INTRODUCING THE WISC-V

INTRODUCING THE WISC-V
Discover all the ways WISC-V delivers increased flexibility and more content. We will start off with a quick overview

AGENDA Overview of Changes from WISC-IV to WISC-V-
New Test Structure and Technical Properties- New subtests and retained content with revisions- Administering on Q-I, Demonstration of New Subtests on Q-i and generating reports

Administration and Scoring Options
Paper/Pencil Format Digital Format Hand-score Q-global Scoring & Reporting Automatic Scoring & Reporting via Q-interactive We have heard many questions about the scoring options for WISC-V. Therefore, I want to take some time to review the options. If you choose the PnP version of the WISC-V, you may either hand score OR use Q-Global Scoring and reporting. More on Q-global in just a second. WISC-V on Q-interactive provides automated scoring and the basic score reporting as part of your administration of the tests. Therefore, you do not need to input raw or scaled scores into a separate scoiring engine following your administration of the WISC-V on Q-interactive. You, with the assistance of the system, assign raw scores during and following testing for each item, and then scaled scores, standard scores, percentiles, comparisons, etc. are generated automatically in the system. If you assign all raw scores for all items administered during a Q-I admionistration, then you will see the subtest scaled score as soon as you finish the subtest. This adds quite a bit of back-end time savings as you can go directly into the interpretation of the data.

Why Transition to WISC-V?
Coverage: Increased coverage of cognitive processes related to SLD Identification. Supports a processing strength and weakness analysis approach. Choice: Choice of traditional paper and pencil or digital format. The digital format recognizes the child as a digital native and provides a positive and enjoyable format. Linked: Statistically linked to the KTEA-3 and the WIAT-III, with combination scoring reports available. Structure: Presents a 5-factor structure. Training: Basic training included with the kit. Flexibility to begin testing to fit your schedule. Time: Decreased testing time to obtain FSIQ and primary index scores. Feedback: Briefer instructions, implementing developmentally appropriate language. While there are a number of improvements to the WISC-V, that’s a lot of information for 1 overview! So, in addition to the obvious fact that there new norms are being collected for the WISC-V, you might be want to hear - what are some of the top reasons to make the transition to the WISC-V? This list aside, as we began this revision of the WISC, there were a number of important goals that the team was trying to achieve. Although there typically are some standard revision goals that the development teams begin with, they also evaluate research in the field, critical reviews & customer feedback regarding the prior edition. Initial market research is also conducted to get a better sense of the key developments in environments in which the WISC is being used. Based on this work, they establish initial revision goals & form an Advisory Panel. Further research, including pilot and try-out help the teAm in further refining and addressing each revision goal. So, how are some of these goals realized in WISC-V? The design of the WISC-V is driven by cognitive neuroscience , structural models of intelligence, and working memory models. Content creation was influenced by current research in neurocognitive information processing models, and was guided by both clinical research and factorial data. Increase breadth of construct coverage by investigating and developing: visual spatial subtest fluid reasoning subtest visual working memory subtest subtests to measure additional processes related to learning (naming facility, associative memory) to measure additional cognitive processes relevant to learning disabilities link in joint software with WIAT-III and KTEA-3 Also offered together with the WISC-V Integrated for those customers Working memory is important to the measure of cognitive functioning related to fluid reasoning (Burgess & Braver, 2010; Hornung, 2011; Martinez et al., 2011) implicated in a wide variety of academic problems and clinical conditions affecting children and adolescents (e.g., Archibald & Gathercole, 2006a, 2007; Borella, Caretti, & Pellegrina, 2010; Hutchinson, Bavin, Efron, & Sciberras, 2012; Fitzpatrick & Pagini, 2012) The average admin time for the WISC-IV = 74 minutes; For WISC-V (as seen in standardization work so far) the average admin time for the FSIQ has been minutes. For the Primary index scores the average time has been minutes. However, final admin TIME will be evaluated Prior to final publication as the start points & discontinue rules and the number of final items are re-evaluated. the team really does listen when you say that you have concerns about the vocabulary level associated with the directions or question stems for some items - for example, the use of the word advantges on comp questions. Demonstrate, practice, and teach the task Replace outdated art and items with more current and relevant We recognize the importance of this goal given the high-stakes nature of these kinds of assessments – not only do you need a tool that you can trust, the children that you are evaluating, and their families deserve it. This is why we always look at how to improve the psychometric properties, and why these instruments are revised every 10 years or so. Think about the census data collected in 1980 vs Team has also begun collecting Demogr Questionnaire in stand – helps to evaluate any other sigificnat patterns related to exposure to English, educational experiences, etc. Revise special group studies based on use Drop ELD and RELD groups Try to add special group studies (always dependent on how cases come in) Disorder of Written Expression Nonverbal Learning Disability Five, factor-based Primary Index Scores Verbal Comprehension Index, Visual Spatial Index, Fluid Reasoning Index, Working Memory Index, Processing Speed Index Test structure Provide factor structure that simplifies interpretation (PRIVSI/FRI) Statistical linkage to the KT and WIAT (linking studies w n of 200 for each instrument) Hint, If you want to know more Click to link to the WISC-V webpage at the end of this session!

Why Transition to WISC-V?
A choice of traditional paper and pencil or digital format. Increased coverage of cognitive processes related to SLD Identification. Supports a processing strengths and weakness analysis approach. Statistically linked to the KTEA-3 and the WIAT-III, with combination scoring reports available! Presents a 5-Factor structure. Basic training included with the kit. Decreased testing time to obtain FSIQ and primary index scores. Briefer instructions, using developmentally appropriate language. While there are a number of improvements to the WISC-V, that’s a lot of information for 1 overview! So, in addition to the obvious fact that there new norms are being collected for the WISC-V, you might be want to hear - what are some of the top reasons to make the transition to the WISC-V? This list aside, as we began this revision of the WISC, there were a number of important goals that the team was trying to achieve. Although there typically are some standard revision goals that the development teams begin with, they also evaluate research in the field, critical reviews & customer feedback regarding the prior edition. Initial market research is also conducted to get a better sense of the key developments in environments in which the WISC is being used. Based on this work, they establish initial revision goals & form an Advisory Panel. Further research, including pilot and try-out help the teAm in further refining and addressing each revision goal. So, how are some of these goals realized in WISC-V? The design of the WISC-V is driven by cognitive neuroscience , structural models of intelligence, and working memory models. Content creation was influenced by current research in neurocognitive information processing models, and was guided by both clinical research and factorial data. Increase breadth of construct coverage by investigating and developing: visual spatial subtest fluid reasoning subtest visual working memory subtest subtests to measure additional processes related to learning (naming facility, associative memory) to measure additional cognitive processes relevant to learning disabilities link in joint software with WIAT-III and KTEA-3 Also offered together with the WISC-V Integrated for those customers Working memory is important to the measure of cognitive functioning related to fluid reasoning (Burgess & Braver, 2010; Hornung, 2011; Martinez et al., 2011) implicated in a wide variety of academic problems and clinical conditions affecting children and adolescents (e.g., Archibald & Gathercole, 2006a, 2007; Borella, Caretti, & Pellegrina, 2010; Hutchinson, Bavin, Efron, & Sciberras, 2012; Fitzpatrick & Pagini, 2012) The average admin time for the WISC-IV = 74 minutes; For WISC-V (as seen in standardization work so far) the average admin time for the FSIQ has been minutes. For the Primary index scores the average time has been minutes. However, final admin TIME will be evaluated Prior to final publication as the start points & discontinue rules and the number of final items are re-evaluated. the team really does listen when you say that you have concerns about the vocabulary level associated with the directions or question stems for some items - for example, the use of the word advantges on comp questions. Demonstrate, practice, and teach the task Replace outdated art and items with more current and relevant We recognize the importance of this goal given the high-stakes nature of these kinds of assessments – not only do you need a tool that you can trust, the children that you are evaluating, and their families deserve it. This is why we always look at how to improve the psychometric properties, and why these instruments are revised every 10 years or so. Think about the census data collected in 1980 vs Team has also begun collecting Demogr Questionnaire in stand – helps to evaluate any other sigificnat patterns related to exposure to English, educational experiences, etc. Revise special group studies based on use Drop ELD and RELD groups Try to add special group studies (always dependent on how cases come in) Disorder of Written Expression Nonverbal Learning Disability Five, factor-based Primary Index Scores Verbal Comprehension Index, Visual Spatial Index, Fluid Reasoning Index, Working Memory Index, Processing Speed Index Test structure Provide factor structure that simplifies interpretation (PRIVSI/FRI) Statistical linkage to the KT and WIAT (linking studies w n of 200 for each instrument) Hint, If you want to know more Click to link to the WISC-V webpage at the end of this session! Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Revision Goals – A summary
Development of the WISC-V: Revision Goals – A summary Although there typically are some standard revision goals that the development teams begin with How did the r&d team identify the primary goals for this revision? - were established through consideration of various contemporary structural models of intelligence and cognitive ability, neurodevelopmental and neurocognitive research, psychometric results, clinical utility, and the practical needs of clinicians and society. Sources of information included over 70 years of research with the Wechsler intelligence scales; advice from experts in the fields of child cognitive development and child clinical neuropsychology; practitioner and examiner surveys; and an extensive review of literature in the areas of intellectual and cognitive ability theory and research, cognitive neuroscience, intellectual assessment, and child cognitive development. Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

WISC-V Revision Goals Update theoretical foundations
Increase user friendliness Increase developmental appropriateness Improve psychometric properties Enhance clinical utility What do these revision goals really mean? Based on the preliminary work, they establish initial revision goals & form an Advisory Panel. The 5 major areas are shown here. Further research, including pilot and try-out help the teAm in further refining and addressing each revision goal. So, how are some of these goals realized in WISC-V? Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

1. Update Theoretical Foundations
Increase breadth of construct coverage by investigating and developing: visual spatial subtest fluid reasoning subtest visual working memory subtest subtests to measure additional processes related to learning (naming facility, associative memory) to measure additional cognitive processes relevant to learning disabilities In terms of updating the theoretical foundations of the measure, the team looked at research regarding Contemporary structural intelligence models (CHC-based research, for ex) Current, widely accepted structural intelligence models are based on comprehensive factor-analytic results. These studies provide overwhelming evidence for general intelligence at the top of a hierarchical model and for various related and distinguishable broad abilities at the level beneath. In some models, the specific abilities are each composed of various narrow abilities at the lowest level (Carroll, 1993, 2012; Horn & Blankson, 2012; Johnson et al., 2004; Johnson & Bouchard, 2005a, 2005b; Johnson et al., 2007; Salthouse, 2004). Although evidence from structural models does not identically converge, most indicate that verbal comprehension, visual spatial, fluid reasoning, working memory, and processing speed abilities are important components (Carroll, 1993, 2012; Horn & Blankson, 2012; Johnson et al., 2007; Salthouse, 2004). The Wechsler intelligence scales (Wechsler, 1991, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2012) have evolved in response, adding new measures of visual spatial ability, fluid reasoning, working memory, and processing speed. The WISC–V continues this work by providing new measures of visual spatial ability, fluid reasoning, and working memory; offering separate visual spatial and fluid reasoning composites; and improving upon the measure of verbal comprehension and processing speed while continuing to offer composite scores for each. Additionally, Neurodevelopmental and neurocognitive research (Lurian traditions, process approaches based on the work of Edith Kaplan, research pertaining to impacts of brain trauma on functioning/development – i.e., TBI ) Working memory models and research (Baddley’s work and others) Current Research links both general intelligence and specific cognitive abilities measured by the WISC-V to structural and functional aspects of brain development. We recognize that one of the areas in which the WISC is used frequently is in Clinical neuropsychological assessment. During these assessments, clinicians use cognitive testing to determine impairment or change after an injury or an illness, specifically in relation to particular brain structures or pathways. Several important cognitive constructs measured on the WISC-V may be utilized to generate hypotheses about neuropsychological processing deficits or interpreted from a neurodevelopmental perspective (Maricle & Avirett, 2012; McCloskey, Whitaker, Murphy, & Rogers, 2012; Miller & Maricle, 2012). Based on the rate of progress in the field of brain imaging, psychologists and educators alike should re-examine their current knowledge about intelligence to include relevant literature on the neural basis of intelligence (Haier & Jung, 2008). Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Importance of Clinical Neuropsych Assessment
Clinical neuropsychological assessment utilizes cognitive testing in an attempt to determine impairment or change after an injury or an illness, specifically in relation to particular brain structures or pathways. As you know – a useful component in generating hypotheses about neuropsychological processing deficits or interpreted from a neurodevelopmental perspective Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Importance of Working Memory
Working memory is important to the measure of cognitive functioning related to fluid reasoning (Burgess & Braver, 2010; Hornung, 2011; Martinez et al., 2011) implicated in a wide variety of academic problems and clinical conditions affecting children and adolescents (e.g., Archibald & Gathercole, 2006a, 2007; Borella, Caretti, & Pellegrina, 2010; Hutchinson, Bavin, Efron, & Sciberras, 2012; Fitzpatrick & Pagini, 2012) For example, we also know from current research more about the importance of WM to the learning process, Working memory is generally defined as the information that is held in mind and is necessary to simultaneously perform and correctly complete some type of cognitive task (Cowan & Alloway, 2009). Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

The WISC-V and the DSM-5 Nonverbal Index (NVI)
Clinical studies adhere to DSM-5 criteria changes Intellectual Disability Mild and Moderate Borderline Intellectual Functioning Specific Learning Disorder – Reading Specific Learning Disorder – Reading and Written Expression Specific Learning Disorder - Mathematics ADHD Autism Spectrum Disorder-With Language Impairment Autism Spectrum Disorder-Without Language Impairment Nonverbal Index (NVI) Some DSM-5 conditions: nonverbal measure of ability necessary to establish criteria ID established, language disorder under consideration Language impairment estab., ID being considered, cannot obtain valid VC subtest scores, need NVI Some DSM–5 conditions specify that in certain situations a nonverbal measure of ability is necessary in order to establish that a child’s symptoms meet diagnostic criteria: if a diagnosis of intellectual disability is already established and a comorbid diagnosis of language disorder is under consideration. if language impairment AND being considered for a diagnosis of intellectual disability, AND cannot obtain valid scores on the Verbal Comprehension subtests that contribute to the FSIQ, the Nonverbal Index is a useful alternative (Raiford & Coalson, 2014).

Theoretical Foundations
Numerous structural models of intelligence Wechsler considers various models (one of which is Cattell- Horn-Carroll [CHC]) Example: An expansion of Vernon’s hierarchical model produces superior CFA results in some studies (Johnson & Bouchard, 2005a; 2005b; Johnson, te Nijenhuis, & Bouchard, 2007) Wechsler model accounts for important aspects of cognitive ability that these models converge upon CHC theory is still evolving CHC theory does not account for important lessons we learn from working memory models (Multicomponent model, Baddeley, 2000, 2002, 2012; Embedded-processes model, Cowan, 1988; Towse & Cowan, 2005) Neurodevelopmental models Clinical utility (#1) Numerous structural models of intelligence, Wechsler considers various models, of which CHC is one Example: Numerous publications by Wendy Johnson’s group show more support for Vernon’s hierarchical theory (see chapter 2 in the Technical and Interpretive Manual) Wechsler model accounts for important aspects of cognitive ability that these models converge upon CHC theory is still evolving (Schneider & McGrew, 2012 CHC chapter in Contemporary Intellectual Assessment) CHC theory does not account for important lessons we learn from working memory models (chapter 2 Tech and Interp Manual) Baddeley’s multicomponent model Cowan’s embedded processes model Wechslers select subtests based upon clinical utility, not just theory Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

CHC Taxonomy, Index Scores
CHC Broad Ability (Narrow) VCI Gc VSI Gv FRI Gf WMI Gsm (MW, MS) PSI Gs QRI Gf (RQ), Gq AWMI NSI Glr (NA) STI Glr (MA) SRI Glr

Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI)
Primary Index Scores Headline placed here Text here… VCI VSI FRI WMI PSI Provide more targeted measures of various types of ability; Recommended as the primary level of interpretation PRI split into the VSI and the FRI: clearer communication of results to parents and teachers WMI: an important component of overall cognitive functioning as these skills support the capacity for information retrieval, reasoning, problem solving, and application of knowledge PSI: significant correlation between processing speed and cognitive ability and the sensitivity of processing speed measures to clinical conditions, such as ADHD, learning disorders, and autism spectrum disorders Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) Replaced

2. Increase Developmental Appropriateness
Instructions Reduce vocabulary level, verbosity ceiling items on Similarities “Advantages” and other high vocabulary level of items on Comprehension Demonstrate, practice, and teach the task Replace outdated art and items with more current and relevant particular, attention was given to the instructions and item phrasing, scoring criteria, and time-bonus points We really do listen when you say that you have concerns about the vocabulary level associated with the directions or question stems for some items - for example, (CLICK) the use of the word advantges on comp questions. Instructions were tested repeatedly with children aged 4:6–5:11 (younger than the youngest children in the WISC–V age range), as well as children with intellectual disabilities, to ensure children with developmental delays or low intellectual ability would understand task demands. During development, children were questioned about their strategies and responses to ensure that the instructions engaged the intended cognitive processes. Examiners were also surveyed about aspects of instructional clarity. verbatim instructions are succinct, and active demonstration and practice are used to supplement verbal instructions wherever possible because many children who are evaluated with the WISC–V have issues with attention and comprehension. During early pilot testing, instructions were checked for brevity, and several revisions were made. Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

2. Increase Developmental Appropriateness
Overemphasizing quick task completion may be especially problematic for younger children with neurodevelopmental conditions often associated with motor delay or distractibility. Furthermore, some cultures may emphasize the speed of performance to different degrees (Armour-Thomas & Gopaul-McNichol, 1997 ) While time limits are necessary for some subtests to create adequate ceilings and reduce frustration, , limiting the number of items with time bonus points reduces the possible confound of timed performance on those subtests that are not specifically designed to measure processing speed. So, on BD, for ex, the number of items w time bonus reduced Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

3. Increase User Friendliness
Reduce testing time 5 primary index scores: 65 minutes mean (10 minutes shorter than WISC-V mean) FSIQ: 48 minutes mean (27 minutes shorter than WISC-V mean) Shorter discontinue rules, fewer items, selecting subtests with briefer admin time to contribute to these scores FSIQ subtests does not include all Primary Index subtests Provide testing time for various percentages of normative sample by age and special group samples to complete each subtest Total of 3 stim books in pnp edition. Two Stimulus Books contain the stimuli associated with the core and supplemental subtests that are necessary to derive the primary index scores, FSIQ, and many of the ancillary index scores. The third Stimulus Book contains the stimuli associated with the ancillary subtests that are necessary to derive the NSI, STI, and SRI for special clinical purposes. Strove for improved durability of all materials While practitioners make the need for brief testing time clear (Camara, Nathan, & Puente, 2000), they also expect intellectual ability assessments to adequately measure a number of important cognitive ability domains. Thus, substantial efforts were made during the WISC–V development to achieve the briefest testing time possible AND also offer greater construct coverage and flexibility, and more composite scores. Briefer testing time accomplished by- shortening subtest instructions, the number of items administered is held to a minimum by reducing the overall number of items and modifying discontinue rules For example, the WISC–IV discontinue rule for Similarities was 5 consecutive scores of 0 but is reduced to 3 consecutive scores of 0 on the WISC–V. Refer to Chapter 3 of the Tech manual for more details about the empirical studies conducted to determine final discontinue rules. The average admin time for the WISC-IV = 74 minutes; For WISC-V (as seen in standardization work so far) the average admin time for the FSIQ has been minutes. For the Primary index scores the average time has been minutes. However, final admin TIME will be evaluated Prior to final publication as the start points & discontinue rules and the number of final items are re-evaluated. Provide testing time by age and by subtest Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

4. Improve Psychometric Properties
Items and scoring rules Norms and norming method Maintain or improve reliability Floors and ceilings Reevaluate item bias Iterative psychometric analyses Qualitative reviews by experts As noted, one of the goals is always how we can improve some of the psychometric properties of our scales. We recognize the importance of this goal given the high-stakes nature of these kinds of assessments – not only do you need a tool that you can trust, the children that you are evaluating, and their families deserve it. So, these are some of the examples of how we address this goal in the development of the WISC-V. WISC–V normative data were established using a sample collected from April 2013 to March Sample stratified on key demographic variables (i.e., age, sex, race/ethnicity, parent education level, and geographic region) according to the October 2012 U.S. census data Retest data are reported for all ages and for three separate age groups (6–7, 8–9, 10–11, 12–13, and 14–16). Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity is provided by correlational studies with the following instruments: WISC–IV, WPPSI–IV, WAIS–IV, Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children–Second Edition (KABC–II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a), Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA–3; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014); Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition (WIAT–III; Pearson, 2009), Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales–Second Edition (Vineland–II; Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005), and the parent rating scales from the Behavior Assessment System for Children–Second Edition (BASC–2 PRS; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). GT will have GRS Mild & Mod ID and BIF will have Vineland II RD, MD, WD, and NVLD will have WIAT-III ADHD Inattentive: Brown ADD NVLD, AUT, and ASP will have BASC-2 NVLD criteria: To be included, should be recruited from a site that serves this population To adequately measure this range of ability, items of both low and high difficulty were added to retained subtests as necessary. The improved subtest floors and ceilings allow for better discrimination among children performing at the extreme ranges of cognitive ability Contemporary methodologies for testing item bias were used for item selection. Problematic items were deleted on the basis of formal expert review of items and empirical data from statistical bias analyses. Experts in cross-cultural research and/or intelligence testing conducted formal reviews on four occasions. During the initial stages of development, all subtests and items were reviewed by internal and external reviewers for potential bias, cultural obsolescence, content relevance, and clinical utility. During the pilot stage, tryout stage, and standardization stage, content and bias experts reviewed the items and identified those that were potentially problematic. Along with these reviews, empirical data from bias analyses were used to assist in the item decision process. In order to ensure adequate sample sizes for bias analysis across racial/ethnic groups, an oversample of 54 African American and 54 Hispanic children was collected during the tryout stage. Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

New Descriptive Classifications
Composite Score Range WISC–V Descriptive Classification 130 and above Extremely High 120–129 Very High 110–119 High Average 90–109 Average 80–89 Low Average 70–79 Very Low 69 and below Extremely Low Changed due to concerns over term “borderline” what does it mean?

WISC-V TRAINING URLs (Password = GoW5)
Module 1: Verbal Comprehension Subtests Module 2: Fluid Reasoning Subtests Module 3: Visual Spatial Subtests Module 4: Working Memory Subtests

WISC-V-TRAINING URLs Module 5: Processing Speed Subtests
Module 6: WISC-V Complementary Subtests Module 7: Scoring and Basic Interpretation Module 8: WISC-V Technical Information Module 9: A Case Study (later release)

WISC-V- Q-I TRAINING URLs
Module 1: Administration of the WISC-V using Q-interactive – The basics Module 2: VCI Subtests on Q-i Module 3: FRI Subtests on Q-i Module 4: VSI Subtests on Q-i Module 5: WMI Subtests on Q-i

WISC-V- Q-I TRAINING URLs
Module 6: PSI Subtests on Q-i Module 7: WISC-V Complementary Subtests on Q-i Module 8: Generating Reports and Essential Steps to Interpretation Module 9: WISC-V on Q-interactive: Technical Information Module 9: A Case Study (later release)

4. Improve Psychometric Properties
Significance level options for critical values Increased statistical evidence of cultural fairness Collect home environment questionnaire and convey results Increase available information on impact of SES (e.g., urban vs. rural schools) options for critical values, which are used for conducting score comparisons, were expanded relative to the WISC–IV. The number of options was increased from two to four: The .01 and .10 levels are now available along with the .05 and .15 levels that appeared on the WISC–IV. The .01 level is a more stringent choice than the formerly most stringent .05 level. This change allows practitioners more flexibility as they seek to strike a balance between statistical power and potential Type I error when conducting difference comparisons. The significance level may be adjusted based on the number of difference comparisons to be made, and whether those comparisons are planned a priori or conducted post hoc. Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Choosing the Level of Significance
More stringent Less stringent . In general, a more stringent significance level should be selected if all pairwise comparisons are made, due to the increased chance of Type I error when making multiple, simultaneous score comparisons. Practitioners frequently ask what level of occurrence (i.e., base rate) should be considered rare—15%, 10%, 5%, or 1%? The application of more or less stringent criteria impacts the number of rare findings will be observed and the decision to use one cut-off versus another needs to take into consideration the impact of over-versus under-identifying cognitive strengths and weaknesses. . Sattler (2008a) suggests that differences between scores that occur in less than 15% of the normative sample should be judged as unusual.

5. Enhance Clinical Utility
Provide subtests to measure cognitive processes known to be clinically sensitive to learning disabilities to enhance pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approach to learning disability evaluation Rapid Naming Paired Associates (Verbal-Visual) Provide “PSW” link in joint software with WIAT-III and KTEA-3 Finally, a test can’t just be easy and psychometrically sound – it also has to provide you with useful information to help children, caregivers, and teachers. We recognize that many clinicians and states are beginning to see that RTI does not explain why a child does not respond to instruction, and want to do more to identify the strengths and needs of students. We believe that the updates to the WISC-V in this regard are extremely important in helping clinicians explain to parents and teachers why a child might experience difficulty learning. One of the things that we are most excited about is that for the first time ever, the WISC will be linked with the KTEA-3 (not just the WIAT). The correlational studies with both WIAT-III and KTEA-III will permit examination of discrepancies and patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) analysis with both measures! And, integrated scoring reports via Q-global (or Q-interactive if you are conducting digital administrations) will also be available for these measures. In addition to providing the traditional ability-achievement discrepancy analysis, data from the WISC–V/KTEA–3 and the WISC–V/WIAT–III linking studies may be used to examine the child’s pattern of strengths and weaknesses as part of an evaluation to identify specific learning disabilities. The addition of visual working memory enhances the scale’s clinical utility due to the domain-specific differential sensitivity of auditory and visual working memory tasks to a wide variety of clinical conditions. Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Enhance Clinical Utility (cont’d)
Test structure Provide factor structure that simplifies interpretation (PRI→VSI/FRI) Score differences comparison methodology Both index- and subtest-level: Strengths and weaknesses then pairwise Decisions about the scale structure are supported by neurodevelopmental and neurocognitive models and clinical utility. Notably, the availability of separate Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning scores results in greater interpretive clarity. Related to test structure, specifically, separating the Perceptual Reasoning area into Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning improves the process of interpretation . Remember that not all decisions made on the Wech scales are made based on factor analysis; some, like this goal of breaking out the factors of VSI and FRI are also made because of the clinical application of the instrument, for ex. In addition to the application of the 5 factor structure, we will also be providing you with improved methods of evaluating the differences between and among scores. like the WPPSI, the WISC-V will have the same score difference technologies. The intent of this is to help you in understanding the significance of differences seen in a student’s performance, and to interpret that difference to educators and parents in a meaningful way so that it informs instructional decision-making. Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

WISC-V Item security is of particular concern for intelligence test users because items that become publically available are more readily practiced or memorized. Some recent developments indicate that test content is considered public domain after various numbers of years have passed since publication (Demas & Brogdon, 1997). (We would not agree) Because of this, though, items are dropped/replaced after a period of time. all items that were published on the WISC (1949), WISC–R (1974), or WISC–III (1991) were replaced.) Test Structure

New 5 factor model Full Scale 5 Factor Model
Similarities Vocabulary Information 5 Factor Model Arithmetic on Fluid Reasoning, Crossloading on WM and VC Verbal Comprehension Comprehension Block Design Visual Spatial Visual Puzzles Matrix Reasoning Fluid Reasoning Full Scale Figure Weights Picture Concepts Arithmetic Working Memory Digit Span Similar to WPPSI-IV 2012 Picture Span Letter-Number Sq Processing Speed Coding Symbol Search Cancellation Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

WISC-V Framework

Test Structure – Full Scale IQ (7 subtests)
Note the 7 Primary Subtests that are used to calculate the FSIQ New terminology New Terminology blue = Primary (Core) italics = Secondary (Supplemental)

Test Structure – Primary Index Scales
The five primary index scores include the VCI, VSI, FRI, WMI, and PSI. They are factor-based and recommended for a comprehensive description and evaluation of intellectual ability. Key take-away: as you think about interpretation – 1 of the recommendations for clinical evaluations is that this is the primary level of interpretation

Test Structure Ancillary Index Scales (for clinical conditions)
Headline placed here Text here… QRI: closely related to general intelligence assists with more accurately predicting both reading and mathematics achievement scores, creativity, future academic success, success in gifted programs, professional examination performance, and future educational attainment. can help tailor instruction and intervention to a student’s strength may be of special interest if it is suspected that a child has a specific learning disability in mathematics, as quantitative reasoning may be a particular weakness and a pertinent target for intervention AWMI Purer measure of auditory working memory, relative to the WMI, provides somewhat different information. Many popular working memory models conceptualize domain-specific systems of working memory. multicomponent model domain-specific storage components appear to be distinct in children in the WISC–V age range, and show differential sensitivity to various clinical conditions NVI Measure of general intellectual ability that minimizes expressive language demands for children with special circumstances (e.g., English language learners, DHH) or clinical needs (e.g., autism spectrum disorders with language impairment) Some DSM–5 conditions specify that in certain situations a nonverbal measure of ability is necessary in order to establish that a child’s symptoms meet diagnostic criteria: if a diagnosis of intellectual disability is already established and a comorbid diagnosis of language disorder is under consideration. if language impairment AND being considered for a diagnosis of intellectual disability, AND cannot obtain valid scores on the Verbal Comprehension subtests that contribute to the FSIQ, the Nonverbal Index is a useful alternative (Raiford & Coalson, 2014). GAI Because WM and PS subtests contribute to the FSIQ, lower FSIQ scores may be obtained by children with neurodevelopmental disorders that are associated with difficulties in working memory and processing speed, such as learning disabilities, ADHD, language disorders, or autism spectrum disorders In these situations, the lower FSIQ score may mask meaningful differences between general cognitive ability (represented by the FSIQ) and other cognitive functions (e.g., achievement and memory). The GAI provides the practitioner with an estimate of general intellectual ability that, relative to the FSIQ, is less sensitive to the influence of working memory and processing speed difficulties because it excludes those subtests. Some have advocated use of the GAI in placement decisions for gifted and talented or similar programs; NAGC position paper recommends use of the GAI in gifted evaluations. CPI estimate of efficiency with which information is processed in the service of learning, problem solving, and higher order reasoning. Working memory and processing speed are related in that working memory involves identification, registration, and manipulation of information in short-term memory storage, and processing speed relates to rapid identification and registration of information in short-term memory for decision making. The CPI is most informative together with its counterpart, the GAI. QRI AWMI NVI GAI CPI

Quantitative Reasoning Index (QRI)
Measures ability to perform mental math operations and understand quantitative relationships may be of special interest if child is suspected of having a specific learning disability in mathematics Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Auditory Working Memory Index (AWMI)
Ability to register, maintain and manipulate information presented verbally Purer measure of auditory working memory relative to the WMI domain-specific storage components may be related to various clinical conditions ADHD, Autism with language impairments AWMI is the same as WISC-IV WMI except we now have a greater demand on sequencing - DS Seq added to WISCV Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Nonverbal Index (NVI) Not language free Measure of general intellectual ability that minimizes expressive language demands Use with ELL, DHH, ASD w/ language impairment When DSM–5 requires nonverbal measure of ability to meet diagnostic criteria: -if a diagnosis of ID is established and a comorbid diagnosis of language disorder is being considered -if child is language impaired AND being considered for a diagnosis of ID, AND you cannot obtain valid scores on the VCI to get an FSIQ, use Nonverbal Index alternative (Raiford & Coalson, 2014) High NVI scores indicate well-developed general intellectual functioning for visually presented stimuli. Low NVI scores may occur for many reasons including slow processing speed, low working memory, low abstract and conceptual reasoning abilities, low spatial reasoning, or general low intellectual ability. Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

General Ability Index (GAI)
Estimate of general intellectual ability that excludes working memory and processing speed subtests Why GAI? Lower FSIQ score may mask meaningful differences between general cognitive ability (represented by FSIQ) and other cognitive functions (e.g., achievement, memory) Evaluate GAI scores vs FSIQ when testing children suspected of neurodevelopmental disorders- ADHD, language disorders, ASD NAGC position paper recommends use of the GAI in gifted evaluations Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI)
Estimate of efficiency with which information is processed in the service of learning and reasoning Comprised of WM and PS tasks- Working memory and processing speed are related in that working memory involves identification, registration, and manipulation of information in short-term memory, and processing speed relates to how quickly you can register that information into STM. Low CPI seen w/LD Both the clerical component of tending to tasks and also the mental manipulation of information – but not to the deep level needed as we see on the GAI which includes more reasoning and problem solving tasks Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Test Structure- Complementary Index Scales
(RAN and associative learning with a delayed memory component) Headline placed here Text here… Complementary index scores of particular interest to those using cross-battery approaches NSI broad estimate of automaticity of basic naming ability drawn from a variety of tasks developed to enhance the assessment of children with suspected learning disabilities not designed as measures of intellectual functioning closely associated with reading and spelling skill development, with reading achievement, and with a number of variables related to reading and spelling, and have shown sensitivity to specific reading disability in reading associated with mathematics skills and achievement, and show sensitivity to specific learning disability in mathematics sensitive to a wide variety of other neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD, language disorders, autism spectrum disorders STI broad estimate of visual-verbal associative memory drawn from a variety of conditions. reading decoding skills, word reading accuracy and fluency, text reading, and reading comprehension sensitive to dyslexia related to math calculation skills and math reasoning developed to enhance the assessment of individuals suspected of having learning problems or declarative memory impairment. not developed as measures of intellectual ability SRI based on the sum of standard scores for the NSI and the STI. broad estimate of long-term storage and retrieval accuracy and fluency derived from a variety of tasks designed to assess cognitive processes that are associated with reading, mathematics, and writing skills, and have shown sensitivity to specific learning disabilities and other clinical conditions. Long-term storage and retrieval, as a broad construct, is related to reading math and writing skills NSI STI SRI M=100; SD=15

Naming Speed Index (NSI) Literacy & Quantity
estimate of automaticity of basic naming ability developed to enhance the assessment of children with suspected learning disabilities closely associated with reading and spelling skill development, and has shown sensitivity to reading disabilities Closely associated with math skill development, and has show sensitivity to math disabilities Also sensitive to other neurodevelopmental conditions - ADHD, language disorders, ASD not developed as a measure of intellectual ability Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Symbol Translation Index (STI) Immediate, Delayed, Recognition
broad estimate of visual-verbal associative memory Skill is related to reading decoding, word reading accuracy and fluency, text reading, and reading comprehension related to math calculation and math reasoning developed to enhance the assessment of individuals suspected of having learning problems or declarative memory impairment. sensitive to dyslexia not developed as a measure of intellectual ability Measure of the cognitive processes related to academic learning Similar to Rebus subtest of the KABC-II (has a .74 correlation with IST) Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Storage and Retrieval Index (SRI) (based on the sum of standard scores for the NSI and the STI)
broad estimate of long-term storage and retrieval accuracy and fluency derived from a variety of tasks that assess cognitive processes associated with reading, mathematics, and writing Long-term storage and retrieval is related to reading, math and writing disabilities Sensitive to LD, ADHD, ASD Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Complementary Scales NSI & STI
Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

WISC-V Framework 7 3 2 5

Technical Properties Normative Sample Reliability Validity
Clinical Studies

WISC-V Normative Sample
Total n = 2,200 11 age groups n = 200 per group Nationally Stratified Sample Race/Ethnicity; PEL Geographic Region Age; Sex Normative information is based on a national sample collected from April 2013 through March 2014 that is representative of the U.S. English-speaking population of children aged 6:0–16:11. A stratified sampling plan ensured that the normative sample included representative proportions of children according to selected demographic variables. An analysis of data gathered in 2012 by the U.S. Bureau of the Census provided the basis for stratification along the following variables within each age group: sex, race/ethnicity, parent education level, and geographic region. The following paragraphs present the characteristics of the normative sample. The normative sample included 2,200 children divided into 11 age groups: 6:0–6:11, 7:0–7:11, 8:0–8:11, 9:0–9:11, 10:0–10:11, 11:0–11:11, 12:0–12:11, 13:0–13:11, 14:0–14:11, 15:0–15:11, and 16:0–16:11. Each age group was composed of 200 participants.

WISC-V Normative Sample and US Population
Tables 3.2–3.5 present detailed demographic information for the normative sample and the U.S. population according to age group, sex, race/ethnicity, parent education level, and geographic region. These data indicate a close correspondence between the normative sample and the 2012 U.S. census proportions. Figure 3.2 provides demographic characteristics of the normative sample compared to the U.S. population.

WISC-V Normative Sample and Special Education Population
Percentages of Normative Sample and U.S. Population by Special Education Classification Special Education Classification Normative Sample U.S. Population Developmental Delay 0.6 0.7 Intellectual Disability 1.6 0.9 Specific Learning Disability 1.7 4.9 Speech/Language Impairment 1.5 2.9 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 1.1 5.0 Gifted and Talented 6.7 Representativeness of Children from Various Special Education Classifications A representative proportion of children from various special education classifications was added to the normative sample to reflect the U.S. population as a whole. Approximately 8%–10% of the WISC–V normative sample in each age group includes children from the classifications shown in Table 3.6. With the exception of intellectual disability, the WISC–V percentages for a particular classification are somewhat lower than those found in the census data because a review of the data indicated that some children in the normative sample performed similarly to children from these classifications. National statistics on epidemiology of these classifications differs by source. For example, 6.7% of school children are classified as gifted and talented (Snyder & Dillow, 2012). However, gifted program identification criteria varies across school districts, with some programs admitting children with high academic achievement scores or other talents rather than limiting the program to children with intellectual giftedness. Hence, 6.7% is greater than the percentage of children with intellectual giftedness that should be included in the normative sample. In the WISC–V normative sample, some of the age groups contain children that were not identified as gifted yet performed similarly to children with intellectual giftedness (i.e., FSIQ ≥ 130). Therefore, to prevent oversampling of children with high ability, no more than 2% of each age group in the normative sample includes children with intellectual giftedness, the theoretical base rate for intellectual giftedness. Note. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth Edition reports the rate of current ADHD diagnoses as 5%; however, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Center for Health Statistics (Synder & Dillow, 2012) reports the ADHD lifetime prevalence among children is 9.5%. Because children in the standardization samples were classified as ADHD based upon current diagnoses rather than lifetime prevalence, 5% is reported as the U.S. population percentage.

Internal Consistency- Ch 4
Average Reliability Coefficient Composite Overall Average (rxxa) VCI .92 VSI FRI .93 WMI PSI .88 FSIQ .96 QRI .95 AWMI NVI GAI CPI Tables 3.2–3.5 present detailed demographic information for the normative sample and the U.S. population according to age group, sex, race/ethnicity, parent education level, and geographic region. These data indicate a close correspondence between the normative sample and the 2012 U.S. census proportions. Figure 3.2 provides demographic characteristics of the normative sample compared to the U.S. population.

Average Reliability Coefficient Overall Average (rxxa)
Internal Consistency Average Reliability Coefficient Composite Overall Average (rxxa) NSI .90 STI .94 SRI Tables 3.2–3.5 present detailed demographic information for the normative sample and the U.S. population according to age group, sex, race/ethnicity, parent education level, and geographic region. These data indicate a close correspondence between the normative sample and the 2012 U.S. census proportions. Figure 3.2 provides demographic characteristics of the normative sample compared to the U.S. population.

Evidence of Test-Retest Stability – Composite Scores
First Testing Second Testing Standard Difference VCI 98.5 101.6 .24 VSI 98.6 105.3 .45 FRI 98.7 103.6 .37 WMI 100.9 .17 PSI 100.3 108.2 .52 FSIQ 98.3 104.3 .44 QRI 99.2 102.4 AWMI .16 NVI 105.5 .50 GAI 98.0 .41 CPI 99.3 .43 The evidence of test-retest stability for subtest, process, composite, and complementary scores was obtained by administering the WISC–V twice, with test-retest intervals ranging from 9–82 days, and a mean interval of 26 days. Table 4.6 presents the demographic characteristics of the test-retest stability sample and the interscorer agreement reliability study, which is presented later in this chapter. The mean age of the sample is presented, followed by sex, race/ethnicity, parent education level, and geographic region data reported as percentages. 9-82 days; mean interval 26 days

Evidence of Test-Retest Stability – Composite Scores (Complementary)
First Testing Second Testing Standard Difference NSL 98.3 101.5 .20 NSco 93.9 91.1 -.19 NSsco 96.2 100.8 .28 NSln 98.7 102.7 .27 NSQ 99.7 100.5 .05 IST 97.6 106.3 .58 DST 98.0 106.9 .62 RST 98.9 104.4 .39 NSI 101.0 .14 STI 97.7 106.5 SRI 98.1 104.9 .43 The evidence of test-retest stability for subtest, process, composite, and complementary scores was obtained by administering the WISC–V twice, with test-retest intervals ranging from 9–82 days, and a mean interval of 26 days. Table 4.6 presents the demographic characteristics of the test-retest stability sample and the interscorer agreement reliability study, which is presented later in this chapter. The mean age of the sample is presented, followed by sex, race/ethnicity, parent education level, and geographic region data reported as percentages.

Evidence of Validity: Criterion
Ability WISC–IV WPPSI–IV WAIS–IV KABC–II Achievement KTEA–3 WIAT–III Adaptive Behavior Vineland–II Behavior BASC–2 Parent Rating Scales 7 years 9 months 12 days

Correlations With WISC-IV
Composite WISC-V Mean WISC-IV Mean Correlation VCI 102.7 104.3 .85 VSI-PRI 102.8 107.3 .66 FRI-PRI .63 WMI 101.7 103.0 .65 PSI 103.7 102.3 .71 FSIQ 104.4 106.0 .86 AWMI-WMI 102.5 103.1 .76 GAI 104.0 106.9 CPI 103.2 103.3 .73 The WISC–V and the WISC–IV were administered to 242 children aged 6–16, in counter-balanced order, with a testing interval of 7–65 days and a mean interval of 23 days. Table 5.6 presents the means, SDs, uncorrected and corrected correlations, and standard differences of subtest, process, and composite scores. The mean WISC–V primary index scores and FSIQ are in the average range. Standard differences are small for the VSI–PRI, FRI–PRI, and GAI mean score comparisons and are negligible for the other primary index comparisons. Four of the index score means are lower on the WISC–V than on the WISC–IV, consistent with the Flynn effect; the exception is PSI. At the subtest level, standard differences exceeding .20 are found for Similarities, Coding, and Cancellation. The mean composite score differences between the WISC–IV and WISC–V Full Scale, VCI, and FRI scales are of the approximate magnitude expected from the Flynn effect (Flynn, 2007). When expressed as the increase in score points per decade, the differences for FSIQ, VCI, and FRI are 1.6, 1.6, and 3.0, respectively. These differences are close to those reported in a meta-analysis of recent findings from studies in the Americas: fullscale, 1.3; crystallized, 1.4; and fluid, 3.0 (Pietschnig & Voracek, 2013). The corrected correlation coefficients between corresponding primary index scores on the two instruments are high for all primary indexes, and for FSIQ. The VCI correlation is commensurate with the correlation between the WISC–IV VCI and WISC–III VCI (.88) reported for the last revision (Wechsler, 2003). The correlations of the WISC–V FRI and VSI with the WISC–IV PRI are somewhat lower than the correlation between the WISC–IV PRI and the WISC–III POI (.72), reflecting the differentiated nature of the two new WISC–V scales. Each of these WISC–V index scores has only one subtest in common with the 3-subtest PRI of the WISC–IV. SIQ FSIQ= 1.6; FRI= 3 n=242; ages 6-16

Correlations With WPPSI-IV (2012)
Composite WISC-V Mean WPPSI-IV Mean VCI 102.7 104.7 VSI-PRI 103.2 104.5 FRI-PRI 104.2 106.6 WMI 102.9 103.9 PSI 102.5 103.6 FSIQ 103.8 104.9 AWMI-WMI 102.0 NVI 103.7 GAI 104.1 105.9 CPI 103.1 104.3 .83 FSIQ The WPPSI–IV and the WISC–V were administered to 105 children, aged 6:0–7:7 in counter-balanced order, with a testing interval of 7–57 days and a mean testing interval of 22 days. Table 5.7 presents the means, SDs, uncorrected and corrected correlations, and standard differences of subtest, process, and composite scores. n = 105; ages 6:0-7:7

Correlations With WAIS-IV
Composite WISC-V Mean WAIS-IV Mean VCI 102.2 103.2 VSI-PRI 102.7 101.6 FRI-PRI WMI 100.4 PSI 104.6 102.0 FSIQ 102.3 AWMI-WMI 102.9 GAI 102.4 CPI 104.5 101.5 .89 FSIQ The WISC–V and the WAIS–IV were administered to 112 children, aged 16, in counterbalanced order, with a testing interval of 12–67 days and a mean testing interval of 21 days. Table 5.8 presents the means, SDs, uncorrected and corrected correlations, and standard differences of the subtest, process, and composite scores. n = 112; age 16

16 year old….WISC or WAIS? Below average or clinical dx = WISC
Above average = WAIS Average- clinical judgment Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Correlations With WIAT-III
WISC-V Composite Oral Lang. Basic Read. Read. Comp. & Fluency Written Exp. Math Math Fluency Total Achieve-ment VCI .78 .53 .65 .60 .36 .74 VSI .44 .24 .30 .39 .28 .46 FRI .33 .25 .45 .31 .40 WMI .56 .54 .47 .63 PSI .22 .19 .41 .51 .34 FSIQ .61 .68 .71 .58 .81 The WIAT–III is an individually administered diagnostic achievement test designed for students in grades prekindergarten though 12 and adults, or ages 4:0–50:11. It includes 16 subtests designed to measure listening, speaking, reading, writing, and mathematics skills. Prior results with the WIAT–III (Pearson, 2009) indicated that among the WISC–IV composites, the FSIQ correlated highly with the WIAT–III Total Achievement composite, with moderate to high correlations with all other composites. With the exception of the Mathematics and Math Fluency composites, the WIAT–III composites shared higher correlations with the WISC–IV VCI than the PRI. The WISC–V and the WIAT–III were administered to 211 children, aged 6–16, with a testing interval of 0–59 days and a mean testing interval of 16 days. Tables 5.13 and 5.14 present the means, SDs, and corrected correlations for the WISC–V and WIAT–III subtest and composite scores. 66% shared variance n = 211; age 6-16

KTEA-3 NSI. 51 w/Academic Fluency STI. 54 w/Sound-Symbol FSIQ
KTEA-3 NSI .51 w/Academic Fluency STI .54 w/Sound-Symbol FSIQ .82 w/overall ASB score Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Clinical validity studies
Intellectually Gifted Intellectual Disability-Mild Severity Intellectual Disability-Moderate Severity Borderline Intellectual Functioning Specific Learning Disorders Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder Disruptive Behavior Traumatic Brain Injury English Language Learners Autism Spectrum Disorder Tables 3.2–3.5 present detailed demographic information for the normative sample and the U.S. population according to age group, sex, race/ethnicity, parent education level, and geographic region. These data indicate a close correspondence between the normative sample and the 2012 U.S. census proportions. Figure 3.2 provides demographic characteristics of the normative sample compared to the U.S. population.

Intellectually Gifted
Composite Clinical Mean Control Mean Mean Diff. p value Std. Diff. VCI 127.7 105.8 -21.97 <.01 -1.74 VSI 121.2 105.2 -15.98 -1.35 FRI 120.3 105.1 -15.26 -1.26 WMI 117.9 104.0 -13.86 -1.16 PSI 112.9 100.4 -12.44 -.92 FSIQ 127.5 105.7 -21.85 -2.05 QRI 122.1 104.1 -18.04 -1.55 AWMI 123.0 105.9 -17.13 -1.32 NVI 122.9 104.6 -18.28 -1.64 GAI 127.1 106.3 -20.83 -1.88 CPI 118.8 102.1 -16.73 -1.43 The WISC–V was administered to 95 children, aged 6–16, who were identified as intellectually gifted. In order to qualify for this study, participants were required to have an existing full scale score on a standardized individually administered measure of cognitive ability that was at least 2 SDs above the mean, and be receiving services for intellectual giftedness in school. Tables 5.20 and 5.21 present the mean subtest, process, and composite scores for the Intellectually Gifted and matched control groups. n = 95; ages 6-16

Intellectual Disability – Mild
Composite Clinical Mean Control Mean Mean Diff. p value Std. Diff. VCI 66.0 96.1 30.14 <.01 2.16 VSI 101.1 35.14 2.82 FRI 67.0 99.3 32.34 2.35 WMI 65.1 98.7 33.60 2.64 PSI 71.6 97.3 25.78 1.87 FSIQ 60.9 98.0 37.07 2.92 QRI 64.2 98.1 33.86 2.67 AWMI 62.2 99.2 36.96 2.91 NVI 62.1 99.5 37.40 3.02 GAI 63.5 97.9 34.46 2.71 CPI 63.4 97.6 34.19 2.66 The WISC–V was administered to 111 non-institutionalized children, aged 6–16, who were diagnosed with intellectual disability. The group included 74 participants with mild ID, and 37 with moderate ID. The children had existing scores on standardized measures of cognitive ability that were 2–4 SDs below the mean (e.g., IQ = 40–70) or met DSM–5 criteria for a current diagnosis of intellectual disability-mild or moderate severity. Tables 5.22–5.25 present the mean subtest, process, and composite scores for children with intellectual disability at both levels of severity and for their corresponding matched control groups. n = 74; ages 6-16

Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Composite Clinical Mean Control Mean Mean Diff. p value Std. Diff. VCI 97.8 102.7 -21.97 .05 .40 VSI 97.3 101.5 -15.98 .14 .28 FRI 97.6 102.6 -15.26 .06 .38 WMI 94.8 101.7 -13.86 <.01 .54 PSI 94.2 99.9 -12.44 .03 .43 FSIQ 95.6 102.2 -21.85 .61 QRI 103.1 -18.04 .62 AWMI 95.2 101.4 -17.13 .50 NVI 94.4 -18.28 .57 GAI 97.1 102.3 -20.83 CPI 92.8 100.8 -16.73 .65 The WISC–V was administered to 48 children, aged 6–16, identified as having ADHD according to DSM–5 diagnostic criteria and clinically significant parent ratings on the Brown Attention-Deficit Disorder Scales for Children and Adolescents (Brown, 2001). All subtypes (i.e., inattentive, hyperactive, and combined) of ADHD were included. Children in the ADHD group were required to undergo a minimum 24-hour period without psychostimulant medications prior to testing. They also had to produce an existing general cognitive ability score (e.g., FSIQ) of ≥80 on a standardized, individually administered measure of intellectual ability or documentation of an estimated general cognitive ability score of ≥80. Tables 5.34 and 5.35 present the mean subtest, process, and composite scores for the ADHD and matched control groups. n = 48; ages 6-16 All subtypes (inattentive, hyperactive, combined) included; minimum 24-hours without psychostimulant meds

Autism Spectrum Disorder w/language impairment
Composite Clinical Mean Control Mean Mean Diff. p value Std. Diff. VCI 80.4 104.1 23.68 <.01 1.47 VSI 82.8 104.4 21.62 1.18 FRI 84.3 101.6 17.30 .98 WMI 77.6 26.47 1.57 PSI 75.8 96.9 21.12 1.24 FSIQ 76.3 102.1 25.82 1.52 QRI 78.9 102.5 23.67 1.35 AWMI 72.3 102.4 30.14 1.70 NVI 79.9 102.8 22.86 1.33 GAI 81.8 102.9 21.18 1.28 CPI 74.4 100.0 25.62 1.59 Consistent with the literature- difficulty with Processing speed and working memory areas- better with nonverbal reasoning and object relations. The WISC–V was administered to 30 children, aged 6–16, diagnosed with ASD-L, according to DSM–5 criteria. Children were excluded from this study if they had existing general cognitive ability scores more than 2.67 SDs below the mean (e.g., FSIQ < 60) or if they did not have adequate communication skills to complete testing. The overrepresentation of males in the sample reflects the combined effects of a higher prevalence rate for ASD-L in males than females and the greater prevalence of intellectual disability in females with Autistic Disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Tables 5.42 and 5.43 present the mean subtest, process, and composite scores for the ASD-L and matched control groups. n = 30

Learning Disabled- Reading
Working Memory, naming speed, storage and retrieval issues The WISC–V was administered to 30 children, aged 6–16, diagnosed with ASD-L, according to DSM–5 criteria. Children were excluded from this study if they had existing general cognitive ability scores more than 2.67 SDs below the mean (e.g., FSIQ < 60) or if they did not have adequate communication skills to complete testing. The overrepresentation of males in the sample reflects the combined effects of a higher prevalence rate for ASD-L in males than females and the greater prevalence of intellectual disability in females with Autistic Disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Tables 5.42 and 5.43 present the mean subtest, process, and composite scores for the ASD-L and matched control groups.

WISC-V and SLD Identification Subtest and Index Relationship with Academic Achievement

Word Reading and Non-Word Reading
Indexes: VCI and AWMI Subtest DS VC (IN, CO) Complementary Measures Delayed Symbol Translation Naming Speed Literacy Pseudoword Decoding Indexes: VCI, WMI, NSI

Reading Comprehension and Fluency
Indexes: VCI, FRI and AWMI Subtest SI, VC (CO), MR (AR) Complementary Measures Delayed Symbol Translation Oral Reading Fluency Indexes: VCI, NSI, AWMI Subtest VC, CD, DS (LNS), SI Naming Speed Literacy

Reading Indexes Basic Reading Indexes: VCI, AWMI, WMI, NSI
Subtest VC (IN), DS, AR Complementary Measures Naming Speed Literacy Total Reading Indexes: VCI, AWMI, SRI Subtest DS, SI, VC (CO, IN), AR Delayed Symbol Translation

Math Calculation and Problem Solving
Numerical Operations Indexes: QRI,PSI, AWMI, VCI Subtest SI, CD, DS (AR), FW (AR) Complementary Measures Naming Speed Quantity (CD) Math Problem Solving Indexes: QRI, AWMI, VSI Subtest DS, FW, CD (AR),BD, VC (AR) Delayed Symbol Translation

Math Fluency and Total Math Fluency Indexes: QRI, PSI, AWMI, NSI
Subtests: CD, DS (AR), FW (AR) Complimentary Naming Speed Literacy Naming Speed Quantity Total Math Indexes: VCI, FRI, and AWMI Subtests: DS, CD, FW, SI, AR Delayed Symbol Translation

General Administration and Scoring Rules
We will start off with a quick overview

Standard Subtest Administration Order
Alternating indices Maintain interest FSIQ 1st Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Substitution and proration

Is the only score where substitution is permitted
FSIQ Is the only score where substitution is permitted Not on the Primary Index Score calculation

FSIQ – allowable substitutions
Subtest substitution is not permitted for any primary OR ancillary index scores. Only FSIQ Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Can EITHER prorate FSIQ with 6 subtests OR can Substitute 1 subtest.
Warning - reminder Can EITHER prorate FSIQ with 6 subtests OR can Substitute 1 subtest. CANNOT DO BOTH! Can EITHER prorate FSIQ with 6 subtests OR can SUB 1 subtest. CANNOT DO BOTH! Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Maximum Number of Subtests with Raw Scores of 0
Permitted: FSIQ = FOUR out of SEVEN (if prorated to 6, then only 3) Primary Index Scales = 1 out of 2 Ancillary Index Scales (QRI, AWMI) = 1 out of 2 NVI = 3 out of 6 GAI = 3 out of 5 Otherwise, invalidated. For the NSI, if either the NSL or NSQ are missing, you are not able to calculate this index. Also the SRI may not be calculated if the NSI or STI is missing (derived from the sum of the NSI standard scores and the STI stand score) CPI = 2 out of 4 STI = 2 out of 3 If NSI or STI is missing do not compute SRI

WISC-V Retained Subtests with Revisions
Item security is of particular concern for intelligence test users because items that become publically available are more readily practiced or memorized. Some recent developments indicate that test content is considered public domain after various numbers of years have passed since publication (Demas & Brogdon, 1997). (We would not agree) Because of this, though, items are dropped/replaced after a period of time. all items that were published on the WISC (1949), WISC–R (1974), or WISC–III (1991) were replaced.)

Dropped WISC–IV Subtests
Word Reasoning Redundant measure of verbal comprehension (high correlation with Information) Picture Completion Construct not as representative of visual spatial ability as others (secondary verbal loading) And we needed the space for new subtests…

*all items and item images are fake to protect the innocent
Changes to Retained Verbal Comprehension Subtests Similarities Vocabulary Information Comprehension Revised scoring rules with data-based queries Reviewed vocabulary level (no more “advantages”) New, contemporary item content Updated art with increased international portability *“Why do people use passwords?” Hobbit Scientist-Detective Passwords Candy in schools *all items and item images are fake to protect the innocent Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

WISC-V NEW SUBTESTS Item security is of particular concern for intelligence test users because items that become publically available are more readily practiced or memorized. Some recent developments indicate that test content is considered public domain after various numbers of years have passed since publication (Demas & Brogdon, 1997). (We would not agree) Because of this, though, items are dropped/replaced after a period of time. all items that were published on the WISC (1949), WISC–R (1974), or WISC–III (1991) were replaced.)

New Subtests to Extend Content Coverage and Clinical Utility
Visual Puzzles: Visual Spatial ability; Allows separation of WISC–IV Perceptual Reasoning Index into Visual Spatial Index and Fluid Reasoning Index Figure Weights: Quantitative fluid reasoning Picture Span: Visual working memory Naming Speed Literacy Naming Speed QuantityExpands Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) analysis for specific learning disability (SLD) identification or to provide further information about rapid automatized naming if the need is present Immediate Symbol Translation Delayed Symbol Translation Recognition Symbol TranslationExpands PSW analysis for SLD identification or to provide further information about paired associate learning (visual-verbal associative memory) if the need is present Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

New Subtests Visual Spatial Index Fluid Reasoning Index
Working Memory Index Complementary Subtests Visual Puzzles Figure Weights Picture Span Digit Span Sequencing added to Digit Span Naming Speed Literacy Naming Speed Quantity Immediate Symbol Translation Delayed Symbol Translation Recognition Symbol Translation Visual Puzzles and Figure Weights adapted from WAIS4 Picture Span, a visual simple span task; provides visual working memory measure Digit Span Sequencing adapted from WAIS4 Optional Ancillary Subtests Symbol Translation and Naming Speed , added for construct coverage of cognitive processes important to learning and learning disability assessment

Matrix Reasoning Administration and Scoring
Shortened and simplified discontinue Instructions slightly briefer Most frequent admin error?: ______________ Most frequent scoring error?: _______________ most frequent admin error: enforcement of strict 30 second time limit most frequent scoring error: not recording the selected response Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Figure Weights Scoring
changing time limit reminder after item 18 Time limit varies across subtest (change at item 19) If starting at sample A, remember to admin sample B after items 1-3 and give instruction don’t administer SA if you start at item 4 (ages 9-16) and reverse give verbatim at item 27 where it switches to 3 scales Common error alert! circle response Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Picture Concepts Administration and Scoring
Common error alert! circle responses for later analysis Process observation: return to missed items and ask for rationale most frequent admin errors: forgetting to ask for a response in all rows strict enforcement of 30 second guideline as a time limit Picture Concepts lore: “Alternate responses penalize GT and creative children” Most frequent admin errors?: _________________ Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Arithmetic Administration and Scoring
Cannot repeat: 1-20 (child is told explicitly) Can repeat: (child is told explicitly) Questions longer, second half Pause timing if repeating Process observation ideas... Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Digit Span Administration
Most frequent admin error: reading wrong speed or different tone/inflection across digits 1 digit per second Don’t chunk Consistent tone, drop tone last digit read Second most frequent admin error? Why can’t I do that? Third most frequent admin error? What if child interrupts me while I’m reading numbers? Digits may occur more than once per trial: one item on Forward, multiple trials on Sequencing What if child fails the Sequencing qualifying item? Reading wrong speed or different tones Only administering the first trial of each item...can’t do this because trials are not of equal difficulty skipping one of the tasks...can’t do this because parts are not of equal difficulty and not measuring exactly the same cognitive process if child fails seq qualifying item, subtest score is missing/invalid. Same goes for Letter-Number Seq. ONLY on subtests with QUALIFYING items. Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Digit Span Scoring Record response verbatim
process scores for each part longest span and sequence scores for each part Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Picture Span Administration
Child views one or more pictures, then selects them in sequential order from a larger picture array Two points for correct pictures in the correct order and one point for correct pictures in the incorrect order Simple visual span task with proactive interference Research indicates proactive interference increases processing demands of working memory tasks (Blalock & McCabe, 2011; Carroll, et al., 2010) Admin Tips Remember to: Stimulus Page Admin tips: remember to time exposure turn the page IMMEDIATELY after exposure time Response page: watch carefully the order for items that require multiple selections; record without looking at RF (watch examinee) Response Page “Point to the pictures in the order I showed you.” Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Distinguishing between
Most common scoring error? Picture Span Scoring Record Verbatim Responses B D C change in max point value changing exposure time reminder Teaching Items Most common scoring error: not recording verbatim responses so you can’t distinguish between 1 and 2 points or do any process analysis of the error Distinguishing between 1 and 2 points Longest Span Scores Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Letter-Number Sequencing Administration
Teaching change: teach to order numbers before letters first then when multiple letters/numbers introduced, teach to sequence Most frequent admin error? 1 number or letter per second Don’t chunk Consistent tone, drop tone last character read Second most frequent admin error? Why can’t I do that? What if child interrupts me while I’m reading numbers? No rhyming characters on a single trial for improved error interpretation Pop Quiz: Which letters and numbers do not appear on WISC-V Letter-Number Sequencing? What if child fails either qualifying item? most frequent: Reading wrong tone second most frequent: Only administering the first trial of each item...can’t do this because trials are not of equal difficulty if 6-7 year old child fails either qualifying item, subtest score is missing/invalid. Letters/numbers that don’t appear: The number zero (0) and the letter O are not included in any trial to avoid possible confusion. The letters I and L are not included in any trial to avoid possible confusion with the number one (1). Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Letter-Number Sequencing Scoring
F 3 A 5 E 2 DON’T dc yet! Record response verbatim process scores longest sequence score For first two items, incorrect to say letters before numbers now Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Coding Administration and Scoring
No major changes to administration (instructions a little briefer) Two most frequent administration errors on Coding? ________________________ Most frequent scoring error on Coding? _______________________________ What is a rotation error? Brain teaser: Why is the Coding rotation error max raw score lower than the Coding max total raw score? Why isn’t the rotation error score a scaled score? Most frequent question about Coding norms most frequent admin error: not allowing the full 120 seconds #2: not watching and correcting skips REMEMBER there is NOT a time bonus on Form A anymore most frequent scoring error: not lining up the template with the correct row (now every symbol is numbered) Most frequent question about norms: why is there a jump down at the mean for the 7 to 8 year old norms? Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Symbol Search Administration and Scoring
Child now marks the matching symbol in search group instead of YES (YES removed) for improved process/error observation #1#2 and #3 administration errors on Symbol Search? What is a set error and a rotation error? How do I find them easily? Why aren’t the set error score and the rotation error scores scaled scores? #1 scoring error? Most frequent question about Symbol Search norms? NOT REAL ITEMS rotation error set error most frequent admin errors: 1) not allowing the full 120 seconds 2) administering the wrong form 3) not watching and correcting skips during admin Top scoring error: correct minus incorrect REMEMBER there is a time bonus on Part A now Most frequent question about norms: why is there a jump down at the mean for the 7 to 8 year old norms? Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Symbol Search Scoring REMEMBER there is now a time bonus on part A

Cancellation Administration and Scoring
No major changes to administration (instructions a little briefer) Most frequent administration error on Cancellation? ________________________ Most frequent scoring error on Cancellation? ________________________ Remember to score: correct minus incorrect Process scores: CAr (random) and CAs (structured) most frequent admin error: not allowing the full 45 seconds per item most frequent scoring error: forgetting to subtract out the incorrects Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Naming Speed Subtests Child names elements as quickly as possible
Child takes two or three tasks, depending on age Each task has a sample item and a 2-page test item Current rapid naming tasks are relatively less sensitive to math disability if comorbid reading disability excluded(Korkman, Kirk, & Kemp, 2007; Pauly, Linkersdörfer, Lindberg, Woerner, Hasselhorn, Lonnemann, 2011; Willburger, Fussenegger, Moll, Wood, & Landerl, 2008) Quantity naming added to improve sensitivity to math disability (Pauly et al., 2011; Willburger et al., 2008) Rapid Naming does not contribute to any composite scores Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

From NSL Record Form Page
2 From NSL Record Form Page 5 2 5 7 Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Symbol Translation Subtests
Child learns symbol-word pairs and translates symbols into learned meanings Measure visual-verbal associative memory, which is related to reading, written expression, and math skills Immediate, Delayed, and Recognition Symbol Translation subtests Immediate ST teaches visual-verbal pairs in a stepwise manner, with repetition of associations introduced in the previous step, then recalls the learned associations by translating symbol strings Delayed ST administered 20 to 30 minutes after completion of Immediate subtest, recalls the learned associations from Immediate Immediate ST: learning and recall task Delayed ST: recall AND and THE (no credit after Item 6) Recognition ST: recognize meaning from four read aloud while viewing the symbol Rapid Naming does not contribute to any composite scores Repetition of associations introduced in the previous step stops halfway through subtest Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Recognition Symbol Translation
Child views a symbol and selects the associated meaning from the response options, using the learned pairs from Immediate Symbol Translation “What does this one mean?” Mom Us People Man These choices are read aloud only, not viewed by the child. Don’t read the letters, just the choices Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

demo new subtests on qi – navigation tips and address process speed subtests

Susan Brown Wallace, PhD susan.Wallace@pearson.com 703-863-6575, cell
Questions? Thank you ! Susan Brown Wallace, PhD , cell

INTRODUCING THE WISC-V

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "INTRODUCING THE WISC-V"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

INTRODUCING THE WISC-V

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "INTRODUCING THE WISC-V"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback