Evaluation of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Fourth Edition as a Measurement Instrument
Abstract
:1. Evaluating Psychological Instruments
1.1. Validity
1.2. Evaluating the Validity of Psychological Instruments
2. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Fourth Edition
2.1. Purpose of Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
2.2. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Scores
- Step 1.
- Interpret the Total Achievement score.
- Step 2a.
- Interpret all other composite scores and subtest scores normatively (i.e., compare how a respondent performed in reference to peers of the same age or grade).
- Step 2b.
- Interpret all other composite scores and subtest scores ipsatively (i.e., compare scores within a single respondent).
- Step 3.
- Identify ipsative strengths and weaknesses from composite scores. This involves (a) comparing each single-domain composite score for a respondent to the same respondent’s Total Achievement score, and (b) determining if the value difference is statistically different from zero.
- Step 4.
- Make planned ipsative comparisons between different subtest scores or different composite scores. This involves (a) selecting multiple subtest or composite scores to compare, and then (b) determining if their value differences are statistically different from zero.
3. Evaluation of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Total Achievement Score
3.1. Meaning of Overall Academic Achievement
3.1.1. Meaning of Achievement
3.1.2. Meaning of Achievement in the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
3.1.3. Meaning of Academic with Respect to Achievement
3.1.4. Meaning of Academic Achievement in the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
3.1.5. Relation between Academic Achievement and Intelligence Instruments
3.1.6. Meaning of Overall
3.1.7. Meaning of Overall (General) in the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
3.2. Evidence for Functional Unity
3.2.1. Empirical Evidence for Functional Unity
Factor Analysis of Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Norming Data
3.2.2. Theoretical Evidence for Functional Unity
4. Other Composite Scores
4.1. Reading
Empirical Evidence for Functional Unity of Reading Attributes
4.2. Writing
Empirical Evidence for Functional Unity of Writing Attributes
4.3. Mathematics
Empirical Evidence for Functional Unity of Mathematics Attributes
5. Evaluating the Equal-Interval Claim
5.1. Numerical Operations
5.2. Math Fluency
6. Conclusions
Practical Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Age 4 to 7 | Age 8 to 11 | Age 12 to 19 | Age 20 to 50 | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Five Factor Models | ||||||||||||||||||||
F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | |
Factor 1 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||||||
Factor 2 | .66 | 1.00 | .66 | 1.00 | .72 | 1.00 | .35 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||
Factor 3 | .69 | .57 | 1.00 | .52 | .58 | 1.00 | .61 | .62 | 1.00 | .60 | .13 | 1.00 | ||||||||
Factor 4 | .73 | .67 | .63 | 1.00 | .33 | .40 | .40 | 1.00 | .64 | .41 | .41 | 1.00 | .63 | .45 | .59 | 1.00 | ||||
Factor 5 | .46 | .36 | .41 | .50 | 1.00 | .60 | .62 | .50 | .29 | 1.00 | .74 | .76 | .67 | .44 | 1.00 | .46 | .34 | .23 | .58 | 1.00 |
SS Loadings 1 | 4.85 | 2.39 | 1.45 | 1.43 | 1.16 | 4.94 | 2.70 | 3.09 | .85 | 1.65 | 3.63 | 2.75 | 3.10 | 1.46 | 1.61 | 5.63 | 2.41 | 1.01 | 2.44 | .88 |
Prop Tot Variance 1 | .29 | .14 | .09 | .08 | .07 | .25 | .13 | .15 | .04 | .08 | .19 | .14 | .16 | .08 | .08 | .30 | .13 | .05 | .13 | .04 |
Prop Comm Var 1 | .43 | .21 | .13 | .13 | .10 | .37 | .20 | .23 | .06 | .12 | .29 | .22 | .25 | .12 | .13 | .45 | .20 | .08 | .20 | .07 |
Four Factor Models | ||||||||||||||||||||
F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | |||||
Factor 1 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||||||
Factor 2 | .70 | 1.00 | .65 | 1.00 | .65 | 1.00 | .37 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||
Factor 3 | .58 | .51 | 1.00 | .51 | .57 | 1.00 | .56 | .59 | 1.00 | .63 | .51 | 1.00 | ||||||||
Factor 4 | .72 | .65 | .50 | 1.00 | .61 | .61 | .52 | 1.00 | .70 | .77 | .65 | 1.00 | .55 | .08 | .40 | 1.00 | ||||
SS Loadings 1 | 4.88 | 2.74 | 1.88 | 1.30 | 4.97 | 2.79 | 3.17 | 1.69 | 4.37 | 2.53 | 3.01 | 2.26 | 5.54 | 3.04 | 2.57 | .82 | ||||
Prop Tot Variance 1 | .29 | .16 | .11 | .08 | .25 | .14 | .16 | .08 | .23 | .13 | .16 | .12 | .29 | .16 | .14 | .04 | ||||
Prop Comm Var 1 | .45 | .25 | .17 | .12 | .39 | .22 | .25 | .13 | .36 | .21 | .25 | .19 | .46 | .25 | .21 | .07 | ||||
Three Factor Models | ||||||||||||||||||||
F1 | F2 | F3 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F1 | F2 | F3 | |||||||||
Factor 1 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||||||
Factor 2 | .71 | 1.00 | .70 | 1.00 | .60 | 1.00 | .41 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||
Factor 3 | .67 | .61 | 1.00 | .55 | .58 | 1.00 | .72 | .64 | 1.00 | .63 | .55 | 1.00 | ||||||||
SS Loadings 1 | 5.08 | 2.88 | 2.40 | 5.59 | 3.01 | 3.30 | 4.87 | 3.77 | 3.10 | 5.53 | 3.11 | 2.77 | ||||||||
Prop Tot Variance 1 | .30 | .17 | .14 | .28 | .15 | .17 | .26 | .20 | .16 | .29 | .16 | .15 | ||||||||
Prop Comm Var 1 | .49 | .28 | .23 | .47 | .25 | .28 | .41 | .32 | .26 | .48 | .27 | .24 |
Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Factor 5 | Communalities 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | |
WR | .98 | .77 | .76 | .99 | −.04 | .21 | .24 | .09 | .14 | −.13 | −.09 | −.14 | −.06 | −.12 | .09 | −.12 | −.12 | .14 | −.08 | −.06 | .92 | .83 | .80 | .79 |
RC | .36 | .14 | .02 | .24 | .36 | .67 | .62 | .41 | .10 | −.08 | −.05 | .28 | −.07 | .09 | .07 | −.10 | .08 | .03 | .13 | −.02 | .58 | .61 | .55 | .55 |
PD | .72 | .86 | 1.07 | .87 | .15 | −.02 | −.17 | −.01 | −.01 | −.05 | .03 | −.04 | −.09 | −.06 | −.03 | −.04 | .10 | .07 | −.08 | .07 | .73 | .71 | .82 | .81 |
OF | .99 | .76 | .23 | .79 | .01 | .19 | .26 | −.11 | −.14 | .08 | .05 | .11 | .05 | .04 | .55 | −.02 | .02 | −.14 | .01 | .10 | .89 | .77 | .83 | .83 |
DF | - | 1.02 | .60 | 1.05 | - | −.13 | −.10 | −.19 | - | .10 | .11 | -.08 | - | .05 | .44 | .13 | - | −.15 | −.09 | −.19 | - | .86 | .80 | .81 |
ORF | .94 | .68 | .12 | .62 | −.01 | .11 | −.01 | .10 | −.29 | .15 | .07 | .19 | .17 | .08 | .53 | −.02 | −.04 | −.16 | .19 | −.09 | .65 | .63 | .59 | .60 |
SP | .56 | .68 | .54 | .85 | −.23 | −.10 | .01 | .01 | .27 | −.02 | −.01 | −.14 | −.02 | −.01 | .12 | .03 | .30 | .41 | .32 | .21 | .74 | .81 | .77 | .77 |
SC | .26 | −.04 | .13 | .13 | .38 | .28 | .12 | .06 | −.04 | .03 | −.05 | .10 | −.05 | .14 | −.05 | −.06 | .28 | .57 | .60 | .53 | .57 | .68 | .56 | .56 |
EC | - | .17 | −.07 | −.13 | - | −.25 | −.12 | .04 | - | .05 | -.02 | .29 | - | .06 | .12 | .04 | - | .75 | .80 | .51 | - | .57 | .49 | .50 |
AWF | .26 | −.05 | - | - | −.16 | .01 | - | - | .32 | −.02 | - | - | .17 | .75 | - | - | .33 | .17 | - | - | .31 | .63 | - | - |
SWF | −.05 | .03 | −.05 | −.08 | .05 | .19 | .16 | −.24 | −.09 | .23 | .26 | .50 | .15 | .30 | .22 | .18 | .74 | −.11 | −.04 | .13 | .51 | .30 | .20 | .20 |
MPS | −.11 | −.02 | .15 | −.02 | .49 | .59 | .57 | .91 | .43 | .36 | .33 | −.20 | .14 | −.19 | −.16 | .18 | −.15 | .10 | .02 | .01 | .69 | .71 | .77 | .77 |
NO | .01 | −.06 | −.05 | −.09 | .00 | .19 | .31 | .92 | .82 | .59 | .43 | −.31 | .08 | −.02 | −.13 | .21 | −.04 | .24 | .29 | .03 | .63 | .68 | .68 | .68 |
MFA | −.06 | −.01 | .05 | .07 | −.03 | −.07 | −.09 | .11 | .04 | .88 | .96 | .18 | .76 | −.01 | .05 | .81 | .17 | −.02 | −.10 | −.12 | .79 | .68 | .81 | .80 |
MFS | .07 | −.02 | .02 | .00 | .12 | −.01 | .01 | −.06 | .12 | .94 | .93 | .30 | .66 | −.05 | .05 | .83 | .05 | .01 | −.08 | .10 | .75 | .83 | .84 | .85 |
MFM | .09 | .08 | −.05 | −.03 | - | −.14 | −.05 | .10 | - | .84 | .85 | -.02 | - | .09 | .07 | .82 | - | .01 | .11 | .00 | .73 | .80 | .80 | |
LC | −.05 | .06 | −.07 | .16 | .89 | .91 | 1.00 | .32 | −.08 | −.09 | −.07 | .38 | .03 | −.06 | .08 | −.08 | −.11 | −.21 | −.21 | .13 | .58 | .60 | .64 | .66 |
OE | −.03 | −.02 | .01 | .33 | .79 | .76 | .67 | .35 | −.06 | −.02 | −.04 | .18 | .02 | .13 | .10 | −.08 | .12 | −.03 | .09 | .04 | .66 | .60 | .59 | .60 |
PP | .26 | .46 | .68 | .48 | .34 | .18 | .17 | .12 | .22 | −.09 | −.02 | .26 | −.13 | .04 | −.12 | .11 | .16 | .21 | −.01 | −.06 | .63 | .50 | .53 | .56 |
OC | .81 | .58 | .35 | .64 | −.01 | −.04 | .03 | .09 | .13 | −.02 | .01 | −.14 | .09 | −.06 | .09 | .16 | −.23 | .26 | .31 | .12 | .65 | .51 | .51 | .73 |
General Factor | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Factor 5 | Communalities | ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | |
WR | .90 | .85 | −.87 | .88 | −.25 | −.09 | −.05 | .03 | −.07 | .01 | −.03 | .02 | −.01 | −.14 | .13 | −.13 | .08 | −.23 | .05 | −.04 | .14 | .12 | .14 | .14 | .91 | .82 | .79 | .81 |
RC | .72 | .69 | −.66 | .64 | −.07 | .07 | .01 | .03 | .22 | .34 | .34 | −.37 | .03 | .00 | .00 | .01 | .07 | −.06 | −.01 | .22 | −.03 | −.12 | −.03 | −.04 | .58 | .61 | .55 | .59 |
PD | .87 | .72 | −.84 | .87 | −.01 | −.14 | .02 | .18 | .00 | −.05 | −.29 | .00 | −.25 | −.04 | .09 | −.07 | .06 | −.58 | −.03 | −.08 | .10 | .05 | .11 | .01 | .83 | .88 | .81 | .80 |
OF | .85 | .84 | −.83 | .83 | −.55 | −.35 | −.38 | −.35 | .00 | .02 | .03 | .03 | .00 | .01 | −.02 | −.07 | .03 | −.01 | .03 | −.07 | −.05 | .02 | .03 | −.01 | 1.02 | .83 | .83 | .81 |
DF | - | .77 | −.80 | .81 | - | −.38 | −.34 | −.03 | - | −.11 | −.24 | .06 | - | .03 | .00 | .03 | - | −.30 | −.03 | −.26 | - | .00 | .07 | .22 | - | .84 | .81 | .77 |
ORF | .67 | .75 | −.66 | .73 | −.43 | −.36 | −.38 | −.31 | −.03 | −.01 | −.07 | −.19 | −.10 | .06 | −.05 | −.02 | −.09 | .02 | .02 | .01 | .03 | −.02 | −.09 | .12 | .65 | .69 | .60 | .68 |
SP | .84 | .86 | −.86 | .90 | .00 | −.01 | −.04 | .02 | −.22 | −.22 | −.05 | .13 | −.02 | −.05 | .02 | .01 | −.01 | −.15 | .18 | .03 | −.06 | .04 | −.07 | −.04 | .76 | .81 | .77 | .83 |
SC | .72 | .72 | −.67 | .50 | .05 | .34 | .11 | −.06 | .20 | .03 | .13 | .06 | −.13 | .08 | −.02 | −.01 | .03 | .01 | .02 | .24 | −.10 | −.15 | −.29 | −.35 | .58 | .66 | .56 | .43 |
EC | - | .63 | −.56 | .38 | - | .31 | −.01 | .06 | - | −.38 | .04 | −.08 | - | .00 | −.06 | .09 | - | .07 | .05 | .20 | - | −.03 | −.43 | −.45 | - | .65 | .50 | .41 |
AWF | .44 | .38 | - | - | −.01 | .05 | - | - | −.10 | −.01 | - | - | .25 | .11 | - | - | −.13 | .02 | - | - | −.25 | −.72 | - | - | .34 | .68 | - | - |
SWF | .51 | .37 | −.38 | .19 | .00 | −.08 | −.15 | −.21 | .01 | .13 | .06 | −.23 | −.02 | .23 | −.19 | .13 | −.14 | .04 | −.06 | −.10 | −.58 | −.27 | .00 | −.19 | .61 | .29 | .20 | .20 |
MPS | .68 | .70 | −.76 | .56 | .01 | .15 | .18 | −.02 | .36 | .29 | .30 | −.03 | .31 | .30 | −.25 | .39 | −.09 | .02 | −.07 | .60 | .05 | .11 | .01 | .01 | .70 | .70 | .77 | .82 |
NO | .64 | .65 | −.67 | .45 | .11 | .16 | .16 | .06 | .03 | .06 | .24 | .05 | .45 | .48 | −.35 | .42 | −.07 | .03 | .02 | .60 | .03 | −.03 | −.14 | .00 | .63 | .68 | .68 | .75 |
MFA | .60 | .44 | −.59 | .51 | .01 | −.02 | −.03 | .04 | −.03 | .00 | −.06 | −.09 | .05 | .70 | −.67 | .76 | −.77 | −.03 | −.02 | .00 | −.04 | −.02 | .01 | .02 | .95 | .69 | .80 | .84 |
MFS | .64 | .53 | −.64 | .53 | −.03 | .01 | −.02 | .01 | .07 | .02 | .01 | −.06 | .15 | .74 | −.67 | .75 | −.50 | −.02 | .02 | −.02 | −.02 | .00 | .03 | −.15 | .69 | .84 | .85 | .86 |
MFM | - | .53 | −.63 | .34 | - | −.08 | −.02 | −.08 | - | −.08 | .01 | .14 | - | .65 | −.63 | .78 | - | .07 | .02 | .07 | - | −.08 | −.08 | −.01 | - | .73 | .80 | .75 |
LC | .47 | .58 | −.59 | .63 | .02 | −.02 | −.01 | −.07 | .59 | .50 | .53 | −.34 | .01 | −.04 | .03 | .02 | .00 | .07 | .02 | .23 | .02 | .01 | .19 | −.15 | .58 | .60 | .66 | .59 |
OE | .62 | .63 | −.68 | .67 | .03 | .06 | −.01 | −.10 | .52 | .41 | .35 | −.22 | .00 | .05 | .01 | .02 | .01 | .09 | −.10 | .22 | −.11 | −.15 | −.03 | −.03 | .66 | .60 | .60 | .55 |
PP | .77 | .65 | −.72 | .73 | .10 | .09 | .13 | .13 | .18 | .07 | −.04 | −.30 | −.02 | −.03 | .08 | .12 | .10 | −.40 | −.12 | −.02 | −.01 | −.08 | .04 | .01 | .64 | .60 | .56 | .66 |
OC | .74 | .68 | −.70 | .74 | −.24 | −.05 | .00 | .00 | −.03 | −.15 | .00 | .13 | .03 | −.07 | −.01 | .15 | −.05 | −.09 | .49 | .06 | .19 | .09 | −.04 | .00 | .64 | .51 | .73 | .59 |
ω/ω.h | .95 | .89 | .92 | .85 | .01 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .02 | .00 | .01 | .01 | .00 | .05 | .04 | .07 | .01 | .01 | .00 | .02 | .00 | .01 | .00 | .01 | ||||
H | .96 | .95 | .96 | .96 | .45 | .44 | .37 | .28 | .56 | .51 | .50 | .38 | .35 | .77 | .72 | .82 | .65 | .48 | .28 | .60 | .40 | .56 | .30 | .36 | ||||
SS Loadings | 8.31 | 8.83 | 9.28 | 8.13 | .64 | .71 | .52 | .35 | .94 | .89 | .84 | .56 | .48 | 1.89 | 1.54 | 2.16 | .92 | .70 | .32 | 1.07 | .50 | .70 | .38 | .49 | ||||
Prop Tot Variance | .49 | .44 | .49 | .43 | .04 | .04 | .03 | .02 | .06 | .04 | .04 | .03 | .03 | .09 | .08 | .11 | .05 | .03 | .02 | .06 | .03 | .04 | .02 | .03 | ||||
Prop Comm Var | .71 | .64 | .72 | .64 | .05 | .05 | .04 | .03 | .08 | .06 | .07 | .04 | .04 | .14 | .12 | .17 | .08 | .05 | .02 | .08 | .04 | .05 | .03 | .04 |
Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Communalities 1 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | |
WR | 1.03 | .80 | .68 | .98 | .01 | .16 | .23 | .04 | −.03 | −.16 | −.12 | −.12 | −.09 | .11 | .13 | −.13 | .92 | .82 | .77 | .81 |
RC | .36 | .14 | .08 | .21 | .41 | .69 | .59 | .46 | −.05 | −.06 | −.03 | −.09 | .10 | .05 | .14 | .25 | .58 | .62 | .55 | .55 |
PD | .71 | .88 | .76 | .87 | .15 | −.04 | −.11 | .06 | −.11 | −.06 | −.03 | −.05 | .12 | .04 | .23 | −.06 | .73 | .72 | .71 | .74 |
OF | .96 | .76 | .76 | .78 | −.04 | .20 | .23 | .02 | .01 | .10 | .10 | −.03 | .00 | −.14 | −.14 | .09 | .87 | .77 | .78 | .69 |
DF | - | 1.00 | .98 | 1.04 | - | −.10 | −.08 | −.35 | - | .13 | .12 | .15 | - | −.15 | −.15 | −.07 | - | .84 | .82 | .78 |
ORF | .84 | .66 | .66 | .59 | −.11 | .14 | −.01 | .08 | .07 | .18 | .13 | .00 | −.07 | −.14 | −.02 | .19 | .59 | .62 | .52 | .58 |
SP | .60 | .69 | .54 | .85 | −.17 | −.10 | −.03 | .17 | .08 | −.02 | −.02 | .01 | .39 | .39 | .45 | −.14 | .73 | .81 | .78 | .80 |
SC | .22 | −.06 | .05 | .16 | .37 | .33 | .06 | .48 | −.07 | .03 | −.04 | −.09 | .30 | .62 | .69 | .03 | .57 | .70 | .56 | .32 |
EC | - | .17 | .10 | −.08 | - | −.23 | −.12 | .47 | - | .04 | .05 | .01 | - | .76 | .61 | .16 | - | .58 | .40 | .26 |
AWF | −.01 | −.08 | - | - | −.10 | .24 | - | - | .31 | .16 | - | - | .39 | .22 | - | - | .29 | .22 | - | - |
SWF | −.15 | −.01 | .20 | −.10 | −.01 | .29 | .15 | -.03 | .17 | .30 | .28 | .17 | .68 | −.04 | −.14 | .43 | .45 | .24 | .20 | .17 |
MPS | .08 | .05 | −.08 | −.02 | .65 | .48 | .52 | .81 | .28 | .31 | .28 | .21 | −.11 | .07 | .23 | −.15 | .66 | .62 | .75 | .78 |
NO | .13 | −.04 | −.19 | −.09 | .24 | .18 | .26 | .83 | .32 | .57 | .40 | .23 | .09 | .23 | .41 | −.27 | .43 | .67 | .68 | .76 |
MFA | .02 | −.01 | .09 | .06 | −.08 | −.07 | -.08 | .00 | .80 | .88 | .92 | .85 | .16 | −.03 | −.05 | .18 | .74 | .68 | .80 | .83 |
MFS | .06 | −.01 | .06 | .01 | .10 | −.02 | .01 | .03 | .75 | .92 | .90 | .84 | .04 | .00 | −.03 | .25 | .76 | .82 | .84 | .85 |
MFM | - | .07 | .02 | −.02 | - | −.10 | −.06 | .02 | - | .86 | .84 | .85 | - | .02 | .12 | −.02 | - | .73 | .80 | .73 |
LC | −.10 | .08 | .01 | .12 | .91 | .85 | .97 | .51 | −.02 | −.09 | −.06 | −.09 | −.15 | −.20 | −.20 | .34 | .56 | .57 | .65 | .61 |
OE | −.08 | −.04 | .10 | .31 | .81 | .80 | .63 | .43 | −.02 | .01 | −.02 | −.07 | .09 | .00 | .09 | .17 | .65 | .61 | .59 | .55 |
PP | .28 | .46 | .39 | .46 | .44 | .19 | .17 | .13 | −.08 | −.08 | −.07 | .13 | .22 | .20 | .26 | .23 | .63 | .50 | .48 | .58 |
OC | .86 | .60 | .37 | .64 | .03 | −.06 | −.01 | .16 | .13 | −.04 | .00 | .15 | −.24 | .24 | .41 | −.14 | .66 | .50 | .51 | .58 |
General | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Communalities | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | |
WR | .94 | .88 | −.87 | .88 | .06 | −.01 | −.04 | .03 | .11 | .14 | .05 | .05 | .07 | −.16 | .14 | .14 | .16 | −.14 | .09 | .16 | .92 | .83 | .80 | .82 |
RC | .72 | .69 | −.66 | .64 | −.23 | .35 | .34 | −.35 | .06 | −.11 | −.01 | −.21 | −.02 | −.02 | .01 | −.01 | −.06 | .04 | −.05 | −.03 | .58 | .61 | .55 | .58 |
PD | .84 | .79 | −.84 | .85 | −.07 | −.13 | −.30 | .03 | .11 | .10 | −.02 | .06 | .10 | −.11 | .09 | .07 | −.02 | −.23 | .09 | .04 | .73 | .71 | .82 | .73 |
OF | .91 | .83 | −.83 | .82 | .04 | .04 | .03 | −.05 | .02 | −.01 | .39 | .11 | .22 | .03 | −.01 | .07 | .08 | −.30 | .01 | −.01 | .89 | .77 | .83 | .69 |
DF | - | .81 | −.79 | .80 | - | −.17 | −.23 | .07 | - | .01 | .33 | .28 | - | .01 | .00 | −.01 | - | −.42 | .07 | .25 | - | .86 | .80 | .78 |
ORF | .73 | .73 | −.66 | .74 | .06 | .01 | −.07 | −.22 | −.06 | −.05 | .38 | .05 | .30 | .09 | −.05 | .02 | .12 | −.30 | −.10 | .08 | .65 | .63 | .59 | .60 |
SP | .83 | .87 | −.86 | .90 | .18 | −.21 | −.07 | .15 | .00 | .05 | .04 | −.01 | −.05 | −.07 | .03 | .00 | −.14 | .00 | −.14 | −.04 | .74 | .81 | .77 | .83 |
SC | .69 | .72 | −.66 | .51 | −.24 | .06 | .13 | .05 | .04 | −.14 | −.11 | −.20 | .04 | .06 | −.02 | .01 | −.19 | .36 | −.30 | −.37 | .57 | .68 | .56 | .44 |
EC | - | .61 | −.54 | .38 | - | −.29 | .04 | −.07 | - | −.03 | .02 | −.19 | - | .02 | −.07 | −.09 | - | .34 | −.43 | −.42 | - | .57 | .49 | .37 |
AWF | .44 | .39 | - | - | .10 | .00 | - | - | −.20 | −.68 | - | - | -.16 | .10 | - | - | -.20 | .09 | - | - | .31 | .63 | - | - |
SWF | .49 | .37 | −.37 | .20 | −.02 | .14 | .07 | −.25 | −.19 | −.29 | .15 | .13 | .05 | .24 | −.19 | −.13 | −.48 | −.06 | .01 | −.18 | .51 | .30 | .20 | .17 |
MPS | .68 | .70 | −.76 | .58 | −.36 | .31 | .31 | −.04 | −.15 | .12 | −.18 | −.58 | −.27 | .30 | −.24 | −.38 | .07 | .13 | .01 | .00 | .69 | .71 | .77 | .81 |
NO | .63 | .65 | −.67 | .47 | −.04 | .08 | .24 | .05 | −.15 | −.02 | −.16 | −.61 | −.46 | .47 | −.35 | −.41 | .02 | .18 | −.16 | −.01 | .63 | .68 | .68 | .77 |
MFA | .59 | .45 | −.59 | .52 | .02 | −.01 | −.05 | −.06 | −.66 | −.03 | .03 | −.01 | .00 | .69 | −.67 | −.76 | −.05 | −.01 | .02 | .05 | .79 | .68 | .80 | .84 |
MFS | .64 | .54 | −.64 | .53 | −.08 | .02 | .01 | −.04 | −.57 | .00 | .02 | .02 | −.05 | .73 | −.66 | −.75 | .01 | .02 | .02 | −.13 | .75 | .83 | .84 | .86 |
MFM | - | .53 | −.63 | .35 | - | −.06 | .01 | .14 | - | -.10 | .02 | -.07 | - | .66 | −.63 | −.76 | - | −.04 | −.09 | −.01 | - | .73 | .80 | .73 |
LC | .46 | .56 | −.60 | .64 | −.61 | .53 | .51 | −.35 | −.01 | .00 | .01 | −.20 | −.02 | −.02 | .04 | −.02 | .00 | −.04 | .14 | −.15 | .58 | .60 | .64 | .60 |
OE | .60 | .61 | −.68 | .68 | −.54 | .44 | .36 | −.24 | −.02 | −.16 | .01 | −.19 | −.02 | .05 | .00 | −.01 | −.14 | .06 | −.02 | −.04 | .66 | .60 | .59 | .55 |
PP | .74 | .70 | −.71 | .73 | −.23 | .01 | −.02 | −.24 | .09 | −.02 | −.12 | .01 | −.10 | −.09 | .08 | −.12 | −.12 | −.01 | .05 | .03 | .63 | .50 | .53 | .60 |
OC | .77 | .69 | −.70 | .74 | .03 | −.14 | −.02 | .14 | −.03 | .09 | .03 | −.05 | .04 | −.07 | .00 | −.14 | .23 | −.04 | −.15 | .00 | .65 | .51 | .51 | .59 |
ω/ω.h | .92 | .91 | .92 | .87 | .03 | .01 | .01 | .01 | .02 | .01 | .00 | .02 | .00 | .05 | .04 | .07 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | ||||
H | .96 | .96 | .96 | .96 | .58 | .53 | .50 | .38 | .59 | .52 | .37 | .59 | .36 | .77 | .71 | .82 | .35 | .46 | .32 | .36 | ||||
SS Loadings | 8.37 | 9.00 | 9.26 | 8.20 | 1.02 | .93 | .84 | .56 | .93 | .67 | .52 | 1.02 | .48 | 1.88 | 1.53 | 2.11 | .47 | .74 | .41 | .49 | ||||
Prop Tot Variance | .49 | .45 | .49 | .43 | .06 | .05 | .04 | .03 | .05 | .03 | .03 | .05 | .03 | .09 | .08 | .11 | .03 | .04 | .02 | .03 | ||||
Prop Comm Var | .74 | .68 | .74 | .66 | .09 | .07 | .07 | .04 | .08 | .05 | .04 | .08 | .04 | .14 | .12 | .17 | .04 | .06 | .03 | .04 |
Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Communalities 1 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | |
WR | 1.00 | .88 | .73 | .89 | −.01 | .16 | .29 | .05 | −.05 | −.16 | −.13 | −.09 | .91 | .82 | .77 | .79 |
RC | .40 | .14 | .08 | .31 | .45 | .73 | .71 | .54 | −.03 | −.07 | −.05 | −.11 | .58 | .62 | .55 | .52 |
PD | .76 | .94 | .85 | .82 | .18 | −.08 | .00 | .07 | −.08 | −.07 | −.01 | −.03 | .73 | .72 | .71 | .73 |
OF | .97 | .71 | .75 | .80 | −.05 | .14 | .11 | .08 | .01 | .05 | .06 | −.04 | .88 | .72 | .75 | .69 |
DF | - | .95 | .99 | 1.00 | - | −.17 | −.23 | −.34 | - | .07 | .09 | .16 | - | .77 | .79 | .78 |
ORF | .81 | .61 | .69 | .66 | −.14 | .09 | −.06 | .16 | .06 | .13 | .12 | −.03 | .58 | .57 | .52 | .57 |
SP | .72 | .88 | .66 | .74 | −.08 | −.03 | .24 | .16 | .21 | .04 | .03 | .06 | .68 | .77 | .75 | .77 |
SC | .34 | .20 | .20 | .14 | .44 | .45 | .50 | .51 | .01 | .16 | .05 | −.07 | .54 | .52 | .48 | .33 |
EC | - | .46 | .24 | −.02 | - | −.01 | .27 | .52 | - | .17 | .13 | .00 | - | .32 | .32 | .26 |
AWF | .12 | −.01 | − | - | −.02 | .31 | - | - | .44 | .20 | - | - | .26 | .20 | - | - |
SWF | .12 | −.05 | .17 | .11 | .13 | .29 | .06 | .09 | .35 | .29 | .25 | .08 | .29 | .23 | .18 | .05 |
MPS | .00 | .05 | −.08 | −.11 | .60 | .51 | .72 | .71 | .26 | .32 | .28 | .31 | .63 | .63 | .76 | .73 |
NO | .12 | .04 | −.14 | −.21 | .25 | .24 | .56 | .65 | .38 | .62 | .44 | .37 | .43 | .66 | .67 | .63 |
MFA | −.02 | −.03 | .07 | .13 | −.11 | −.09 | −.12 | −.02 | .94 | .88 | .92 | .86 | .75 | .67 | .80 | .81 |
MFS | .00 | −.02 | .04 | .11 | .06 | −.03 | −.01 | .04 | .82 | .93 | .90 | .82 | .72 | .81 | .84 | .80 |
MFM | - | .07 | .04 | −.05 | - | −.10 | .01 | −.07 | - | .87 | .86 | .91 | - | .73 | .80 | .74 |
LC | −.15 | −.01 | −.03 | .27 | .86 | .79 | .81 | .61 | −.07 | −.13 | −.11 | −.12 | .53 | .51 | .52 | .55 |
OE | −.06 | −.08 | .10 | .36 | .85 | .84 | .72 | .50 | .00 | .00 | −.05 | −.08 | .65 | .62 | .58 | .54 |
PP | .36 | .57 | .46 | .55 | .49 | .22 | .33 | .21 | −.02 | −.06 | −.06 | .09 | .61 | .50 | .48 | .56 |
OC | .73 | .73 | .47 | .54 | −.02 | −.03 | .24 | .13 | .09 | .00 | .05 | .21 | .60 | .50 | .49 | .56 |
General | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Communalities | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | 4–7 | 8–11 | 12–19 | 20–50 | |
WR | −.92 | .87 | .85 | .87 | .03 | −.03 | −.04 | .18 | −.06 | .17 | .13 | −.13 | .25 | .17 | .18 | .06 | .92 | .82 | .77 | .81 |
RC | −.72 | .69 | .66 | .67 | −.26 | .36 | −.33 | −.27 | −.04 | .01 | .01 | .00 | .00 | −.06 | −.06 | −.17 | .58 | .62 | .55 | .55 |
PD | −.84 | .79 | .80 | .85 | −.07 | −.14 | .16 | .12 | −.10 | .12 | .07 | −.07 | .06 | .25 | .19 | .05 | .73 | .72 | .71 | .74 |
OF | −.91 | .83 | .83 | .82 | .06 | .05 | −.03 | .02 | −.03 | −.03 | −.02 | −.06 | .20 | .29 | .32 | .11 | .87 | .77 | .78 | .69 |
DF | - | .81 | .78 | .79 | - | −.15 | .17 | .26 | - | −.01 | −.01 | .02 | - | .40 | .42 | .29 | - | .84 | .82 | .78 |
ORF | −.73 | .73 | .67 | .76 | .10 | .03 | .09 | −.09 | .02 | −.09 | −.05 | −.03 | .21 | .27 | .25 | .08 | .59 | .62 | .52 | .58 |
SP | −.84 | .87 | .87 | .88 | .14 | −.22 | .09 | .16 | .04 | .07 | .05 | .02 | −.08 | .01 | .02 | −.05 | .73 | .81 | .77 | .80 |
SC | −.70 | .73 | .70 | .49 | −.23 | .07 | −.03 | −.11 | −.05 | −.07 | .01 | .02 | −.14 | −.40 | −.26 | −.25 | .57 | .70 | .56 | .32 |
EC | - | .61 | .59 | .38 | - | −.30 | .08 | −.23 | - | −.02 | −.04 | .10 | - | −.35 | −.20 | −.24 | - | .58 | .40 | .26 |
AWF | −.44 | .39 | - | - | .06 | .11 | - | - | .24 | −.15 | - | - | −.20 | −.17 | - | - | .29 | .22 | - | - |
SWF | −.53 | .37 | .37 | .22 | .01 | .18 | −.07 | −.30 | .14 | −.26 | −.19 | .12 | −.39 | −.01 | .12 | .13 | .45 | .24 | .19 | .17 |
MPS | −.64 | .69 | .75 | .58 | −.44 | .26 | −.32 | −.04 | .24 | −.28 | −.23 | .38 | .06 | −.08 | −.15 | −.55 | .66 | .62 | .75 | .78 |
NO | −.58 | .65 | .69 | .46 | −.16 | .07 | −.18 | .04 | .26 | −.47 | −.33 | .42 | −.02 | −.16 | −.25 | −.60 | .43 | .67 | .68 | .76 |
MFA | −.58 | .45 | .59 | .52 | .03 | −.02 | .04 | −.02 | .63 | −.69 | −.67 | .75 | −.05 | .02 | .05 | .01 | .74 | .68 | .80 | .83 |
MFS | −.63 | .54 | .64 | .53 | −.09 | .01 | −.02 | −.09 | .60 | −.72 | −.66 | .75 | .02 | .00 | .03 | .01 | .76 | .82 | .84 | .85 |
MFM | - | .53 | .65 | .34 | - | -.05 | .02 | .11 | - | −.67 | −.62 | .78 | − | .02 | −.04 | −.08 | - | .73 | .80 | .73 |
LC | −.44 | .56 | .58 | .67 | −.60 | .51 | −.56 | −.35 | .02 | .02 | .02 | .01 | .02 | .04 | .03 | −.18 | .56 | .57 | .64 | .61 |
OE | −.60 | .62 | .68 | .70 | −.53 | .46 | −.35 | −.19 | .02 | −.07 | .01 | .01 | −.10 | −.10 | −.04 | −.17 | .65 | .61 | .59 | .55 |
PP | −.74 | .70 | .69 | .74 | −.27 | .01 | −.04 | −.13 | -.05 | .08 | .07 | .11 | −.09 | .01 | .03 | .04 | .63 | .50 | .48 | .58 |
OC | −.75 | .68 | .71 | .73 | .00 | −.16 | .05 | .16 | .07 | .07 | .01 | .16 | .30 | .06 | −.02 | −.08 | .65 | .50 | .51 | .58 |
ω/ω.h | .90 | .91 | .92 | .87 | .03 | .01 | .01 | .00 | .03 | .05 | .03 | .07 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .02 | ||||
H | .96 | .96 | .96 | .96 | .60 | .53 | .49 | .39 | .59 | .77 | .71 | .82 | .34 | .46 | .41 | .58 | ||||
SS Loadings | 8.23 | 9.00 | 9.29 | 8.23 | 1.10 | .01 | .76 | .59 | .99 | .05 | 1.49 | 2.14 | .48 | .00 | .63 | 1.02 | ||||
Prop Tot Variance | .48 | .45 | .49 | .43 | .06 | .53 | .04 | .03 | .06 | .77 | .08 | .11 | .03 | .46 | .03 | .05 | ||||
Prop Comm Var | .76 | .71 | .76 | .69 | .10 | .84 | .06 | .05 | .09 | .93 | .12 | .18 | .04 | .84 | .05 | .08 |
1 | For convenience, we use the term authors throughout the article instead of the more accurate term construction agency. Nearly all modern standardized instruments are created by a team of people with different specialty knowledge (e.g., content matter, test construction techniques, item analysis), only a portion of which are credited on instrument documentation. |
2 | We consider behavior to be a subclass of doings (Maraun 2013). |
3 | Functional unity is applicable to phenomena from a variety of disciplines and knowledge domains, so may involve things other than behavior (e.g., neural activity). |
4 | Technically, we classify attributes represented on a nominal scale rather than measure them. Classification has some properties similar to measurement, but they are distinct processes. |
5 | The WIAT-4 authors provide some utility evidence for the Dyslexia Index score, but do not describe how they gathered this evidence in any detail (Breaux 2020, p. 114). |
6 | Steps 2a and 2b are combined into a single Step 2 in the technical manual. |
7 | Idiosyncratic employments of the intelligence concept continued throughout the 20th century and continue today (Legg and Hutter 2007). |
8 | The bi-factor rotation requires extracting p + 1 factors, with the p indicating the number of group factors and +1 indicating the additional general factor. Thus, we actually extracted 4–6 factors. |
9 | We use the term triadic theory instead of the more common gf –gc theory. The latter term once had a specific meaning, but now it is more ambiguous as it can refer to either the theory Raymond Cattell created to extend Spearman’s nöegenetic theory or the refinements and expansions to gf –gc theory initiated by Cattell’s student, John Horn. Although Horn and Cattell worked together occasionally throughout Cattell’s life, by the 1970s they had independent research programs and had developed separate intelligence theories. Thus, except for historical purposes, gf –gc theory is no longer viable because it has been replaced with two competing theories: Horn’s extended Gf–Gc theory and Cattell’s triadic theory. |
10 | The acronym IDEA stands for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which is an American law passed in 2004. |
11 | The term orthographic lexicon is a more technical term for sight vocabulary (i.e., words we can correctly read instantly without effort). |
12 | Promax rotation is oblique, meaning it allows the factors to be correlated. |
13 | There are other ways for the classes to be ordered, but since we are employing common sense/intuitive meanings, we will not differentiate among them (for more details, see Michell 1999). |
14 | Measurement models guaranteeing the conditions are not necessary, but the WIAT-4 authors do not discuss alternative probabilistic models in the technical manual. |
15 | Some WIAT-4 subtests offer partial credit, so the raw scores would be the number of points earned. |
16 | There are 495 ways to combine 4 out of 12 objects (i.e., 12C4). |
17 | The WIAT-4 provides both age- and grade-based norm groups for the norm-referenced scores, so it is likely more accurate to state the WIAT-4 provides 11 different score units in addition to the raw score. |
18 | The WIAT-4 standard scores are all integers, so the values from Equation (1) must be rounded. The WIAT-4 authors do not provide information about the rounding function they employ, however, so we do not include one in Equation (1). |
19 | The WIAT-4 authors hint, but do not state explicitly, that they normalized the raw score values within a norm group before converting to standard scores. It is true that normalizing can make a score’s values have certain statistical properties, but it does not follow that the attribute the score values represent gains properties because of normalizing (Michell 2020; Thomas 1982). Thus, normalizing the raw scores does not change our evaluation that the WIAT-4 authors do not provide sufficient support for their claim that standard scores are on an equal-interval measurement scale. |
References
- Academic. 2021. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Available online: www.oed.com/view/Entry/880 (accessed on 10 October 2021).
- Achievement. 2021. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Available online: www.oed.com/view/Entry/1482 (accessed on 10 October 2021).
- American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. 2014. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. [Google Scholar]
- Anastasi, Anne. 1976. Psychological Testing, 4th ed. New York: Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
- Anastasi, Anne. 1980. Abilities and the measurement of achievement. New Directions for Testing & Measurement 5: 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Anastasi, Anne. 1984. Aptitude and achievement tests: The curious case of the indestructible strawperson. In Social and Technical Issues in Testing: Implications for Test Construction and Use. Edited by Barbara S. Plake. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, pp. 129–40. [Google Scholar]
- Bardos, Achilles N. 2020. Basic Achievement Skills Inventory Comprehensive Test, 2nd ed. Greeley: Edumetrisis. [Google Scholar]
- Barrett, Paul T. 2018. The EFPA test-review model: When good intentions meet a methodological thought disorder. Behavioral Sciences 8: 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bascom, John. 1878. Comparative Psychology: Or, the Growth and Grades of Intelligence. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. [Google Scholar]
- Beaujean, A. Alexander. 2015a. Adopting a new test edition: Psychometric and practical considerations. Research and Practice in the Schools 3: 51–57. [Google Scholar]
- Beaujean, A. Alexander. 2015b. John Carroll’s views on intelligence: Bi-factor vs. higher- order models. Journal of Intelligence 3: 121–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bem, Sacha, and Huib Looren De Jong. 2013. Theoretical Issues in Psychology: An Introduction, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage. [Google Scholar]
- Bennett, Maxwell R., and Peter Michael Stephan Hacker. 2022. Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
- Berg, Irwin. A. 1959. The unimportance of test item content. In Objective Approaches to Personality Assessment. Edited by Bernard M. Bass and Irwin A. Berg. New York: Van Nostrand, pp. 83–99. [Google Scholar]
- Berninger, Virginia W., and William D. Winn. 2006. Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In Handbook of Writing Research. Edited by Charles MacArthur, Steve Graham and Jill Fitzgerald. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 96–114. [Google Scholar]
- Berninger, Virginia W., Donald. T. Mizokawa, Russell Bragg, Ana Cartwright, and Cheryl Yates. 1994. Intraindividual differences in levels of written language. Reading and Writing Quarterly 10: 259–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bollen, Kenneth A., and Shawn Bauldry. 2011. Three Cs in measurement models: Causal indicators, composite indicators, and covariates. Psychological Methods 16: 265–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boring, Edwin G. 1920. The logic of the normal law of error in mental measurement. The American Journal of Psychology 31: 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borsboom, Denny. 2005. Measuring the Mind: Conceptual Issues in Contemporary Psychometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Borsboom, Denny, Gideon J. Mellenbergh, and Jaap Van Heerden. 2004. The concept of validity. Psychological Review 111: 1061–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradford, Gwen. 2016. Achievement, wellbeing, and value. Philosophy Compass 11: 795–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breaux, Kristina C. 2020. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test: Technical & Interpretive Manual, 4th ed. Bloomington: NCS Pearson. [Google Scholar]
- Burisch, Matthias. 1984. Approaches to personality inventory construction: A comparison of merits. American Psychologist 39: 214–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buros, Oscar K. 1977. Fifty years in testing: Some reminiscences, criticisms, and suggestions. Educational Researcher 6: 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burt, Cyril L. 1917. The Distributions and Relations of Educational Abilities. London: Darling & Son. [Google Scholar]
- Burt, Cyril L. 1944. Mental abilities and mental factors. British Journal of Educational Psychology 14: 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bush, Shane S., Jerry J. Sweet, Kevin J. Bianchini, Doug Johnson-Greene, Pamela M. Dean, and Mike R. Schoenberg. 2018. Deciding to adopt revised and new psychological and neuropsychological tests: An inter-organizational position paper. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 32: 319–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, Jonathan M., Ronald T. Brown, Sarah E. Cavanagh, Ssarah F. Vess, and Mathew J. Segall. 2008. Evidence-based assessment of cognitive functioning in pediatric psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 33: 999–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carroll, John B. 1943. The factorial representation of mental ability and academic achievement. Educational and Psychological Measurement 3: 307–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, John B. 1993. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Cattell, Raymond B. 1944. Psychological measurement: Normative, ipsative, interactive. Psychological Review 51: 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattell, Raymond B. 1956. Personality and motivation theory based on structural measurement. In Psychology of Personality: Six Modern Approaches. Edited by James L. McCary. New York: Logos Press, pp. 63–119. [Google Scholar]
- Cattell, Raymond B. 1987. Intelligence: Its Structure, Growth, and Action. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
- Cattell, Raymond B., and Ronald C. Johnson, eds. 1986. Functional Psychological Testing: Principles and Instruments. New York: Brunner/Maze. [Google Scholar]
- Coffman, William E. 1970. Concepts of achievement and proficiency. In 1969 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems: Toward a Theory of Achievement Measurement. Edited by Philip H. DuBois. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, pp. 3–11. [Google Scholar]
- Coombs, Clyde H. 1948. Some hypotheses for the analysis of qualitative variables. Psychological Review 55: 167–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coombs, Clyde. H., Howard Raiffa, and Robert M. Thrall. 1954. Mathematical models and measurement theory. In Decision Processes. Edited by Robert M. Thrall, Clyde Hamilton Coombs and Robert L. Davis. New York: Wiley, pp. 19–37. [Google Scholar]
- Crandall, Vaughn J. 1963. Achievement. In The Sixty-Second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1: Child Psychology. Edited by H. W. Stevenson, J. Kagan and C. Spiker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 416–59. [Google Scholar]
- Cronbach, Lee J. 1990. Essentials of Psychological Testing, 5th ed. London: Harper Collins. [Google Scholar]
- Dailey, John Thomas, and Marion F. Shaycoft. 1961. Types of Tests in Project Talent: Standardized Aptitude and Achievement Tests. Cooperative Research Monograph No. 9. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. [Google Scholar]
- Danziger, Kurt. 1997. Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found Its Language. Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Google Scholar]
- Ebel, Robert L., and David A. Frisbie. 1991. Essentials of Educational Measures, 5th ed. New Deli: Prentice-Hall of India. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards, Jeffrey R. 2011. The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods 14: 370–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Evers, Arne, Carmen Hagemeister, Andreas Høstmælingen, Patricia A. Lindley, José Muñiz, and Anders Sjöberg. 2013. EFPA Review Model for the Description and Evaluation of Psychological and Educational Tests. Version 4.2.6. Brussels: European Federation of Psychology Associations, Available online: http://assessment.efpa.eu/documents-/ (accessed on 10 October 2021).
- French, John W. 1951. The Description of Aptitude and Achievement Tests in Terms of Rotated Factors. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
- Goodey, Christopher F. 2011. A History of Intelligence and “Intellectual Disability”: The Shaping of Psychology in Early Modern Europe. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Guilford, Joy Paul. 1946. New standards for test evaluation. Educational and Psychological Measurement 6: 427–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guttman, Louis. 1977. What is not what in statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician) 26: 81–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guttman, Louis, and Shlomit Levy. 1991. Two structural laws for intelligence tests. Intelligence 15: 79–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hacker, Peter Michael Stephan. 2013. The Intellectual Powers: A Study of Human Nature. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
- Hacker, Peter, and Michael Stephan. 2020. Methods of connective analysis. In Philosophy in the Age of Science?: Inquiries into Philosophical Progress, Method, and Societal Relevance. Edited by Julia Hermann, Jeroen Hopster, Wouter Kalf and Michael Klenk. London: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 111–30. [Google Scholar]
- Hand, David J. 2004. Measurement Theory and Practice: The World through Quantification. London: Edward Arnold. [Google Scholar]
- Hand, David J. 2016. Measurement: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Hardy, Ben. 2009. Morale: Definitions, Dimensions and Measurement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Available online: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/229514 (accessed on 10 October 2021).
- Haynes, Stephen N., David C. S. Richard, and Edward S. Kubany. 1995. Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment 7: 238–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hearnshaw, Leslie Spencer. 1941. Psychology and operationism. Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy 19: 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heckhausen, Heinz. 1967. The Anatomy of Achievement Motivation. Translated by Kay F. Butler, Robert C. Birney, and David C. Mcclelland. Cambridge: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
- Holzinger, Karl John, Frances Swineford, and Harry H. Harman. 1937. Student Manual of Factor Analysis: An Elementary Exposition of the Bi-Factor Method and Its Relation to Multiple-Factor Methods. Chicago: University of Chicago Department of Education. [Google Scholar]
- Hoover, Wesley A., and Philip B. Gough. 1990. The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing 2: 127–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horn, John L. 1963. The discovery of personality traits. The Journal of Educational Research 56: 460–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horn, John L. 1965. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30: 179–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horn, John L. 1972. State, trait and change dimensions of intelligence. British Journal of Educational Psychology 42: 159–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howard, Robert W. 1993. On what intelligence is. British Journal of Psychology 84: 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Test Commission. 2001. International guidelines for test use. International Journal of Testing 1: 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jennrich, Robert I., and Peter M. Bentler. 2011. Exploratory bi-factor analysis. Psychometrika 76: 537–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, James M., Henry S. Pennypacker, and Gina Green. 2019. Strategies and Tactics of Behavioral Research and Practice, 4th ed. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology. 2012. JCGM 200:2012. International Vocabulary of Metrology—Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms (VIM). Available online: https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_200_2012.pdf (accessed on 22 October 2021).
- Kaiser, Henry F. 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39: 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kane, Michael T. 2013. Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement 50: 1–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaufman, Scott Barry, Matthew R. Reynolds, Xin Liu, Alan S. Kaufman, and Kevin S. McGrew. 2012. Are cognitive g and academic achievement g one and the same g? An exploration on the Woodcock-Johnson and Kaufman tests. Intelligence 40: 123–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaufman, Allen S., Nadeen L. Kaufman, and Kristina C. Breaux. 2014. Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (3rd ed) Technical & Interpretive Manual. Bloomington: NCS Pearson. [Google Scholar]
- Kilpatrick, David A. 2015. Essentials of Assessing, Preventing, and Overcoming Reading Difficulties. Hoboken: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, Young-Suk, Brandy Gatlin, Stephanie Al Otaiba, and Jeanne Wanzek. 2018. Theorization and an empirical investigation of the component-based and developmental text writing fluency construct. Journal of Learning Disabilities 51: 320–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, Paul. 1998. The New Psychometrics: Science, Psychology, and Measurement. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Krause, Merton S. 1967. The construct validity of measuring instruments. The Journal of General Psychology 77: 277–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krause, Merton S. 2005. How the psychotherapy research community must work toward measurement validity and why. Journal of Clinical Psychology 61: 269–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krause, Merton S. 2012. Measurement validity is fundamentally a matter of definition, not correlation. Review of General Psychology 16: 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Legg, Shane, and Marcus Hutter. 2007. A collection of definitions of intelligence. In Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms. Edited by Ben Goertzel and Pei Wang. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 17–24. [Google Scholar]
- Lindquist, E. F. 1936. The theory of test construction. In The Construction and Use of Achievement Examinations: A Manualfor Secondary School Teachers. Edited by Herbert E. Hawkes, E. F. Lindquist and C. R. Mann. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 17–106. [Google Scholar]
- Loehlin, John C., and A. Alexander Beaujean. 2016a. Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Equation Analysis, 5th ed. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Loehlin, John C., and A. Alexander Beaujean. 2016b. Syntax Companion for Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, And Structural Equation Analysis, 5th ed. Waco: Baylor Psychometric Laboratory. [Google Scholar]
- Loevinger, Jane. 1947. A systematic approach to the construction and evaluation of tests of ability. Psychological Monographs 61: i-49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loevinger, Jane. 1957. Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports 3: 635–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lykken, David T. 1968. Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin 70: 151–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maraun, Michael D. 1998. Measurement as a normative practice: Implications of Wittgenstein’s philosophy for measurement in psychology. Theory & Psychology 8: 435–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maraun, Michael D. 2013. The concepts of suicidology. In A Wittgensteinian Perspective on the Use of Conceptual Analysis in Psychology. Edited by Timothy P. Racine and Kathleen L. Slaney. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 233–52. [Google Scholar]
- Mari, Luca, Paolo Carbone, and Dario Petri. 2015. Fundamentals of hard and soft measurement. In Modern Measurements: Fundamentals and Applications. Edited by Alessandro Ferrero, Dario Petri, Paolo Carbone and Marcantonio Catelani. Hoboken: Wiley-IEEE Press, pp. 203–62. [Google Scholar]
- Mari, Luca, Andrew Maul, David Torres Irribarra, and Mark Wilson. 2017. Quantities, quantification, and the necessary and sufficient conditions for measurement. Measurement 100: 115–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markus, Keith A., and Denny Borsboom. 2013. Frontiers of Test Validity Theory: Measurement, Causation, and Meaning. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Mather, Nancy, and Bashir Abu-Hamour. 2013. Individual assessment of academic achievement. In APA Handbook of Testing and Assessment in Psychology, Vol. 3: Testing and Assessment in School Psychology and Education. Edited by Kurt F. Geisinger, Bruce A. Bracken, Janet F. Carlson, Jo-Ida C. Hansen, Nathan R. Kuncel, Steven P. Reise and Michael C. Rodriguez. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 101–28. [Google Scholar]
- Matsumoto, David, ed. 2009. The Cambridge Dictionary of Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- McFall, Richard M., and Teresa A. Treat. 1999. Quantifying the information value of clinical assessments with signal detection theory. Annual Review of Psychology 50: 215–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Merton, Robert K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure, Enlarged ed. New York: Free Press. [Google Scholar]
- Messick, Samuel. 1989. Validity. In Educational Measurement, 3rd ed. Edited by Robert Linn. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, pp. 13–103. [Google Scholar]
- Michell, Joel. 1990. An Introduction to the Logic of Psychological Measurement. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
- Michell, Joel. 1999. Measurement in Psychology: Critical History of a Methodological Concept. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Michell, Joel. 2005. The logic of measurement: A realist overview. Measurement 38: 285–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michell, Joel. 2009. Invalidity in validity. In The Concept of Validity: Revisions, New Directions, and Applications. Edited by Robert W. Lissitz. Charlotte: IAP Information Age Publishing, pp. 111–33. [Google Scholar]
- Michell, Joel. 2020. Thorndike’s credo: Metaphysics in psychometrics. Theory & Psychology 30: 309–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, James V., Jr. 1984. Testing and the Oscar Buros lament: From knowledge to implementation to use. In Social and Technical Issues in Testing: Implications for Test Construction and Usage. Edited by Barbara S. Plake. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 111–26. [Google Scholar]
- Monroe, Walter S., James C. DeVoss, and George W. Reagan. 1930. Educational Psychology. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran & Company. [Google Scholar]
- NCS Pearson. 2020. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 4th ed. Bloomington: Author. [Google Scholar]
- Newton, Paul E. 2017. There is more to educational measurement than measuring: The importance of embracing purpose pluralism. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 36: 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newton, Paul E., and Stuart D. Shaw. 2014. Validity in Educational and Psychological Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
- Norenzayan, Ara, and Steven J. Heine. 2005. Psychological universals: What are they and how can we know? Psychological Bulletin 131: 763–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ozer, Daniel J., and Steven P. Reise. 1994. Personality assessment. Annual Review of Psychology 45: 357–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peak, H. 1953. Problems of objective observation. In Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Leon Festinger and Daniel Katz. New York: Dryden Press, pp. 243–99. [Google Scholar]
- R Development Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Google Scholar]
- Reeve, Charlie L., and Silvia Bonaccio. 2011. The nature and structure of “intelligence”. In The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Individual Differences. Edited by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Sophie von Stumm and Adrian Furnham. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 187–216. [Google Scholar]
- Reynolds, Cecil. R. 1998. Fundamentals of measurement and assessment in psychology. In Comprehensive Clinical Psychology: Vol. 4: Assessment. Edited by Cecil R. Reynolds. New York: Pergamon/Elsevier, pp. 33–55. [Google Scholar]
- Rhemtulla, Mijke, Riet van Bork, and Denny Borsboom. 2015. Calling models with causal indicators “measurement models” implies more than they can deliver. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 13: 59–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rugg, H. O., ed. 1921. Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. [Special issue]. Journal of Educational Psychology 12: 123–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, W. Joel. 2013. Principles of assessment of aptitude and achievement. In The Oxford Handbook of Child Psychological Assessment. Edited by Donald H. Saklofske, Cecil R. Reynolds and Vicki L. Schwean. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 286–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shapiro, Edward S. 2011. Academic Skills Problems: Direct Assessment and Intervention, 4th ed. New York: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
- Sijtsma, Klaas. 2006. Psychometrics in psychological research: Role model or partner in science? Psychometrika 71: 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Slaney, Kathleen. 2017. Validating Psychological Constructs: Historical, Philosophical, and Practical Dimensions. London: Palgrave. [Google Scholar]
- Spearman, Charles E. 1927. The Abilities of Man: Their Nature and Measurement. London: Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
- Spearman, Charles E. 1933. The factor theory and its troubles. III. Misrepresentation of the theory. Journal of Educational Psychology 24: 591–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spearman, Charles E. 1937. Psychology Down the Ages. Oxford: Macmillan, vol. 1. [Google Scholar]
- Spearman, Charles E. 1938. Measurement of intelligence. Scientia, Milano 64: 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spearman, Carlesta Elliot, and Llewellyn Wynn Jones. 1950. Human Ability: A Continuation of “The Abilities of Man”. London: Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
- Spinath, Birgit. 2012. Academic achievement. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 2nd ed. Edited by Vilayanur S. Ramachandran. Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Steiner, Markus D., and Silvia Grieder. 2020. EFAtools: An R package with fast and flexible implementations of exploratory factor analysis tools. Journal of Open Source Software 5: 2521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stokes, Dustin. 2008. A metaphysics of creativity. In New Waves in Aesthetics. Edited by Kathleen Stock and Katherine Thomson-Jones. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 105–24. [Google Scholar]
- Taine, Hippolyte. 1872. On Intelligence, Rev ed. Translated by T. D. Haye. New York: Holt & Williams. [Google Scholar]
- Thomas, Lawrence G. 1942. Mental tests as instruments of science. Psychological Monographs 54: i-87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, Hoben. 1982. IQ, interval scales, and normal distributions. Psychological Bulletin 91: 198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thorndike, Robert M., and Tracy Thorndike-Christ. 2010. Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education, 8th ed. London: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
- Varzi, Achille C., and Giuliano Torrengo. 2006. Crimes and punishments. Philosophia 34: 395–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velicer, Wayne F. 1976. Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika 41: 321–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66: 143–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vernon, Philip E. 1950. The Structure of Human Abilities. New York: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
- Vygotsky, Lev. S. 1987. The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation. In The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 3: Problems of the Theory and History of Psychology. Edited by Robert W. Rieber and Jeffre Wollock. Translated by René van Der Veer. New York: Springer, pp. 233–343. [Google Scholar]
- Wechsler, David. 1975. Intelligence defined and undefined: A relativistic appraisal. American Psychologist 30: 135–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wechsler, David, Susan E. Raiford, and James A. Holdnack. 2014. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition: Technical and Interpretive Manual. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson. [Google Scholar]
- Wesman, Alexander G. 1956. Aptitude, Intelligence, and Achievement. Test Service Bulletin 51. New York: The Psychological Corporation. [Google Scholar]
- Woodcock, Richard W. 1999. What can Rasch-based scores convey about a person’s test performance. In The New Rules of Measurement: What Every Psychologist and Educator Should Know. Edited by Susan E. Embretson and Scott L. Hershberger. Hoboken: Erlbaum, pp. 105–27. [Google Scholar]
- Zimprich, Daniel, and Mike Martin. 2009. A multilevel factor analysis perspective on intellectual development in old age. In Aging and Cognition: Research Methodologies and Empirical Advances. Edited by Hayden B. Bosworth and Christopher Hertzog. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 53–76. [Google Scholar]
Subtest Scores | Grade Levels | Composite Scores | |
---|---|---|---|
Single Knowledge Domain | Multiple Knowledge Domains | ||
Reading Domain | |||
Decoding Fluency a | 3–12+ | Reading Fluency (3–12+) | |
Oral Reading Fluency | 1–12+ | Reading Fluency (1–12+) | |
Orthographic Fluency a | 1–12+ | Dyslexia Index (4–12+) | Orthographic Processing (1–12+) |
Reading Fluency (1–12+) | |||
Phonemic Proficiency a,b | PK–12+ | Basic Reading | |
Dyslexia Index (PK-3) | |||
Phonological Processing (1–12+) | |||
Pseudoword Decoding | 1–12+ | Basic Reading | |
Decoding | |||
Dyslexia Index (4–12+) | |||
Phonological Processing (1–12+) | |||
Reading Comprehension | K-12+ | Reading (K-12+) | Total Achievement (PK-12+) |
Word Reading | PK-12+ | Basic Reading | Total Achievement (PK-12+) |
Decoding | |||
Dyslexia Index (PK-12+) | |||
Reading (K-12+) | |||
Writing Domain | |||
Alphabet Writing Fluency | PK-4+ | Written Expression (K-1) | Total Achievement (PK-1) |
Writing Fluency (1-4) | |||
Essay Composition | 3-12+ | Written Expression (4-12+) | Total Achievement (4–12+) |
Sentence Composition c | 1-12+ | Written Expression (2-12+) | Total Achievement (2–3) |
Sentence Writing Fluency a | 1-12+ | Writing Fluency (1-4) | |
Spelling | K-12+ | Written Expression (K-12+) | Total Achievement (K-12+) |
Orthographic Processing (1–12+) | |||
Mathematics Domain | |||
Math Problem Solving | PK-12+ | Mathematics (K-12+) | Total Achievement (PK-12+) |
Numerical Operations | K-12+ | Mathematics (K-12+) | Total Achievement (K-12+) |
Math Fluency–Addition | 1–12+ | Math Fluency (1–12+) | |
Math Fluency–Subtraction | 1–12+ | Math Fluency (1–12+) | |
Math Fluency-Multiplication | 3–12+ | Math Fluency (3–12+) | |
Oral Language Domain | |||
Listening Comprehension d | PK-12+ | Oral Language (PK-12+) | |
Oral Expression e | PK-12+ | Oral Language (PK-12+) |
Number of Factors | χ2 | df | CFI | RMSEA (95% CI) | AIC | BIC | Eigen > 1 | Parallel Analysis | MAP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4–7 Years | |||||||||
5 | 604.055 | 61 | .967 | 0.14 (0.13–0.15) | 482.055 | 227.454 | 3 | 5 | 3 |
4 | 837.031 | 74 | .954 | 0.15 (0.14–0.16) | 689.031 | 380.170 | |||
3 | 1080.827 | 88 | .940 | 0.15 (0.15–0.16) | 904.827 | 537.533 | |||
8–11 Years | |||||||||
5 | 284.022 | 100 | .991 | 0.06 (0.05–0.07) | 84.022 | −333.356 | 4 | 5 | 3 |
4 | 468.924 | 116 | .982 | 0.08 (0.07–0.09) | 236.924 | −247.236 | |||
3 | 747.181 | 133 | .969 | 0.10 (0.09–0.10) | 481.181 | −73.933 | |||
12–19 years | |||||||||
5 | 185.215 | 86 | .995 | 0.05 (0.04–0.06) | 13.215 | −345.731 | 3 | 5 | 3 |
4 | 279.639 | 101 | .991 | 0.06 (0.05–0.07) | 77.639 | −343.914 | |||
3 | 412.250 | 117 | .986 | 0.07 (0.06–0.08) | 178.250 | −310.083 | |||
20–50 years | |||||||||
5 | 458.797 | 86 | .978 | 0.10 (0.09–0.10) | 286.797 | −72.148 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
4 | 594.135 | 101 | .971 | 0.10 (0.09–0.11) | 392.135 | −29.417 | |||
3 | 803.818 | 117 | .960 | 0.11 (0.10–0.12) | 569.818 | 81.485 |
Reading Component | WIAT-4 | |
---|---|---|
Subtests | Composites | |
Word Decoding/Reading: Cipher Skills | Decoding Fluency | Basic Reading |
Phonemic Proficiency | Phonological Processing | |
Pseudoword Decoding | Decoding | |
Word Reading | ||
Word Decoding/Reading: Word-Specific Knowledge | Orthographic Choice a | Orthographic Processing |
Orthographic Fluency | Orthographic Processing Extended a | |
Spelling b | ||
Oral Language/Linguistic Comprehension | Oral Language c | Listening Comprehension c |
Oral Expression c | Oral Expression c | |
Contextual Reading Fluency | Oral Reading Fluency | |
Reading Comprehension | Reading Comprehension |
Writing Component | Grades | WIAT-4 Subtests |
---|---|---|
Transcription | PK-4 | Alphabet Writing Fluency |
K-12+ | Spelling | |
Text Generation | PK-12+ | Listening Comprehension a |
PK-12+ | Oral Expression a | |
Text Writing Fluency | 1–12+ | Sentence Writing Fluency |
Writing Quality | 1–12 | Sentence Composition |
3–12+ | Essay Composition |
Composite Score | Grades | Subtests |
---|---|---|
Writing Fluency | 1–4 | Alphabet Writing Fluency & Spelling |
Written Expression | K–1 | Spelling & Alphabet Writing Fluency |
2–3 | Spelling & Sentence Composition | |
4–12 | Spelling, Sentence Composition, & Essay Composition |
Area of Mathematics Difficulty | WIAT-4 | |
---|---|---|
Subtest Scores | Composite Scores | |
Math-fact fluency | Math Fluency–Addition | Math Fluency |
Math Fluency–Subtraction | ||
Math Fluency–Multiplication a | ||
Computation | Numerical Operations | Mathematics |
Math problem solving | Math Problem Solving | Mathematics |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Beaujean, A.A.; Parkin, J.R. Evaluation of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Fourth Edition as a Measurement Instrument. J. Intell. 2022, 10, 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10020030
Beaujean AA, Parkin JR. Evaluation of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Fourth Edition as a Measurement Instrument. Journal of Intelligence. 2022; 10(2):30. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10020030
Chicago/Turabian StyleBeaujean, A. Alexander, and Jason R. Parkin. 2022. "Evaluation of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Fourth Edition as a Measurement Instrument" Journal of Intelligence 10, no. 2: 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10020030