Construct validity of the WISC–IV Italian edition: A bifactor examination of the standardization sample: Chi niente sa, di niente dubita

References

• Alfonso, V. C., Oakland, T. D., LaRocca, R., & Spanakos, A. (2000). The course on individual cognitive assessment. School Psychology Review, 29, 52–64. doi:10.1037.h0090497
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaujean, A. A., & Benson, N. (2018 March). Theoretically-consistent cognitive ability test development and score interpretation. Contemporary School Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s40688-018-0182-1
   Google Scholar
• Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (2016). EQS for Windows. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Binet, A. (1905). New methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level of subnormals. L’Annee Psychologique, 12, 191–244 (Translated in 1916 by E. S. Kite in The Development of Intelligence in Children). Vineland, NJ: Publications of the Training School at Vineland.
   Google Scholar
• Bodin, D., Pardini, D. A., Burns, T. G., & Stevens, A. B. (2009). Higher order factor structure of the WISC–IV in a clinical neuropsychological sample. Child Neuropsychology, 15, 417–424. doi:10.1080/09297040802603661
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boring, E. G. (1923). Intelligence as the tests test it. New Republic, 35, 35–36.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brunner, M., Nagy, G., & Wilhelm, O. (2012). A tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs. Journal of Personality, 80, 796–846. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00749.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33, 261–304. doi:10.1177/0049124104268644
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canivez, G. L. (2014). Construct validity of the WISC–IV with a referred sample: Direct versus indirect hierarchical structures. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 38–51. doi:10.1037/spq0000032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canivez, G. L. (2016). Bifactor modeling in construct validation of multifactored tests: Implications for multidimensionality and test interpretation. In K. Schweizer & C. DiStefano (Eds.), Principles and methods of test construction: Standards and recent advancements (pp. 247–271). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar
• Canivez, G. L., & Kush, J. C. (2013). WISC–IV and WAIS–IV structural validity: Alternate methods, alternate results. Commentary on Weiss et al. (2013a) and Weiss et al. (2013b). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 157–169. doi:10.1177/0734282913478036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canivez, G. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2010a). Investigation of the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV): Exploratory and higher order factor analyses. Psychological Assessment, 22, 827–836. doi:10.1037/a0020429
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canivez, G. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2010b). Exploratory and higher-order factor analyses of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV) adolescent subsample. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 223–235. doi:10.1037/a0022046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., & Dombrowski, S. C. (2016). Factor structure of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children–fifth edition: Exploratory factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Psychological Assessment, 28, 975–986. doi:10.1037/pas0000238
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., & Dombrowski, S. C. (2017). Structural validity of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children–fifth edition: Confirmatory factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Psychological Assessment, 29, 458–472. doi:10.1037/pas0000358
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., Good, R., James, K., & James, T. (2017). Construct validity of the WISC–IVUK with a referred Irish sample: Wechsler and CHC model comparisons with 15 subtests. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 383–407. doi:10.1111/bjep.12155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., & McGill, R. J. (2019). Construct validity of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children–fifth UK edition: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the 16 primary and secondary subtests. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 195–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12230
   Google Scholar
• Canivez, G. L, & Youngstrom, E. A. (2019). Challenges to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory: Empirical, clinical, and policy implications. Applied Measurement in Education, 32, 232–248. doi:10.1080/08957347.2019.1619562
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B. (2003). The higher-stratum structure of cognitive abilities: Current evidence supports g and about ten broad factors. In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (pp. 5–21). New York, NY: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B. (2012). The three–Stratum theory of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 883–890). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cattell, R. B., & Horn, J. L. (1978). A check on the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence with description of new subtest designs. Journal of Educational Measurement, 15, 139–164. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1978.tb00065.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, H., & Zhu, J. (2012). Measurement invariance of WISC-IV across normative and clinical samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 161–166. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, H. –. Y., Keith, T. Z., Chen, Y. –. H., & Chang, B.-S. (2009). What does the WISC-IV measure? Validation of the scoring and CHC-based interpretive approaches. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 54, 85–108.
   Google Scholar
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cianci, L., Orsini, A., Hulbert, S., & Pezuti, L. (2013). The influence of parents’ education in the Italian standardization sample of the WISC-III. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 47–53. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cucina, J. M., & Byle, K. (2017). The bifactor model fits better than the higher-order model in more than 90% of comparisons for mental abilities test batteries. Journal of Intelligence,5, 27–48. doi:10.3390/jintelligence5030027
   Google Scholar
• Cucina, J. M., & Howardson, G. N. (2017). Woodcock-Johnson–III, Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT), Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC), and Differential Ability Scales (DAS) Support Carroll but Not Cattell-Horn. Psychological Assessment, 29, 1001–1015. doi:10.1037/pas0000389
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fennollar-Cortés, J., & Watkins, M. W. (2018 March). Construct validity of the Spanish version of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Fifth Edition (WISC–VSpain). International Journal of School & Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/21683603.2017.1414006
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC–IV assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Flynn, A. S. (2009). What is intelligence? New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freberg, M. E., Vandiver, B. J., Watkins, M. W., & Canivez, G. L. (2008). Significant factor score variability and the validity of the WISC–III Full Scale IQ in predicting later academic achievement. Applied Neuropsychology, 15, 131–139. doi:10.1080/09084280802084010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galton, F. (1908). Memories of my life. London, UK: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Gignac, G. E. (2005). Revisiting the factor structure of the WAIS–R: Insights through nested factor modeling. Assessment, 12, 320–329. doi:10.1177/1073191105278118
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gignac, G. E. (2006). The WAIS–III as a nested factors model: A useful alternative to the more conventional oblique and higher-order models. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 73–86. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.27.2.73
   Google Scholar
• Gignac, G. E. (2008). Higher-order models versus direct hierarchical models: G as superordinate or breadth factor. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 21–43.
   Google Scholar
• Gignac, G. E. (2016). The higher-order model imposes a proportionality constraint: That is why the bifactor model tends to fit better. Intelligence, 55, 57–68. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2016.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gignac, G. E., & Watkins, M. W. (2013). Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS–IV. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 639–662. doi:10.1080/00273171.2013.804398
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golay, P., & Lecerf, T. (2011). Orthogonal higher order structure and confirmatory factor analysis of the French Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS–III). Psychological Assessment, 23, 143–152. doi:10.1037/a0021230
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golay, P., Reverte, I., Rossier, J., Favez, N., & Lecerf, T. (2013). Further insights on the French WISC–IV factor structure through Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM). Psychological Assessment, 25, 496–508. doi:10.1037/a0030676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Exploratory factor analysis. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 231–258). New York, NY: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Grégoire, J. (2006). L’examen clinique de l’intelligence de l’enfant. Fondements et pratiques du WISC–IV [The clinical examination of the intelligence of the child. Foundations and practice of the WISC–IV]. Sprimont, Belgium: Mardaga.
   Google Scholar
• Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson, J., & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 407–434. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2804_2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In R. Cudeck, S. Du Toit & D. Sorbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
   Google Scholar
• Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, F. (1937). The bi-factor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41–54. doi:10.1007/BF02287965
   Google Scholar
• Horn, J. L. (1988). Thinking about human abilities. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 645–685). New York, NY: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Horn, J. L., & Blankson, N. (2005). Foundations for better understanding of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 41–68). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, A. R. (1979). The nature of intelligence and its relationship to learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 79–85.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, S. B., Reynolds, M. R., Liu, X., Kaufman, A. S., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). Are cognitive g and academic achievement g one and the same g? Intelligence, 40, 123–138. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.01.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keith, T. Z. (2005). Using confirmatory factor analysis to aid in understanding the constructs measured by intelligence tests. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 581–614). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keith, T. Z., Fine, J. G., Taub, G. E., Reynolds, M. R., & Kranzler, J. H. (2006). Higher-order, multi-sample, confirmatory factor analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition: What does it measure. School Psychology Review, 35, 108–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Kush, J. C. (1996). Factor structure of the WISC–III for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 32–40. doi:10.1177/073428299601400103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kush, J. C., & Canivez, G. L. (2018). The higher order structure of the WISC–IV Italian adaptation using hierarchical exploratory factor analytic procedures. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/21683603.2018.1485601.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kush, J. C., Spring, M. B., & Barkand, J. (2012). Advances in the assessment of cognitive skills using computer based measurement. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 125–134. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0136-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kush, J. C., & Watkins, M. W. (2007). Structural validity of the WISC–III for a national sample of Native American students. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 22, 235–248. doi:10.1177/0829573507303056
   Google Scholar
• Kush, J. C., Watkins, M. W., Ward, T. J., Ward, S. B., Canivez, G. L., & Worrell, F. C. (2001). Construct validity of the WISC–III for White and Black students from the WISC–III standardization sample and for Black students referred for psychological evaluation. School Psychology Review, 30, 70–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecerf, T., & Canivez, G. L. (2018). Complementary exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the French WISC–V: Analyses based on the standardization sample. Psychological Assessment, 30, 793–808. doi:10.1037/pas0000526
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecerf, T., Reverte, I., Coleaux, L., Favez, N., & Rossier, J. (2010a). Indice d’aptitude général pour le WISC–IV: Normes francophones. (General ability index for the WISC–IV: French norms). Pratiques Psychologiques, 16, 109–121. doi:10.1016/j.prps.2009.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecerf, T., Rossier, J., Faves, N., Reverte, I., & Coleaux, L. (2010b). The four- vs. alternative six-factor structure of the French WISC–IV: Comparison using confirmatory factor analyses. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69, 221–232. doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little, T. D., Lindenberger, U., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1999). On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: When “good” indicators are bad and “bad” indicators are good. Psychological Methods, 4, 192–211. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.2.192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansolf, M., & Reise, S. O. (2017). When and why second-order and bifactor models are distinguishable. Intelligence, 61, 120–129. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.01.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis- testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, R. P. (2010). Structural models and the art of approximation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(675–686). doi:10.1177/1745691610388766
   Google Scholar
• McGill, R. J., & Canivez, G. L. (2016). Orthogonal higher order structure of the WISC–IV Spanish using hierarchical exploratory factor analytic procedures. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 600–606. doi:10.1177/0734282915624293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGill, R. J., & Canivez, G. L. (2018). Confirmatory factor analyses of the WISC–IV Spanish core and supplemental Subtests: Validation evidence of the Wechsler and CHC models. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 6, 239–251. doi:10.1080/21683603.2017.1327831
   Google Scholar
• McGill, R. J., Dombrowski, S. C., & Canivez, G. L. (2018). Cognitive profile analysis in school psychology: History, issues, and continued concerns. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 108–121. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical manual: Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, G. B., Hodge, K. J., Wells, K. E., & Watkins, M. W. (2015). Are fit indices biased in favor of bi-factor models in cognitive ability research?: A comparison of fit in correlated factors, higher-order, and bi-factor models via Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Intelligence, 3, 2–20. doi:10.3390/jintelligence3010002
   Google Scholar
• Murdoch, S. (2007). IQ: A smart history of a failed idea. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, A. L., & Johnson, W. (2013). The limitations of model fit in comparing the bi-factor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure. Intelligence, 41, 407–422. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Cognitive Assessment System: Interpretive handbook. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
   Google Scholar
• Naglieri, J. A., & Rojahn, J. (2004). Construct validity of the PASS theory and CAS: Correlations with achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 174–181. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakano, S., & Watkins, M. W. (2013). Factor structure of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children–fourth edition among referred native American students. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 957–968. doi:10.1002/pits.21724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, J. M., Canivez, G. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2013). Structural and incremental validity of the Wechsler adult intelligence scale–Fourth edition (WAIS–IV) with a clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 25, 618–630. doi:10.1037/a0032086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orsini, A., Pezzuti, L., & Picone, L. (2012). WISC–IV. Contributo alla taratura italiana. Firenze, IT: Giunti OS.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, D. R., & Benedict, K. B. (2002). Assessment and intervention: Promoting successful transitions for college students with ADHD. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 27(3–24). doi:10.1177/073724770202700302
   Google Scholar
• Pfeiffer, S. I., Reddy, L. A., Kletzel, J. E., Schmelzer, E. R., & Boyer, L. M. (2000). The practitioner’s view of Intelligence testing and profile analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 376–385. doi:10.1037/h0088795
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 129–140. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137–150. doi:10.1037/met0000045
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, B., Becker, N., Romeyke, S., Schäfer, S., Domnick, F., & Spinath, F. M. (2015). Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 53, 118–137. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations (5th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler.
   Google Scholar
• Schmid, J., & Leiman, J. M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53–61. doi:10.1007/bf02289209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence”: Objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293. doi:10.2307/1412107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York, NY: Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Styck, K. M., & Watkins, M. W. (2016). Structural validity of the WISC–IV for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 216–224. doi:10.1177/0022219414539565
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Warne, R. T., & Burningham, C. (2019). Spearman’s g found in 31 non-Western nations: Strong evidence that g is a universal phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 145, 237–272. doi:10.1037/bul0000184
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins, M. W. (2006). Orthogonal higher order structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth edition. Psychological Assessment, 18, 123–125. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.18.1.123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins, M. W. (2010). Structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition among a national sample of referred students. Psychological Assessment, 22, 782–787. doi:10.1037/a0020043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins, M. W. (2012). ChiSquareDiff [ [Computer software]]. Phoenix, AZ: Ed & Psych Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Watkins, M. W. (2013). Omega [ [Computer software]]. Phoenix, AZ: Ed & Psych Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Watkins, M. W. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44, 219–246. doi:10.1177/0095798418771807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins, M. W., & Beaujean, A. A. (2014). Bifactor structure of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Fourth edition. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 52–63. doi:10.1037/spq0000038
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins, M. W., Canivez, G. L., James, T., Good, R., & James, K. (2013). Construct validity of the WISC–IV UK with a large referred Irish sample. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 1, 102–111. doi:10.1080/21683603.2013.794439
   Google Scholar
• Watkins, M. W., Dombrowski, S. C., & Canivez, G. L. (2018). Reliability and factorial validity of the Canadian Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition. International Journal Of School & Educational Psychology, 6, 252–265. doi:10.1080/21683603.2017.1342580
   Google Scholar
• Watkins, M. W., & Kush, J. C. (2002). Confirmatory factor analysis of the WISC–III for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20, 4–19. doi:10.1177/073428290202000101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins, M. W., Wilson, S. M., Kotz, K. M., Carbone, M. C., & Babula, T. (2006). Factor structure of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children–Fourth Edition among referred students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 975–983. doi:10.1177/0013164406288168
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (1939). Measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Williams.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (1949). Manual for the Wechsler intelligence scale for children. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (2003a). Wechsler intelligence scale for children–Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (2003b). Wechsler intelligence scale for children–Fourth Edition: Technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (2004a). Wechsler intelligence scale for children–Fourth UK Edition. London, UK: Harcourt Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (2004b). Wechsler intelligence scale for children–Fourth UK Edition: Administration and scoring manual. London: Harcourt Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (2005a). WISC–IV. In Echelle d’intelligence de wechsler pour enfants-4e édition. Paris, France: Pearson France-ECPA.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (2005b). Wechsler intelligence scale for children–Fourth edition, Spanish. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (2012). WISC–IV Wechsler intelligence scale for children Quarta Edizione. Manuale di somministrazione e scoring. Firenze, IT: Giunti OS.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (2014a). Wechsler intelligence scale for children–Fifth Edition. San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (2014b). Wechsler intelligence scale for children–Fifth Edition technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (2016a). Wechsler intelligence scale for children–Fifth UK Edition. London, UK: Harcourt Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (2016b). WISC–V. Echelle d’intelligence de Wechsler pour enfants–5e édition. Paris, FR: Pearson France - ECPA.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, L. G., Keith, T. Z., Zhu, J., & Chen, H. (2013a). WAIS–IV and clinical validation of the four- and five-factor interpretative approaches. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 94–113. doi:10.1177/0734282913478030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, L. G., Keith, T. Z., Zhu, J., & Chen, H. (2013b). WISC–IV and clinical validation of the four- and five-factor interpretative approaches. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 114–131. doi:10.1177/0734282913478032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaboski, B. A., Kranzler, J. H., & Gage, N. A. (2018). Meta-analysis of the relationship between academic achievement and broad abilities of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 42–56. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, J., & Weiss, L. (2005). The Wechsler scales. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment. Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 297–324). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s alpha, Revelle’s beta, and McDonald’s omega h: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70, 123–133. doi:10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zinbarg, R. E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ωH. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 121–144. doi:10.1177/0146621605278814
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar