The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fifth Edition (WAIS-5) latent factor structure was assessed using complementary hierarchical exploratory factor analyses (EFA) with the Schmid and Leiman procedure and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) using the standardization sample (N = 2,020) correlation matrix and descriptive statistics of the 20 primary and secondary WAIS-5 subtests. The WAIS-5 Technical and Interpretive Manual did not include EFA, CFA with fewer than five first-order (group) factors, CFA with rival bifactor models, or model-based reliability and dimensionality estimates; thus, the present independent structural validity assessment corrects this evidential lacuna to help guide ethical and evidence-based interpretation. EFA results did not support five latent factors with separate Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning factors. Instead, a four-factor model with Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning factors merged into the former Perceptual Reasoning factor and measurement dominated by a general intelligence (g) factor-similar to the WAIS-IV structure-was supported. CFA results indicated that a bifactor model with four group factors provided the best fit, consistent with the EFA findings. Overall, the EFA and CFA results did not support the purported WAIS-5 structure and instead replicated findings from independent assessments of the WISC-V with standardization and clinical samples, that indicated primary, if not exclusive, interpretation of the FSIQ as an estimate of psychometric g.

The present study examined the posited structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V) ancillary index scores with normative sample participants aged 6-16 years (N = 2200) using a series of confirmatory factor analyzes (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation. CFA results supported the retention of auditory working memory (AWM) but not quantitative reasoning (QR) as narrow dimensions in an extended WISC-V measurement model. Additional results from models explicating the structures for each of the posited ancillary composite-level indexes (nonverbal [NVI], general ability [GAI], cognitive processing [CPI]) provided support, in part, that these indexes represent global dimensions with differing degrees of generality. Though some of these scores may be used in the manner intended by the test publisher (e.g., comparing and contrasting performance on different composites, specific learning disability identification), provisional limitations for using the ancillary indexes as a focal point of clinical decision-making are discussed.

The use of Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM) provided additional insight into the WISC-V theoretical structure beyond that offered by traditional factor analytic approaches (e.g., exploratory factor analysis and maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis) through the specification of all cross loadings and correlated residual terms. The results indicated that a five-factor higher-order model with a correlated residual between the Visual-Spatial and Fluid Reasoning group factors provided a superior fit to the four bifactor model that has been preferred in prior research. There were no other statistically significant correlated residual terms or cross loadings in the measurement model. The results further suggest that the WISC-V ten subtest primary battery readily attains simple structure and its index level scores may be interpreted as suggested in the WISC-V's scoring and interpretive manual. Moreover, BSEM may help to advance IQ theory by providing contemporary intelligence researchers with a novel tool to explore complex interrelationships among cognitive abilities-relationships that traditional structural equation modeling methods may overlook. It can also help attenuate the replication crises in school psychology within the area of cognitive assessment structural validity research through systematic evaluation of complex structural relationships obviating the need for CFA based post hoc specification searches which can be prone to confirmation bias and capitalization on chance.

This study investigated the incremental validity of the successive-level approach to intelligence test interpretation, specifically within the context of school psychology. The successive-level approach assumes that unique information is captured at various levels of intelligence tests (e.g., full scale, index-level, subtest-level). However, previous research has indicated that lower-level scores often fail to explain significant or meaningful variance in achievement outcomes beyond what is accounted for by the global score, suggesting potential redundancy in interpreting lower-level scores. Using the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV) standardization sample, this study examined the relationship between cognitive ability scores (GIA and CHC clusters) and achievement outcomes. The results indicated that, although the CHC subscale scores contributed some unique variance in achievement, their incremental validity was limited and frequently overshadowed by the GIA composite. These findings align with previous research, suggesting that clinicians may unwittingly commit a duplication fallacy when relying on successive-level score interpretation or related guidance in clinical practice.

The intentional and sustained actions to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in school psychology science and scholarship, will have reciprocal and dynamic influences on graduate preparation and practice. Herein, the School Psychology Review leadership team provides reflections on several of our intentional efforts, to date, to advocate for and advance DEI in school psychology scholarship, and the associated implications for graduate preparation and practice. Contemporary actions of the School Psychology Review leadership team have included; (a) establishing commitments to advocating for and advancing DEI as the foundation of our scholarship; (b) diversifying journal leadership and editorial board members to reflect the diverse student body school psychologists serve; (c) preparing future diverse journal leadership through mentored editorial fellowship programs, and a student editorial board with members from diverse backgrounds; (d) featuring special topics relevant to further understanding and supporting diverse and minoritized children, youth, families, and school communities; (e) providing professional-development opportunities and resources; (f) implementation of Open Science opportunities in the journal, (g) implementing triple anonymous peer review to reduce bias, and (h) implementing a journal action plan focused on advancing DEI. Collectively these efforts are aimed to influence positive change in advancing and sustaining DEI efforts in school psychology science, scholarship, graduate preparation and practice.

The present study examined the structure of the NEPSY-II within the norming sample using exploratory factor analysis. For the 3–4-year-old group, our results were conceptually uninterpretable. As a result, a unidimensional model was retained by default as a remedy to local fit issues. For the 7–12-year-old group, our analysis supported some aspects of the NEPSY-II conceptual domains in the form of a six-factor model that yielded the best fit to the data. While variance partitioning results indicate that the majority of NEPSY-II subtests at ages 7–12 contain adequate specificity to be interpreted in isolation, caution is suggested for interpreting the Social Perception subtests; in particular, given the inability to locate that latent dimension in either of the analyses conducted. Implications for the clinical interpretation of the instrument moving forward are discussed.

One important aspect of construct validity is structural validity. Structural validity refers to the degree to which scores of a psychological test are a reflection of the dimensionality of the construct being measured. A factor analysis, which assumes that unobserved latent variables are responsible for the covariation among observed test scores, has traditionally been employed to provide structural validity evidence. Factor analytic studies have variously suggested either four or five dimensions for the WISC–V and it is unlikely that any new factor analytic study will resolve this dimensional dilemma. Unlike a factor analysis, an exploratory graph analysis (EGA) does not assume a common latent cause of covariances between test scores. Rather, an EGA identifies dimensions by locating strongly connected sets of scores that form coherent sub-networks within the overall network. Accordingly, the present study employed a bootstrap EGA technique to investigate the structure of the 10 WISC–V primary subtests using a large clinical sample (N = 7149) with a mean age of 10.7 years and a standard deviation of 2.8 years. The resulting structure was composed of four sub-networks that paralleled the first-order factor structure reported in many studies where the fluid reasoning and visual–spatial dimensions merged into a single dimension. These results suggest that discrepant construct and scoring structures exist for the WISC–V that potentially raise serious concerns about the test interpretations of psychologists who employ the test structure preferred by the publisher.

Although the field of school psychology has made progress toward the use of tests and assessment practices with empirical support over the past 20 years, many school psychology practitioners still engage in what can be described as low-value value assessment practices that lack compelling scientific support potentially taking time and resources away from practices that have a demonstrated evidence-base. Why do school psychologists engage in questionable assessment and interpretive practices despite decades of discrediting scientific evidence? This article critically examines several plausible explanations for the perpetuation of low-value practices in school psychology assessment. It also underscores the importance of critical thinking when evaluating assessment and interpretation practices, and discusses practical recommendations to assist in advancing evidence-based assessment in school psychology training and practice as the field progresses well-into the 21st century.Impact StatementMany school psychologists engage in assessment practices that lack compelling scientific support potentially taking time, resources, and energy away from more effective practices. This article critically reviews reasons why these questionable assessment practices persist long after discrediting scientific evidence has been aptly presented. Recommendations are offered to promote the use of evidence-based practices and discourage the use of assessment methods lacking compelling empirical support in training and clinical practice.

Abstract It is often assumed that children with learning disabilities (LD) exhibit unique profiles of ability scores that reflect idiosyncratic cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Interpretation of cognitive ability profiles initially focused on visual inspection of subtest scores followed by statistical comparisons to identify significant cognitive strengths and weaknesses. However, subsequent research demonstrated that these subtest profiles lacked sufficient reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility. Profile research typically utilized variable-centered methods, but person-centered methods might be more appropriate. The present study utilized latent profile analysis (LPA), a person-centered method that is model-based and flexible, with 1,830 school-identified students with LD and 2,200 simulated normative participants. Four broad ability score profiles distinguished by level rather than shape emerged. Thus, this latent mixture model analysis found no mixture of subpopulations, suggesting that WISC-IV score variation was due to underlying continuous latent factors rather than a typology unique to LD. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1919923 Impact Statement It is often assumed that children with learning disabilities (LD) exhibit unique profiles of ability test scores that reflect idiosyncratic cognitive strengths and weaknesses. However, this person-centered analysis found no profile of ability scores distinctive of children with LD. These results suggest that cognitive test scores may vary due to underlying continuous latent factors rather than a typology unique to LD.

This study investigated the factor structure of the French Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition with five standardization sample age groups (6-7, 8-9, 10-11, 12-13, 14-16 years) using hierarchical exploratory factor analysis followed by Schmid-Leiman procedure. The primary research questions included (a) how many French Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition factors should be extracted and retained in each age subgroup, (b) how are subtests associated with the latent factors, (c) was there evidence for the publisher's claim of five first-order factors and separate Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning factors, (d) what proportion of variance was due to general intelligence versus the first-order group ability factors following a Schmid-Leiman procedure, and (e) do results support the age differentiation hypothesis? Results suggested that four factors might be sufficient for all five age groups and results did not support the distinction between Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning factors. While the general factor accounted for the largest portions of variance, the four first-order factors accounted for small unique portions of variance. Results did not support the age differentiation hypothesis because the number of factors remained the same across age groups, and there was no change in the percentage of variance accounted for by the general factor across age groups.

This article addresses the use of hype in the promotion of clinical assessment practices and instrumentation. Particular focus is given to the role of school psychologists in evaluating the evidence associated with clinical assessment claims, the types of evidence necessary to support such claims, and the need to maintain a degree of “healthy self-doubt” about one’s own beliefs and preferred practices. Included is a discussion of topics that may facilitate developing and refining scientific thinking skills related to clinical assessment across common coursework, and how this framework fits with both the scientist-practitioner and clinical science perspectives for training.

This study investigated the factor structure of the French Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition with five standardization sample age groups (6-7, 8-9, 10-11, 12-13, 14-16 years) using hierarchical exploratory factor analysis followed by Schmid–Leiman procedure. The primary research questions included (a) how many French Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition factors should be extracted and retained in each age subgroup, (b) how are subtests associated with the latent factors, (c) was there evidence for the publisher’s claim of five first-order factors and separate Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning factors, (d) what proportion of variance was due to general intelligence versus the first-order group ability factors following a Schmid–Leiman procedure, and (e) do results support the age differentiation hypothesis? Results suggested that four factors might be sufficient for all five age groups and results did not support the distinction between Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning factors. While the general factor accounted for the largest portions of variance, the four first-order factors accounted for small unique portions of variance. Results did not support the age differentiation hypothesis because the number of factors remained the same across age groups, and there was no change in the percentage of variance accounted for by the general factor across age groups. Keywords age , WISC-V , exploratory factor analyses , Schmid–Leiman (SL) procedure , structural validity , factor extraction criteria , age differentiation hypothesis

IQ tests provide numerous scores, but valid interpretation of those scores is dependent on how precisely each score reflects its intended construct and whether it provides unique information independent of other constructs. Thus, IQ scores must be evaluated for their reliability and dimensionality to determine their psychometric utility. As a tutorial, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V) scores were evaluated and it was demonstrated that the WISC-V is multidimensional, but only the Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) was found to be sufficiently reliable for clinical use. WISC-V group factors were not well defined and WISC-V index (i.e., factor) scores were contaminated with variance from other constructs and insufficiently reliable for clinical decisions. Clinicians were encouraged to go beyond structural goodness of fit and evaluate IQ test scores in terms of their reliability and ability to provide information that is not available from the general ability score as well their predictive and treatment validity. Software was provided to assist in that evaluation.

The latent factor structure of the German Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth edition (German WISC-V) was examined using complementary hierarchical exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) with Schmid and Leiman transformation and confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) for all reported models from the German WISC-V Technical Manual and rival bifactor models using the standardization sample ( N = 1,087) correlation matrix of the 15 primary and secondary subtests. EFA results did not support a fifth factor (Fluid Reasoning). A four-factor model with the dominant general intelligence ( g) factor resembling the WISC-IV was supported by EFA. CFA results indicated the best representation was a bifactor model with four group factors, complementing EFA results. Present EFA and CFA results replicated other independent assessments of standardization and clinical samples of the United States and international versions of the WISC-V and indicated primary, if not exclusive, interpretation of the Full Scale IQ as an estimate of g.

Individually and collectively, it is now more important than ever that we engage in intentional and sustained action to advocate for and advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the field of school psychology. To create positive change and the momentum to sustain it, it is essential that school psychology colleagues, organizations, and entities-including journals-identify how each can contribute to advancing DEI efforts. Herein, the School Psychology Review leadership team offers a brief summary of several of our intentional efforts, to date, to advocate for and advance DEI in school psychology scholarship. These actions toward accountability include (a) establishing individual and collective commitments to advocating for and advancing DEI as the foundation of our scholarship; (b) diversifying the journal leadership; (c) diversifying the editorial advisory board; (d) preparing future diverse journal leadership through mentored editorial fellowship programs, especially focused on early research career individuals; (e) mentoring future colleagues by establishing a student editorial board with members from diverse backgrounds; (f) focusing on special topics relevant to diverse and minoritized children, youth, families, and school communities; (g) making available professional-development opportunities and resources; and (h) establishing a journal action plan focused on advancing DEI. All colleagues, organizations, and entities are invited to individually and collectively join us to Be the Change in advancing and sustaining DEI efforts in school psychology scholarship. IMPACT STATEMENT The School Psychology Review leadership team outlines actions to advocate for and advance diversity, equity, and inclusivity in school psychology scholarship. Actions and accountability discussed include: establishing individual and collective commitments; diversifying the journal leadership, as well as the editorial advisory board; establishing journal infrastructures to support further development and contributions of diverse students and early career colleagues; and establishing a journal action plan focused on advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion.