Validation of Taiwan WISC-IV by Using Four- and Five-Factor Interpretative Approaches

WISC-IV兩種因素模式解釋取向之效度研究

10.6172/BSE.201507.4002004

陳心怡(Hsin-Yi Chen)；洪儷瑜(Li-Yu Hung)；陳榮華(Yung-Hua Chen)；朱建軍(Jianjun Zhu)；Timothy Z. Keith

多樣本高階結構方程模式 ； 測量恒等性 ； 魏氏量表 ； multigroup mean and covariance structure analysis (MG-MACS) ； factorial invariance ； Wechsler scales

特殊教育研究學刊

40卷2期（2015 / 07 / 31）

91 - 110

英文

本研究目的在分析魏氏兒童智力量表第四版（WISC-IV）在一般兒童與特殊兒童組別間之因素恆等性。根據9－16歲之台灣標準化樣本（N=704）及身心障礙特殊兒童樣本（N=694），研究者以多樣本高階結構方程模式對「WISC-IV現行計分之四因素模式」及「Cattell-Horn-Carroll（CHC）理論依據之五因素模式」兩種不同解釋取向進行系列性因素恆等性檢驗。兩種架構的主要差異是，四因素內的「知覺推理」因素在五因素架構內被進一步區分為「流體推理」和「視覺空間」兩個因素。本研究發現：（1）對一般兒童與特殊兒童而言，四因素與五因素模式均為合理且具意義之詮釋方式。算術、類同、與符號尋找分測驗具有跨因素負荷量，表示它們測量到多元認知內涵，分析詮釋時宜納入考量；（2）四因素及五因素模式在兩組兒童間均具因素恆等性，WISC-IV分數對兩組兒童具相同的構念意義、因素與分測驗關連性、及因素與分測驗效度。研究結果支持一般兒童與特殊兒童的WISC-IV分數結果可用相同方式詮釋，不論是四或五因素架構均可被用來對兩組兒童進行有意義之臨床比較。

Invariance is a fundamental property of any instrument used to compare individuals from subpopulations. In empirical settings, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) is frequently employed as a part of psychoeducational assessments. Implicit in this common practice is the assumption that WISC-IV scores have the same meaning for children in various subpopulations. The current WISCIV manual recommends a four-factor scoring structure, whereas the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory-based five-factor approach recommends that WISC-IV subtests assess five, instead of four, meaningful latent broad factors under g. This study investigated the factorial invariance of both four- and five-factor approaches among large normative and mixed exceptional children samples in Taiwan. Methods: Data from two large and reliable samples were analyzed. The normative sample was part of the Taiwan WISC-IV standardization sample, which consisted of 704 children aged 9 to 16 years. The overall mean fullscale intelligent quotient (FSIQ) was 100.1 (SD = 15.2). The sample consisting of exceptional children was a heterogeneous sample that included 697 children in the special education system with various diagnoses such as intellectual disability, autism, learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other emotional and behavioral disturbances. The mean FSIQ in this sample was 84.9 (SD = 19.3). Tests for the higher-order confirmatory factor invariance among the normative and exceptional children samples were based on an analysis of the mean and covariance structure models. Both higherorder WISC-IV four- and five-factor approaches were analyzed. Results/Findings: The results based on the multigroup mean and covariance structure analysis revealed the following: (a) Both the four- and five-factor models provided a good data fit for children in both samples, suggesting that both models provide meaningful strategies for interpreting WISC-IV scores. (b) Both models demonstrated full factorial invariance between normative and exceptional samples. (c) Arithmetic, Similarities, and Symbol Search subtests were found with cross-loadings. Conclusions/Implications: For both the four- and fivefactor approaches, the WISC-IV subtests demonstrate the same underlying theoretical latent constructs, the same strength of relationships among factors and subtests, the same validity of each first-order factor, and the same communalities, regardless of clinical status. The results support the same interpretive approach and meaningful comparisons of the WISC-IV between normative and exceptional children in Taiwan. In addition, when performance inconsistencies for subtests within the same latent ability dimension are detected, or when examiners wish to test specific hypotheses, both the main and minor sources of influence for Arithmetic, Similarities, and Symbol Search subtests may warrant consideration.

1. Chen, H.,Keith, T.,Chen, Y.,Chang, B.(2009).What does the WISC-IV measure? : Validation of the scoring and CHC-based interpretative approaches.Journal of Research in Education Sciences,54(3),85-108.
   連結：
2. Chen, H.,Zhu, J.(2009).Testing for WISC-III factorial invariance across gender.Psychological Testing,56(1),1-18.
   連結：
3. Kenny. D. A. (2014). Measuring model fit. Retrieved August 2, 2014, from http://davidakenny. net/cm/fit.htm
4. American Educational Research Association,American Psychological Association,National Council on Measurement in Education(2014).Standards for educational and psychological testing.Washington, DC:AERA.
5. Archer, R. P.,Buffington-Vollum, Stredny, J. K.,Handel, R. W.(2006).A survey of test use patterns among forensic psychologists.Journal of Personality Assessment,87,64-94.
6. Bentler, P. M.,Bonett, D. G.(1980).Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures.Psychological Bulletin,88,588-606.
7. Bodin, D.,Pardini, D.A.,Burns, T.G.,Stevens, A.B.(2009).Higher order factor structure of the WISC-IV in a clinical neuropsychological sample.Child Neuropsychology,15(5),417-424.
8. Bowden, S. C.(2013).Theoretical Convergence in Assessment of Cognition.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,31(2),148-156.
9. Bryant, K. J.(Ed.),Windle, M.(Ed.),West, S. G.(Ed.)(1997).The science of prevention.Washington:American Psychological Association.
10. Byrne, B. M.,Stewart, S. M.(2006).The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: a walk through the process.Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal,13(2),287- 321.
11. Carroll, J. B.(1993).Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor analytic studies.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
12. Chen, F. F.,Sousa, K. H.,West, S. G.(2005).Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models.Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal,12(3),471-492.
13. Chen, H.,Keith, T.,Weiss, L.,Zhu, J.,Li, Y.(2010).Testing for multigroup invariance of second-order WISC-IV structure across China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan.Personality and Individual Differences,49(7),677-682.
14. Chen, H.,Zhu, J.(2012).Measurement invariance of WISC-IV across normative and clinical samples.Personality and Individual Differences,52(2),161-166.
15. Chen, H.,Zhu, J.(2008).Factor invariance between genders of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition.Personality and Individual Differences,45(3),260-266.
16. Cheung, G. W.,Rensvold, R. B.(2002).Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance.Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal,9(2),233-255.
17. Devena, S. E.,Gay, C. E.,Watkins, M. W.(2013).Confirmatory factor analysis of the WISACIV in a hospital referral sample.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,31(6),591-599.
18. Drasgow, F.(1984).Scrutinizing psychological tests: Measurement equivalence and equivalent relations with external variables are central issues.Psychological Bulletin,95,134-135.
19. Drasgow, F.(1987).Study of the measurement bias of two standardized psychological tests.Journal of Applied Psychology,72,19-29.
20. Flanagan, D. P.(Ed.),Harrison, P. L.(Ed.)(2012).Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues.New York, NY:Guilford.
21. Flanagan, D. P.(Ed.),Harrison, P. L.(Ed.)(2005).Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues.New York, NY:Guilford.
22. Flanagan, D. P.,Kaufman, A. S.(2004).Essentials of WISC-IV assessment.Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.
23. Georgas, J.,Weiss, L. G.,van de Vijver, F. J. R.,Saklofske, D. H.(2003).Culture and children's intelligence: Cross-cultural analysis of the WISC-III.San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
24. Groth-Marnat, G(2009).Handbook of Psychological Assessment.Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.
25. Hoyle, R. H.(Ed.)(1995).Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
26. Hoyle, R. H.(Ed.)(1995).Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and ap- plications.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
27. Hu, L.,Bentler, P. M.(1998).Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification.Psychological Methods,3(4),424-453.
28. Hu, L.,Bentler, P. M.(1999).Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal,6(1),1-55.
29. Jöreskog, K. G.,Sörbom, D.(2006).LISREL 8.8 statistical program.Lincolnwood, IL:Scientific Software.
30. Kaplan, D.(2000).Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
31. Keith, T. Z.(2014).Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structure equation modeling.NY:Routledge.
32. Keith, T. Z.,Low, J. A.,Reynolds, M. R.,Patel, P. G.,Ridley, K. P.(2010).Higher-order factor structure of the Differential Ability Scales-II: Consistency across ages 4 to 17.Psychology in the Schools,47(7),676-697.
33. Keith, T.Z.,Fine, J.G.,Taub, G.,Reynolds, M.R.,Kranzler, J.H.(2006).Higher order, multisample, confirmatory factor analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition: What does it measure?.School Psychology Review,35(1),108-127.
34. Kline, R. B.(2010).Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.New York, NY:Guilford.
35. Loehlin, J. C.(2004).Latent variable models: an introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36. Marsh, H. W.,Balla, J. R.,McDonald, R. P.(1988).Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size.Psychological Bulletin,103(3),391-410.
37. McDonald, R. P.,Ho, M. R.(2002).Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses.Psychological Methods,7(1),64-82.
38. Meade, A. W.,Johnson, E. C.,Braddy, P. W.(2006).The utility of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance.Academy of Management Proceedings,2006(1),B1-B6.
39. Meredith, W.(1993).Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance.Psychometrika,58(4),525-543.
40. Millsap, R. E.,Kwok, O.(2004).Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations.Psychological Methods,9(1),93-115.
41. Prifitera, A.(Ed.),Saklofske, D. H.(Ed.),Weiss, L. G.(Ed.)(2008).WISC-IV clinical assessment and intervention 2e.San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
42. Prifitera, A.(Ed.),Saklofske, D. H.(Ed.),Weiss, L. G.(Ed.)(2005).WISC-IV clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner perspectives.San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
43. Rabin, L. A.,Barr, W. B.,Burton, L. A.(2005).Assessment practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada: a survey of INS, NAN, and APA division 40 members.Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,20,33-65.
44. Sattler, J. M.,Dumont, R.(2004).Assessment of children: WISC-IV and WPPSI-III supplement.Le Mesa, CA:Author.
45. Vandenberg, R. J.(2002).Toward a further understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures.Organizational Research Methods,5(2),139-158.
46. Vandenberg, R. J.,Lance, C. E.(2000).A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research.Organizational Research Methods,3(1),4-69.
47. Watkins, M. W.(2006).Orthogonal higher order structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition.Psychological Assessment,18(1),123-125.
48. Watkins, M. W.,Wilson, S. M.,Kotz, K. M.,Carbone, M. C.,Babula, T.(2006).Factor Structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition Among Referred Students.Educational and Psychological Measurement,66(6),975-983.
49. Wechsler, D.(2003).Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition technical and interpretive manual.San Antonio, TX:Psychological Corporation.
50. Wechsler, D.(2012).Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence - Fourth Edition technical and interpretive manual.San Antonio, TX:Pearson.
51. Wechsler, D.(2003).Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition administration manual.San Antonio, TX:Psychological Corporation.
52. Wechsler, D.(2007).Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition administration manual (Taiwan version).Taipei city, Taiwan, ROC:Chinese Behavioral Science Corporation.
53. Weiss, L G.(Ed.),Saklofske, D. H.(Ed.),Prifitera, A.(Ed.),Holdnack, J. A.(Ed.)(2008).WISC-IV advanced clinical interpretation.San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
54. Weiss, L. G.,Keith, T.,Zhu, J.,Chen, H.(2013).WISC-IV and Clinical Validation of the Fourand Five-Factor Interpretative Approaches.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,31(2),114-131.
55. Wicherts, J. M. & Dolan, C. V.(2010).Measurement invariance in confirmatory factor analysis: An illustration using IQ test performance of minorities.Educational Measurement: Issues and practice,29(3),39-47.