Canivez Gary L, Watkins Marley W, Dombrowski Stefan C
Department of Psychology.
Department of Educational Psychology, Baylor University.
Psychol Assess. 2017 Apr;29(4):458-472. doi: 10.1037/pas0000358. Epub 2016 Jul 21.
The factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V; Wechsler, 2014a) standardization sample (N = 2,200) was examined using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation for all reported models from the WISC-V (Wechsler, 2014b). Additionally, alternative bifactor models were examined and variance estimates and model-based reliability estimates (ω coefficients) were provided. Results from analyses of the 16 primary and secondary WISC-V subtests found that all higher-order CFA models with 5 group factors (VC, VS, FR, WM, and PS) produced model specification errors where the Fluid Reasoning factor produced negative variance and were thus judged inadequate. Of the 16 models tested, the bifactor model containing 4 group factors (VC, PR, WM, and PS) produced the best fit. Results from analyses of the 10 primary WISC-V subtests also found the bifactor model with 4 group factors (VC, PR, WM, and PS) produced the best fit. Variance estimates from both 16 and 10 subtest based bifactor models found dominance of general intelligence (g) in accounting for subtest variance (except for PS subtests) and large ω-hierarchical coefficients supporting general intelligence interpretation. The small portions of variance uniquely captured by the 4 group factors and low ω-hierarchical subscale coefficients likely render the group factors of questionable interpretive value independent of g (except perhaps for PS). Present CFA results confirm the EFA results reported by Canivez, Watkins, and Dombrowski (2015); Dombrowski, Canivez, Watkins, and Beaujean (2015); and Canivez, Dombrowski, and Watkins (2015). (PsycINFO Database Record
使用验证性因素分析(CFA)和最大似然估计法,对韦氏儿童智力量表第五版(WISC-V;韦克斯勒,2014a)标准化样本(N = 2200)进行了因素结构检验,所采用的所有报告模型均来自WISC-V(韦克斯勒,2014b)。此外,还检验了替代双因素模型,并提供了方差估计值和基于模型的信度估计值(ω系数)。对WISC-V的16个主要和次要子测验的分析结果发现,所有具有5个组因素(VC、VS、FR、WM和PS)的高阶CFA模型都产生了模型设定误差,其中流体推理因素产生了负方差,因此被判定为不合适。在测试的16个模型中,包含4个组因素(VC、PR、WM和PS)的双因素模型拟合度最佳。对WISC-V的10个主要子测验的分析结果也发现,具有4个组因素(VC、PR、WM和PS)的双因素模型拟合度最佳。基于16个和10个子测验的双因素模型的方差估计发现,一般智力(g)在解释子测验方差方面占主导地位(PS子测验除外),并且有较大的ω层次系数支持一般智力解释。4个组因素唯一捕获的方差比例较小,以及ω层次分量表系数较低,这可能使得这些组因素独立于g的解释价值存疑(PS可能除外)。目前的CFA结果证实了卡尼维兹、沃特金斯和多布罗夫斯基(2015年);多布罗夫斯基、卡尼维兹、沃特金斯和博让(2015年);以及卡尼维兹、多布罗夫斯基和沃特金斯(2015年)报告的探索性因素分析(EFA)结果。(《心理学文摘数据库记录》 )