831787

research-article2019
ASMXXX10.1177/1073191119831787AssessmentChen and Hua

Article
Assessment

Selecting Tetradic Short Forms of

1­–12
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
the Taiwan Wechsler Adult Intelligence sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1073191119831787
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119831787

Scale IV journals.sagepub.com/home/asm

Hsinyi Chen1 and Mau-Sun Hua2

Abstract
Factor-based Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) tetrads were investigated using the Taiwan
WAIS-IV standardization sample of 1,105 normal adults aged between 16 and 90 years. Various psychometric characteristics,
time constraints, and qualities of estimation were compared among 90 tetrads using linear equation procedures. Among
the tetrads, the Information–Visual Puzzle–Digit Span–Digit Symbol combination had higher performance than the other
combinations with respect to overall estimation quality and time saved. Moreover, the Similarities–Visual Puzzle–Digit
Span–Digit Symbol, Information–Matrix Reasoning–Digit Span–Digit Symbol, and Information–Visual Puzzle–Letter
Number Sequencing–Digit Symbol combinations obtained the most efficient estimates. For clinicians who value the utility
of Block Design, the Information–Block Design–Digit Span–Digit Symbol combination was found to provide high estimation
quality. The findings also revealed that the previously recommended Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Third Edition
tetrads are no longer the best solutions for the WAIS-IV. Furthermore, even the selected WAIS-IV tetrads had substantial
misclassification rates; the four-factor short forms tend to underestimate the full-scaled IQ for highly intelligent adults.
Therefore, these short forms should be used cautiously and for screening purposes only.

Keywords
WAIS-IV, short form, Taiwan norm

The Taiwanese version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) was recently released
(Wechsler, 2015a, 2015b). Administration of the 10
WAIS-IV core subtests requires 79 minutes on average for
normal adults (Wechsler, 2015a) and possibly longer when
working with clinical populations. Administering the full
WAIS-IV battery is beneficial for maintaining the “gold
standard” (Hartman, 2009), which provides the highest pos-
sible reliability and validity, and the most comprehensive
construct representation for evaluating intelligence.
However, using short forms can be beneficial when full
testing is too lengthy and thus expensive in clinical settings
due to practical reasons or when only intelligence quotient
(IQ) screening is required (Denney, Ringe, & Lacritz, 2015;
Donders, 2001; Meyers, Zellinger, Kockler, Wagner, &
Miller, 2013). The need for Wechsler short forms in practi-
cal settings is clearly revealed by the fact that Wechsler
scales are the most frequently applied measures in deriving
short form IQ estimates (Thompson, Lobello, Atkinson,
Chisholm, & Ryan, 2004). More important, independently
standardized and abbreviated IQ batteries such as the
Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (Reynolds &
Kamphaus, 2003, 2015) and Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of
Intelligence (Wechsler, 1999, 2011) are not available in
Taiwan, partly because of the high costs associated with
adaptation and norming. This lack of availability makes the
development of Wechsler short forms even more important
in Taiwan.
Prior research has examined the use of various short
forms of the previous edition, the Taiwanese version of the
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Third Edition (WAIS-
III; H. Chen, Hua, & Zhu, 2007; H. Chen, Hua, Zhu, &
Chen, 2008; Tam, 2004). However, because of the structure
and content modifications made to the WAIS-III to form the
WAIS-IV (Coalson, Raiford, Saklofske, & Weiss, 2010;
Wechsler, 2008a, 2008b), it is reasonable to suspect that the
best short forms of the two versions may differ. For exam-
ple, the perceptual reasoning component is strengthened in
the WAIS-IV, which drops two WAIS-III perceptual organi-
zation subtests (Picture Arrangement and Object Assembly)
and adds new subtests to measure visual processing (Visual
1National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan
2Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Corresponding Author:
Hsinyi Chen, Department of Special Education, National Taiwan Normal
University, 162, He-Ping East Road, Section 1, Taipei, Taiwan.
Email: hsinyi@ntnu.edu.tw
2 Assessment 00(0)
Puzzles) and fluid reasoning (Figure Weights). Moreover,
both the Picture Completion and Arithmetic subtests, which
were core subtests in the WAIS-III, are supplemental sub-
tests in the WAIS-IV (Wechsler, 2015a). With such struc-
tural differences, updated investigations concerning the
WAIS-IV short forms are warranted.
In the literature, Wechsler short forms vary from compris-
ing as few as two to as many as seven or eight subtests
(Christensen, Girard, & Bagby, 2007; Donders, 2001;
Donders & Axelrod, 2002; Donnell, Pliskin, Holdnack,
Axelrod, & Randolph, 2007; Dumont & Faro, 1993; Girard,
Axelrod, Patel, & Crawford, 2015; Kaufman, 1990; Kaufman,
Ishikuma, & Kaufman-Packer, 1991; Ryan, Kreiner,
Gontkovsky, & Umfleet, 2015; Schopp, Herrman, Johnstone,
Callahan, & Roudebush, 2001; Silverstein, 1982, 1990;
Ward, 1990; Wechsler, 2011). Findings generally suggest that
as the number of subtests in the short form is increased, the
predictive validity improves; moreover, the testing time
required also increases as a trade-off. Among the short form
versions, the two-, four-, and seven-subtest combinations are
the most frequently referred to. The present study focused on
four-subtest short forms that estimate full-scaled IQ (FSIQ)
for the following reasons: (a) tetrads generally have higher
reliability/predictive validity than dyads, (b) tetrads are time
saving compared with short forms with five or more subtests,
and (c) tetrads include one subtest from each of the four
WAIS-IV factors—Verbal Comprehension Index, Perceptual
Reasoning Index, Working Memory Index, and Processing
Speed Index, which preserves the factor structure of the
WAIS-IV FSIQ construct and minimizes the possibility of
overestimation or underestimation of the FSIQ for individu-
als with strengths or weaknesses in differential cognitive
domains (Blyler, Gold, Iannone, & Buchanan, 2000; Donders,
1997, 2001; Smith, McCarthy, & Anderson, 2000).
Three methods are frequently used for deriving short
form FSIQ estimates: linear scaling, prorating, and regres-
sion. The prorating procedure has a tendency to inflate vari-
ation and generate FSIQ estimates that are too extreme
(Tellegen & Briggs, 1967) and highly sensitive to the num-
ber of subtests and specific subtests selected (H. Chen et al.,
2008; Engelhart, Eisenstein, Johnson, & Losonczy, 1999).
The regression procedure tends to yield scores with a nar-
row range (H. Chen et al., 2007). Their estimation biases
make both the prorating and regression procedures inappro-
priate. Therefore, linear scaling methodology was selected
for deriving FSIQ estimates because of this procedure’s
well-recognized psychometric qualities (H. Chen et al.,
2007; Sattler, 2001; Sattler & Ryan, 2009; Silverstein,
1990; Tellegen & Briggs, 1967).
The present study compared the FSIQ estimation quality
of various WAIS-IV factor-based tetrads. Multiple factors
such as psychometric properties (reliability and validity),
time efficiency, and ease of administration and scoring were
simultaneously considered.
Method
Participants
We analyzed the Taiwan WAIS-IV standardization
responses from 1,105 adults (548 males and 557 females)
who reported no history of significant medical illness or
psychiatric problems. This nationally representative sample
was divided into 13 age groups ranging from 16 to 90 years,
with 85 cases in each age group. The sample was carefully
selected to match the 2013 Taiwan Census regarding gender,
education level, and geographic region. A detailed descrip-
tion of the sample is provided in the technical manual
(Wechsler, 2015b).
Tetrad Composition
All tetrads were required to include one subtest from each
of the four WAIS-IV factors. A total of 90 tetrads were
developed based on all possible combinations of three ver-
bal comprehension subtests (Similarities [S], Vocabulary
[V], Information [I]), five perceptual reasoning subtests
(Block Design [B], Matrix Reasoning [M], Visual Puzzle
[Vp], Figure Weight [F], Picture Completion [P]), three
working memory subtests (Digit Span [D], Letter-Number
Sequencing [L], Arithmetic [A]), and two processing speed
subtests (Symbol Search [Ss], Digit Symbol-Coding [Ds]).
Among all the 15 WAIS-IV subtests, only two were
excluded: Comprehension was excluded because of its high
time requirement, scoring difficulty, and relatively larger
assessor bias variance compared with the other three verbal
comprehension subtests (H. Chen, Pan, & Zhu, 2016).
Cancellation was excluded because of its lowest g-loading
(.41) and relatively longer testing time compared with the
other two processing speed subtests.
In this study, the abbreviation for each of the 90 tetrads
is the combination of the subtest abbreviations. For exam-
ple, a tetrad named “SBDSs” represents a combination of
Similarities, Block Design, Digit Span, and Symbol
Search, whereas “IPADs” is a combination of Information,
Picture Completion, Arithmetic, and Digit Symbol-
Coding. Abbreviations for each of the 13 studied subtests
are listed in Table 1.
Procedure
To derive estimated FSIQ for each tetrad, a linear equating
formula based on the formula proposed by Tellegen and
Briggs1 (1967, p. 504, formula 4) was used to compute a
deviation quotient (DQ) with a mean of 100 and a standard
deviation of 15. Under the proposed approach, short form
composite scores (sum of subtest scaled scores) and DQ are
considered equivalent if they correspond to equal standard
score deviates (Angoff, 1984; Kolen & Brennan, 2014). This
approach is considered appropriate for estimating FSIQs
Chen and Hua 3

Table 1. Basic Characteristics and Abbreviations for Each of the 13 Studied Subtests.

Average testing
Subtest (abbreviations) g-loading rxxa r with FSIQb time (minutes)c
Verbal Comprehension Index
Similarities (S) .66 .90 .76 9
Vocabulary (V) .70 .94 .76 13
Information (I) .68 .94 .77 6
Perceptual Reasoning Index
Block Design (B) .67 .86 .72 11
Matrix Reasoning (M) .71 .88 .73 8
Visual Puzzle (Vp) .66 .87 .69 8
Figure Weight (F) .81 .91 .75 9
Picture Completion (P) .53 .83 .56 7
Working Memory Index
Digit Span (D) .72 .93 .77 9
Letter-Number Sequencing (L) .71 .90 .76 9
Arithmetic (A) .76 .90 .74 8
Processing Speed Index
Symbol Search (Ss) .56 .79 .66 3
Digit Symbol-Coding (Ds) .57 .92 .69 3

Note. FSIQ = full-scaled intelligence quotient.

aData derived from Wechsler (2015b). bData derived from Wechsler (2015b). cData derived from Wechsler (2015a).

(Sattler, Dumont, & Coalson, 2016; Sattler & Ryan, 2009)
and has been applied in numerous studies of the short form
literature (Girard et al., 2015; Groth-Marnat & Wright, 2016).
In the present study, various types of psychometric
indices and base rate information were calculated for each
tetrad to comprehensively investigate the consistency
between estimated and real FSIQ (Floyd, Clark, & Shadish,
2008; Kaufman, Kaufman, Balgopol, & McLean, 1996;
Ryan, Lopez, & Werth, 1998; Ryan & Ward, 1999;
Silverstein, 1985a, 1985b; Tellegen & Briggs, 1967;
Thompson & Plumridge, 1999), namely (a) estimated aver-
age administration time; (b) reliabilities; (c) corrected
part–whole correlations of the composite scales2; (d) paired
sample t tests of the mean and variance differences of the
estimated and actual FSIQs; (e) correlations between esti-
mated and actual FSIQs; (f) absolute error unit depend-
ability coefficients3 (ϕ) based on generalizability theory,
which was used to take into account both the consistency
of scores and systematic differences between tetrad and
full-scaled FSIQs; (g) percentage of people with the esti-
mated scores falling within the 90% and 95% confidence
intervals for their estimated true FSIQ; and (h) correspon-
dence between the estimated and actual FSIQ qualitative
categorizations based on Wechsler’s seven category crite-
ria (2008b, p. 126, table 6.3): (a) extremely low (FSIQ 69
and below), (b) borderline (FSIQ 70-79), (c) low average
(FSIQ 80-89), (d) average (FSIQ 90-109), (e) high aver-
age (FSIQ 110-119), (f) superior (FSIQ 120-129), and (g)
very superior (FSIQ 130 and above).
Results
Table 1 summarizes the basic characteristics and abbrevia-
tions of each of the 13 studied subtests. The g-loadings were
estimated based on the confirmatory factor analysis results
presented in Wechsler (2015b). The g-loadings ranged
from .53 to .81, and were highest for Figure Weight and
Arithmetic. The Picture Completion, Digit Symbol, and
Symbol Search subtests corresponded with the lowest
g-loadings. All subtests exhibited fair g-loadings above .50,
and the g loadings for almost half (46%) of the subtests
were greater than .70, indicating a good measure of g
(Lichtenberger & Kaufman, 2013). Almost all subtests had
reliabilities of more than .85, the exceptions being Picture
Completion and Symbol Search. The adjusted correlations
with FSIQ were approximately .56 to .77 (p < .001).
Vocabulary and Block Design required lengthy administra-
tion times, whereas the other subtests were relatively time
efficient as expected.
Table 2 shows the reliabilities, corrected part–whole cor-
relations with the full battery, and administration time esti-
mates for each of the 90 studied tetrads. All combinations
had excellent reliabilities, ranging from .93 to .97. After cor-
recting for possible inflation due to overlapping variation,
the correlation of each tetrad with the full battery was found
to be promising, ranging from .89 to .93. The required
administration time varied, ranging from 24 to 36 min. As
expected, the short forms that included Vocabulary or Block
Design required much more time to administer (28-36
4 Assessment 00(0)

Table 2. Psychometric Characteristics and Estimated Time for Each of the 90 Tetrads.

Adjusted Timec Adjusted Timec Adjusted Timec

Tetrads rxx a part–whole r (minutes)
b Tetrads rxx a part–whole r (minutes)
b Tetrads rxx a part–whole r (minutes)
b

1 SBDSs .97 .92 32 31 VBDSs .95 .92 36 61 IBDSs .95 .92 29

2 SBDDs .96 .93 32 32 VBDDs .96 .92 36 62 IBDDs .96 .93 29
3 SBLSs .94 .92 32 33 VBLSs .94 .92 36 63 IBLSs .94 .92 29
4 SBLDs .95 .92 32 34 VBLDs .96 .93 36 64 IBLDs .96 .93 29
5 SBASs .94 .92 31 35 VBASs .94 .92 35 65 IBASs .94 .92 28
6 SBADs .95 .93 31 36 VBADs .96 .93 35 66 IBADs .96 .92 28
7 SMDSs .95 .92 29 37 VMDSs .95 .92 33 67 IMDSs .95 .93 26
8 SMDDs .96 .92 29 38 VMDDs .96 .92 33 68 IMDDs .96 .92 26
9 SMLSs .94 .92 29 39 VMLSs .95 .92 33 69 IMLSs .95 .92 26
10 SMLDs .95 .92 29 40 VMLDs .96 .92 33 70 IMLDs .96 .92 26
11 SMASs .94 .92 28 41 VMASs .95 .92 32 71 IMASs .95 .92 25
12 SMADs .96 .92 28 42 VMADs .96 .92 32 72 IMADs .96 .92 25
13 SVpDSs .94 .92 29 43 VVpDSs .95 .92 33 73 IVpDSs .95 .93 26
14 SVpDDs .96 .93 29 44 VVpDDs .96 .93 33 74 IVpDDs .96 .93 26
15 SVpLSs .94 .91 29 45 VVpLSs .94 .92 33 75 IVpLSs .94 .92 26
16 SV pLDs .95 .93 29 46 VVpLDs .96 .93 33 76 IVpLDs .96 .93 26
17 SVpASs .94 .92 28 47 VVpASs .94 .93 32 77 IVpASs .94 .92 25
18 SVpADs .95 .93 28 48 VVpADs .96 .93 32 78 IVpADs .96 .92 25
19 SFDSs .95 .93 30 49 VFDSs .95 .93 34 79 IFDSs .95 .93 27
20 SFDDs .96 .93 30 50 VFDDs .97 .93 34 80 IFDDs .97 .93 27
21 SFLSs .95 .93 30 51 VFLSs .95 .93 34 81 IFLSs .95 .93 27
22 SFLDs .96 .93 30 52 VFLDs .96 .93 34 82 IFLDs .96 .93 27
23 SFASs .95 .92 29 53 VFASs .95 .92 33 83 IFASs .95 .92 26
24 SFADs .96 .93 29 54 VFADs .96 .92 33 84 IFADs .97 .92 26
25 SPDSs .97 .90 28 55 VPDSs .94 .91 32 85 IPDSs .94 .91 25
26 SPDDs .95 .91 28 56 VPDDs .95 .92 32 86 IPDDs .96 .92 25
27 SPLSs .93 .89 28 57 VPLSs .94 .91 32 87 IPLSs .94 .90 25
28 SPLDs .95 .90 28 58 VPLDs .95 .91 32 88 IPLDs .95 .91 25
29 SPASs .93 .91 27 59 VPASs .94 .92 31 89 IPASs .94 .91 24
30 SPADs .95 .91 27 60 VPADs .95 .92 31 90 IPADs .95 .91 24
aComposite reliability based on Tellegan and Briggs (1967). bAdjusted part–whole correlation based on Tellegan and Briggs (1967). cEstimated by
summing corresponding subtest administration times from Wechsler (2015a).

minutes). The short forms that excluded both Vocabulary
and Block Design but included Information had the shortest
administration time. The administration of these tetrads
saved approximately 54% to 70% of the time required to
administer the standard 10-core WAIS-IV subtests.
Table 3 presents the results for primary index of estima-
tion accuracy. The table presents various types of evidence
at both the group and individual levels. The group-level evi-
dence comprises the mean and standard deviation of the dif-
ference between the estimated and actual FSIQs; correlations
between the estimated and actual FSIQs; paired sample t
test results for significant mean (tm) and variance (tv) differ-
ences between the actual and estimated FSIQs; and the gen-
eralizability theory-based dependability coefficient (ϕ
coefficient). The individual-level evidence comprises per-
centages of individuals with estimated FSIQ within the
90% and 95% levels of confidence of the estimated true
FSIQ (within approximately ±3.7 and ±4.4 IQ points of
the estimated true FSIQ score) and the accuracy relative to
the correspondence between Wechsler’s seven qualitative
intelligence categorizations.
All tetrads yielded estimated FSIQs that correlated
highly with the actual FSIQs, with correlation coefficients
ranging from .88 to .95 (all p < .01). The combinations that
included Picture Completion appeared to have weaker cor-
relation than the corresponding tetrads that did not include
Picture Completion. The central tendency and variation of
all estimated and actual FSIQ distributions matched closely.
All 90 tetrads were found to provide reasonably accurate
group mean FSIQ estimations; however, a few short forms
that contained both Digit Span and Symbol Search were
observed to result in significant score variation (p < .01).
Under simultaneous consideration of relative differences
(revealed via correlations) and absolute differences
Chen and Hua
(revealed via mean differences), all tetrads revealed strong
dependability coefficients of .85 to .95.4 Most of the tetrads
(87.5%) with ϕ values higher than the .90 standard when
making clinical decisions (Groth-Marnat & Wright, 2016;
Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
In a comparison of estimation qualities among all tet-
rads, the IVpDDs (Information, Visual Puzzle, Digit Span,
Digit Symbol-Coding) tetrad performed more favorably
than all other combinations for almost all psychometric
properties. The IVpDDs tetrad not only exhibited a high
reliability of .96, and a high dependability coefficient of .95
but also explained 90% of the actual FSIQ variance.
Furthermore, 69% of the norm sample with IVpDDs FSIQ
estimates fell within the 95% confidence interval (approxi-
mately ±4.4 IQ points) of the estimated true FSIQ, and the
accurate FSIQ classification hit rate was also the highest of
all tetrads at 75%. Administering this short form required
approximately 26 minutes. Impressively, the estimation
quality of IVpDDs exceeded that of all tetrads that required
more time (up to 36 minutes) to administer. Its optimal psy-
chometric properties and shorter test duration makes
IVpDDs the most favorable solution.
In addition to IVpDDs, other tetrads such as SVpDDs
(Similarities, Visual Puzzle, Digit Span, Digit Symbol-
Coding), IMDDs (Information, Matrix Reasoning, Digit
Span, Digit Symbol-Coding), and IVpLDs (Information,
Visual Puzzle, Letter Number Sequencing, Digit Symbol-
Coding) performed favorably in all psychometric and time-
efficient domains. These three tetrads required less than 30
minutes to administer and demonstrated strong reliability
and validity. Approximately 65% to 68% of the FSIQs esti-
mated using these tetrads fell within the known true 95%
confidence interval, and their accurate FSIQ classification
hit rates were among the highest (72% to 75%).
In the aforementioned four WAIS-IV short forms
(IVpDDs, SVpDDs, IMDDs, and IVpLDs), either Visual
Puzzle or Matrix Reasoning were selected to represent the
perceptual reasoning factor. For clinicians who prefer the
pure visual–motor organization information provided by
Block Design, the IBDDs (Information, Block Design,
Digit Span, Digit Symbol-Coding) is recommended; this
required 29 minutes to administer and had high reliability
and validity. Approximately 66% of the estimated FSIQs
fell within the known true 95% confidence interval, and
the accurate FSIQ classification hit rate was one of the
highest (74%).
Collectively, the evidence indicated that the IVpDDs
combination was superior to all the other WAIS-IV tetrads.
The IVpDDs offered one of the highest estimation accura-
cies and required only 26 minutes to administer. The
SVpDDs, IMDDs, IVpLDs, and IBDDs tetrads were also
favorable options. The estimation accuracies of these tet-
rads were among the highest, as discussed, and they saved
64% to 67% of the time required to administer the full
5
battery. Table 4 presents the linear equating formulae used
for converting the short form scores into estimated FSIQs.
For each of the five suggested tetrads, the percentages of
people belonging to the three score discrepancy categories
are presented in Table 5. Discrepancy was defined as the
difference between the estimated IQ and actual FSIQ. A dif-
ference within ±5 IQ points (close to the 95% confidence
interval) was considered to indicate a match; and underesti-
mation was defined as an estimated FSIQ of 6 or more
points lower than actual FSIQ; by contrast, overestimation
was defined as an estimated FSIQ of 6 or more points higher
than actual FSIQ. The percentage in each discrepancy cat-
egory reveals essential base rate information.
The data in Table 5 demonstrate that for the group of
individuals with FSIQ lower than 120, approximately 72%
to 87% of the estimated FSIQs were within ±5 IQ points of
the actual FSIQs, and the percentages of overestimation and
underestimation were distributed relatively evenly.
However, for the group with FSIQ of more than 120, the
percentages of estimations within ±5 FSIQ points were
lower at approximately 62% to 70%, and an imbalance was
observed where approximately 30% of these estimated
FSIQs were underestimated, whereas the percentage of
overestimation was lower at approximately 5%. Moreover,
IMDDs appears to be the preferable tetrad when testing
adults with an FSIQ of lower than 79.
For each of the five selected WAIS-IV tetrads, we further
examined whether the mean discrepancies were signifi-
cantly different from zero within each ability (IQ) group.
Figure 1 plots the mean discrepancies according to ability
level. In the highest ability group (FSIQ ≥ 120), all five
tetrads significantly underestimated FSIQ (t = −4.45 to
−7.24, p <. 01). Thus, when utilizing these factor-based tet-
rads, underestimation tends to occur for the smartest 10% of
people.
For the previous version of the Wechsler scale, Taiwan
WAIS-III (Wechsler, 2002), five tetrads (SMADs, SPADs,
IPADs, SBADs, and IBADs) were discovered to result in
the highest WAIS-III FSIQ estimating quality (H. Chen
et al., 2008). Considering some clinical practitioners and
researchers may have a special need to continue using these
WAIS-III tetrads to predict WAIS-IV FSIQ for purposes
such as data tracking continuity, the relevant linear formu-
lae for converting the short form scores into estimated
WAIS-IV FSIQs are also provided in Table 4.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of fac-
tor-based WAIS-IV tetrads. At the group level, the linear
equating procedure generated distributions that favorably
matched the actual distributions. The majority of the gener-
ated means and variances were close to their corresponding
actual values. For short form selection, five tetrads are
6 Assessment 00(0)

Table 3. Comparison of FSIQ Estimation Quality of 90 Tetrads.

Differencea, % Within CI % Within same

Tetrads M (SD) r t(m)b t(v)c ϕd 90%e     95%f IQ category
1 SBDSs 0.05 (6.40) .91 0.27 −20.60** .89 47     51 64
2 SBDDs 0.05 (5.02) .94 0.32 1.07 .94 56     64 74
3 SBLSs 0.02 (5.39) .94 0.09 −0.15 .94 55     61 71
4 SBLDs 0.03 (5.11) .94 0.21 0.85 .94 57     65 73
5 SBASs 0.02 (6.01) .92 0.13 0.86 .92 49     56 67
6 SBADs 0.04 (5.84) .93 0.24 0.96 .93 52     58 68
7 SMDSs −0.02 (5.23) .94 −0.10 −0.03 .94 58     63 73
8 SMDDs 0.02 (5.40) .94 0.13 1.66 .94 55     62 71
9 SMLSs 0.03 (5.31) .94 0.18 −1.36 .94 54     61 71
10 SMLDs 0.03 (5.55) .93 0.19 1.56 .93 54     60 70
11 SMASs 0.00 (5.97) .92 0.02 −0.17 .92 52     60 67
12 SMADs 0.01 (6.27) .91 0.07 1.51 .91 52     57 66
13 SVpDSs −0.03 (5.29) .94 −0.18 −2.27* .94 56     63 73
14 SVpDDs 0.00 (4.88) .95 0.00 0.82 .95 58     66 75
15 SVpLSs −0.02 (5.56) .93 −0.11 0.52 .93 54     60 71
16 SVpLDs 0.01 (5.08) .94 0.04 0.65 .94 58     66 74
17 SVpASs −0.04 (6.11) .92 −0.23 0.99 .92 51     56 67
18 SVpADs −0.02 (5.78) .93 −0.14 0.67 .93 54     60 70
19 SFDSs −0.05 (5.95) .93 −0.26 2.70** .92 53     61 68
20 SFDDs 0.01 (5.70) .93 0.05 1.12 .93 52     59 70
21 SFLSs −0.01 (5.87) .92 −0.05 −0.72 .92 52     58 68
22 SFLDs 0.03 (5.85) .92 0.18 0.93 .92 50     57 68
23 SFASs −0.00 (6.78) .90 −0.01 0.95 .90 47     54 64
24 SFADs 0.01 (6.73) .90 0.05 1.03 .90 45     52 64
25 SPDSs 0.04 (7.32) .88 0.20 −20.36* .85 42     47 60
26 SPDDs 0.02 (6.50) .91 0.11 0.78 .91 47     54 66
27 SPLSs 0.00 (7.00) .89 0.02 0.18 .89 44     50 64
28 SPLDs 0.05 (6.81) .90 0.22 0.66 .90 46     52 66
29 SPASs −0.00 (7.20) .88 −0.01 −0.11 .88 42     48 63
30 SPADs 0.01 (7.12) .89 0.04 0.68 .89 42     48 62
31 VBDSs −0.02 (5.25) .94 −0.15 −3.43** .94 58     64 71
32 VBDDs 0.03 (5.02) .94 0.18 1.11 .94 59     67 74
33 VBLSs 0.03 (4.97) .94 0.21 −1.34 .94 60     67 71
34 VBLDs 0.04 (4.88) .95 0.25 1.32 .95 58     66 74
35 VBASs 0.01 (5.93) .92 0.08 1.04 .92 51     57 68
36 VBADs 0.01 (5.85) .92 0.08 0.98 .92 50     58 66
37 VMDSs −0.01 (4.95) .95 −0.07 −0.80 .95 60     66 72
38 VMDDs 0.01 (5.38) .94 0.07 1.86 .94 57     63 71
39 VMLSs −0.00 (4.85) .95 −0.02 −2.65** .95 61     67 73
40 VMLDs 0.03 (5.31) .94 0.19 2.00 .94 56     62 71
41 VMASs −0.01 (5.87) .92 −0.05 −0.13 .92 51     58 65
42 VMADs 0.00 (6.27) .91 0.02 1.65 .91 49    55 65
43 VVpDSs −0.03 (4.98) .94 −0.18 −3.20** .94 61     67 73
44 VVpDDs −0.01 (4.81) .95 −0.04 0.93 .95 59     67 74
45 VVpLSs −0.03 (5.06) .94 −0.22 −0.53 .94 60     65 70
46 VVpLDs −0.01 (4.76) .95 −0.08 0.74 .95 61     68 74
47 VVpASs −0.02 (6.00) .92 −0.12 1.29 .92 55     61 67
48 VVpADs −0.02 (5.75) .93 −0.09 0.99 .93 55     61 67
49 VFDSs −0.05 (5.79) .93 −0.28 2.52* .93 54     60 69
50 VFDDs 0.00 (5.78) .93 0.03 1.29 .93 51     59 69
51 VFLSs −0.02 (5.61) .93 −0.13 −1.87 .93 54     60 67

(continued)
Chen and Hua 7

Table 3. (continued)

Differencea, % Within CI % Within same

Tetrads M (SD) r t(m)b t(v)c ϕd 90%e     95%f IQ category
52 VFLDs 0.01 (5.71) .93 0.08 1.07 .93 51     59 67
53 VFASs −0.02 (6.77) .90 −0.08 1.01 .90 45     51 63
54 VFADs −0.00 (6.79) .90 −0.02 1.14 .90 45     52 61
55 VPDSs −0.05 (6.27) .91 −0.26 −1.27 .91 50     57 67
56 VPDDs −0.01 (6.17) .92 −0.04 0.81 .92 50     54 67
57 VPLSs −0.00 (6.38) .91 −0.02 −0.60 .91 47     54 63
58 VPLDs −0.01 (6.29) .91 −0.04 0.75 .91 48     55 67
59 VPASs −0.02 (6.88) .90 −0.09 0.14 .90 44     50 61
60 VPADs −0.00 (6.85) .90 −0.01 0.78 .90 44     49 62
61 IBDSs −0.01 (5.07) .94 −0.06 −4.31** .94 59     65 73
62 IBDDs 0.02 (4.93) .95 0.15 0.97 .95 60     66 74
63 IBLSs 0.03 (5.17) .94 0.16 −0.97 .94 56     62 71
64 IBLDs 0.02 (5.07) .94 0.15 0.79 .94 59     66 73
65 IBASs 0.02 (6.23) .91 0.09 0.92 .91 50     55 65
66 IBADs 0.03 (6.17) .92 0.15 0.91 .92 51     57 66
67 IMDSs −0.01 (4.80) .95 −0.05 −2.46* .95 62     68 72
68 IMDDs 0.02 (5.23) .94 0.13 1.74 .94 58     65 72
69 IMLSs 0.02 (5.02) .94 0.13 −2.04* .94 58     65 72
70 IMLDs 0.01 (5.43) .94 0.08 1.78 .94 56     62 71
71 IMASs 0.01 (6.14) .92 0.05 0.18 .92 50     57 66
72 IMADs 0.00 (6.51) .91 0.00 1.52 .91 48     54 65
73 IVpDSs −0.01 (4.95) .94 −0.09 −4.06** .94 59     66 73
74 IVpDDs −0.01 (4.80) .95 −0.05 0.60 .95 61     69 75
75 IVpLSs −0.01 (5.30) .94 −0.08 −0.37 .90 56     63 71
76 IVpLDs −0.02 (5.02) .94 −0.13 0.41 .94 61     68 73
77 IVpASs −0.04 (6.32) .91 −0.19 1.19 .91 51     57 65
78 IVpADs 0.01 (6.13) .92 0.03 0.72 .92 51     59 68
79 IFDSs −.05 (5.82) .93 −0.29 1.31 .93 53     60 68
80 IFDDs 0.00 (5.84) .93 0.02 1.04 .93 53     60 69
81 IFLSs 0.00 (5.90) .92 0.00 −1.26 .92 51     57 68
82 IFLDs 0.00 (5.98) .92 0.01 0.66 .92 50     57 68
83 IFASs −0.01 (7.11) .89 −0.06 1.08 .89 47     52 62
84 IFADs 0.00 (7.14) .89 0.03 0.99 .89 45     52 61
85 IPDSs −0.03 (6.30) .91 −0.18 −0.38 .91 48     54 66
86 IPDDs 0.01 (6.20) .92 0.05 0.70 .92 47     53 68
87 IPLSs 0.01 (6.64) .90 0.03 −0.24 .90 46     51 64
88 IPLDs 0.03 (6.55) .91 0.17 0.50 .91 47     53 67
89 IPASs −0.01 (7.21) .88 −0.06 0.14 .89 42     49 63
90 IPADs 0.01 (7.23) .89 0.03 0.86 .89 42     48 63

Note. FSIQ = full-scaled intelligence quotient; CI = confidence interval.

aDifference between estimated and actual FSIQ. bPaired sample student t test for mean differences. cPaired sample student t test for variance

differences. dAbsolute error unit dependability coefficient. eApproximately ±3.7 IQ points of the estimated true FSIQ. fApproximately ±4.4 IQ points
of the estimated true FSIQ.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

recommended for future usage: IVpDDs, SVpDDs, IMDDs,
IVpLDs, and IBDDs. On average, administering these tet-
rads requires 26 to 29 minutes, which is merely 33% to 37%
of the time required to administer the full WAIS-IV, and the
tetrads have approximately 72% to 75% accuracy rates
when using the matching FSIQ categories as the criteria.
Practitioners are suggested to select the tetrad that most
closely fits their referral question and provides useful clini-
cal information.
In the present study, the IVpDDs corresponded with
the highest performance for overall estimation qualities
among all the recommended tetrads. Both the IVpDDs and
8
Table 4. Linear Equating Formulaea for Estimating WAIS-IV FSIQ.

Age group, years

Tetrads 16-17 18-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-90
Selected five WAIS-IV tetrads with top qualities
IVpDDs 1.78x + 29 1.81x + 28 1.89x + 25 1.73x + 31 1.60x + 36 1.77x + 29 1.64x + 35 1.60x + 36 1.58x + 37 1.53x + 39 1.58x + 37 1.62x + 35 1.59x + 37
SVpDDs 1.80x + 28 1.82x + 27 1.93x + 23 1.70x + 32 1.64x + 34 1.83x + 27 1.61x + 36 1.58x + 37 1.58x + 37 1.53x + 39 1.58x + 37 1.55x + 38 1.56x + 38
IMDDs 1.86x + 26 1.76x + 30 1.85x + 26 1.71x + 31 1.60x + 36 1.73x + 31 1.64x + 34 1.59x + 36 1.57x + 37 1.50x + 40 1.55x + 38 1.61x + 36 1.56x + 38
IVpLDs 1.77x + 29 1.82x + 27 1.87x + 25 1.69x + 32 1.60x + 36 1.76x + 30 1.62x + 35 1.63x + 35 1.56x + 38 1.54x + 39 1.58x + 37 1.68x + 33 1.61x + 35
IBDDs 1.75x + 30 1.76x + 29 1.77x + 29 1.74x + 30 1.64x + 34 1.76x + 30 1.58x + 37 1.59x + 36 1.59x + 37 1.58x + 37 1.58x + 37 1.61x + 36 1.53x + 39
Supplemental references for researchers who have needs to use the old WAIS-III short forms in predicting WAIS-IV FSIQ onlyb
SMADs 1.87x + 25 1.68x + 33 1.93x + 23 1.64x + 35 1.58x + 37 1.70x + 32 1.59x + 37 1.57x + 37 1.54x + 39 1.49x + 40 1.56x + 37 1.59x + 37 1.62x + 35
SPADs 2.01x + 20 1.75x + 30 1.95x + 22 1.73x + 31 1.62x + 35 1.83x + 27 1.57x + 37 1.57x + 37 1.57x + 37 1.47x + 41 1.62x + 35 1.64x + 34 1.57x + 37
IPADs 1.96x + 22 1.74x + 30 1.93x + 23 1.74x + 30 1.59x + 36 1.75x + 30 1.58x + 37 1.58x + 37 1.55x + 38 1.47x + 41 1.63x + 35 1.72x + 31 1.60x + 36
SBADs 1.83x + 27 1.72x + 31 1.91x + 24 1.67x + 34 1.60x + 36 1.77x + 29 1.56x + 38 1.56x + 38 1.55x + 38 1.55x + 38 1.56x + 37 1.59x + 37 1.58x + 37
IBADs 1.75x + 30 1.69x + 32 1.79x + 29 1.67x + 33 1.57x + 37 1.70x + 32 1.55x + 38 1.58x + 37 1.54x + 38 1.57x + 37 1.57x + 37 1.65x + 34 1.58x + 37

Note. WAIS-IV = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition; FSIQ = full-scaled intelligence quotient.
ax = The sum of the four age-corrected subtest scaled scores. bThese WAIS-III tetrads should be used with caution because they exhibit relatively lower validity for predicting WAIS-IV FSIQ.
Chen and Hua 9

Table 5. Percentage of People in Each Discrepancy Category for the Five Selected Tetrads.

By full-scaled IQ ability level

Overall
group IQ ≤ 79 IQ (80-89) IQ (90-109) IQ (110-119) IQ ≥ 120

Tetrad Discrepancya category (N = 1,105) (n = 97) (n = 169) (n = 559) (n = 168) (n = 112)

IVpDDs Underestimates (≤−6 IQ points) 11.9 9.3 11.8 9.7 10.1 28.6
Within ±5 IQ points 77.1 78.4 77.0 78.5 79.2 66.0
Overestimates (≥+6 IQ points) 11.0 12.3 11.2 11.8 10.7 5.4
SVpDDs Underestimates (≤−6 IQ points) 13.0 17.5 10.1 9.5 11.9 33.0
Within ±5 IQ points 74.1 77.3 78.1 73.1 78.6 63.4
Overestimates (≥+6 IQ points) 12.9 5.2 11.8 17.4 9.5 3.6
IMDDs Underestimates (≤−6 IQ points) 12.8 8.3 11.2 10.6 15.5 26.8
Within ±5 IQ points 73.7 86.6 71.6 73.7 72.6 67.0
Overestimates (≥+6 IQ points) 13.5 5.1 17.2 15.7 11.9 6.2
IVpLDs Underestimates (≤−6 IQ points) 13.9 16.5 10.6 9.8 16.7 33.0
Within ±5 IQ points 74.2 74.2 72.8 77.3 73.2 62.5
Overestimates (≥+6 IQ points) 11.9 9.3 16.6 12.9 10.1 4.5
IBDDs Underestimates (≤−6 IQ points) 12.6 15.4 10.6 10.6 10.1 26.8
Within ±5 IQ points 75.0 75.3 74.6 76.0 75.6 69.6
Overestimates (≥+6 IQ points) 12.4 9.3 14.8 13.4 14.3 3.6

Note. FSIQ = full-scaled intelligence quotient.

aDiscrepancy = estimated FSIQ − actual FSIQ.

Figure 1. Mean discrepancies between estimated and actual FSIQs for each selected tetrad based on five ability levels.
Note. FSIQ = full-scaled intelligence quotient.

IBDDs were recommended by Sattler and Ryan (2009) as Donders and Axelrod (2002) outlined three criteria for
optimal tetrads for the U.S. WAIS-IV, which cross-validates short form selections: reliability higher than .90, correlation
our finding. higher than .82, and at least 81% of the estimated scores lie
10
within the 90% confidence interval of the full-length pre-
dicted score. In this study, all factor-based four-subtest short
forms met the first two criteria, but they did not meet the
third criterion. Even with the best IVpDDs tetrad, only 61%
of the estimated FSIQs were within the 90% confidence
interval (±3.7 IQ points) of the estimated true FSIQs. The
results revealed that if the prediction accuracy at the indi-
vidual level is the main concern, using short forms with
more subtests is optimal, such as the seven-subtest short
forms (Batchelor & Meyers, 2013; Meyers et al., 2013;
Ward, 1990). Regardless, the critical challenge of balancing
validity and time efficiency remained. Based on current
findings, the recommended tetrads should be used for
screening or in situations where a precise FSIQ at the indi-
vidual level is not required (Sattler & Ryan, 2009).
Similar to findings based on the WAIS-III (H. Chen et al.,
2008), the current results show that the FSIQ estimates gen-
erated by these tetrads tended to underestimate the FSIQ for
the top-ability group (the smartest 10% of the population).
One possible explanation for this findings could be that the
Processing Speed Index scores of members of the highest
intelligence population tends to be lower relative to their
overall intellectual profiles (Wechsler, 2008b). However, the
weighting of the Processing Speed Index subtests was
shifted from one fifth in the WAIS-IV full battery up to one
fourth in the factor-based tetrads. Changes in the cognitive-
factor weighting leads to imprecision in IQ score estimations
(Saklofske, Gorsuch, Weiss, Zhu, & Patterson, 2005). The
factor-based tetrads should thus be used with caution for
estimating FSIQs for individuals in the top-ability group.
The current results remind practitioners that the most
favorable tetrads for representing the WAIS-III are no longer
among the best solutions for representing the WAIS-IV. In
particular, the validity for the WAIS-III tetrads including
Picture Completion (SPADs and IPADs) was weak, with only
48% of the estimated WAIS-IV FSIQs falling within the true
95% confidence interval, and the accurate WAIS-IV FSIQ
classification hit rate was lower at approximately 62% to
63%. Users should be aware that the old WAIS-III tetrads
exhibited relatively lower validity for predicting WAIS-IV
FSIQ. Lower validities should be expected when using the old
WAIS-III tetrads for deriving WAIS-IV FSIQs, given the
known structure and content changes in the WAIS-IV. For
example, the perceptual reasoning component in the WAIS-IV
has been strengthened by new subtests, such as Visual Puzzles
and Figure Weights; consequently, Picture Completion, the
subtest that measures visual discrimination—the ability to
distinguish between essential and nonessential details—is no
longer a core element constituting the WAIS-IV FSIQ. In the
WAIS-IV, Picture Completion exhibited a comparatively
lower g-loading and lower adjusted correlation with the FSIQ.
Therefore, we recommend that the updated WAIS-IV tetrads,
instead of the old WAIS-III tetrads, be used whenever possible
for achieving the highest predictive accuracy.
Assessment 00(0)
Limitations caused by using these short forms should be
considered. The use of any short form indicates the loss of
some information from the original full battery (Meyers et al.,
2013), and the ways that examinees perform on a short form
and a full battery are different. Problems arise when subtests
are administered out of the order prescribed in the WAIS-IV
manual. Examinees under shorter examination times exhibit
improved concentration and motivation, use of short form
examinations comprising only two subtests may result in rela-
tively strong positive bias; however, this influence appears to
be minimized for tetrads (Thompson, Howard, & Anderson,
1986; Thompson & Plumridge, 1999). In the current study,
the four-subtest short forms did not have independent norms,
and the problem of overlapping error variances (Kaufman &
Lichtenberger, 2002) is applicable to the study findings.
Another limitation is that because we used the WAIS-IV
Taiwan standardization sample for deriving short form esti-
mates, findings based on the normal samples may not be fully
generalizable to clinical populations with various neurocogni-
tive deficits (J. Chen, 2017; McCusker, 1994; Reid-Arndt,
Allen, & Schopp, 2011). Further validity studies in these clini-
cal populations are thus encouraged. Users are also encour-
aged to interpret short form scores with caution.
In conclusion, these short forms can have numerous
potential applications if the aforementioned limitations are
overcome. When the full battery of 10 core subtests cannot
be administered or is not required, current results suggest
the utility of the IVpDDs, SVpDDs, IMDDs, IVpLDs, and
IBDDs tetrads.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. The formula used to compute the estimated FSIQ for a
short form was as follows: DQ = (15 / Sc)( Xc − Mc) + 100 ,
where Xc = sum of subtest scaled scores in the short form;
Sc = standard deviation of Xc; and Mc = normative mean
of Xc.
2. The formula used to compute the corrected part–whole correla-
′ =
tions was as follows: rpw
∑∑r jl
2 (n / 2) + ∑ r (t / 2) + ∑ r
jk lm
(Tellegen & Briggs, 1967, p. 501, formula 3)Where r′pw =
modified coefficient of correlation between the composite
part and the composite whole; rjl = correlation between any
subtest j included in the part and any subtest l included in
the whole, where any included correlation between a subtest
and itself is represented by its reliability coefficient; rjk =
Chen and Hua
correlation between any subtests j and k belonging to the part
(where subscript k is numerically larger than subscript j); rlm =
correlation between any subtest l and m belonging to the whole
(where subscript m is numerically larger than subscript l);
n = number of subtests included in the part, and t = number
of subtests included in the whole.
3. In this study, the formula for the dependability coefficient
was as follows: ϕ = (σ2p) / (σ2p +σ2i + σ2pi,e), where σ2p
is person universe-score variance; σ2i is constant effect for
all persons due to discrepancy between short form estimated
FSIQ and real FSIQ; and σ2pi,e is interaction plus remaining
unmeasured error (Shavelson & Webb, 1991). This index is
qualitatively the same as the intraclass correlation coefficient
when used in a two-way model to assess absolute agreement
(model A.1 in McGraw & Wong, 1996).
4. Results of variance component analysis also revealed that
for all tetrads, the constant effect for all persons due to dis-
crepancy between short form estimated FSIQ and real FSIQ
(σ2i) was 0. This finding was logical because the linear scal-
ing procedure ensured that the mean of each estimated FSIQ
was 100. Thus, no systematic difference between the means
of estimated FSIQ and real FSIQ. Various tetrads provided
dependability coefficients as high as .95, where a ϕ value of
.95 indicated that 95% of the variability in scores was due
to the person’s true ability (σ2p = .95), 0% of the variance
was attributed to the test battery (σ2i = .00), and merely 5%
of the variance resulted from unsystematic interactions and
errors (σ2pi,e. = .05). Consequently, ϕ = (σ2p) / (σ2p + σ2i
+ σ2pi,e) = .95 / (.95 + .00 + .05) = .95.
References
Angoff, W. H. (1984). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Batchelor, E., & Meyers, J. (2013). Estimating WAIS-IV FSIQ
using the Barona and Ward 7 short from. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 28, 547-548. doi:10.1093/arclin/act054.81
Blyler, C. R., Gold, J. M., Iannone, V, N., & Buchanan, R. W.
(2000). Short form of the WAIS-III for use with patients
with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 46, 209-215.
doi:10.1016/S0920-9964(00)00017-7
Chen, H., Hua, M., & Zhu, J. (2007). Development of the Taiwan
WAIS-III two subtest short forms. Psychological Testing, 54,
305-330. doi:10.7108/PT.200712.0305
Chen, H., Hua, M., Zhu, J., & Chen, Y. (2008). Selection of factor-
based WAIS-III tetrads in the Taiwan standardization sample:
A guild to clinical practice. Chinese Journal of Psychology,
50, 91-109. doi:10.6129/CJP.2008.5001.06
Chen, H., Pan, T., & Zhu, J. (2016). It is the examinee’s IQ.
Psychological Assessment, 28, 1523-1527. doi:10.1037/
pas0000298
Chen, J. (2017). An exploration of the intelligence pattern in
Taiwanese patients with common brain diseases and the clini-
cal utility of the premorbid estimation of intellectual function
(Unpublished master thesis). National Taiwan University,
Taipei, Taiwan.
Christensen, B. K., Girard, T. A., & Bagby, R. M. (2007). Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale-Third edition short form for index
and IQ scores in a psychiatric population. Psychological
Assessment, 19, 236-240. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.2.236
11
Coalson, D. L., Raiford, S. E., Saklofske, D. H., & Weiss, L. G.
(2010). WAIS-IV: Advances in assessment of intelligence. In
L. G. Weiss, D. H. Saklofske, D. L. Coalson, & S. G. Raiford
(Eds.), WAIS-IV clinical use and interpretation (pp. 3-23).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Denney, D. A., Ringe, W. K., & Lacritz, L. H. (2015). Dyadic short
forms of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV. Archives
of Clinical Neuropsychology, 30, 404-412. doi:10.1093/arclin/
acv035
Donders, J. (1997). A short form of the WISC–III for clinical
use. Psychological Assessment, 9, 15-20. doi:10.1037/1040-
3590.9.1.15
Donders, J. (2001). Using a short form of the WISC-III: Sinful
or smart? Child Neuropsychology, 7, 99-103. doi:10.1076/
chin.7.2.99.3126
Donders, J., & Axelrod, B. N. (2002). Two-subtest estimates of
WAIS-III factor index scores. Psychological Assessment, 14,
360-364. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.14.3.360
Donnell, A. J., Pliskin, N., Holdnack, J., Axelrod, B., & Randolph,
C. (2007). Rapidly-administered short forms of the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale–3rd edition. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 22, 917-924. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2007.06.007
Dumont, R., & Faro, C. (1993). A WISC-III short form for learn-
ing-disabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 212-219.
doi:10.1002/1520-6807
Engelhart, C. I., Eisenstein, N., Johnson, V., & Losonczy, M.
(1999). Comparison of linear equating and prorated short forms
for estimating WAIS-R FSIQ in a neuropsychological popula-
tion. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 95-99. doi:10.1076/
clin.13.1.95.1971
Floyd, R. G., Clark, M. H., & Shadish, W. R. (2008). The exchange-
ability of IQs: Implications for professional psychology.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 414-423.
doi:10.1037/0735-7028.39.4.414
Girard, T. A., Axelrod, B. N., Patel, R., & Crawford, J. R. (2015).
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV dyads for estimating
global intelligence. Assessment, 22, 441-448. doi:10.1177/
1073191114551551
Groth-Marnat, G., & Wright, A. J. (2016). Handbook of psycho-
logical assessment (6th ed.) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Hartman, D. E. (2009). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV
(WAIS-IV): Return of the gold standard. Applied Neuro­
psychology, 16, 85-87. doi:10.1080/09084280802644466
Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kaufman, A. S., Ishikuma, T., & Kaufman-Packer, J. L. (1991).
Amazingly short forms of the WAIS-R. Journal of Psycho­
educational Assessment, 9, 4-15. doi:10.1177/073428299
100900101
Kaufman, A. S., Kaufman, J. C., Balgopol, R., & McLean, J. E. (1996).
Comparison of three WISC-III short forms: Weighting psycho-
metric, clinical, and practical factors. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 25, 97-105. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp2501_11
Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2002). Assessing adolescent
and adult intelligence (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling,
and linking: Methods and practices (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Springer.
Lichtenberger, E. O., & Kaufman, A. S. (2013). Essentials of
WAIS-IV assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
12
McCusker, P. J. (1994). Validation of Kaufman, Ishikuma, and
Kaufman-Packer’s Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-
Revised short forms on a clinical sample. Psychological
Assessment, 6, 246-248. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.6.3.246
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences
about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological
Methods, 1, 30-46. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30
Meyers, J. E., Zellinger, M. M., Kockler, T., Wagner, M., &
Miller, R. M. (2013). A validated seven-subtest short form for
the WAIS-IV. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 20, 249-256.
doi:10.1080/09084282.2012.710180
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Reid-Arndt, S. A., Allen, B. J., & Schopp, L. (2011). Validation of
WAIS-III four-subtest short forms in patients with traumatic
brain injury. Applied Neuropsychology, 18, 291-297. doi:10.1
080/09084282.2011.595456
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2003). Reynolds Intellectual
Assessment Scales. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2015). Reynolds Intellectual
Assessment Scales (2nd ed.). Lutz, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Ryan, J. J., Kreiner, D. S., Gontkovsky, S. T., & Umfleet, L. G.
(2015). Classification accuracy of sequentially administered
WAIS-IV short forms. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 22,
409-414. doi:10.1080/23279095.2014.953677
Ryan, J. J., Lopez, S. J., & Werth, T. R. (1998). Administration
time estimates for WAIS-III subtests, scales, and short
forms in a clinical sample. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 16, 315-323. doi:10.1177/073428299801600403
Ryan, J. J., & Ward, L. C. (1999). Validity, reliability, and stan-
dard errors of measurement for two seven-subtest short forms
of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–III. Psychological
Assessment, 11, 207-211. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.11.2.207
Saklofske, D. H., Gorsuch, R. L., Weiss, L. G., Zhu, J. J., & Patterson,
C. A. (2005). General ability index for the WAIS -III: Canadian
norms. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 37, 44-48.
Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applica-
tions (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler.
Sattler, J. M., Dumont, R., & Coalson, D. L. (2016). Assessment of chil-
dren WISC-V and WPPSI-IV. San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler.
Sattler, J. M., & Ryan, J. J. (2009). Assessment with the WAIS-IV.
San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler.
Schopp, L. H., Herrman, T. D., Johnstone, B., Callahan, C. D.,
& Roudebush, I. S. (2001). Two abbreviated versions of the
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III: Validation among per-
sons with traumatic brain injury. Rehabilitation Psychology,
46, 279-287. doi:10.1037/0090-5550.46.3.279
Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory:
A primer. Newbury Park, CA. Sage.
Silverstein, A. B. (1982). Two- and four-subtest short forms of
the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 415-418. doi:
10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.415
Silverstein, A. B. (1985a). An appraisal of three criteria for
­evaluating the usefulness of WAIS-R short forms. Journal
Assessment 00(0)
of Clinical Psychology, 41, 676-680. doi:10.1002/1097-4679
(198509)41:5<676::AID-JCLP2270410515>3.0.CO;2-K
Silverstein, A. B. (1985b). Two- and four-subtest short forms of
the WAIS–R: A closer look at validity and reliability. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 41, 95-97. doi:10.1002/1097-
4679(198501)41:1<95::AID-JCLP2270410116>3.0.
CO;2-V
Silverstein, A. B. (1990). Short forms of individual intelligence
tests. Psychological Assessment, 2, 3-11. doi:10.1037/1040-
3590.2.1.3
Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the
sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment,
12, 102-111. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102
Tam, W. C. (2004). The utility of seven-subtest short forms of
the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III in young adults.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22, 62-71.
doi:10.1177/073428290402200105
Tellegen, A., & Briggs, P. F. (1967). Old wine in new skins:
Grouping Wechsler subtests into new scales. Journal of Con­
sulting Psychology, 31, 499-506. doi:10.1037/h0024963
Thompson, A. P., Howard, D., & Anderson, J. (1986). Two- and
four-subtest short forms of the WAIS–R: Validity in a psy-
chiatric sample. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18,
287-293. doi:10.1037/h0079991
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 Sates.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 286-
290. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.35.3.286
Thompson, A. P., & Plumridge, S. (1999). Two- and four-subtest
short forms of the WAIS–R: A comparative validity study
with a normal sample. Psychological Reports, 84, 371-380.
doi:10.2466/PR0.84.2.371-380
Ward, L. C. (1990). Prediction of verbal, performance and full
scale IQs from seven subtests of the WAIS-R. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 46, 436-440. doi:10.1002/1097-4679
(199007)46:4<436::AID-JCLP2270460411>3.0.CO;2-M
Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale for Intelligence
(WASI). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Third
edition (WAIS–III): Manual for Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan:
Chinese Behavioral Science Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2008a). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth
edition (WAIS-IV): Administration and scoring manual. San
Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Wechsler, D. (2008b). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth
edition (WAIS-IV): Technical and interpretive manual. San
Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale for Intelligence–
Second edition (WASI-II). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Wechsler, D. (2015a). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth
edition (WAIS–IV): Manual for Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan:
Chinese Behavioral Science Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2015b). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth
edition (WAIS–IV): Technical and interpretative manual
for Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: Chinese Behavioral Science
Corporation.