low FDI. The
frequency of these profile types in the
corresponding diagnostic subgroups did not
differ significantly for children with below
average (IQ < 100) versus above average
(IQ  100) intelligence (v2 ¼ 4.4 for ADHD,
0.2 for autism, and 0.1 for brain injury,
p > .05).
Children with LD (with mood or behavior
disorders or brain injury) were more likely
to have the low Coding or FDI without low
Comprehension profile than the two other
profile types. Therefore, children with LD were
combined with children with ADHD for the
 SUPPORT FOR SUBTEST ANALYSIS 565

Table 4. Percentage of Children with Low Comprehension and High Block Design Scores.

Low Comprehensiona High Block Designb

Autism (with or without LD) 71 47

ADHD (with or without LD) 29 34
Brain injury (with or without LD) 50 38
LD with mood=behavior disorder 33 33
Mood=behavior disorder without LD 23 42
Chance expectancy based on the norm 25 25

Note. ADHD ¼ attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, LD ¼ learning disability.

a
Comprehension  Information, Similarities, and Vocabulary.
b
Block Design  Picture Completion, Picture Arrangement, and Object Assembly.

Table 5. Percentage of Children with Specific Profile Types.

Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 11:49 19 April 2011

Low coding Low coding Low performance

or FDI with or FDI without without low coding
low comprehension low comprehension or FDI

ADHD (with or without LD) 24 60 13

Autism (with or without LD) 56 19 19
Brain injury without LD 22 0 67
LD with mood=behavior or brain injury 30 43 20
Mood=behavior without LD 15 42 35
Chance expectancy 10 30 30

Note. FDI ¼ Freedom from Distractibility Index, ADHD ¼ attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
LD ¼ learning disability.

predictive validity analysis. The low Coding or
FDI without low Comprehension profile was
three times more common in the ADHD=LD
group than in all other diagnostic groups (odds
ratio ¼ 5.0, v2 ¼ 57.7, p < .0001). This profile
correctly classified 59% of children as having
ADHD or LD (sensitivity) and 77% as not hav-
ing ADHD or LD (specificity). Positive predic-
tive power (PPP) was 93%, and negative
predictive power (NPP) was 27%.
The low Coding or FDI with low Compre-
hension profile was twice as common in aut-
ism (with or without LD) as in all other
diagnoses (odds ratio ¼ 4.0, v2 ¼ 41.1,
p < .0001) and correctly classified 56% of
children with autism and 76% without aut-
ism. PPP was 24%, and NPP was 93%. Last,
the low Performance without low Coding or
FDI profile was five times more prevalent
in brain injury without LD than in all other
diagnoses (odds ratio ¼ 11.9, v2 ¼ 19.1,
p < .0001) and correctly classified 67% with
brain injury and 86% without brain injury.
PPP was 5%, and NPP was 100%.
DISCUSSION
Clinical Profiles
The profiles found in our study are consistent
with those previously reported for children
with ADHD, LD, autism, and brain injury,
demonstrating reliability across studies. Our
study also supports the validity of these pro-
files because of their significant association
with specific diagnoses. Children with neuro-
biological disorders (ADHD, LD, autism,
and brain injury) had distinctive profiles,
whereas children with mood and behavior
disorders (anxiety, depression, oppositional-
defiant, and adjustment disorder) did not.
Further, none of the mean WISC-III Index
 566 SUSAN DICKERSON MAYES AND SUSAN L. CALHOUN
scores for these children fell below 100, which
was not the case for children with neurobiolo-
gical disorders.
Predictive Validity
Our profile analysis was based on simple vis-
ual inspection and rank ordering of standard
scores without the need for mathematic com-
putations or statistical procedures. Profile
types were determined by the relative rank
of certain scores, not the magnitude of differ-
ences between scores. The analysis is easy
and practical and can be accomplished by
clinicians in only a few moments. Three pro-
file types were identified that characterize the
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 11:49 19 April 2011
majority of children with specific disorders,
but not children with other disorders. These
were (a) low Coding or FDI without low Com-
prehension, which characterized children
with ADHD or LD, (b) low Coding or FDI
with low Comprehension, prominent in chil-
dren with autism, and (c) low Performance
without low Coding or FDI, typical of children
with brain injury who did not have LD. These
profiles correctly classified children as having
versus not having ADHD=LD with 62%
accuracy, autism with 73% accuracy, and
brain injury without LD with 85% accuracy.
Although overall classification accuracy
was relatively high for the three profiles and
their corresponding diagnoses, sensitivity,
specificity, and positive and negative predic-
tive power differed between profiles. Speci-
ficity ranged from 76% to 86% for the three
diagnostic subgroups, but sensitivity was
lower at 56% to 67%. PPP was high for chil-
dren with ADHD=LD. If the low Coding or
FDI without low Comprehension profile was
present, these children had a 93% chance of
having ADHD=LD. However, if the profile
was not present, ADHD=LD could not be
ruled out because 73% of children without
the profile had ADHD=LD. The opposite
pattern was found for children with autism
and brain injury. NPP was high in autism. If
the low coding or FDI with low Comprehen-
sion profile was not present, the likelihood
of the child not having autism was 93%. How-
ever, PPP was low because 76% of children
with the low Coding or FDI with low Compre-
hension profile had diagnoses other than aut-
ism. Similarly, NPP was very high for brain
injury without LD. Almost all (99.6%) of
those without the low Performance profile
did not have brain injury without LD. How-
ever, PPP was low (95% of children with this
profile had diagnoses other than brain
injury). Therefore, the profile types are most
useful in ruling in ADHD=LD (93% accu-
racy) and ruling out autism and brain injury
(93% and 99.6% accuracies).
Clinical Implications
The presence or absence of profile types cer-
tainly should not be the basis for making a
diagnosis. Profiles are clinically useful
because they may alert a clinician to certain
diagnostic possibilities and they provide
knowledge about the pattern of strengths
and weaknesses that characterize certain dis-
orders, which has implications for edu-
cational intervention. Our results and those
of others indicate that children with ADHD,
LD, and autism score low on FDI and PSI
relative to other Index scores and that Coding
is the lowest of the six nonverbal subtests, fol-
lowed by Symbol Search. These findings sug-
gest attention, writing, and performance
speed weaknesses in children with ADHD,
LD, and autism. Children with brain injury
score lower on the Performance than on Ver-
bal subtests, indicating a global problem with
visual-motor skills not limited to writing.
However, even in this group, the mean Coding
score is lower than the other nonverbal subt-
est scores. Psychologists should be aware of
the likelihood of attention, writing, and per-
formance speed problems in children with
neurobiological disorders to insure that these
areas are properly assessed and that inter-
vention is provided if needed.
In contrast to attention, writing, and per-
formance speed weaknesses, children with
neurobiological disorders tend to have
strengths in verbal and visual reasoning (i.e.,
higher scores on VCI and POI than FDI
and PSI). Because the weaknesses are neuro-
logically based, they are likely to persist over
 SUPPORT FOR SUBTEST ANALYSIS
time. Therefore, it is important to teach to
the verbal and visual strengths and bypass,
compensate for, and remediate (to the great-
est extent possible) the attention, writing, and
performance speed weaknesses. Many
accommodations and interventions are avail-
able to assist with writing problems. These
include using a keyboard and word processor
for written work, providing class notes and
outlines so the students do not need to rely
solely on their own note taking, and teaching
structured writing strategies (Danoff,
Harris, & Graham, 1993; Graham, 1990;
Graham, Harris, & Larsen, 2001; Lane &
Lewandowski, 1994; MacArthur, 1996, 2000;
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 11:49 19 April 2011
McNaughton, Hughes, & Ofiesh, 1997;
Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992; Vaughn,
Gersten, & Chard, 2000).
Effective interventions also exist for stu-
dents who have attention problems. A recent
study funded by the National Institute of
Mental Health and U.S. Department of Edu-
cation showed that stimulant medication
(alone or in combination with behavior ther-
apy and counseling) was significantly more
effective in decreasing ADHD symptoms
than intensive behavior intervention and
counseling or routine community care
(MTA, 1999). Studies also demonstrate that
stimulant medication can improve attention
in children with autism (Birmaher, Quintana,
& Greenhill, 1988; Handen, Johnson, &
Lubetsky, 2000; Quintana et al., 1995;
Strayhorn, Rapp, Donina, & Strain, 1988).
Students who have attention problems
may also benefit from adaptations in school,
which are described in several publications
(Barkley, 1994; Fowler, 1990; Gordon, 1991;
McCarney, 1989; Parker, 1988; Prior, 2003).
Accommodations might include: preferential
seating near the teacher and between peers
who are attentive, breaking tasks into small
manageable segments, teaching organiza-
tional and study skills, backpack check at
the end of each school day and before school
to insure that the child does not forget assign-
ments and materials, a reasonable time limit
on homework and a reduction in classroom
assignments so that the child spends the same
567
amount of time doing schoolwork as the
child’s classmates, and two sets of textbooks
(one for school and one for home) if the child
has difficulty remembering which books to
bring home each day for homework.
In addition to low Coding, Symbol Search,
and FDI, children with autism have relatively
low scores on comprehension (measuring lan-
guage Comprehension and social reasoning)
and high scores on Block Design (assessing
visual-motor manipulative skills). Numerous
resources provide educational strategies
and interventions for students with autism to
address the language, social, attention, and
writing problems (Attwood, 1998, 2000; Bau-
minger, 2002; Gray & Garand, 1993; Jordan,
2003; Kunce, 2003; Manjiviona, 2003; Mesibov,
1992; National Research Council, 2001;
Shaked &Yirmiya, 2003; Williams, 1995).
Study Limitations
Limitations of the study include the differing
sample sizes of the diagnostic subgroups and
the fact that 74% of the participants were
male and 92% were White. Therefore, our
findings may not generalize to more diverse
clinical samples. Another limitation is the
very small number of children with LD who
did not have ADHD, autism, or brain injury
and the absence of a pure LD subgroup with-
out comorbidity. Future research is needed to
determine if children with different types of
LD can be distinguished from other diag-
noses using ability profiles or if children with
LD have profiles similar to those of children
with ADHD, as suggested in our study. Pre-
vious research indicates that children with
LD have some degree of attention problem
(as measured by rating scales and psycho-
metric tests of attention) even if they do
not meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD
(Barkley & Grodzinsky, 1994; Dainer et al.,
1981; Mayes, Calhoun, & Crowell, 1998b,
2000; Robins, 1992, Swanson, 1981, 1983;
Tarnowski, Prinz, & Nay, 1986).
Implications for the WISC-IV
Our findings may apply to the WISC-IV,
which has retained the subtests and indexes
 568 SUSAN DICKERSON MAYES AND SUSAN L. CALHOUN
that are key to the three clinical profile types.
These include Coding, Comprehension, VCI,
POI (now called Perceptual Reasoning Index
or PRI), PSI, and FDI (now called Working
Memory Index or WMI). The WISC-IV mod-
ifications may actually strengthen profile
findings. Letter-Number Sequencing replaces
arithmetic on WMI. Therefore, WMI may
be more sensitive to attention problems than
FDI because it is no longer confounded by
math ability. A potential improvement for
subtest analysis is that the WISC-IV has two
untimed motor-free estimates of visual
reasoning (Picture Concepts and Matrix
Reasoning). Block Design is retained as a vis-
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 11:49 19 April 2011
ual-motor subtest, and Object Assembly, Pic-
ture completion, and picture arrangement
are deleted. Thus, PRI on the WISC-IV has
only one timed visual-motor subtest, versus
three on the WISC-III POI. Now that fine
motor coordination and performance speed
will have less influence on PRI, this index
may be even more distinct from PSI than
was POI on the WISC-III.
Future research will be needed to determine
how the substantial WISC-IV changes will
affect profile analysis. However, preliminary
WISC-IV profile analysis data (Wechsler,
2003) on small samples of clinical children
(n ¼ 19
89) are consistent with our WISC-III
data. The lowest mean WISC-IV scores for
children with closed head injury are the Per-
formance subtests (comprising PRI and PSI).
The lowest Index scores for children with read-
ing and writing disabilities, ADHD, autism,
and Asperger’s disorder are WMI and PSI.
For these groups, Coding and then Symbol
Search are the lowest of the nonverbal subtests.
For children with autism and for children with
Asperger’s disorder, Comprehension is the low-
est of the VCI subtests, and Block Design is the
highest of the PRI subtests. Therefore, prelimi-
nary WISC-IV profiles for children with
ADHD, LD, autism, and brain injury are
equivalent to those on the WISC-III.
A study using the WISC-III standardiza-
tion sample (Fiorello et al., 2002) showed
that Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) ‘‘does not
adequately represent global intellectual
functioning for either typical children with
significant profile variability or children with
disabilities’’ (p. 115) and that VCI and POI
accounted for the majority of FSIQ variance
in children with ADHD, LD, and uneven
subtest profiles. This finding may be even
more pronounced for the WISC-IV than
for the WISC-III. Our study suggests that
FSIQ on the WISC-IV may be lower than
on the WISC-III for children with ADHD,
LD, and autism because all four of the
WMI and PSI subtests are used in the calcu-
lation of the FSIQ, whereas only two of the
four FDI and PSI subtests were used on the
WISC-III. Therefore, FSIQ on the WISC-IV
may not be the best indicator of global
intelligence for children with neurobiological
disorders.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We wish to thank the Wells Foundation,
Oxford Foundation, Spencer Foundation,
Children’s Miracle Network, and Penn State
Children, Youth, and Family Consortium
for their generous support of our research.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, P. T. & Dykman, R. A. (1995).
Reading-disabled students with and without
comorbid arithmetic disability. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 11, 351
371.
Allen, M. H., Lincoln, A. J., & Kaufman, A. S.
(1991). Sequential and simultaneous processing
abilities of high-functioning autistic and
language-impaired children. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 21, 483
502.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diag-
nostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1998). Psychological
Testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Asarnow, R. F., Tanguay, P. E., Bott, L., &
Freeman, B. J. (1987). Patterns of intellectual
functioning in non-retarded autistic and schizo-
phrenic children. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 28, 273
280.
 SUPPORT FOR SUBTEST ANALYSIS
Attwood, T. (1998). Asperger syndrome: A guide
for parents and professionals. Philadelphia:
Jessica Kingsley.
Attwood, T. (2000). Strategies for improving the
social integration of children with Asperger
syndrome. Autism, 4, 85
100.
Barkley, R. A. (1994). ADHD in the classroom:
Strategies for teachers. New York: Guilford.
Barkley, R. A. & Grodzinsky, G. M. (1994). Are
tests of frontal lobe functions useful in the diag-
nosis of attention deficit disorders? The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 8, 121
139.
Bauminger, N. (2002). The facilitation of social-
emotional understanding and social interaction
in high-functioning children with autism: Inter-
vention outcomes. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 32, 283
298.
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 11:49 19 April 2011
Birmaher, B., Quintana, H., & Greenhill, L. L.
(1988). Methylphenidate treatment of hyperac-
tive autistic children. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
27, 248
251.
Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., & Hintze, J. M. (1998).
Profile analysis and the Wechsler scales. School
Psychology International, 19, 209
220.
Dainer, K. B., Klorman, R., Salzman, L. F., Hess,
D. W., Davidson, P. W., & Michael, R. L.
(1981). Learning-disordered children’s evoked
potentials during sustained attention. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 9, 79
94.
Danoff, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1993).
Incorporating strategy instruction within the
writing process in the regular classroom: Effects
on the writing of students with and without
learning disabilities. Journal of Reading Beha-
vior, 25, 295
322.
Donders, J. (1996). Cluster subtypes in the WISC-
III standardization sample: Analysis of factor
index scores. Psychological Assessment, 8,
312
318.
Donders, J. & Warschausky, S. (1997). WISC-III
factor index score patterns after traumatic head
injury in children. Child Neuropsychology, 3,
71
78.
Ehlers, S., Nyden, A., Gillberg, C., Sandberg,
A. D., Dahlgren, S., Hjelmquist, E., et al.
(1997). Asperger syndrome, autism and atten-
tion disorders: A comparative study of the cog-
nitive profiles of 120 children. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 207
217.
Federal Register. (March 12, 1999). Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Washington, DC: Author.
Fessler, M. A., Rosenberg, M. S., & Rosenberg,
L. A. (1991). Concomitant learning disabilities
569
and learning problems among students with
behavioral=emotional disorders. Behavioral
Disorders, 16, 97
106.
Fiorello, C. A., Hale, J. B., McGrath, M., Ryan, K.,
& Quinn, S. (2002). IQ interpretation for chil-
dren with flat and variable test profiles. Learn-
ing and Individual Differences, 13, 115
125.
Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Thompson, N. M.,
Brookshire, B. L., Bohan, T. P., Landry, S.H.,
et al. (1992). Verbal and nonverbal skill discre-
pancies in hydrocephalic children. Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,
14, 593
609.
Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A.
(1999). Comorbidity of learning and attention
disorders. Pediatric Clinics of North America,
46, 885
897.
Fowler, M. C. (1990). Maybe you know my kid: A
parents guide to identifying, understanding and
helping your child with attention deficit hyper-
activity disorder. New York: Carol Publishing.
Frankenberger, W. & Fronzaglio, K. (1991).
A review of states’ criteria and procedures
for identifying children with learning disabil-
ities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24,
495
500.
Friedrich, W. N., Lovejoy, M. C., Shaffer, J.,
Shurtleff, D. B., & Beilke, R. L. (1991). Cogni-
tive abilities and achievement status of children
with myelomeningocele: A contemporary
sample. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 16,
423
428.
Glassberg, L. A., Hooper, S. R., & Mattison, R. E.
(1999). Prevalence of learning disabilities at
enrollment in special education students with
behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 25,
9
21.
Glutting, J. J., McDermott, P. A., Prifitera, A., &
McGrath, E. A. (1994). Core profile types for
the WISC-III and WIAT: Their development
and application in identifying multivariate IQ-
achievement discrepancies. School Psychology
Review, 23, 619
639.
Gordon, M. (1991). ADHD=hyperactivity: A con-
sumer’s guide for parents and teachers. DeWitt,
NY: GSI Publications.
Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors
in learning disabled students’ compositions.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,
781
791.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Larsen, L. (2001).
Prevention and intervention of writing difficult-
ies for students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16,
74
84.
 570 SUSAN DICKERSON MAYES AND SUSAN L. CALHOUN
Gray, C. A. & Garand, J. (1993). Social stories:
Improving responses of individuals with autism
with accurate social information. Focus on
Autistic Behavior, 8, 1
10.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Bocian,
K. M. (1996). Learning disabilities, low achieve-
ment, and mild mental retardation: More alike
than different? Journal of Learning Disabilities,
29, 570
581.
Hale, J. B., Fiorello, C. F., Kavanagh, J. A.,
Hoeppner, J. B., & Gaither, R. A. (2001).
WISC-III predictors of academic achievement
for children with learning disabilities: Are glo-
bal and factor scores comparable? School and
Psychology Quarterly, 16, 31
55.
Handen, B. L., Johnson, C. R., & Lubetsky, M.
(2000). Efficacy of methylphenidate among
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 11:49 19 April 2011
children with autism and symptoms of
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30,
245
255.
Happe, F. G. E. (1994). Wechsler IQ profile and
theory of mind in autism: A research note.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
35, 1461
1471.
Hoffman, N., Donders, J., & Thompson, E. H.
(2000). Novel learning abilities after traumatic
head injury in children. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 15, 47
58.
Hoskyn, M. & Swanson, H. L. (2000). Cognitive
processing of low achievers and children with
reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic
review of the published literature. School Psy-
chology Review, 29, 102
119.
Jacobs, R., Northam, E., & Anderson, V. (2001).
Cognitive outcome in children with myelome-
ningocele and perinatal hydrocephalus: A
longitudinal perspective. Journal of Develop-
mental and Physical Disabilities, 13, 389
405.
Jordan, R. (2003). School-based intervention for
children with specific learning difficulties. In
M. Prior (Ed.), Learning and behavior pro-
blems in Asperger syndrome (pp. 212
243).
New York: Guilford.
Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the
WISC-III. New York: Wiley.
Kavale, K. A., Fuchs, D., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994).
Setting the record straight on learning disability
and low achievement: Implications for policy-
making. Learning Disabilities Research & Prac-
tice, 9, 70
77.
Kay, J. B. & Warschausky, S. (1999). WISC-III
Index growth curve characteristics following
traumatic brain injury. Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology, 21, 186
199.
Kinsella, G., Prior, M., Sawyer, M., Murtagh, D.,
Eisenmajer, R., Anderson, V., et al. (1995).
Neuropsychological deficit and academic per-
formance in children and adolescents following
traumatic brain injury. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 20, 753
767.
Kramer, J. H. (1993). Interpretation of individual
subtest scores on the WISC-III. Psychological
Assessment, 5,193
196.
Kunce, L. (2003). The ideal classroom. In M. Prior
(Ed.), Learning and behavior problems in
Asperger syndrome (pp. 244
268). New York:
Guilford.
Lane, S. E. & Lewandowski, L. (1994). Oral and
written compositions of students with and with-
out learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoedu-
cational Assessment, 12, 142
153.
Lincoln, A. J., Courchesne, E., Kilman, B. A.,
Elmasian, R., & Allen, M. (1988). A study of
intellectual abilities in high-functioning people
with autism. Journal of Autism and Develop-
mental Disorders, 18, 505
524.
Lindgren, S. D. & Koeppl, G. K. (1987). Assessing
child behavior problems in a medical setting:
Development of the Pediatric Behavior Scale.
In R.J. Prinz (Ed.). Advances in behavioral
assessment of children and families (pp.
57
90). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Lufi, D., Cohen, A., & Parish-Plass, J. (1990).
Identifying attention deficit hyperactive dis-
order with the WISC-R and the Stroop color
and word test. Psychology in the Schools, 27,
28
34.
MacArthur, C. A. (1996). Using technology to
enhance the writing processes of students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Dis-
abilities, 29, 344
354.
MacArthur, C. A. (2000). New tools for writing:
Assistive technology for students with writing
difficulties. Topics in Language Disorders, 20,
85
100.
Manjiviona, J. (2003). Assessment of specific
learning difficulties. In M. Prior (Ed.). Learning
and behavior problems in Asperger syndrome
(pp. 55
84). New York: Guilford.
Mayes, S. D. & Calhoun, S. L. (2003). Analysis of
WISC-III, Stanford-Binet:IV, and academic
achievement test scores in children with autism.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disor-
ders, 33, 329
341.
Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L., & Crowell, E. W.
(1998a). WISC-III Freedom from Distractibility
as a measure of attention in children with and
without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Journal of Attention Disorders, 2, 217
227.
 SUPPORT FOR SUBTEST ANALYSIS
Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L., & Crowell, E. W.
(1998b). WISC-III profiles for children with
and without learning disabilities. Psychology
in the Schools, 35, 309
316.
Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L., & Crowell, E. W.
(2000). Learning disabilities and ADHD: Over-
lapping spectrum disorders. Journal of Learn-
ing Disabilities, 33, 417
424.
Mayes, S. D., Pelco, L. E., & Campbell, C. (1989).
Relationships among pre- and post-injury intel-
ligence, length of coma and age in individuals
with severe closed-head injuries. Brain Injury,
3, 301
313.
McCarney, S. B. (1989). Attention deficit dis-
orders intervention manual. Columbia, MO:
Hawthorne Educational Services.
McDermott, P. A., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Glutting,
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 11:49 19 April 2011
J. J. (1990). Just say no to subtest analysis: A
critique on Wechsler theory and practice. Jour-
nal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8,
290
302.
McNaughton, D., Hughes, C., & Ofiesh, N. (1997).
Proofreading for students with learning disabil-
ities: Integrating computer and strategy use.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12,
16
28.
Mealer, C., Morgan, S., & Luscomb, R. (1996).
Cognitive functioning of ADHD and non-
ADHD boys on the WISC-III and WRAML:
An analysis within a memory model. Journal
of Attention Disorders, 1, 133
147.
Mesibov, G. B. (1992). Treatment issues with high-
functioning adolescents and adults with autism.
In E. Schopler & G. B. Mesibov (Eds.). High-
functioning individuals with autism (pp.
143
156). New York: Plenum.
MTA Cooperative Group. (1999). A 14-month
randomized clinical trial of treatment strategies
for attention-deficit=hyperactivity disorder.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 1073
1086.
Naglieri, J. A., Goldstein, S., Iseman, J. S., &
Schwebach, A. (2003). Performance of children
with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and
anxiety=depression on the WISC-III and Cog-
nitive Assessment System (CAS). Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 32
42.
National Research Council. (2001). Educating chil-
dren with autism. Washington, DC: National
Academic Press.
Newby R. F., Recht, D. R., Caldwell, J., &
Schaefer, J. (1993). Comparison of WISC-III
and WISC-R IQ changes over a 2-year time
span in a sample of children with dyslexia. Jour-
nal of Psychoeducational Assessment, WISC-III
Monograph (pp. 87
93).
571
Nyden, A., Billstedt, E., Hjelmquist, E., &
Gillberg, C. (2001). Neurocognitive stability in
Asperger syndrome, ADHD, and reading and
writing disorder: A pilot study. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology, 43, 165
171.
Oh, H., Glutting, J. J., & McDermott, P. A. (1999).
An epidemiological-cohort study of DAS pro-
cessing speed factor: How well does it identify
concurrent achievement and behavior pro-
blems? Journal of Psychoeducational Assess-
ment, 17, 362
375.
Parker, H. C. (1988). The ADD hyperactivity
workbook for parents, teachers, and kids. Plan-
tation, FL: Impact Publications.
Pfeiffer, S., Reddy, L., Kletzel, J., Schmelzler, E.,
& Boyer, L. (2000). The practitioner’s view of
IQ testing and profile analysis. School Psy-
chology Quarterly, 15, 377
385.
Prifitera, A. & Dersh, J. (1993). Base rates of
WISC-III diagnostic subtest patterns among
normal, learning-disabled, and ADHD samples.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
WISC-III Monograph, 43
55.
Prior, M. (Ed.). (2003). Learning and behavior
problems in Asperger syndrome. New York:
Guilford.
Quintana, H., Birmaher, B. Stedge, D., Lennon, S.,
Freed, J., Bridge, J., et al. (1995). Use of
methylphenidate in the treatment of children
with autistic disorder. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 25, 283
294.
Robins, P. M. (1992). A comparison of behavioral
and attentional functioning in children diag-
nosed as hyperactive or learning-disabled. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20, 65
82.
Saklofske, D. H., Schwean, V. L., Yackulic, R. A.,
& Quinn, D. (1994). WISC-III and SB:FE per-
formance of children with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder. Canadian Journal of
School Psychology, 10, 167
171.
Sattler, J. M. (2002). Assessment of children. Beha-
vioral and clinical implications (4th ed.).
San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler.
Sawyer, R. J., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992).
Direct teaching, strategy instruction, and strat-
egy instruction with explicit self-regulation:
Effects on the composition skills and self-efficacy
of students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 340
352.
Schuerholz, L. J., Harris, E. L., Baumgardner,
T. L., Reiss, A. L., Freund, L. S., Church, R. P.,
et al. (1995). An analysis of two discrepancy-
based models and a processing-deficit approach
in identifying learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 28, 18
29.
 572 SUSAN DICKERSON MAYES AND SUSAN L. CALHOUN
Schwean, V. L., Saklofske, D. H., Yackulic, R. A.,
& Quinn, D. (1993). WISC-III performance of
ADHD children. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, WISC-III Monograph, 56
70.
Shaked, M. & Yirmiya, N. (2003). Understanding
social difficulties. In M. Prior (Ed.). Learning
and behavior problems in Asperger syndrome
(pp. 104
125). New York: Guilford.
Siegel, D. J., Minshew, N. J., & Goldstein, G.
(1996). Wechsler IQ profiles in diagnosing
high-functioning autism. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 26, 389
406.
Snow, J. B. & Sapp, G. L. (2000). WISC-III subtest
patterns of ADHD and normal samples.
Psychological Reports, 87(3), 759
765.
Stanton, H. C. & Reynolds, C. R. (2000). Config-
ural frequency analysis as a method of deter-
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 11:49 19 April 2011
mining Wechsler profile types. School
Psychology Quarterly, 15, 434
448.
Strayhorn, J. M., Rapp, N., Donina, W., & Strain,
P. S. (1988). Randomized trial of methylpheni-
date for an autistic child. Journal of the Ameri-
can Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 27, 244
247.
Swanson, H. L. (1981). Vigilance deficit in learning
disabled children: A signal detection analysis.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
22, 393
399.
Swanson, H. L. (1983). A developmental study of
vigilance in learning-disabled and nondis-
abled children. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 11, 415
429.
Tannock, R. & Brown, T. E. (2000). Attention-
deficit disorders with learning disorders
in children and adolescents. In T. E.
Brown (Ed.). Attention-deficit disorders and
comorbidities in children, adolescents, and
adults. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Press.
Tarnowski, K. J., Prinz, R. J., & Nay, S. M. (1986).
Comparative analysis of attentional deficits in
hyperactive and learning-disabled children.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 95,
341
345.
Tremont, G., Mittenberg, W., & Miller, L. J.
(1999). Acute intellectual effects of pediatric
head trauma. Child Neuropsychology, 5,
104
114.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000).
The underlying message in LD intervention
research: Findings from research syntheses.
Exceptional Children, 67, 99
114.
Ward, T. J., Ward, S. B., Glutting, J. J., & Hatt,
C. V. (1999). Exceptional LD profile types for
the WISC-III and WIAT. School Psychology
Review, 28, 629
643.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children (3rd ed.). New York: Psychological
Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1992). Manual for the Wechlser Indi-
vidual Achievement Test. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2003). WISC-IV technical and inter-
pretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Williams, K. (1995). Understanding the student
with Asperger syndrome: Guidelines for tea-
chers. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 10, 9
16.