WISC-V Stability Study
Find and read a peer-reviewed research journal article using intelligence or achievement testing in research and share what you learned from this article with your classmates. Specifically (and in your own words):
1. Why was the study conducted? What hypotheses were being tested?
2. What test(s) were used?
3. What findings were reported, and what conclusions were drawn
-
Why was the study conducted? What hypotheses were being tested?,
-
What test(s) were used?,
-
What findings were reported and what conclusions were drawn?
Response (concise, in my own words)
1) Purpose & hypotheses. Watkins et al. (2021) examined the long-term temporal stability of WISC-V scores in a clinical outpatient sample because most published reliability evidence for the WISC-V focuses on short retest intervals or normative samples. The study tested whether WISC-V composite scores (e.g., Full-Scale IQ, index scores) and subtest scores remain sufficiently stable over a multi-year interval (mean ≈ 2.6 years) to support clinical decisions. Implicitly, the authors expected omnibus and broad indices to be more stable than individual subtests or within-person difference (profile/ipsative) measures.
2) Tests used. The researchers administered the ten primary WISC-V subtests on two occasions to 225 children/adolescents seen in an outpatient neuropsychology clinic. From those subtests they derived the five primary index scores and the Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ). Analyses included mean comparisons, test-retest correlations (stability coefficients), and measures of replication for intraindividual (idiographic) score patterns.
3) Findings & conclusions. Mean composite scores were relatively constant, but subtest stability was modest (average r ≈ .66). Only the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Visual Spatial Index (VSI), and the FSIQ exceeded the commonly cited 0.80 threshold for long-term stability. Intraindividual difference scores and “profile scatter” showed poor replication across administrations (low kappa), indicating that observed strengths/weaknesses on subtests often did not recur at retest. The authors conclude that while FSIQ and some broad indices may be defensible for nomothetic (between-person) comparisons over years, ipsative/person-relative interpretations (e.g., treating a single subtest peak as a stable strength) are not reliable enough for confident clinical decision-making. Practically, clinicians should rely more on composite scores for long-term high-stakes decisions and be cautious when using subtest/profile differences to guide eligibility or intervention without corroborating evidence or repeat assessment.
Reference (APA 7)
Watkins, M. W., Canivez, G. L., Dombrowski, S. C., McGill, R. J., Pritchard, A. E., Holingue, C. B., & Jacobson, L. A. (2021). Long-term stability of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition scores in a clinical sample. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 11(3), 422–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2021.1875827