CONTENTS · 2019-02-19 · WISC-V Integrated Interpretive Assistant 1.0 xxi Appendix A xxi Appendix B xxii One Overview 1 Historical Perspectives on the Process Approach to Cognitive

Trim Size: 5.5in x 8.5in Raiford370420 ftoc.tex V1 - 09/05/2017 1:52pm Page ix

❦

❦ ❦

❦

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments xvSeries Preface xviiAbout the Companion Website xixResources on the Companion Website xxi

WISC-V Integrated Interpretive Assistant 1.0 xxiAppendix A xxiAppendix B xxii

One Overview 1Historical Perspectives on the Process Approach

to Cognitive Assessment 3Development of the WISC-V Integrated 7

Key Revisions 7Subtests 9Composite Scores 19

Test Structure 19New Essentials Composite Scores 21Validity 23

Intercorrelation Studies 23Standardization and Psychometric Properties 27

Comprehensive Test References 29Test Yourself 30Answers 31References 31

Two Intelligent WISC-V Integrated Administration 35Kathleen M. Rollins and Susan Engi Raiford

Test Materials 37Physical Environment 39

ix

COPY

RIGHT

ED M

ATER

IAL

Trim Size: 5.5in x 8.5in Raiford370420 ftoc.tex V1 - 09/05/2017 1:52pm Page x

❦

❦ ❦

❦

x CONTENTS

Establishing and Maintaining Rapport 40Subtest Administration Order 41Selection of Subtests 42Fairness 43Start Points, Reverse Rules, and Discontinue Rules 45

Start Points 45Reverse Rules 47Discontinue Rules 47

Timing 50Demonstration, Sample, and Teaching Items 50Repetitions, Prompts, and Queries 51

Repetitions 51Prompts 52Queries 52

Recording Responses 53Subtest-by-Subtest Administration 54

Verbal Comprehension Subtests 54Visual Spatial Subtest 63Fluid Reasoning Subtests 64Working Memory Subtests 70Processing Speed Subtests 75

Frequently Asked Questions: Subtest Administration 84Test Yourself 86Answers 87References 87

Three WISC-V Integrated Scoring 91Kathleen M. Rollins and Susan Engi Raiford

Scoring Subtests 91Verbal Comprehension Subtests 91Visual Spatial Subtest 94Fluid Reasoning Subtests 94Working Memory Subtests 97Processing Speed Subtests 99

WISC-V Integrated Scores 106Item Scores 106Total Raw Scores 106Standard Scores 106Raw Scores 107

Trim Size: 5.5in x 8.5in Raiford370420 ftoc.tex V1 - 09/05/2017 1:52pm Page xi

❦

❦ ❦

❦

CONTENTS xi

Step-by-Step: WISC-V Integrated Subtest-Leveland Index Scores 108

Obtain Total Raw Scores 108Obtain Scaled Subtest-Level Scores 109Obtain Sums of Scaled Scores 111Obtain Composite Scores 112

Using Q-global to Obtain the WISC-V IntegratedScore Report 113

Ability-Achievement and Pattern of Strengthsand Weaknesses Comparisons in Q-global 117

Frequently Asked Questions: Scoring 119Test Yourself 120Answers 122References 122

Four Intelligently and Intuitively Incorporatingthe Integrated into WISC-V Interpretation 123

New Essentials Composite Scores 123Essentials Expanded Index Scores 125Nonmotor Composite Scores 131

Interpretative Strategies 133Step 1. Examine Global Performance 134Step 2. Report and Describe the Global Composite Score 142Step 3. Select the Specific Composite Scores 142Step 4. Report and Describe the Specific Composite Scores 147Step 5. Report and Describe the Scaled Scores 147Step 6. Report Index-Level Strengths and Weaknesses 148Step 7. Report Subtest-Level Strengths and Weaknesses 152Step 8. Evaluate Index-Level Pairwise Comparisons 154Step 9. Evaluate Subtest- and Process-Level Pairwise

Comparisons 157Step 10. Report Base Rates/Percentile Norms (Longest Span

or Sequence, Errors, Process Observations, and CodingRecall) 160

Step 11. Report Qualitative Aspects of Performance 171Test Yourself 176Answers 177References 177

Trim Size: 5.5in x 8.5in Raiford370420 ftoc.tex V1 - 09/05/2017 1:52pm Page xii

❦

❦ ❦

❦

xii CONTENTS

Five Review of the WISC-V Integrated 179Ron Dumont and John O. Willis

Changes From the WISC-IV Integrated to the WISC-VIntegrated 180

Subtests that were Eliminated 181New Subtests 181Administration Changes 182

Special Group Studies 183Comparison of WISC-V and WISC-V Integrated Scores 186Miscellaneous Comments 186Standardization 189Reliability 189Validity 189Administration 190Conclusion 193Test Yourself 193Answers 195References 195

Six Clinical Applications 197Use of the WISC-V Integrated with Common School-Age

Referral Questions 197Children with Intellectual Giftedness 198Children with Intellectual Disability 204Children with Specific Learning Disorder in Reading 207Children with Specific Learning Disorder in Math 208Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 209Children with Traumatic Brain Injury 211Children with Language Disorder—Expressive and Language

Disorder—Receptive and Expressive 212Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders 216

Summary of Special Group Performance 219Test Yourself 220Answers 222References 222

Trim Size: 5.5in x 8.5in Raiford370420 ftoc.tex V1 - 09/05/2017 1:52pm Page xiii

❦

❦ ❦

❦

CONTENTS xiii

Seven Illustrative Case Reports 225Case Report: Jillian R.: Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity

Disorder 226Referral Questions and Answers 227Answers to Referral Questions 227Evaluation Methods and Procedures 229Current Symptoms 230Background and History 231Mental Status and Behavioral Observations 233Test Results and Interpretation 235Summary and Diagnostic Impressions 241Recommendations 242

Appendix: Test Data 245Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition

(WISC-V) and WISC-V Integrated 245Case Report: Dennis E.: Specific Learning Disorder

in Mathematics 254Referral Questions and Answers 255Answers to Referral Questions 255History of Presenting Problem 256Mental Status and Behavioral Observations 257Test Results and Interpretation 257Summary and Diagnostic Impressions 261Recommendations 262

Appendix: Test Data 263Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition

(WISC-V) and WISC-V Integrated 263Test Yourself 267Answers 268

About the Author 269Contributors 271Index 273

Trim Size: 5.5in x 8.5in Raiford370420 ftoc.tex V1 - 09/05/2017 1:52pm Page xiv

❦

❦ ❦

❦

Trim Size: 5.5in x 8.5in Raiford370420 bindex.tex V1 - 09/05/2017 1:53pm Page 273

❦

❦ ❦

❦

Index

Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations.

AAbility-achievement discrepancy,

learning disorder inmathematics with, 265

Ability-achievement discrepancyanalysis, Q-global, 117–118,118

Administration. See Testadministration

Alfonso, V. C., 140, 142, 147Arithmetic process approach (ARP),

11, 13, 16average reliability coefficients of,

27, 28behavioral observations for, 68–69common errors in administration

of, 82discontinue rules for, 49domain membership for, 42g loadings with, 29mean performance of language

disorder sample on, 185mean scores of intellectual

disability children in, 205mean scores of intellectual gifted

children in, 202mean scores of language disorder

children in, 213mean scores of learning disorder in

math children in, 208mean subtest effect sizes for clinical

samples in, 186

pairwise comparisons witharithmetic and, 164–165

pairwise comparisons with writtenarithmetic and, 165

reverse rules for, 48scoring for, 95, 96–97start point for, 46test administration for, 67–68,

68–69timing rules for, 51

Attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder

applications of WISC-V Integratedfor children with, 209, 210

associative memory with, 238–239associative verbal fluency with, 237attention and executive functioning

with, 240available support systems for, 233background on, 231–232,

231–233behavioral functioning with, 240behavioral observations on,

233–234, 233–235CELF-5 scores for, 250cognitive functioning with, 236cognitive speed with, 239composite score summary with,

246, 247coping mechanisms for, 233counseling for, 243current symptoms with, 230–231

273

COPY

RIGHT

ED M

ATER

IAL


❦

❦ ❦

❦

274 INDEX

CVLT-C scores for, 250diagnostic impressions with, 241,

241–242emotional functioning with, 240evaluation procedures for, 229,

229–230family history with, 232general verbal knowledge with,

236–237history for, 231–232, 231–233history of presenting problems

with, 232home with, 243identifying and demographic

information for, 226, 226intellectual ability with, 236interpretation of, 235, 235KTEA-3 Form A for, 248language with, 236learning with, 238listening comprehension

with, 237longest span scores for, 248long-term auditory memory with,

239long-term visual memory with,

239mean scores of children with, 210medical and developmental history

with, 232–233medication for, 242memory with, 238mental status with, 233–234,

233–235NEPSY-II scores for, 248–250patient’s strengths with, 233physical exercise for, 242problem-solving with, 238processing speed with, 239psychotherapy for, 243rapid automatic naming with, 239reasoning with, 238

recommendations for, 241, 242referral questions and answers for,

227–228, 228school with, 244–245short-term auditory memory with,

239short-term visual memory with,

239social perception with, 240social skills with, 240speech with, 236test data with, 245, 245–250, 250,

251–254test results with, 235, 235verbal comprehension with,

236–237visual spatial processing with, 237WISC-V Integrated coding recall

scores for, 248working memory with, 238

Auditory working memory indexmean composite scores for, 201mean scores of

attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder children in, 210

mean scores of autism spectrumdisorders children in, 218

mean scores of traumatic braininjury children in, 211

mean subtest effect sizes for, 188primary index scores alternatives

with, 144WISC-V Integrated subtest score

groups correlations with, 24Autism spectrum disorder children,

216–219, 217–218

BBlock design multiple choice

(BDMC), 11, 12, 16attention-deficit/hyperactivity

disorder with, 245


❦

❦ ❦

❦

INDEX 275

average reliability coefficientsof, 27

behavioral observationsfor, 64

common errors in administrationof, 82

discontinue rules for, 49domain membership for, 42g loadings with, 29learning disorder in mathematics

with, 263mean performance of language

disorder sample on, 185mean scores of autism spectrum

disorders children in, 217mean scores of language disorder


reading children in, 207mean subtest effect sizes for clinical

samples in, 186pairwise comparisons with block

design and, 163pairwise comparisons with block

design no time bonus and,163

reverse rules for, 48scoring for, 94, 94, 95start point for, 46test administration for, 63, 64timing rules for, 51

Block design no time bonus, pairwisecomparisons with BDMC and,163

Block design process approach, subtesteliminated in WISC-VIntegrated, 181

Boston Naming Test (BNT), 6Boston naming test (Kaplan, E.,

Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S.1983), 6

Boston process approach, 5

CCAA. See Cancellation abstractCalifornia Verbal Learning

Test-Children’s Version(CVLT-C), 6

attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder evaluation with, 229

attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder with, 250

California Verbal LearningTest-Children’s Version (Delis,Kramer, Kaplan, and Ober2000), 6

California Verbal LearningTest–Second Edition(CVLT-II), 6

California Verbal Learning Test–SecondEdition (Delis, Kramer, Kaplan,and Ober 2000), 6

Cancellation abstract (CAA), 14, 18average reliability coefficients


disorder sample on, 185mean scores of



mean scores of intellectualdisability children in, 205

mean scores of intellectual giftedchildren in, 202

mean scores of language disorderchildren in, 213

mean scores of learning disorder inmath children in, 208

mean scores of learning disorder inreading children in, 207


❦

❦ ❦

❦

276 INDEX

Cancellation abstract (CAA),(continued )

mean subtest effect sizes for clinicalsamples in, 186

new subtests on WISC-VIntegrated, 182

pairwise comparisons withcancellation and, 168

reverse rules for, 48scoring for, 99, 105start point for, 47test administration for, 79–80,

80–81testing caution for, 80–81timing rules for, 51

Cancellation abstract structured,168

Cancellation random abstract, 168Case reports

attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder, 226–253, 228, 229,231–235, 241, 245–254

specific learning disorder inmathematics, 254–267,263–267

Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC)framework, 2

CDC. See Coding copyCDR. See Coding recallCELF-5. See Clinical Evaluation of

Language Functioning–FifthEdition

CHC framework. SeeCattell-Horn-Carroll framework

Clinical applicationschildren with

attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder, 209, 210

children with autism spectrumdisorders, 216–219, 217–218

children with intellectual disability,204–207, 205, 206

children with language disorder,212–216, 213–214, 215, 216

children with specific learningdisorder in math, 208,208–209

children with specific learningdisorder in reading, 207,207–208

children with traumatic braininjury, 211, 211–212

school-age referral questions,197–219, 199–201

special group studies on clinicalutility with, 219–220

Clinical Evaluation of LanguageFunctioning–Fifth Edition(CELF-5)



Coalson, D. L., 148Coding copy (CDC), 11, 14, 18


average reliability coefficients of,27

behavioral observations for, 79common errors in administration







❦

❦ ❦

❦

INDEX 277




pairwise comparisons with codingand, 167–168

reverse rules for, 48scoring for, 99, 100–101,

103–104start point for, 47test administration for, 77–78,

78–79testing caution for, 78timing rules for, 51

Coding recall (CDR), 11, 13, 17behavioral observations for,

76–77common errors in administration

of, 83cued digit, 171cued symbol, 171discontinue rules for, 49domain membership for, 42free symbol, 171interpretive strategies with,

170–171pairing, 171reverse rules for, 48scores, 107, 108scoring for, 99, 100, 101–103start point for, 47test administration for, 75–76,

76–77, 190timing rules for, 51

Cognitive assessment, processapproach to, 3–5

COMC. See Comprehension multiplechoice

Comparison score, full scale IQ with,148–149, 149

Composite scores. See also Essentialscomposite scores; Globalcomposite scores

interpretation with global,134–135, 135

scoring with, 107, 112,112–113

selection of, 142–143, 147WISC-V Integrated, 19, 19

Comprehension multiple choice(COMC), 12, 15–16



behavioral observations for,62–63

discontinue rules for, 49domain membership for, 42g loadings with, 29mean performance of language








pairwise comparisons withcomprehension and, 162–163


62–63


❦

❦ ❦

❦

278 INDEX

Comprehension multiple choice(COMC), (continued )

timing rules for, 51Comprehension multiple choice

subtest, 10CVLT-C. See California Verbal

Learning Test-Children’s VersionCVLT-II. See California Verbal

Learning Test–Second Edition

DDeaf and hearing impairment

children, test administrationfor, 44

Delis, D., 179Delis-Kaplan Executive Function

System (D-KEFS), 7Delis–Kaplan Executive Function

System (Delis, Kaplan, andKramer 2001), 7

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ofMental Disorders, Fifth Edition(DSM-5; American PsychiatricAssociation, 2013), 197, 209,214, 218

Digit spanbackward, 167forward, 166pairwise comparisons with sentence

recall and, 166Discontinue rules, 47–49, 49D-KEFS. See Delis-Kaplan Executive

Function SystemDon’t know test response, 170DSM-5, Diagnostic and Statistical

Manual of Mental Disorders,Fifth Edition

Dumont, Ron, 148, 179

EEAWMI. See Expanded auditory

working memory index

Elithorn mazes, subtest eliminated inWISC-V Integrated, 181

EPSI. See Expanded processing speedindex

Error analysis, learning disorder inmathematics with, 265

Error scores, interpretive strategieswith, 169

Essentials composite scores, 21,21–23

expanded measures of, 125–126,126

intelligent composite scorealternates with, 143, 147

new, 123–132, 124, 125, 126,130, 132–133

nonexpressive, 129–130,130

nonmotor, 131–132, 132–133pairwise comparisons of various,

155–157, 161–168reliability coefficients of, 124selection of, 147standard errors of measurement

of, 125subtest composition of, 126, 130,

132–133Essentials of assessment report writing

(Lichtenberger, E. O., Mather,N., Kaufman, N. L., &Kaufman, A. S. 2004), 268

Essentials of WISC-IV Assessment(Flanagan & Kaufman, 2009),29, 117

Essentials of WISC-V Assessment(Flanagan & Alfonso, 2017),129, 133, 137, 138, 147

Essentials of WPPSI-IV Assessment(S. E. Raiford & D. L.Coalson), 54, 268

EVSI. See Expanded visual spatialindex


❦

❦ ❦

❦

INDEX 279

EWMI. See Expanded workingmemory index

Expanded auditory working memoryindex (EAWMI), 128

appropriate use examples for,146

mean composite scores for, 201mean scores of autism spectrum

disorders children in, 218mean scores of intellectual




math children in, 208mean scores of learning disorder in

reading children in, 207reliability coefficients of, 124standard errors of measurement of,

125subtest composition of, 126

Expanded fluid index, appropriate useexamples for, 146

Expanded index scoresalternatives to, 145–146interpretive strategies with, 143,

145–146Expanded Index Scores (WISC-V

Technical Report No. 1)(Raiford et al., 2015),145, 146

Expanded processing speed index(EPSI), 128–129

appropriate use examples for,146



disability children in, 205





reliability coefficients of, 124standard errors of measurement of,


Expanded visual spatial index (EVSI),127–128

appropriate use examples for, 145mean composite scores for, 200mean scores of autism spectrum



math children in, 208mean scores of learning disorder in

reading children in, 207reliability coefficients of, 124standard errors of measurement of,


Expanded working memory index(EWMI), 128

appropriate use examplesfor, 146

mean composite scores for, 201mean scores of






❦

❦ ❦

❦

280 INDEX

Expanded working memory index(EWMI), (continued )



FFein, D., 179Figure weights process approach

(FWP), 13, 16average reliability coefficients of,

27, 28behavioral observations for,

66–67common errors in administration



disorders children in, 217mean scores of traumatic brain

injury children in, 211mean subtest effect sizes for clinical

samples in, 186new subtests on WISC-V

Integrated, 181–182pairwise comparisons with figure

weights and, 163–164reverse rules for, 48scoring for, 96start point for, 46test administration for, 64–66,


Flanagan, D. P., 140, 142, 147Fluid reasoning

attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder with, 245, 246

learning disorder in mathematicswith, 263

WISC-V index score correlationswith, 24

WISC-V score group correlationswith, 26

Fluid reasoning domaininterpretive strategies with,

173–175, 174mean performance of language

disorder sample on, 185mean subtest effect sizes for clinical

samples in, 186WISC-V test structure

with, 20Fluid reasoning index

discrepancies between globalcomposite score and, 151, 152

WISC-V Integrated subtest scoregroups correlations with,24

Fluid reasoning subtestscommon errors in administration

of, 82scoring for, 94–95, 95, 96–97test administration for, 64–70,

66–67, 68–69, 70Full scale IQ

alternate global composite scorescorrelated with, 150

alternatives to, 136classification accuracy for

intellectual disability childrenwith, 206

classification accuracy forintellectual gifted children with,204

comparison score with, 148–149,149

as default global score, 135–136learning disorder in mathematics

with, 265


❦

❦ ❦

❦

INDEX 281

mean scores ofattention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder children in, 210





nonexpressive full scale scorepairwise comparisons with, 155

nonmotor full scale score pairwisecomparisons with, 155

overall ability indicated by, 149potentially appropriate use with,

135WISC-V Integrated with, 179

FWP. See Figure weights processapproach

Gg. See General intelligenceGeneral ability index (GAI), 131

classification accuracy forintellectual disability childrenwith, 206


full scale IQ correlated with, 150interpretive strategies with,

140–141, 141mean composite scores for, 199mean scores of






nonmotor general ability indexpairwise comparisons with,155


135General intelligence (g), 28

strength as measures of, 29variance attributed to, 29

General verbal information index,NECI pairwise comparisonswith, 157

Global composite scoresclassification accuracy for

intellectual disability children,206

classification accuracy forintellectual gifted children, 204

discrepancies between variousindex scores and, 151, 152

essentials, 142full scale IQ alternatives correlated

with, 150full scale IQ with, 135–136interpretation with, 134–135,

135, 142overall ability indicated by, 149selection from published test of,

142

IIndex-level pairwise comparisons,

154, 155–157Index-level strengths and weaknesses

report, 148–152, 149, 150,151, 152

Information multiple choice (INMC),10, 12, 15


❦

❦ ❦

❦

282 INDEX

Information multiple choice (INMC),(continued )





disorders children in, 217mean subtest effect sizes for clinical

samples in, 186pairwise comparisons with

information and, 162reverse rules for, 48scoring for, 92, 93start point for, 46test administration for, 59–60,


INMC. See Information multiplechoice

Intellectual disability children,204–207, 205, 206

Intellectual gifted children, 198–204classification accuracy of global

composite scores in, 204highest and lowest mean scores of,

202Intelligent Testing methods, 5Intelligent Testing With the WISC-R

(Kaufman 1979), 4Intelligent Testing With the WISC-V

(Kaufman et al., 2016), 129,133, 138, 143, 145, 146, 150,151, 152, 153, 268

Interpretationattention-deficit/hyperactivity

disorder with, 235, 235

global composite scores with,134–135, 135, 142

learning disorder in mathematicswith, 257–260

new Essentials composite scoresfor, 123–132, 124, 125, 126,130, 132–133

scaled scores with, 147–148WISC-V Integrated, 123–176

Interpretive strategies, 133–176base rates/percentile norms report

as, 160–171, 161–168coding recall with, 170–171composite score report as,

147composite score selection as,

142–147, 144, 145–146error scores with, 169expanded index scores with, 143,

145–146five principles of, 134fluid reasoning domain with,

173–175, 174general ability index with,

140–141, 141global composite score report as,

142global performance examination as,

134–142, 135index-level pairwise comparisons

as, 154, 155–157index-level strengths and

weaknesses report as, 148–152,149, 150, 151, 152

longest span and sequence scoreswith, 169

nonexpressive fluid-crystallizedindex with, 141–142

nonexpressive full scale score with,136

nonmotor full scale score with,137–138


❦

❦ ❦

❦

INDEX 283

nonmotor nonverbal index with,140

nonverbal index with, 137–138,138–139

practical considerations with,133

primary index scores with, 143,144

processing speed domain with,175–176

process observations with,169–170

qualitative aspects of performancereport as, 171–176, 172–173,174

scaled scores report as, 147–148subtest- and process-level pairwise

comparisons as, 157–160,159–160

subtest-level strengths andweaknesses report as, 152–153,153

verbal comprehension domainwith, 172–173, 172–173

verbal spatial domain with, 173working memory domain with,

175Item scores, 106

KKaplan, Edith, 5, 179, 181Kaplan-Baycrest Neurocognitive

Assessment, 7Kaplan-Baycrest Neurocognitive

Assessment (Leach, Kaplan,Rewilak, Richards, and Proulx2000), 7

Kaufman, A. S, 4, 28, 125, 127, 140,147, 149, 150, 153

Kaufman Test of EducationalAchievement,Third Edition(KTEA-3), 117



learning disorder in mathematicsdata from, 265–267

WISC-V Integrated correlationswith, 189

Kuentzel, J. G., 109

LLanguage disorder children,

212–216, 213–214, 215, 216Learning disorder in mathematics

ability-achievement discrepancywith, 265

academic history with, 257achievement skills with, 260applications of WISC-V Integrated

for children with, 208,208–209

associative memory with, 260behavioral observations on, 257cognitive functioning with, 258cognitive speed with, 260coping mechanisms for, 257demographic information in, 254diagnostic impressions with,

261–262error analysis with, 265family history with, 256–257history of presenting problems

with, 256identifying information for, 254intellectual ability with, 258interpretation of, 257–260KTEA-3 data on, 265–267language with, 258learning with, 259math computation with, 261math fluency with, 261math problem-solving with, 261


❦

❦ ❦

❦

284 INDEX

Learning disorder in mathematics(continued )

math skills with, 260mean scores of children with, 208medical and developmental history

with, 257memory with, 259mental status with, 257patient’s strengths with, 257problem-solving with, 259processing speed with, 260process observations with, 264rapid automatic naming with, 260reasoning with, 259recommendations for, 262–263referral questions and answers for,

255–256support systems available for, 257test data with, 263, 263–267test results with, 257–260verbal comprehension with, 258visual spatial processing with,

258–259WISC-V Integrated data on,

263–265working memory with, 259

Learning disorder in reading children,207, 207–208

Letter-number sequencing, pairwisecomparisons with sentence recalland, 166

Letter-number sequencing processapproach, subtest eliminated inWISC-V Integrated, 181

Letter span, subtest eliminated inWISC-V Integrated, 181

Lichtenberger, E. O., 4, 28Longest span and sequence scores,

interpretive strategies with, 169Longest span scores, 107, 108


MMorris, R., 179Multiple Choice Verbal

Comprehension Index(MCVCI), 2, 19

average reliability coefficients of,27, 28

common errors in administrationof, 81–82


mean composite scores for,200


mean subtest effect sizes for, 188,188

primary index scores alternativeswith, 144

WISC-V Integrated subtest scoregroups correlations with, 24

NNaming speed


learning disorder in mathematicswith, 264, 265

NECI. See Nonexpressive expandedcrystallized index

NEFSS. See Nonexpressive full scalescore

NEGc-K0. See Nonexpressive generalverbal information

NEGf-Gc. See NonexpressiveFluid-Crystallized Index

NEPSY,attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder evaluation with, 229

NEPSY-II scores,attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder with, 248–250


❦

❦ ❦

❦

INDEX 285

NMFSS. See Nonmotor full scalescore

NMGAI. See Nonmotor generalability index

NMNVI. See Nonmotor nonverbalindex

NMVSI. See Nonmotor visual spatialindex

Nonexpressive composite scores,129–130, 130

Nonexpressive crystallized index,mean scores of languagedisorder children in, 214

Nonexpressive expanded crystallizedindex (NECI), 127

appropriate use examplesfor, 145

general verbal information indexpairwise comparisons with, 157

mean composite scores for, 200nonverbal index pairwise

comparisons with, 156reliability coefficients of, 124standard errors of measurement of,

125subtest composition of, 130verbal index pairwise comparisons

with, 157Nonexpressive Fluid-Crystallized

Index (NEGf-Gc), 129full scale IQ correlated with, 150interpretive strategies with,

141–142overall ability indicated by, 149potentially appropriate use with,

135reliability coefficients of, 124standard errors of measurement of,


Nonexpressive full scale score(NEFSS), 129–130



full scale IQ correlated with, 150full scale IQ pairwise comparisons

with, 155interpretive strategies with, 136mean composite scores for,

199mean scores of










Nonexpressive general verbalinformation (NEGc-K0), 129

reliability coefficients of, 124standard errors of measurement

of, 125subtest composition of, 130

Nonexpressive verbal index, subtestcomposition of, 126

Nonmotor composite scores,131–132, 132–133


❦

❦ ❦

❦

286 INDEX

Nonmotor full scale score (NMFSS),131–132



full scale IQ correlated with,150

full scale IQ pairwise comparisonswith, 155

interpretive strategies with,137–138





135reliability coefficients of, 124subtest composition of, 133

Nonmotor general ability index(NMGAI), 131



full scale IQ correlated with,150

general ability index pairwisecomparisons with, 155







nonmotor general ability indexpairwise comparisons with, 156




Nonmotor nonverbal index(NMNVI), 131



full scale IQ correlated with, 150interpretive strategies with, 140mean composite scores for, 199mean scores of autism spectrum




children in, 213nonverbal index pairwise

comparisons with, 156overall ability indicated by, 149potentially appropriate use with,

135reliability coefficients of, 124


❦

❦ ❦

❦

INDEX 287

standard errors of measurement of,125

subtest composition of, 132Nonmotor visual spatial index

(NMVSI), 131discrepancies between global

composite score and, 151, 152mean composite scores for, 200mean scores of









Nonverbal indexalternatives to, 140classification accuracy for

intellectual disability childrenwith, 206


full scale IQ correlated with, 150interpretive strategies with,

137–138, 138–139mean composite scores for, 199mean scores of






NECI pairwise comparisons with,156

nonmotor nonverbal indexpairwise comparisons with, 156

overall ability indicated by,149

verbal index pairwise comparisonswith, 156

PPattern of strengths and weaknesses

(PSW) analysis, Q-global,117–118, 118

Pearson’s online administration andscoring platform, 65, 113, 125

Picture vocabulary multiple choice(PVMC), 10, 12, 15


behavioral observations for, 59discontinue rules for, 49domain membership for, 42g loadings with, 29mean performance of language








❦

❦ ❦

❦

288 INDEX

Picture vocabulary multiple choice(PVMC), (continued )


pairwise comparisons with VCMCand, 162

pairwise comparisons withvocabulary and, 161–162

reverse rules for, 48scoring for, 92, 93start point for, 46test administration for, 58, 59timing rules for, 51

Primary index scoresalternatives to, 144interpretive strategies with, 143,

144Process approach to cognitive

assessment, historicalperspectives on, 3–5

Processing speedattention-deficit/hyperactivity

disorder with, 246learning disorder in mathematics

with, 264WISC-V index score correlations

with, 24WISC-V score group correlations

with, 26Processing speed domain

interpretive strategies with,175–176

mean performance of languagedisorder sample on, 185


WISC-V test structure with, 20Processing speed index. See also

Expanded processing speedindex







math children in, 208WISC-V Integrated subtest score

groups correlations with, 24Processing speed subtests


scoring for, 99–100, 100–105test administration for, 75–80,

76–77, 78–79, 80–81PSW analysis. See Pattern of strengths

and weaknesses analysisPsychoeducational reports that matter:

A consumer-responsiveapproach (Lichtenstein, R.2013), 268

Psychological evaluation reportsections, 225–226

PVMC. See Picture vocabularymultiple choice

QQ-global

ability-achievement discrepancyanalysis from, 117–118, 118

demographics entry pages from,113

index level pairwise comparisonsfrom, 116, 117

index score summary from, 116PSW analysis from, 117–118, 118subtest level pairwise comparisons

from, 118


❦

❦ ❦

❦

INDEX 289

subtest-level score summary from,115

total raw score entry page from,114

WISC-V Integrated score reportfor, 113, 113–116, 114, 115,116, 117

Quantitative reasoning index,WISC-V Integrated subtestscore groups correlations with,24

RRaiford, Susan Engi, 127, 226, 245,

254, 263Raw scores, 107–108, 108Recording abbreviations, 53–54Repetition test response, 170Reverse rules, 47, 48Rimm, S., 198Rowe, E. W., 198

SSattler, J. M., 148Scaled scores

interpretation with, 147–148scoring process with sums of, 111,

111–112, 112scoring with, 106, 109–110, 110

Scoringarithmetic process approach

subtest, 95, 96–97block design multiple choice

subtest, 94, 94, 95cancellation abstract subtest, 99,

105coding copy, 99, 100–101,

103–104coding recall scores in, 107, 108coding recall subtest, 99, 100,

101–103composite scores in, 107

comprehension multiple choicesubtest, 92, 94

figure weights process approachsubtest, 96

fluid reasoning subtests, 94–95,95, 96–97

frequently asked questions on,119, 119–120

information multiple choicesubtest, 92, 93

item scores in, 106longest span scores in, 107, 108obtaining composite scores in

process of, 112, 112–113obtaining scaled scores in process

of, 109–110, 110obtaining sums of scaled scores in

process of, 111, 111–112, 112obtaining total raw scores in

process of, 108–109, 109picture vocabulary multiple choice

subtest, 92, 93processing speed subtests, 99–100,

100–105Q-global for obtaining score

report, 113, 113–116, 114,115, 116, 117

raw scores in, 107–108, 108scaled scores in, 106sentence recall error score in,

107–108sentence recall subtest, 99similarities multiple choice subtest,

92–93spatial span subtest, 98–99standard scores in, 106–107step-by-step process for, 108–113,

109, 110, 111, 112substitution in process of, 111subtests, 91–100, 92–94, 95,

96–97, 98–99, 100–105total raw score in, 106


❦

❦ ❦

❦

290 INDEX

Scoring (continued )types of, 106–108, 108verbal comprehension subtests, 91,

92–94visual spatial subtest, 94, 94, 95vocabulary multiple choice subtest,

92, 93WISC-V Integrated, 91–120working memory subtests, 97,

98–99written arithmetic subtest, 95, 97

Self-corrections test response, 170Sentence recall (SR), 13, 17


behavioral observationsfor, 74


discontinue rules for, 49domain membership for, 42mean performance of language










new subtests on WISC-VIntegrated, 182

pairwise comparisons with digitspan and, 166

pairwise comparisons withletter-number sequencing and,166

reverse rules for, 48scoring for, 99start point for, 47test administration for, 73, 74timing rules for, 51

Sentence recall error score, 107–108Set relations, g loadings with, 29Shared-Abilities Analysis, 5Similarities multiple choice (SIMC),

12, 14average reliability coefficients

of, 27behavioral observations for, 56discontinue rules for, 49domain membership for, 42g loadings with, 29mean performance of language

disorder sample on, 185mean scores of language disorder

children in, 213mean subtest effect sizes for clinical

samples in, 186pairwise comparisons with

similarities and, 161reverse rules for, 48scoring for, 92–93start point for, 46test administration for, 54–55, 55,

56timing rules for, 51

Similarities multiple choice subtest,10

Spatial span (SSP), 13, 17attention-deficit/hyperactivity

disorder with, 246average reliability coefficients of,

27


❦

❦ ❦

❦

INDEX 291


of, 82–83discontinue rules for, 49domain membership for, 42g loadings with, 29mean performance of language






reverse rules for, 48scoring for, 98–99start point for, 47test administration for, 70–71, 72,

73timing rules for, 51

Spatial span backward, 167Spatial span forward, 166Spatial span subtest, 11Special group studies

WISC-V Integrated clinical utilitywith, 219–220

WISC-V Integrated validity studieswith, 183–186, 185

Special needs children, testadministration for, 43–45

SR. See Sentence recallSSP. See Spatial spanStandard scores, 106–107Standards for Educational and

Psychological Testing (Standards;American Educational ResearchAssociation, AmericanPsychological Association, &National Council on

Measurement in Education,2014), 43

Subtest- and process-level pairwisecomparisons, 157–160,159–160

Subtest-level strengths and weaknessesreport, 152–153, 153

Subtests. See also specific Subtestconstructs and abilities for, 14–18score types, 18–19subtest abbreviations and

descriptions for WISC-V,12–14

WISC-V dropped, 9–10WISC-V Integrated, 9–18, 10–18WISC-V new, 9WISC-V retained, 10, 10–11

Subvocalization test response, 170Symbol translation


index, discrepancies between globalcomposite score and, 151, 152


TTest administration

arithmetic process approachsubtest, 67–68, 68–69

block design multiple choicesubtest, 63, 64

boredom in, 41cancellation abstract subtest,

79–80, 80–81cautions with, 38coding copy subtest, 77–78,

78–79coding recall subtest, 75–76,

76–77, 190comprehension multiple choice

subtest, 61–62, 62–63


❦

❦ ❦

❦

292 INDEX

Test administration (continued )deaf and hearing impairment

children in, 44demonstration items in, 50–51discontinue rules in, 47–49, 49establishing and maintaining

rapport in, 40–41fairness in, 43–45feedback in, 40–41figure weights process approach

subtest, 64–66, 66–67fluid reasoning subtests, 64–70,

66–67, 68–69, 70frequently asked questions about,

84, 84–86important reasons for intelligent,

35information multiple choice

subtest, 59–60, 60–61language difficulties children in, 44limited motor skills children in, 44materials for, 37–39, 38materials not in test kit needed for,

38physical environment for, 39picture vocabulary multiple choice

subtest, 58, 59processing speed subtests, 75–80,

76–77, 78–79, 80–81prompts in, 52queries in, 52, 53recording of responses in, 53–54,

53–54repetitions in, 51–52reverse rules in, 47, 48sample items in, 50–51sentence recall subtest, 73, 74similarities multiple choice subtest,

54–55, 55, 56spatial span subtest, 70–71, 72, 73special needs children in, 43–45start point in, 45–47, 46–47

subtest order in, 41–42, 42subtest selection in, 42–43teaching items in, 50–51timing in, 50, 51types of errors with, 36, 36–37verbal comprehension subtests,

54–62, 55, 56, 57–58, 59,60–61, 62–63

visual impairment children in, 45visual spatial subtest, 63, 64vocabulary multiple choice subtest,

56–57, 57–58WISC-V Integrated, 35–86,

190–192working memory subtests, 70–71,

72, 73, 74written arithmetic subtest, 69–70,

70Test materials, 37–39, 38Total raw score, 106Traumatic brain injury children, 211,

211–212

VVCMC. See Vocabulary multiple

choiceVerbal comprehension

attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder with, 245, 246


WISC-V index score correlationswith, 24

WISC-V score group correlationswith, 26

Verbal Comprehension and FluidReasoning domains (Kaufmanet al., 2016; Raiford et al.,2015), 127

Verbal comprehension domaininterpretive strategies with,

172–173, 172–173


❦

❦ ❦

❦

INDEX 293

mean performance of languagedisorder sample on, 185


WISC-V test structure with, 20Verbal comprehension index. See also

Multiple Choice VerbalComprehension Index










Verbal comprehension subtests, 2scoring for, 91, 92–94test administration for, 54–62, 55,

56, 57–58, 59, 60–61, 62–63Verbal Expanded Crystallized Index

and the Expanded Fluid Index(Kaufman, Raiford, & Coalson,2016; Raiford, Drozdick,Zhang, & Zhou, 2015), 123

Verbal (expanded crystallized) indexappropriate use examples for, 145mean composite scores for, 200mean scores of






NECI pairwise comparisons with,157

nonverbal index pairwisecomparisons with, 156

Verbal spatial domain, interpretivestrategies with, 173

Visual digit span, subtest eliminatedin WISC-V Integrated, 181

Visual impairment children, testadministration for, 45

Visual spatial domainattention-deficit/hyperactivity

disorder with, 245, 246learning disorder in mathematics

with, 263mean performance of language


samples in, 186WISC-V test structure with,

20Visual spatial index








❦

❦ ❦

❦

294 INDEX

Visual spatial subtestcommon errors in administration

of, 82scoring for, 94, 94, 95test administration for, 63, 64

Visual Working Memory Index(VWMI), 2, 19

average reliability coefficients of,27, 28







mean subtest effect sizes for, 188,188


Vocabulary multiple choice (VCMC),10, 12, 15






children in, 213mean scores of traumatic brain

injury children in, 211


pairwise comparisons with PVMCand, 162

pairwise comparisons withvocabulary and, 161



VWMI. See Visual Working MemoryIndex

WWA. See Written arithmeticWechsler, David, 4, 181Wechsler Adult Intelligence

Scale–Revised asNeuropsychological Instrument(WAIS-R NI), 6

Wechsler Individual AchievementTest–Third Edition (WIAT-II),117

Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren-Fifth EditionIntegrated (WISC-VIntegrated), 7

administration changes fromWISC-IV Integrated in,182–183

administration of, 190–192broad key revisions with, 8changes from WISC-IV Integrated

to, 180–183common errors in administration

of, 81–83composite scores for, 19, 19contradictory directions for Items

5–21 in, 192detailed key revisions with, 8


❦

❦ ❦

❦

INDEX 295

development of, 7–19dropped subtests with, 9–10frequently asked questions about

administration of, 84, 84–86integrated scores comparison for,

186intelligent administration of,

35–86interpretation for, 123–176IQ score in, 179key revisions for, 7–8, 8KTEA-3 correlations with, 189learning disorder in mathematics

data from, 263–265mean composite scores for,

199–201, 205mean performance of language


samples in, 187new subtests in, 9, 181–182Q-global score report for, 113,

113–116, 114, 115, 116, 117reliability of, 189, 193retained subtests with, 10,

10–11review of, 179–193scoring of, 91–120special group studies for,

183–186, 185standardization of, 189subtest abbreviations and

descriptions for, 12–14subtest administration order for,

41–42, 42subtest constructs and abilities for,

14–18subtest score groups for, 24subtest score types with,

18–19subtests eliminated from WISC-IV

Integrated in, 181

subtests for, 9–18, 10–18test materials for, 37–39, 38test structure for, 19–21, 20validity of, 189–190, 193

Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren–Fifth EditionIntegrated (WISC-V Integrated;Wechsler & Kaplan, 2015), 1,6, 7, 20, 30, 49, 113, 114, 115,116, 117, 118, 120, 179, 229,245, 256, 263

Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren-Fourth EditionIntegrated (Wechsler et al.2004), 7

Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren-Fourth EditionIntegrated (WISC-IVIntegrated), 7

Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren-Third Edition as aProcess Instrument (Kaplan,Fein, Kramer, Delis, and Morris1999), 6

Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren–Third Edition asProcess Instrument (WISC-IIIPI), 6

Wechsler Intelligence Scale–Revised as aNeuropsychological Instrument(Kaplan, Fein, Morris, and Delis1991), 179

Werner, Heinz, 3WIAT-II. See Wechsler Individual

Achievement Test–ThirdEdition

Willis, John, 179WISC-IV Integrated. See Wechsler

Intelligence Scale forChildren-Fourth EditionIntegrated


❦

❦ ❦

❦

296 INDEX

WISC-Vcomprehensive references for, 29,

30Essentials composite scores for, 21,

21–23index scores for, 24integrated, 7–19, 8, 10–19integrated scores comparison for,

186intercorrelation studies on, 23–26,

24, 25, 26loadings on general factor with,

28, 29overview, 1–30psychometric properties for, 27reliability for, 27, 27–28, 29revisions trend with, 1standardization properties for, 27test structure for, 19–21, 20two index scores with, 2validity of, 23–28, 24, 25, 26, 27,

29Verbal Comprehension subtests of,

2WISC-V Clinical Use and

Interpretation (Weiss, Saklofske,Prifitera, & Holdnack, 2016),133, 138

WISC-V Integrated. See WechslerIntelligence Scale forChildren-Fifth EditionIntegrated

WISC-V Integrated Administrationand Scoring Manual and theWISC-V Integrated Technicaland Interpretive Manual(Wechsler & Kaplan, 2015),7–8, 14, 29, 45, 47, 48, 49, 73,85, 120, 179, 182–184, 186,190–193

WISC-V Integrated InterpretiveAssistant 1.0, 2, 21, 43, 113,124, 137, 142, 147, 148, 151,154, 158, 160

WISC-V Technical and InterpretiveManual (Wechsler, 2014), 133,138, 179

Working memoryattention-deficit/hyperactivity

disorder with, 246learning disorder in mathematics

with, 264WISC-V index score correlations

with, 24WISC-V score group correlations

with, 26Working memory domain

interpretive strategies with, 175mean performance of language


samples in, 186WISC-V test structure with, 20

Working memory indexmean composite scores for,

201mean scores of



Working memory subtestscommon errors in administration

of, 82–83scoring for, 97, 98–99test administration for, 70–71, 72,

73, 74Written arithmetic (WA), 11, 13, 17



❦

❦ ❦

❦

INDEX 297



disorder sample on, 185mean scores of traumatic brain

injury children in, 211


pairwise comparisons witharithmetic process approachand, 165

reverse rules for, 48scoring for, 95, 97start point for, 46test administration for, 69–70, 70timing rules for, 51


❦

❦ ❦

❦

Trim Size: 5.5in x 8.5in Raiford370420 c01.tex V1 - 09/05/2017 1:53pm Page 1

❦

❦ ❦

❦

One

OVERVIEW

W hy did this student score so low on WISC-V Arithmetic? Is ita problem with calculation speed, working memory, or mathcomputation? It would help to be sure, so I could decide what

to recommend.I wonder if her visual working memory, if I could measure it, would be in the

average range like her WISC-V Auditory Working Memory Index? It’s importantto know, so I can be surer about what accommodations to recommend.

TheseWISC-V results are odd.What do theymean?The child received a scaledscore of 5 on Block Design but a scaled score of 10 on Visual Puzzles.

If this child didn’t have to retrieve information and could just recognize itinstead, would it maybe help as a modification?

These questions, and many others, can be addressed using the WechslerIntelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition Integrated (WISC-V Integrated;Wechsler & Kaplan, 2015). The WISC-V Integrated is a companion measureof the most widely used intelligence test for children in the world, the WechslerIntelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition (WISC-V; Wechsler, 2014).It enables practitioners to learn more about the cognitive processes and test-taking behaviors that affect performance on the WISC-V that also affect schoolperformance.

The WISC-V was a substantial revision of this popular test, which continuesthe progressive trend of recent Wechsler intelligence scale revisions that mirrorcontemporary advances in intelligence theory, neuropsychology, cognitive neuro-science, and psychometric methodology. Major modifications were made to thecontent and structure of the WISC-V to reflect these advances. The WISC-VIntegrated subtests can be used to understand WISC-V results in greater detailto enable practitioners to test hypotheses about WISC-V results and to informintervention recommendations.

1

COPY

RIGHT

ED M

ATER

IAL


❦

❦ ❦

❦

2 ESSENTIALS OF WISC-V INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT

For example, where theWISC-V has Verbal Comprehension subtests (Similar-ities, Vocabulary, Information, and Comprehension), which each requires verbalexpression of the responses, the WISC-V Integrated has multiple-choice versionsof these subtests with the same items that allow selection of a response fromamong options that are read aloud to the child and viewed in a stimulus book.These are ideally suited for obtaining an estimate of verbal abilities without requir-ing expressive language.

The WISC-V Integrated also contains two index scores: the Multiple ChoiceVerbal Comprehension Index (MCVCI) and the Visual Working Memory Index(VWMI). These scores provide reliable and valid estimates of specific abilitiesthat can be used in concert with the WISC-V index scores in a similar man-ner to the WISC-V Integrated subtests, which are used to understand WISC-Vsubtest performance. The index scores are useful in specific situations (e.g., con-ducting evaluations of children who may have expressive difficulties or challengesor obtaining a broader assessment of a particular area of concern, such as workingmemory problems).

This book expands on the selection of index scores to provide Essentials com-posite scores for situations in which appropriate measures of ability ideally wouldnot involve motor skills (e.g., for a child with motor delays) or not rely on expres-sive responses (e.g., a child with language disorder with expressive impairment).These Essentials composite scores mirror the publishedWISC-V composite scoresin some cases. For example, a Full Scale Score that does not require motor per-formance is included, as is a Full Scale Score that does not require expressiveresponses. Others among the Essentials composite scores were constructed as sim-ilar nonexpressive or nonmotor parallels of composite scores that were created byother authors (i.e., Flanagan & Alfonso, 2017; Kaufman, Raiford, & Coalson,2016) and included in books to accommodate practical needs or interpretationusing a Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) framework.

The online resources for this book include an interpretive program thatautomatically calculates the Essentials composite scores not available within thepublished test and provides data relevant to comparisons of those index scoreswith WISC-V composite scores. These additional index scores were developedto enhance interpretation in special clinical situations (e.g., an expanded indexscore that is derived from more subtests on the cognitive domain, an index scorethat does not require expressive responses) and theoretical perspectives (e.g.,CHC). The online resources that accompany this book include the WISC-VIntegrated Interpretive Assistant 1.0, scoring software that calculates norms for theEssentials composite scores and walks the practitioner through the interpretiveapproach in Chapter 4, including numerous score comparisons not available inthe published test that can more fully inform interpretation.


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 3

The WISC-V Integrated scores can be interpreted from a normative perspec-tive.That is, a child’s cognitive processes can be understood by comparing scoresto those obtained by others of approximately the same age (i.e., comparison toa normative reference group). This comparison helps practitioner to understandhow the child benefits from modifications or scaffolding in tasks relative to otherchildren his or her age.

The WISC-V Integrated scores can also be interpreted from an intrapersonalperspective. A total raw score from a WISC-V subtest can be compared directlyto a total raw score from a corresponding WISC-V Integrated adaptation subtest,because they have the same item content. This enables inferences about whichcognitive processes affected performance on the WISC-V subtest and providesinformation about how a child might better succeed with accommodations ormodifications for schoolwork.

The performance on WISC-V items of subtests with corresponding WISC-VIntegrated adaptation subtests (e.g., Vocabulary and VocabularyMultiple Choice,Arithmetic and Arithmetic Process Approach) can also be compared to learnmoreabout the child’s specific knowledge of content. For example, if the definition ofcat is not expressed in response to an open-ended question, the child may beable to select the best meaning from among five response options, such as (a) Ananimal, (b) It eats cat food, (c) It runs, (d) It’s furry, (e) It’s small.

The goal of this book is to provide a go-to reference for novice examiners andproficient practitioners using the WISC-V Integrated. Administration, scoring,and interpretive information is clearly and succinctly covered in successivechapters, incorporating the familiar Rapid Reference, Caution, and Don’t Forgetboxes that are hallmark features of the Essentials series. The author, who wasthe lead WISC-V and WISC-V Integrated research director, also includesBehind the Scenes boxes that offer insights into the test development process.Test questions are included at the conclusion of each chapter to highlightcritical content.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE PROCESS APPROACHTO COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT

The process approach to cognitive assessment has its roots in ideas put forth byHeinzWerner (1937), who proposed that cognitive assessment that involves care-ful and systematic observation of problem-solving strategies yields informationthat is more rich and useful than correct-incorrect scoring. He suggested thatcognitive task performance involves multiple, dynamic processes. Any of theseprocesses may contribute individually or in combination with others to exert aninfluence on responses and performance. For example, a child may have difficulty


❦

❦ ❦

❦


with BlockDesign because of lowmotor skills, but another child low performanceon the same task may be related to impaired visual spatial processing. Althoughboth may score similarly on Block Design, the poor performance traces back totwo different origins.

Process approaches to assessment recognize that in completing any cognitivetask, regardless of its complexity, a number of mental processes are involved.Theseprocesses can range from simple (e.g., sensing, perceiving, motor functioning) tomore complex (e.g., reasoning, decision making) (Kaufman et al., 2016). A prob-lem with any of these processes can result in difficulties completing the overalltask.The process approach aims to understand the reasons for low scores throughidentifying the cognitive processes that operate jointly on performance, break-ing them down to more-specific components in a stepwise fashion or alteringthe task in some manner and testing hypotheses with tasks that involve fewer ordifferent cognitive processes. For example, the hypothesis that low motor skillsresulted in a lower Block Design score could be more closely examined by pre-senting the completed design and multiple pictured sets of blocks in a stimulusbook and asking the examinee to select the set of blocks that, when assembled,make the design.

There are many approaches that have focused on understanding the cogni-tive processes involved in performance on the Wechsler scales, beginning withan approach first used by David Wechsler. He stated that “individuals attain-ing identical scores on intelligence tests cannot always be classified in the sameway” (Wechsler, 1944, p. 12). Always a clinician, his approach was somewhatpsychoanalytic in nature. It described how poor performance could result fromvarious issues with cognitive processes and that information at the task and itemlevel could provide clues as to the nature of impairment. For example, Wechsler(1958) described a deep dive into interpretation of the Object Assembly subtestas follows:

If low score is due to poor juxtaposition of parts or bizarreness of arrange-ment one may suspect a schizophrenic process. On the other hand, ifpoor performance is due to hesitation and uncertainty, particularly onthe “Hand” and “Face” items, it is more likely the results of dynamicrepression. In either case it reflects unchannelized anxiety. (p. 193)

Kaufman’s (1979) Intelligent Testing With the WISC-R encouraged cliniciansto adopt a process approach to interpretation of test results by analyzing theinput and output modalities (e.g., verbal input, visual output) as a means ofbetter understanding the underlying causes of a child’s pattern of strengths andweaknesses. Kaufman (1994) and Kaufman and Lichtenberger (1999, 2000,


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 5

2002) refined the Intelligent Testing methods to advance their Shared-AbilitiesAnalysis approach to interpretation of Wechsler intelligence scale performance bysynthesizing Silver’s information processing model (1993) and Osgood’s (1957)communication channels model with factor-analytic evidence and intelligencemodels (e.g., Guilford, 1967; Horn, 1989). Silver’s model emphasized infor-mation processing input, integration, storage, and output stages of informationprocessing, whereas Osgood highlighted receptive, associative, and expressivechannels of communication within auditory verbal and visual motor pathways(Floyd & Kranzler, 2012). The Shared Ability Analysis approach posits that anytask can be classified according to five aspects of processing (communicationchannel, input, integration, storage, and output). As an example, WISC-VSimilarities requires the child to express how two objects or concepts are alikeor what they have in common. This task involves the auditory verbal channel,requires receptive input for the task requirement as well as the word itself, drawson integration and storage by requiring novel reasoning with previously acquiredinformation, and involves verbal output. Level of emphasis on each aspect wasnoted for each of the tasks and accumulated across the multiple tasks to generatehypotheses. Ultimately, the approach was thought not to be specific enoughand too loosely integrated with factor-analytic research to be clinically useful(Floyd & Kranzler, 2012).

Edith Kaplan and others at the Boston Veterans Administration MedicalCenter operationalized and refined Heinz Werner’s original work and termed itthe Boston process approach. They provided supporting evidence that using theBoston process approach improved diagnostic and clinical utility in neuropsy-chological assessment. They found that problem-solving varied across variousneurological conditions even when similar scores were obtained (Kaplan, 1988).

Today, there are numerous process approach measures available. Rapid Refer-ence 1.1 lists the most familiar measures and basic descriptive information.

The influence and clinical utility of the process approach is clear in psycholog-ical assessment. Psychologists use the process approach to investigate the reasonsfor low scores, to learn about an examinee’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses,and to develop recommendations for learning accommodations. Studies suggestthat the process approach is clinically useful in assessment of a wide variety ofneuropsychological and neurodevelopmental problems, such as autism spectrumdisorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, traumatic brain injury, and spe-cific learning disorders (Boxer, Jackson, & Kohlman, 2014; Halleland, Sorensen,Posserud, Haavik, & Lundervold, 2015; Hoffmann, Donders, & Thompson,2000; Kramer, Knee, & Delis, 2000; Mayfield, Reyes, Mayfield, & Allen, 2014;McLean, Johnson, Zimak, Joseph, & Morrow, 2014).


❦

❦ ❦

❦


Rapid Reference 1.1...............................................................................................................

Process Approach Measures

MeasureAbbrevi-

ationPublicationInformation

AgeRange Purpose

BostonNaming Test

BNT Kaplan,Goodglass, andWeintraub (1983)

25–88 Determine if namingperformance improveswith cues

CaliforniaVerbalLearningTest–SecondEdition

CVLT-II Delis, Kramer,Kaplan, and Ober(2000)

16–89 Auditory memory:• Frequency of different

types of errors• Susceptibility to inter-

ference through intro-ducing other material

• Degree of improvementacross trials

WechslerAdultIntelligenceScale–Revisedas a Neuro-psychologicalInstrument

WAIS-RNI

Kaplan, Fein,Morris, and Delis(1991)

50–89 Modifications to admin-istration and scoringprocedures of the WechslerAdult Intelligence Scale–Revised (Wechsler, 1981)to understand cognitiveprocesses contributing toperformance

CaliforniaVerbalLearningTest–Children’sVersion

CVLT-C Delis, Kramer,Kaplan, and Ober(1994)

6–16 Auditory memory:• Frequency of different

types of errors• Susceptibility to inter-

ference through intro-ducing other material

• Degree of improve-ment across trials

WechslerIntelligenceScale forChildren–Third Editionas a ProcessInstrument

WISC-IIIPI

Kaplan, Fein,Kramer, Delis,and Morris(1999)

6–16 Modifications to admin-istration and scoring proce-dures of the WechslerIntelligence Scale forChildren–Third Edition(Wechsler, 1991) to under-stand cognitive processescontributing to performance


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 7

MeasureAbbrevi-

ationPublicationInformation

AgeRange Purpose

WechslerIntelligenceScale forChildren–Fourth EditionIntegrated

WISC-IVInte-grated

Wechsler et al.(2004)

6–16 Modifications to admin-istration and scoringprocedures of the WechslerIntelligence Scale forChildren–Fourth Edition(Wechsler, 2003) tounderstand cognitiveprocesses contributing toperformance

Kaplan-Baycrest Neu-rocognitiveAssessment

n/a Leach, Kaplan,Rewilak,Richards, andProulx (2000)

20–89 Clarifying cognitivelimitations, particularly forindividuals with dementia-related disorders

Delis-KaplanExecutiveFunctionSystem

D-KEFS Delis, Kaplan,and Kramer(2001)

8–89 Assessment of lower- andhigher-order executivefunctions with standardneuropsychologicalmeasures that have beenmodified to provideinformation about cognitiveprocesses

WechslerIntelligenceScale forChildren–FifthEditionIntegrated

WISC-VInte-grated

Wechsler andKaplan (2015)

6–16 Modifications to admin-istration and scoringprocedures of the WechslerIntelligence Scale forChildren–Fifth Edition(Wechsler, 2014) tounderstand cognitiveprocesses contributing toperformance

DEVELOPMENT OF THE WISC-V INTEGRATED

WISC-V Integrated development is discussed in this section. Key revisions, sub-test changes, and composite scores are highlighted.

Key Revisions

A variety of issues precipitated the WISC-V Integrated revision. Chapter 2of the WISC-V Integrated Technical and Interpretive Manual (Wechsler &


❦

❦ ❦

❦


Kaplan, 2015) discusses these issues in detail. Rapid Reference 1.2 lists the keyrevision features broadly and specifically.

Rapid Reference 1.2...............................................................................................................

Broad and Detailed Key Revisions

Broad Key Revision Detailed Key Revisions

Updated theoreticalfoundations

• Incorporated and considered working memorymodels and research

• Varied presentation modes and responseformats

• Reduced timed aspects of performance

Increased developmentalappropriateness

• Improved the developmental appropriatenessof instructions and item phrases

• Improved the developmental appropriatenessof scoring criteria

Increased userfriendliness

• Enhanced item security• Improved user friendliness of materials and

packaging• Minimized testing time• Improved user friendliness of administration

and scoring• Reduced length of discontinue rules

Improved psychometricproperties

• Updated the norming method• Increased evidence of reliability and validity• Reduced item bias

Enhanced clinical utility • Improved quality of artwork and items• Improved experimental control on processing

speed measures• Reduced the expressive language requirements

necessary to obtain a composite score• Increased the number of special group studies• Provided statistical linkage to measures of

achievement and built in a pattern of strengthsand weaknesses analysis


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 9

Subtests

Practitioners who used the WISC-IV Integrated will find many of the samesubtests are present but substantively revised (with a number of new items andin some cases new procedures). They also will notice some subtests have beendropped, new subtests have been added, the test structure is modified, thereare composite scores for the first time, and the Record Form is reorganizedsubstantially.

New SubtestsThere are three new subtests:

• Figure Weights Process Approach, a quantitative Fluid Reasoning subtestadapted from the WISC-V Figure Weights subtest that enables closerexamination of the impact of timed performance on Figure Weightsperformance

• Sentence Recall, an auditory Working Memory subtest designed toimprove the construct coverage of auditory working memory in thecontext of complex span requirements

• Cancellation Abstract, a speeded visual search Processing Speed subtestthat is a variation of the WISC-V Cancellation subtest, which reduces thereliance on categorical reasoning and semantic processing ability relative tothe WISC-V version of the subtest

Information about the development of these new subtests that provides insightinto the test development process appears in the Behind the Scenes boxes inChapter 2 of this book.

Dropped SubtestsFive subtests were removed from the WISC-IV Integrated complement priorto WISC-V Integrated development. These subtests were removed for varyingreasons.

• Block Design Process Approach was removed because the clinicallyuseful procedures and scores from this subtest were incorporated intothe WISC-V version of Block Design and can be obtained organicallythere.

• Elithorn Mazes was dropped because there are various other mea-sures of executive functioning ability in other related measures(e.g., NEPSY–Second Edition [Korkman, Kirk, & Kemp, 2007]).

• Visual Digit Span was removed because a measure of visual workingmemory, Picture Span, now appears on the WISC-V.


❦

❦ ❦

❦


• Letter Span and Letter-Number Sequencing Process Approach had verysimilar demands to two existing WISC-V subtests—Digit Span andLetter-Number Sequencing—and so were removed.

Retained SubtestsEleven WISC-IV Integrated subtests were retained. Rapid Reference 1.3 lists theretained subtests and examples of changes made to those subtests. The revisionsare more specifically detailed in Chapters 2 and 3 of this book.

Rapid Reference 1.3...............................................................................................................

Retained Subtests and Changes

Subtest Changes

SimilaritiesMultiple Choice

• New and revised items, response options, and scoringcriteria

• Updated with more child-appropriate and contemporaryquestions

• Reduced total items and shorter discontinue rule

VocabularyMultiple Choice

• New and revised items, response options, and scoring criteria• Updated art for picture items• Reduced total items and shorter discontinue rule

PictureVocabularyMultiple Choice

• New and revised items, response options, and scoringcriteria

• Updated art with similar “footprint” (profile size) for allresponse options

• Reduced total items and shorter discontinue rule

InformationMultiple Choice

• New and revised items, response options, and scoring criteria• Updated with more child-appropriate and contemporary

questions• Reduced total items and shorter discontinue rule

ComprehensionMultiple Choice

• New and revised items, response options, and scoring criteria• Updated with more child-appropriate and contemporary

questions• Reduced total items and shorter discontinue rule• Eliminated use of the word advantages in items


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 11

Subtest Changes

Block DesignMultiple Choice

• New and revised items and response options• Updated art with improved perspective• New items to extend the ceiling• Reduced total items and shorter discontinue rule

ArithmeticProcessApproach

• New and revised items• Eliminated references to currency and English units of

measurement• Reduced total items and shorter discontinue rule

WrittenArithmetic

• New and revised items• Revised format of items in response booklet (each placed

in a box)• Discontinue rule created• Removed subtest time limit and enacted general

30-second rule

Spatial Span • All new trials• Increased trials to improve gradient and ceiling• Board manipulative redesigned with letters instead of numbers

on examiner’s side to use as cues to ease user friendliness ofitem presentation and scoring

• Overall subtest score created

Coding Recall • Added Form A for ages 6–7• New and revised shapes and symbols• Included new pairing condition for each form (Shape-Symbol

Pairing and Digit-Symbol Pairing)

Coding Copy • Added Form A for ages 6–7• New symbols• Added time bonus

Subtest Descriptions and Expert References on Constructs Measuredand Abilities EngagedRapid Reference 1.4 provides a description of all subtests, reproduced by permis-sion from the test publisher. New subtests are indicated with an asterisk. RapidReference 1.5 provides information on the constructs and abilities thought to beinvolved with each subtest.


❦

❦ ❦

❦


Rapid Reference 1.4...............................................................................................................

Subtest Abbreviations and Descriptions

SubtestAbbrevi-ation Description

SimilaritiesMultipleChoice

SIMC SIMC is a multiple-choice adaptation of the WISC-VSimilarities subtest. Each item and its responseoptions are presented visually and read aloud. Thechild selects the response option that best representshow the common objects or concepts are similar.

VocabularyMultipleChoice

VCMC VCMC is a multiple-choice adaptation of theWISC-V Vocabulary subtest. For picture items, thechild views pictures and selects the best responsefrom options read aloud. For verbal items, each itemand its response options are presented visually andread aloud. The child selects the response optionthat best represents the definition of the word.

PictureVocabularyMultipleChoice

PVMC PVMC is a pictorial multiple-choice adaptation of theWISC-V Vocabulary subtest. The child views fourpictures and selects the picture that best depicts thedefinition of the word that is read aloud.

InformationMultipleChoice

INMC INMC is a multiple-choice adaptation of the WISC-VInformation subtest. Each item and its responseoptions are presented visually and read aloud. Thechild selects the response option that best representsan understanding of the general knowledge topic.

Comprehen-sion MultipleChoice

COMC COMC is a multiple-choice adaptation of theWISC-V Comprehension subtest. Each item and itsresponse options are presented visually and readaloud. The child selects the response option thatbest represents an understanding of the generalprinciple or social situation.

Block DesignMultipleChoice

BDMC BDMC is a multiple-choice variation of the WISC-VBlock Design subtest. The child views a picture of aconstructed block design and selects the picturedblock set that produces a matching composition,within a specified time limit.


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 13


Figure WeightsProcess Approach∗

FWP FWP is an adaptation of the WISC-V FigureWeights subtest in which the child is givenadditional time to respond. Within an extendedtime limit, the child is readministered FigureWeights items previously scored 0 points.

Arithmetic ProcessApproach

ARP ARP is an adaptation of the WISC-V Arithmeticsubtest in which Items 6–34 are presented inmultiple modalities for the child to solve within aspecified time limit. For Part A, Arithmetic itemson which the child scored 0 points arepresented visually and simultaneously readaloud. For Part B, the child is provided penciland paper and is readministered the itemsscored 0 points in Part A.

Written Arithmetic WA WA is an adaptation of the WISC-V Arithmeticsubtest. The child is presented with themathematical computations for Arithmetic itemsand uses a pencil to complete them.

Spatial Span SSP SSP is composed of two tasks: Forward andBackward. For Spatial Span Forward, the childreproduces a sequence of tapped blocks. ForSpatial Span Backward, the child reproduces asequence of tapped blocks, in reverse order.

Sentence Recall∗ SR SR items are composed of two tasks: a questiontask and a recall task. For the question task, thechild responds either “yes” or “no” to one ormore simple questions. For the recall task, thechild recalls the last word of each question inthe order presented.

Coding Recall CDR CDR provides more information aboutperformance on the WISC-V Coding subtest.Working within a specified time limit andwithout a key, the child attempts to rememberthe corresponding pairs from Coding in threeformats: cued recall, free recall, and pairing.

(continued)


❦

❦ ❦

❦



Coding Copy CDC CDC provides more information aboutperformance on the WISC-V Coding subtest.The child copies symbols within a specifiedtime limit.

CancellationAbstract∗

CAA CAA is a variation of the WISC-V Cancellationsubtest. Working within a specified time limit,the child scans two arrangements of shapes(one random, one structured) and marks targetshapes.

∗New subtest

Source: Table 1.1 of the WISC-V Integrated Administration and Scoring Manual.Used with permission. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth EditionIntegrated (WISC-V Integrated). Copyright © 2015 NCS Pearson, Inc.Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. “Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren” and “WISC” are trademarks, in the US and/or other countries, ofPearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates(s).

Rapid Reference 1.5...............................................................................................................

Subtest Constructs and Abilities


SimilaritiesMultiple Choice

• Designed to measure: verbal reasoning and conceptformation

• Decreased demands relative to WISC-V Similarities: verbalexpression and memory retrieval

• Possibly increased demands relative toWISC-V Similarities:receptive language skills, reading skills, decision-making skills,and working memory

• Related to: crystallized ability, associative and categoricalthinking, Gf-I (induction), concept recognition andgeneration

• May also involve: auditory perception


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 15


VocabularyMultiple Choice

• Designed to measure: word knowledge, verbal conceptformation, semantic memory

• Decreased demands relative toWISC-V Vocabulary: verbalexpression and memory retrieval

• Possibly increased demands relative toWISC-V Vocabulary:receptive language skills, reading skills, decision-making skills,and working memory

• Related to: crystallized ability, Gc-VL (lexical knowl-edge), fund of knowledge, learning, verbal expression,long-term semantic memory, vocabulary development

• May also involve: auditory perception, auditorycomprehension, abstract thinking, receptive vocabulary

PictureVocabularyMultiple Choice

• Designed to measure: word knowledge, verbal conceptformation, receptive vocabulary

• Decreased demands relative toWISC-V Vocabulary: verbalexpression, memory retrieval, receptive language

• Possibly increased demands relative toWISC-V Vocabulary:visual perception, decision-making skills, working memory

• Related to: crystallized ability, Gc-VL (lexical knowledge),fund of knowledge, learning, long-term memory, visualcomprehension, visual-verbal association formation

• May also involve: visual perception, auditory comprehension

InformationMultiple Choice

• Designed to measure: acquisition, retention, and retrievalof general facts and knowledge

• Decreased demands relative toWISC-V Information:verbal expression and memory retrieval

• Possibly increased demands relative toWISC-VInformation: receptive language skills, reading skills,decision-making skills, and working memory

• Related to: crystallized ability, Gc-K0 (general information),and retention and retrieval of learned information, Glr

• May also involve: auditory perception, verbal expression

ComprehensionMultiple Choice

• Designed to measure: verbal reasoning, verbalconceptualization, verbal comprehension, verbalexpression, practical knowledge, judgment

(continued)


❦

❦ ❦

❦



ComprehensionMultiple Choice(continued)

• Decreased demands relative to WISC-V Comprehension:verbal expression and memory retrieval

• Possibly increased demands relative to WISC-V Compre-hension: receptive language skills, reading skills,decision-making skills, and working memory

• Related to: crystallized ability (Gc), understanding of societalstandards and conventional behavior, social judgment, Glr,common sense

• May also involve: auditory perception

Block DesignMultiple Choice

• Designed to measure: visual spatial processing, analysis andsynthesis of abstract visual stimuli, mental imaging

• Decreased demands relative to WISC-V Block Design:relaying response to motor channels, motor skills

• Possibly increased demands relative to WISC-V BlockDesign: decision-making skills, working memory

• Related to: Gv-SR (spatial relations), Gv-Vz (visualization),Gv-CS (closure speed), mental rotation, nonverbalreasoning, visual perception, simultaneous processing,problem-solving, cognitive flexibility, planning

Figure WeightsProcessApproach

• Designed to measure: quantitative fluid reasoning andintelligence, inductive reasoning

• Decreased demands relative to WISC-V Figure Weights:speeded performance

• Related to: Gf-I, Gf-RQ, simultaneous and successiveprocessing, problem-solving, cognitive flexibility

• May also involve: working memory, math problem-solving,math computation

ArithmeticProcessApproach

• Designed to measure: quantitative, fluid, and logicalreasoning, mental manipulation

• Decreased demands relative to WISC-V Arithmetic:attention, auditory working memory, short-term memory,auditory discrimination, auditory comprehension

• Possibly increased demands relative to WISC-V Arithmetic:reading, graphomotor

• Related to: Gf-RQ, sequential processing, working memory,quantitative knowledge, applied computation, logical reasoning

• May also involve: auditory discrimination


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 17


WrittenArithmetic

• Designed to measure: numerical reasoning ability, acquiredknowledge of mathematical calculations, math computation

• Decreased demands relative to WISC-V Arithmetic:attention, mental efficiency, verbal aspects of cognitivearithmetic, math problem-solving

• Possibly increased demands relative toWISC-V Arithmetic:reading, graphomotor

• Related to: Gf-RQ, sequential processing, working memory,quantitative knowledge, applied computation, logicalreasoning, calculation skills, counting skills, math factsretrieval

• May also involve: working memory, knowledge ofmathematical symbols and syntax, order of operationsknowledge

Spatial Span • Designed to measure: visual spatial working memory• Related to: Gsm-MW (working memory capacity),

Gsm-MS (memory span), Gv-MV (visual memory),attention and attentional capacity, simultaneous andsuccessive processing, planning and metacognition, visualimmediate memory spatial locations, response inhibition

• May also involve: motor integration and programming,motor and self-regulation, cognitive flexibility, mentalalertness, primacy effects, recency effects

Sentence Recall • Designed to measure: auditory working memory withcognitive processing, working memory capacity

• Related to: storage during cognitive processing, reactivationof attention

Coding Recall • Designed to measure: incidental learning, associative memory• Decreased demands relative toWISC-V Coding:

graphomotor speed, timed performance• Possibly increased demands relative toWISC-V Coding:

associative memory• Related to: short-term visual recall and recognition

memory and learning ability• May also involve: visual-motor skills, procedural learning

(continued)


❦

❦ ❦

❦



Coding Copy • Designed to measure: speed, fluency, and efficiency ofprocessing; performance fluency, graphomotor speed,perceptual speed, visual-motor integration

• Decreased demands relative toWISC-V Coding: incidentallearning, associative memory

• Possibly increased demands relative toWISC-V Coding:graphomotor speed

• Related to: selective and sustained attention, visual scanningand tracking, response inhibition

• May also involve: visual-motor skills

CancellationAbstract

• Designed to measure: processing speed; speed, fluency, andefficiency of processing; performance fluency

• Decreased demands relative to WISC-V Cancellation:categorical knowledge, visual immediate memory

• Possibly increased demands relative toWISC-V Coding:response inhibition

• Related to: Gs-P (perceptual speed), speed and efficiency,simultaneous processing, planning and metacognition,selective and sustained attention, visual scanning andtracking, visual immediate memory, response inhibition

• May also involve: visual-motor skills

Sources: Cardoso, Branco, Cotrena, and Fonseca (2015); Carroll (1993); Demakis,Sawyer, Fritz, and Sweet (2001); Flanagan and Alfonso (2017); Flanagan, Alfonso,and Ortiz (2012); Flanagan, Alfonso, Ortiz, and Dynda (2010); Gagnon andBelleville (2011); Goldstein and Green (1995); Groeger, Field, and Hammond(1999); Groth-Marnat (2009); Joy, Fein, Kaplan, and Freedman (1999); Joy, Kaplan,and Fein (2003); Kreiner and Ryan (2001); Lezak, Howieson, Bigler, and Tranel(2012); Lichtenberger and Kaufman (2013); Mainela-Arnold, Misra, Miller, Poll, andPark (2012); McCloskey (2009); McCloskey and Maerlender (2005); Milberg,Hebben, and Kaplan (1986); Miller (2010, 2013); Miller and Jones (2016); Sattler(2008); Sattler, Dumont, and Coalson (2016); Schneider and McGrew (2012);Schroeder (2014); Service and Maury (2015); Smyth and Scholey (1992).

Subtest Score TypesThe test includes 18 scaled scores and a host of raw scores that are convertedto base rates. These are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. The raw scores mayindicate maximum performance on a span or recall task, the number of errors


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 19

of a certain type committed on a given task, or the number of times a specificbehavior is observed during a subtest.These scores are discussed in further detailin Chapter 3.

Composite Scores

There are two composite scores in the published test. They are listed, with theirabbreviations (used in some tables in this book and throughout the publishedmanuals), in Rapid Reference 1.6.

Rapid Reference 1.6...............................................................................................................

Published Composite Score Abbreviations

Composite Score Abbreviation

Multiple Choice Verbal Comprehension Index MCVCIVisual Working Memory Index VWMI

TEST STRUCTURE

The WISC-V Integrated has 14 subtests. Eight subtests (i.e., Similarities Multi-ple Choice, Vocabulary Multiple Choice, Picture Vocabulary Multiple Choice,Information Multiple Choice, Comprehension Multiple Choice, Figure WeightsProcess Approach, Arithmetic Process Approach, and Written Arithmetic) areadaptations of WISC-V subtests. An adaptation subtest includes the same itemcontent as the corresponding WISC-V subtest, but the presentation mode,response method, and/or item administration procedure has been modified.Two subtests (Block Design Multiple Choice and Cancellation Abstract) arevariations of the WISC-V subtests. A variation subtest is a task that is closelyrelated to a WISC-V subtest in a clinically useful manner. It has item contentthat does not correspond to that on a WISC-V subtest, and the presentationmode, response method, and/or administration procedure has been modified.Two subtests (Coding Recall and Coding Copy) are designed to clarify WISC-VCoding performance. Two subtests (Spatial Span and Sentence Recall) areincluded solely to improve the breadth of working memory construct coverage.

Each composite score is derived from two subtests. No substitution is per-mitted when deriving these scores. The Visual Working Memory Index requires


❦

❦ ❦

❦


a subtest scaled score from the WISC-V, Picture Span, to be summed with theSpatial Span scaled score.

Figure 1.1 depicts the test framework. The cognitive domains correspondingto the subtests appear in the first column in black font. Because several of theWISC-V Integrated subtests are adaptations or variations, some of the WISC-Vsubtests appear in gray font in the second column. The third column lists theWISC-V Integrated subtests, in most cases next to the corresponding WISC-V

Domain Subtests Index Score

Verbal Comprehension

SimilaritiesVocabulary

InformationComprehension

Similarities Multiple Choice Vocabulary Multiple Choice

Multiple Choice VerbalComprehension Index

Picture Vocabulary Multiple Choice

Information Multiple Choice

Comprehension Multiple Choice

Visual Spatial Block Design Block Design Multiple Choice

Fluid Reasoning Figure WeightsArithmetic

Figure Weights Process Approach

Arithmetic Process ApproachWritten Arithmetic

Working Memory Picture Span Spatial Span Visual WorkingMemory Index

Sentence Recall

Processing Speed Coding Coding RecallCoding Copy

Cancellation Cancellation Abstract

WISC–V WISC–V Integrated

Figure 1.1 Test StructureSource: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition Integrated (WISC-V Integrated). Copyright© 2015 NCS Pearson, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. “Wechsler IntelligenceScale for Children” and “WISC” are trademarks, in the US and/or other countries, of PearsonEducation, Inc. or its affiliates(s).


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 21

subtest for which it is an adaptation or variation. The subtests used to derive thetwo index scores appear in gray fill, and an arrow designates the index score towhich they contribute.

NEW ESSENTIALS COMPOSITE SCORES

There are a number of Essentials composite scores provided in this book andthe accompanying interpretive program. The Essentials composite scores weredeveloped based on specific theoretical approaches and practical considerations.The norms for these index scores are available in theWISC-V Integrated Interpre-tive Assistant 1.0 that is included with the online resources for this book. RapidReference 1.7 provides a summary of the subtest composition of the new Essen-tials composite scores. Supporting technical evidence for these additional indexscores is provided in Chapter 4 of this book.

Rapid Reference 1.7...............................................................................................................

Subtest Composition of Essentials Composite Scores

Essentials CompositeScore Acronym Contributing Subtests

Expanded Visual SpatialIndex

EVSI • Block Design∗

• Visual Puzzles∗

• Block Design Multiple Choice

Expanded WorkingMemory Index

EWMI • Digit Span∗

• Picture Span∗

• Letter-Number Sequencing∗

• Spatial Span• Sentence Recall

Expanded ProcessingSpeed Index

EPSI • Coding∗

• Symbol Search∗

• Cancellation∗

• Coding Copy• Cancellation Abstract

(continued)


❦

❦ ❦

❦



Expanded AuditoryWorking Memory Index

EAWMI • Digit Span∗

• Letter-Number Sequencing∗

• Sentence Recall

NonexpressiveExpanded CrystallizedIndex

NEECI • Similarities Multiple Choice• Vocabulary Multiple Choice• Information Multiple Choice• Comprehension Multiple Choice

Nonexpressive GeneralVerbal Information

NEGc-K0 • Information Multiple Choice• Comprehension Multiple Choice• Picture Concepts∗

Nonexpressive Induction NEGf-I • Similarities Multiple Choice• Matrix Reasoning∗

• Picture Concepts∗

NonexpressiveFluid-Crystallized

NEGf-Gc • Vocabulary Multiple Choice• Information Multiple Choice• Matrix Reasoning∗

• Figure Weights∗

Nonexpressive Full ScaleScore

NEFSS • Similarities Multiple Choice• Vocabulary Multiple Choice• Matrix Reasoning∗


• Block Design∗

• Picture Span∗

• Coding∗

Nonmotor Visual SpatialIndex

NMVSI • Block Design Multiple Choice• Visual Puzzles∗

Nonmotor NonverbalIndex

NMNVI • Block Design Multiple Choice• Visual Puzzles∗

• Matrix Reasoning∗


• Picture Span∗


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 23


Nonmotor GeneralAbility Index

NMGAI • Similarities∗

• Vocabulary∗

• Block Design Multiple Choice• Matrix Reasoning∗


Nonmotor Full ScaleScore

NMFSS • Similarities∗

• Vocabulary∗

• Block Design Multiple Choice• Matrix Reasoning∗


• Digit Span∗

• Naming Speed Quantity∗(converted to scaled score)

∗= WISC-V subtest.

VALIDITY

The evidence of WISC-V Integrated validity is discussed in this section.

Intercorrelation Studies

The WISC-V Integrated was developed to examine the cognitive processes andbehaviors that are associated with WISC-V performance. Therefore, structuralvalidity studies evaluated the correlations with the WISC-V and also the inter-correlations of the WISC-V Integrated scores.

The average correlations of the WISC-V Integrated subtest scores, grouped bydomain, and selected WISC-V index scores appear in Table 1.1.

The data in Table 1.1 show that when the WISC-V Integrated subtest scoresare grouped by cognitive domain, the average correlations are highest with thecorresponding index scores from the same cognitive domain. For example, theaverage correlation of the WISC-V Integrated Verbal Comprehension subtests(i.e., SIMC, VCMC, PVMC, INMC, COMC) are more highly correlated withthe Verbal Comprehension Index than with any of the other index scores. Theseresults demonstrate that the WISC-V Integrated subtests are measuring cognitive


❦

❦ ❦

❦


Table 1.1 Average Correlations of WISC-V Integrated Subtest Score Groupsand Selected WISC-V Index Scores

WISC-V Integrated Subtest Score Group

WISC-V Index ScoreVerbal

ComprehensionFluid

ReasoningWorkingMemory

ProcessingSpeed

Verbal Comprehension Index .58 .58 .39 .25Visual Spatial Index .41 .54 .42 .27Fluid Reasoning Index .44 .60 .39 .22Working Memory Index .41 .54 .49 .30Processing Speed Index .28 .37 .34 .40

Quantitative Reasoning Index .75

Auditory Working Memory Index .49

Note: Bold denotes average correlation of the subtest score group with index scores from thesame cognitive domain. Subtest score groups are Verbal Comprehension = SIMC, VCMC,PVMC, INMC, COMC; Fluid Reasoning = FWP, ARPa (Arithmetic Process ApproachPart A), ARPb (Arithmetic Process Approach Part B), WA; Working Memory = SSP, SSPf(Spatial Span Forward), SSPb (Spatial Span Backward), SR; Processing Speed = CDC, CAA,CAAr (Cancellation Abstract Random), CAAs (Cancellation Abstract Structured).The WISC-V Integrated Visual Spatial subtest score group is not included because thatdomain has only one subtest score, BDMC.

processes that are relevant to WISC-V performance. Moreover, the relations ofthe WISC-V Integrated subtest scores are highly related with WISC-V perfor-mance beyond the WISC-V subtest level; the relations extend to the WISC-Vindex level.

It is also noteworthy that Table 5.1 in the Technical and Interpretive Manualindicates that the MCVCI correlates .69 with the WISC-V Verbal Comprehen-sion Index, and the VWMI correlates .83 and .65 with the WISC-V WorkingMemory Index and Auditory Working Memory Index, respectively. These datasuggest that the WISC-V Integrated index scores and the WISC-V index scoresin the same cognitive domain are measuring similar constructs.

The average correlations of the WISC-V Integrated adaptation and variationsubtest scores with their corresponding paired WISC-V subtests, grouped bydomain, appear in Table 1.2.

The data in Table 1.2 show that the WISC-V Integrated adaptation andvariation subtest scores are highly correlated with their corresponding sub-test scores. For example, the average correlation of the WISC-V Integrated


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 25

Table 1.2 Average Correlations of Pairs of WISC-VIntegrated Adaptation and Variation Subtests andCorresponding WISC-V Subtests, by Cognitive Domain

WISC-V Integrated Subtests

Average CorrelationWith CorrespondingWISC-V Subtests

Verbal Comprehension .59Visual Spatial .49Fluid Reasoning .77Processing Speed .53

Note: Pairs are Verbal Comprehension = SIMC–Similarities,VCMC–Vocabulary, PVMC–Vocabulary, INMC–Information,COMC–Comprehension; Visual Spatial: BDMC–BD; FluidReasoning = FWP–FW, ARPa (Arithmetic Process ApproachPart A)–Arithmetic, ARPb (Arithmetic Process ApproachPart B)–Arithmetic, WA–Arithmetic; Processing Speed =CDC–Coding, CAA–Cancellation, CAAr (Cancellation AbstractRandom)–Cancellation Random, CAAs (Cancellation AbstractStructured)–Cancellation Structured.The Working Memorydomain is not included because Spatial Span and Sentence Recallare not adaptation or variation subtests.

Verbal Comprehension adaptation subtests with their paired subtest from theWISC-V (i.e., SIMC–Similarities, VCMC–Vocabulary, PVMC–Vocabulary,INMC–Information, COMC–Comprehension) is .59. These results demon-strate that the WISC-V Integrated subtests are measuring cognitive processesthat are relevant to performance on their corresponding paired WISC-V subtest.

The average correlations of the WISC-V Integrated score groups with theWISC-V score groups, by cognitive domain, appear in Table 1.3.

The data in Table 1.3 show that the WISC-V Integrated score groups aregenerally most correlated with the WISC-V score group of the same domain.For example, the average correlation of the WISC-V Integrated Processing Speedscore group with the WISC-V Processing Speed score group is .42, and the aver-age correlations of the WISC-V Integrated Processing Speed score group with allother WISC-V score groups is lower.These results demonstrate that the WISC-VIntegrated subtests are measuring cognitive processes that are relevant to perfor-mance on the subtests from the corresponding WISC-V domain.

In two cases, the WISC-V score groups share a similar correlation with theircorresponding WISC-V Integrated score groups and with another WISC-V


❦

❦ ❦

❦


Table 1.3 Average Correlations of WISC-V Integrated and WISC-V ScoreGroups, by Cognitive Domain

WISC-V Score Group

WISC-V IntegratedScore Group

VerbalComprehension

VisualSpatial

FluidReasoning

WorkingMemory

ProcessingSpeed

Verbal Comprehension .51 .36 .39 .34 .19Visual Spatial .35 .48 .38 .27 .20Fluid Reasoning .52 .47 .52 .44 .23Working Memory .34 .37 .35 .39 .21Processing Speed .21 .24 .21 .25 .42

Note: Bold denotes average correlation of the WISC-V Integrated subtest score groups withthe WISC-V subtest score groups from the same cognitive domain. WISC-V Integratedgroups are Verbal Comprehension = SIMC, VCMC, PVMC, INMC, COMC; VisualSpatial = Block Design Multiple Choice; Fluid Reasoning = FWP, ARPa (Arithmetic ProcessApproach Part A), ARPb (Arithmetic Process Approach Part B), WA; Working Memory =SSP, SSPf (Spatial Span Forward), SSPb (Spatial Span Backward), SR; Processing Speed =CDC, CAA, CAAr (Cancellation Abstract Random), CAAs (Cancellation AbstractStructured). WISC-V groups are Verbal Comprehension = Similarities, Vocabulary,Information, Comprehension; Visual Spatial = Block Design, Block Design No Time Bonus,Visual Puzzles; Fluid Reasoning =Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights, Picture Concepts,Arithmetic; Working Memory = Digit Span, Digit Span Forward, Digit Span Backward,Picture Span, Letter-Number Sequencing; Processing Speed = Coding, Symbol Search,Cancellation, Cancellation Random, Cancellation Structured.

Integrated score group. For example, the WISC-V Verbal Comprehension scoregroup correlates about the same with the WISC-V Integrated Fluid Reasoningscore group and with the WISC-V Verbal Comprehension score group. Anexamination of Table 5.1 in the Technical and Interpretive Manual indicates thatthis is because of the strong relationship of Figure Weights Process Approach andArithmetic Process Approach with the WISC-V Verbal Comprehension subtests.This is most likely because of the shared high g loading of these tasks.

The correlation of the WISC-V Working Memory score group withthe WISC-V Integrated Fluid Reasoning group is slightly higher than thatwith the WISC-V Integrated Working Memory score group. A closer look atTable 5.1 in the Technical and Interpretive Manual suggests this is becauseWISC-V Digit Span and Letter-Number Sequencing are highly correlated withthe Arithmetic tasks, which share numerical stimuli, and each places demandson working memory.


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 27

Standardization and Psychometric Properties

The normative information is based on a national sample of 550 children. Itwas collected starting in April 2013 through October 2014. It was selected tomatch proportions from 2012 US Census data and is stratified according to age,sex, race-ethnicity, parent education level, and US geographic region. Eleven agegroups were created, with 50 children in each age group.

ReliabilityInternal consistency and test-retest stability studies were conducted and provideevidence of reliability. A summary of results appears in Rapid Reference 1.8.

Rapid Reference 1.8...............................................................................................................

Average Reliability Coefficients of WISC-V Integrated Scores

WISC-V Integrated ScoreInternal

ConsistencyTest-Retest

Stability

Similarities Multiple Choice .79 .80Vocabulary Multiple Choice .84 .72Picture Vocabulary Multiple Choice .85 .80Information Multiple Choice .86 .84Comprehension Multiple Choice .77 .70Block Design Multiple Choice .83 .74Figure Weights Process Approach .93 .74Arithmetic Process Approach Part A .93 .85Arithmetic Process Approach Part B .93 .86Written Arithmetic .88 .85Spatial Span .89 .76Spatial Span Forward .80 .72Spatial Span Backward .81 .69Sentence Recall .89 .80Coding Copy .83 .82Cancellation Abstract .85 .84Cancellation Abstract Random .82 .83Cancellation Abstract Structured .81 .80Multiple Choice Verbal Comprehension Index .87 .72Visual Working Memory Index .90 .91

Source: Data are from the Technical and Interpretive Manual, Tables 4.1 and 4.5.


❦

❦ ❦

❦


The average reliability coefficient for the Multiple Choice Verbal Comprehen-sion Index is .87 and for the Visual Working Memory Index is .90.The reliabilitycoefficients for the subtest-related scores range from .77 for ComprehensionMul-tiple Choice to .93 for Figure Weights Process Approach and for ArithmeticProcess Approach Parts A and B. The reliability coefficients within age groupsare similar.

A subset of the normative sample (N = 128) provided retest reliability data.Results showed the average stability coefficients across all ages for the index scoreswere .72 for the Multiple Choice Verbal Comprehension Index and .91 for theVisual Working Memory Index. The highest overall average subtest-related sta-bility coefficient was .86 for Arithmetic Process Approach Part B, and the lowestwas .69 for Spatial Span Backward.

Loadings on the General FactorGeneral intelligence, or g (Spearman, 1927) can be derived by severalmethods. For the purposes of this book, g is calculated using the subtestfactor loadings on the first unrotated factor in a principal componentsanalysis. Factor loadings of .70 or greater are classified as good measures of g,loadings of .50–.69 are classified as fair, and loadings below .50 are classifiedas poor. Squaring the subtest g loading provides the proportion of varianceattributable to g.

Lichtenberger and Kaufman (2004) noted that the meaning of g loadings andof the concept of general intelligence has been the subject of much discussionand debate. That debate continues to the present day (Kaufman, Reynolds, Liu,Kaufman, & McGrew, 2012; McFarland, 2012; Reynolds, 2013; te Nijenhuis,van Vianen, & van der Flier, 2007). It therefore is important, as Lichtenbergerand Kaufman (2004) state, not to interpret a subtest with a good g loading asrepresenting the child’s general intellectual ability.

A subset of the subtest-related scaled scores’ g loadings was examined. To avoidredundancy, not all scores were included.The g loading, strength of each score as ameasure of g, and proportion of variance for each score attributed to g are providedin Rapid Reference 1.9. The subtests are listed in descending order with respectto g loading.

Most of the selected subtest-related scores are good or fair measures of g; onlythe Processing Speed subtests are poor.The strongest g loadings occur on the Ver-bal Comprehension and Fluid Reasoning domains. All Fluid Reasoning scores aregood measures of g.These results are typical of the pattern observed in g loadingsof the Wechsler intelligence scales.


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 29

Rapid Reference 1.9...............................................................................................................

Score g Loadings, Strength as Measures of g, and Proportionsof Variance Attributed to g

Scoreg

Loading

Strengthas Measure

of g

Proportionof VarianceAttributed

to g

Arithmetic Process Approach Part A .84 good .71Arithmetic Process Approach Part B .83 good .69Information Multiple Choice .76 good .58Vocabulary Multiple Choice .73 good .53Written Arithmetic .72 good .52Picture Vocabulary Multiple Choice .71 good .50Figure Weights Process Approach .71 good .50Similarities Multiple Choice .63 fair .40Sentence Recall .59 fair .35Spatial Span .57 fair .32Comprehension Multiple Choice .56 fair .31Block Design Multiple Choice .54 fair .29Coding Copy .40 poor .16Cancellation Abstract .38 poor .14

Note: All g loadings of .70 or above are considered good, .50–.69 are consideredfair, and loadings below .50 are considered poor.

COMPREHENSIVE TEST REFERENCES

The WISC-V Integrated Administration and Scoring Manual and the WISC-VIntegrated Technical and Interpretive Manual (Wechsler & Kaplan, 2015)currently provide the most detailed information about the WISC-V Integrated.These manuals review the scale’s development, subtest descriptions, item- andsubtest-level administration and scoring rules, standardization, and evidenceof reliability and validity. Rapid Reference 1.10 provides basic information onthe WISC-V Integrated and the test publisher, Pearson. Essentials of WISC-IVAssessment (Flanagan & Kaufman, 2009) provides some information aboutadministration, scoring, and interpretation of the prior edition, the WISC-IVIntegrated (Wechsler et al., 2004).


❦

❦ ❦

❦


Rapid Reference 1.10...............................................................................................................

• Title: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition Integrated (WISC-VIntegrated)

• Authors: David Wechsler and Edith Kaplan• Publication date: 2015• Age range: 6:0–16:11• What the test measures: cognitive processes and problem-solving skills associ-

ated with the WISC-V Verbal Comprehension, Visual Spatial, Fluid Reasoning,Working Memory, and Processing Speed subtests

• Administration time: Varies• Qualification of examiners: C level• Publisher : Pearson

5601 Green Valley DriveBloomington, MN 55437Customer Service: (800) 627–7271www.PsychCorp.com

• Product number: 0158008413• WISC-V Integrated Kit: includes Administration and Scoring Manual, Techni-

cal and Interpretive Manual, Stimulus Books 1 and 2, 25 Record Forms, 25Response Booklet #1, 25 Response Booklet #2, Spatial Span Board, CodingRecall Scoring Key, and Cancellation Abstract Scoring Template

• Price: $305 (in box)

TEST YOURSELF...............................................................................................................

1. Who pioneered the Boston process approach to psychological assess-ment?a. David Wechslerb. Alan S. Kaufmanc. Edith Kaplan and colleaguesd. Heinz Grubere. Bill Jobs

2. Which of the following subtests are used to compute the Multiple ChoiceVerbal Comprehension Index?

a. Information Multiple Choice and Similarities Multiple Choiceb. Similarities Multiple Choice and Vocabulary Multiple Choice


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 31

c. Similarities Multiple Choice, Vocabulary Multiple Choice, Information Mul-tiple Choice, and Comprehension Multiple Choice

d. Similarities Multiple Choice, Vocabulary Multiple Choice, and InformationMultiple Choice

3. Which of the following subtests are used to compute the Visual WorkingMemory Index?

a. Arithmetic Process Approach and Spatial Spanb. Written Arithmetic and Spatial Spanc. Spatial Span and Sentence Recalld. Spatial Span and Picture Span

4. Which is a retained subtest from the WISC-IV Integrated?

a. Sentence Recallb. Cancellation Abstractc. Picture Vocabulary Multiple Choiced. Figure Weights Process Approach

5. Which subtest is not a measure of verbal comprehension?

a. Information Multiple Choiceb. Sentence Recallc. Vocabulary Multiple Choiced. Comprehension Multiple Choice

Answers (1) c (2) b (3) d (4) c (5) b

REFERENCES

Boxer, O., Jackson, K., & Kohlman, S. (2014). B-31 problem-solving weaknesses in childrenwith nonverbal learning differences. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 29(6), 547.

Cardoso, C. O., Branco, L. D., Cotrena, C., & Fonseca, R. P. (2015). Correlational analysisof performance in executive function tasks after stroke. Psychology & Neuroscience, 8(1),56–65. doi:10.1037/h0101021

Carroll, J. B. (1993).Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2001). Delis-Kaplan executive function system.Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

Delis, D. C., Kramer, J. H., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B. A. (1994). California verbal learningtest—Children’s version. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

Delis, D. C., Kramer, J. H., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B. (2000). California verbal learning test(2nd ed.). Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

Demakis, G. J., Sawyer, T. P., Fritz, D., & Sweet, J. J. (2001). Incidental recall on WAIS-Rdigit symbol discriminates Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. Journal of Clinical Psychol-ogy, 57 (3), 387–394.

Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (2017). Essentials of WISC-V assessment. Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley & Sons.

Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., & Ortiz, S. O. (2012).The cross-battery assessment approach:An overview, historical perspective, and current directions. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L.


❦

❦ ❦

❦


Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment:Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed.,pp. 459–483). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Ortiz, S. O., & Dynda, A. M. (2010). Integrating cognitiveassessment in school neuropsychological evaluations. In D. C. Miller (Ed.), Best practicesin school neuropsychology: Guidelines for effective practice, assessment, and evidence-based inter-vention (pp. 101–140). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2009). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment (2nd ed.).Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Floyd, R. G., & Kranzler, J. H. (2012). Processing approaches to interpretation of informationfrom cognitive ability tests. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intel-lectual assessment:Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 497–525). New York, NY: GuilfordPress.

Gagnon, L. G., & Belleville, S. (2011). Working memory in mild cognitive impairment andAlzheimer’s disease: Contribution of forgetting and predictive value of complex span tasks.Neuropsychology, 25(2), 226–236. doi:10.1037/a0020919

Goldstein, F. C., & Green, R. C. (1995). Assessment of problem-solving and executive func-tions. In R. L. Mapou & J. Spector (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychological assessment: A cognitiveapproach (pp. 49–81). New York, NY: Plenum.

Groeger, J. A., Field, D., & Hammond, S. M. (1999). Measuring memory span. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 34 , 359–363.

Groth-Marnat, G. (2009).Handbook of psychological assessment (5th ed.). New York, NY: JohnWiley & Sons.

Guilford, J. P. (1967).The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Halleland, H. E., Sorensen, L., Posserud, M.-B., Haavik, J., & Lundervold, A. J. (2015).

Occupational status is compromised in adults with ADHD and psychometrically definedexecutive function deficits. Journal of Attention Disorders. Advance online publication.doi:10.1177/1087054714564622

Hoffmann, N., Donders, J., &Thompson, E. H. (2000). Novel learning abilities after trau-matic head injury in children. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 47–58.

Horn, J. L. (1989). Cognitive diversity: A framework for learning. In P. L. Ackerman, R. J.Sternberg, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Learning and individual differences (pp. 61–116). New York,NY: Freeman.

Joy, S., Fein, D., Kaplan, E., & Freedman, M. (1999). Information multiple choice amonghealthy older adults: Characteristics, correlates, and clinical implications.The ClinicalNeuropsychologist, 13, 48–53.

Joy, S., Kaplan, E., & Fein, D. (2003). Digit Symbol-Incidental learning in the WAIS–III:Construct validity and clinical significance.The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17 , 182–194.

Kaplan, E. (1988). A process approach to neuropsychological assessment. In T. J. Boll & B. K.Bryant (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology and brain function: Research, measurement, and prac-tice (pp. 129–167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kaplan, E., Fein, D., Kramer, J., Delis, D., & Morris, R. (1999).Wechsler intelligence scale forchildren–Third edition as a process instrument. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

Kaplan, E., Fein, D., Morris, R., & Delis, D. C. (1991). Wechsler adult intelligencescale–Revised as a neuropsychological instrument. San Antonio, TX:The PsychologicalCorporation.

Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). Boston naming test. Philadelphia, PA:Lea & Febiger.

Kaufman, A. S. (1979). Intelligent testing with the WISC-R. New York, NY: John Wiley &Sons.

Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III . New York, NY: John Wiley &Sons.


❦

❦ ❦

❦

OVERVIEW 33

Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (1999). Essentials of WAIS-III assessment. New York,NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2000). Essentials of WISC-III and WPPSI-R assess-ment. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2002). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence(2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kaufman, A. S., Raiford, S. E., & Coalson, D. L. (2016). Intelligent testing with the WISC-V .Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kaufman, S. B., Reynolds, M. R., Liu, X., Kaufman, A. S., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). Arecognitive g and academic g one and the same g? An exploration on the Woodcock-Johnsonand Kaufman tests. Intelligence, 40, 123–138. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.01.009

Korkman, M., Kirk, U., & Kemp, S. (2007).NEPSY-II . Bloomington, MN: Pearson.Kramer, J. H., Knee, K., & Delis, D. C. (2000). Verbal memory impairments in dyslexia.

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 83–93.Kreiner, D. S., & Ryan, J. J. (2001). Memory and motor skill components of the WAIS-III

Digit Symbol–Coding subtest.The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 15, 109–113.Leach, L., Kaplan, E., Rewilak, D., Richards, B., & Proulx, G. (2000). Kaplan-Baycrest neu-

rocognitive assessment. San Antonio, TX:The Psychological Corporation.Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., Bigler, E. D., & Tranel, D. (2012). Neuropsychological assess-

ment (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Lichtenberger, E. O., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WPPSI-III assessment. Hoboken,

NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Lichtenberger, E. O., & Kaufman, A. S. (2013). Essentials of WAIS-IV assessment (2nd ed.).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Mainela-Arnold, E., Misra, M., Miller, C., Poll, G. H., & Park, J. S. (2012). Investigating

sentence processing and language segmentation in explaining children’s performance on asentence-span task. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47 (2),166–175. doi:10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00080.x

Mayfield, A., Reyes, A., Mayfield, J., & Allen, D. (2014). C-44 improvement in executivefunction following traumatic brain injury in children. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,29(6), 590.

McCloskey, G. (2009).The WISC-IV integrated. In D. P. Flanagan & A. S. Kaufman (Eds.),Essentials of WISC®-IV assessment (2nd ed., pp. 310–467). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &Sons.

McCloskey, G., & Maerlender, A. (2005). The WISC-IV integrated. In A. Prifitera,D. H. Saklofske, & L. G. Weiss (Eds.), WISC-IV clinical use and interpretation:Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 101–149). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.

McFarland, D. J. (2012). A single g factor is not necessary to simulate positive correlationsbetween cognitive tests. Journal of Clinical Experimental Neuropsychology, 34 , 378–384.

McLean, R. L., Johnson, H. A., Zimak, E., Joseph, R. M., & Morrow, E. M. (2014). Execu-tive function in probands with autism with average IQ and their unaffected first-degreerelatives. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(9),1001–1009.

Milberg, W. P., Hebben, N., & Kaplan, E. (1986).The Boston Process Approach to neuropsy-chological assessment. In I. Grant & K. M. Adams (Eds.), Neuropsychological assessment ofneuropsychiatric disorders (pp. 65–80). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Miller, D. C. (2010). Best practices in school neuropsychology: Guidelines for effective practice,assessment, and evidence-based intervention. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Miller, D. C. (2013). Essentials of school neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons.


❦

❦ ❦

❦


Miller, D., & Jones, A. M. (2016). Interpreting the WISC-V from Dan Miller’s inte-grated school neuropsychological/Cattell-Horn-Carroll model. In A. S. Kaufman, S. E.Raiford, & D. L. Coalson (Eds.), Intelligent testing with the WISC-V (pp. 459–492).Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Osgood, C. E. (1957). A behavioristic analysis of perception and language as cognitive phe-nomena. In J. S. Bruner, E. Brunswick, E. Festinger, K. F. Muenzinger, C. E. Osgood, &D. Rapaport (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to cognition (pp. 75–118). Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Reynolds, M. R. (2013). Interpreting the g loadings of intelligence test composite scores inlight of Spearman’s law of diminishing returns. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(1), 63–76.doi:10.1037/spq0000013

Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations (5th ed.). San Diego, CA:Author.

Sattler, J. M., Dumont, R., & Coalson, D. L. (2016). Assessment of children: WISC-V andWPPSI-IV . San Diego, CA: Author.

Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2012).The Cattell- Horn-Carroll model of intelligence.In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment:Theories,tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 99–144). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Schroeder, P. J. (2014).The effects of age on processing and storage in working memory spantasks and reading comprehension. Experimental Aging Research: An International JournalDevoted to the Scientific Study of the Aging Process, 40(3), 308–331.

Service, E., & Maury, S. (2015). Differential recall of derived and inflected word formsin working memory: Examining the role of morphological information in simple andcomplex working memory tasks. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(Article 1064), 1–16.doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.01064

Silver, L. B. (1993). Introduction and overview to the clinical concepts of learning disabilities.Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 2, 181–192.

Smyth, M.M., & Scholey, K. A. (1992). Determining spatial span:The role of movement timeand articulation rate. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human ExperimentalPsychology, 45A, 479–501.

Spearman, C. E. (1927).The abilities of man:Their nature and measurement. London, UK:Macmillan.

te Nijenhuis, J., van Vianen, A.E.M., & van der Flier, H. (2007). Score gains on g-loaded tests:No g. Intelligence, 35, 283–300.

Wechsler, D. (1944).The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore, MD:Williams &Wilkins.

Wechsler, D. (1958).The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (4th ed.). Baltimore,MD: Williams &Wilkins.

Wechsler, D. (1981).Wechsler adult intelligence scale (revised ed.). New York, NY:The Psycho-logical Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1991).Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX:The Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (2003).Wechsler intelligence scale for children (4th ed.). Bloomington, MN:Pearson.

Wechsler, D. (2014).Wechsler intelligence scale for children (5th ed.). Bloomington, MN:Pearson.

Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E. (2015).Wechsler intelligence scale for children integrated (5th ed.).Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

Wechsler, D., Kaplan, E., Fein, D., Kramer, J., Morris, R., Delis, D., & Maerlender, A.(2004).Wechsler intelligence scale for children integrated (4th ed.). Bloomington, MN:Pearson.

Werner, H. (1937). Process and achievement: A basic problem of education and developmen-tal psychology.Harvard Educational Review, 7 , 353–368.

Documents

CONTENTS · 2019-02-19 · WISC-V Integrated Interpretive Assistant 1.0 xxi Appendix A xxi Appendix B xxii One Overview 1 Historical Perspectives on the Process Approach to Cognitive