Dimensional Evaluation of Cognitive Measures: Methodological Confounds and Theoretical Concerns

The current study provides a methodological review of studies supporting a general factor of intelligence as the primary model for contemporary measures of cognitive abilities. A further evaluation is provided by an empirical evaluation that compares statistical estimates using different approaches in a large sample of children (ages 9–13 years, N = 780) administered a comprehensive battery of cognitive measures. Results from this study demonstrate the ramifications of using the bifactor and Schmid–Leiman (BF/SL) technique and suggest that using BF/SL methods limit interpretation of cognitive abilities to only a general factor. The inadvertent use of BF/SL methods is demonstrated to impact both model dimensionality and variance estimates for specific measures. As demonstrated in this study, conclusions from both exploratory and confirmatory studies using BF/SL methods are significantly questioned, especially for studies with a questionable theoretical basis. Guidelines for the interpretation of cognitive test scores in applied practice are discussed.

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.