Structure and Diagnostic Benefits of a Normative Subtest Taxonomy Developed from the WISC-III Standardization Sample.

Abstract The structure and composition of profile types most representative of the 2,200 children (6 years 0 months to 16 years 11 months) comprising the normative sample for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Third Edition (WISC-III) are identified. Profiles from the 10 mandatory WISC-III subtests are sorted according to similar shape and level using multistage cluster analysis with independent replications. The final solution of eight most common (or core) profile types fulfills all formal heuristic and statistical criteria, including complete coverage, satisfactory within-type homogeneity, between-type dissimilarity, and replicability. Profile types are described according to population prevalence, ability level, subtest configuration; and each type is examined for membership trends by child demography, family characteristics, and unusual IQ discrepancies. Two methods are given for determining the relative uniqueness of WISC-III profile patterns in future research and clinical work. The article concludes with a case example using the method recommended for “everyday” decision making.

[1]  Raymond B. Cattell,et al.  Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology , 1968 .

[2]  C. Osgood,et al.  A measure of relation determined by both mean difference and profile information. , 1952, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  M. Aldenderfer.  Cluster Analysis , 1984 .

[4]  A. Silverstein.  Type I, type II, and other types of errors in pattern analysis , 1993 .

[5]  J. Sattler.  Assessment of children, 3rd ed. , 1988 .

[6]  Charles K. Bayne,et al.  Monte Carlo comparisons of selected clustering procedures , 1980, Pattern Recognit..

[7]  N. Todorov.  Intelligent Testing with the WISC-III,Kaufman Alan. S.,NY:John Wiley & Sons (1994),401 pp., $79.95 hardcover , 1995, Behaviour Change.

[8]  R. Kamphaus,et al.  Taxonomy and Validity of Subtest Profiles on the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children , 1992 .

[9]  R. Mojena,et al.  Hierarchical Grouping Methods and Stopping Rules: An Evaluation , 1977, Comput. J..

[10]  Marley W. Watkins,et al.  More ups and downs of subtest analysis: Criterion validity of the DAS with an unselected cohort. , 1998 .

[11]  J. H. Ward.  Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function , 1963 .

[12]  J. Stevens.  Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences , 1986 .

[13]  T. Plante,et al.  Are stress and coping associated with WISC-III performance among children? , 1994, Journal of clinical psychology.

[14]  L. Fisher,et al.  391: A Monte Carlo Comparison of Six Clustering Procedures , 1975 .

[15]  Marley W. Watkins,et al.  Wechsler Subtest Analysis: The Right Way, The Wrong Way, or No Way?. , 1994 .

[16]  Tom Humphries,et al.  Use of IQ Criteria for Evaluating the Uniqueness of the Learning Disability Profile , 1993, Journal of learning disabilities.

[17]  J. Sattler.  Assessment of Children , 1992 .

[18]  S. Cahan.  Significance Testing of Subtest Score Differences: the Rules of the Game , 1986 .

[19]  Paul Horst,et al.  The prediction of personal adjustment. , 1942 .

[20]  Marley W. Watkins,et al.  Core profile types in the WISC-R national sample: structure, membership, and applications , 1989 .

[21]  Pranab Kumar Sen,et al.  Multivariate Analysis (2nd ed.). , 1983 .

[22]  Raymond B. Cattell,et al.  rp and other coefficients of pattern similarity , 1949, Psychometrika.

[23]  A. Silverstein.  Reliability and abnormality of test score differnces , 1981 .

[24]  A. Prifitera,et al.  Base rates of WISC-III diagnostic subtest patterns among normal, learning-disabled, and ADHD samples. , 1993 .

[25]  R. Kamphaus.  Clinical Assessment of Children's Intelligence , 1993 .

[26]  John V. Noonan,et al.  Typology and prevailing composition of core profiles in the WAIS—R standardization sample. , 1989 .

[27]  L. Cronbach,et al.  Assessing similarity between profiles. , 1953, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  R. Tryon.  Cluster Analysis , 1939 .

[29]  Roger K. Blashfield,et al.  Mixture model tests of cluster analysis: Accuracy of four agglomerative hierarchical methods. , 1976 .

[30]  J E Overall,et al.  Population recovery capabilities of 35 cluster analysis methods. , 1993, Journal of clinical psychology.

[31]  A. Kaufman.  Intelligent testing with the WISC-R , 1979 .

[32]  F. Davis.  Interpretation of differences among averages and individual test scores. , 1959 .

[33]  J. Mosel,et al.  The comparability of measures of profile similarity: an empirical study. , 1954, Journal of consulting psychology.

[34]  G. W. Milligan,et al.  An examination of the effect of six types of error perturbation on fifteen clustering algorithms , 1980 .

[35]  Comparative Efficacy of K-ABC Subtests VS. WISC-R Subtests in the Differential Classification of Learning Disabilities , 1989 .

[36]  R. Sternberg.  The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children: an Information-Processing Analysis and Critique , 1984 .

[37]  Kenneth A. Kavale,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of the Validity of Wechsler Scale Profiles and Recategorizations: Patterns Or Parodies? , 1984 .

[38]  T. Bowers,et al.  A Developmental Index Using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children , 1992, Journal of learning disabilities.