Confirmatory factor analyses of the WISC-IV Spanish core and supplemental subtests: Validation evidence of the Wechsler and CHC models

The Impasse on Gender Differences in Intelligence: a Meta-Analysis on WISC Batteries

This meta-analysis reviews 79 studies (N = 46,605) that examined the existence of gender difference on intelligence in school-aged children. To do so, we limited the literature search to works that assessed the construct of intelligence through the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children (WISC) batteries, evaluating eventual gender differences in indices and subtests. The theoretical framework we adopted is the cross-battery approach which locates cognitive abilities into different levels, also considering the possible mediating effect of the version of the WISC being used. As for broad abilities, a notable discrepancy emerged in favour of males for visual and crystallized intelligence, while female/male differences on fluid intelligence were negligible. Conversely, females’ performance on the processing speed factor was superior. Interesting results emerged at the subtest levels, albeit with less pronounced differences in performance. Results generally showed that older versions of WISC batteries displayed larger gender differences compared to the most recent ones.

Construct Validity of the WISC-V in Clinical Cases: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the 10 Primary Subtests

Independent exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) research with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V) standardization sample has failed to provide support for the five group factors proposed by the publisher, but there have been no independent examinations of the WISC-V structure among clinical samples. The present study examined the latent structure of the 10 WISC-V primary subtests with a large (N = 2,512), bifurcated clinical sample (EFA, n = 1,256; CFA, n = 1,256). EFA did not support five factors as there were no salient subtest factor pattern coefficients on the fifth extracted factor. EFA indicated a four-factor model resembling the WISC-IV with a dominant general factor. A bifactor model with four group factors was supported by CFA as suggested by EFA. Variance estimates from both EFA and CFA found that the general intelligence factor dominated subtest variance and omega-hierarchical coefficients supported interpretation of the general intelligence factor. In both EFA and CFA, group factors explained small portions of common variance and produced low omega-hierarchical subscale coefficients, indicating that the group factors were of poor interpretive value.