877025

Interpretation and Administration

Jonathan Rich, Ph.D. July 2018

History of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Test

Wechsler-Bellevue: 1939 Wechsler-Bellevue II: 1946

WAIS: 1955 WAIS-R: 1981 WAIS-III: 1997 WAIS-IV: 2008

Age Range: 16-90 IQ: 40 to 160

Full Scale IQ

Verbal Comprehension

Perceptual Reasoning

Working Memory

Processing Speed

Test Administration Guidelines Note: In this class you will not actually administer the WAIS-IV, but will use scores from a protocol. If you administer it in the future, here are general guidelines:

Do several “dry runs” before actually testing. Pauses and fumbling make the client uncomfortable and may invalidate the test results. Administer the test in a quiet, well-light room without distractions.

Closely follow the manual instructions. For each subtest be familiar with the: •Start points, reverse rules, and discontinuation rules •Demonstration, sample, and teaching item procedures •Queries, prompts, repetition – follow manual rules and record a (Q), (P) or (R).

Record responses verbatim. Score each item as you go. Time with a stopwatch and record time precisely.

Don’t let the client see the manual or scoring. Don’t indicate right/wrong answers verbally or non-verbally.

The 10 core subtests are administered to most clients:

Verbal Comprehension Similarities Vocabulary Information

Perceptual Reasoning Block Design Matrix Reasoning Visual Puzzles

Working Memory Digit Span Arithmetic

Processing Speed Symbol Search Coding

Administer the optional subtests for more information, if a subtest is spoiled, or if a subtest is refused. The optional tests should not be used for clients age 70 or older. Blind clients can only complete Verbal Comprehension and Working Memory subtests; deaf clients can only complete Perceptual Reasoning and Processing Speed.

Interpretation and Write-Up Start with the Full Scale IQ score:

“George obtained a Full Scale IQ of 85. This score exceeds 16 out of 100 persons

his age and is in the Low Average range of intelligence.”

Is the score valid? Did the client appear to be trying hard and was the assessment

free from distractions or problems that might have invalidated the score?

Are there cultural or physical factors interfering? If language, cultural or physical

factors might have affected the score, you should mention this and what kind of

impact you believe these factors had.

Is the score roughly consistent with what educational and vocational history would

predict? If there is a history of head injury or other factors affecting brain function,

you should comment on whether the score appears different from pre-morbid

function and your opinion regarding the effect of the disease or injury. Here is a

rough guide to estimate pre-morbid function from education:

High School Grad: 105, College Grad: 115; Doctorate: 125.

Interpretation and Write-Up (continued)

Descriptions of Score Ranges:

<70: “consistent with intellectual disability,” or “Very Low” 70-79: Borderline 80-89: Low Average 90-109: Average 110-119: High Average 120-129: Superior 130+: Very Superior

Interpretation and Write-Up (continued)

Compare the Verbal Comprehension/ Perceptual

Reasoning indices.

“George obtained a Verbal Comprehension index of 83

and a Perceptual Reasoning index of 87. These scores

are not significantly different from each other, reflecting

about equal facility with tasks requiring the use of words

as with tasks requiring non-verbal reasoning and

performance. Both of these scores are in a Low

Average range.”

Interpretation and Write-Up (continued)

Discuss the Working Memory and Processing Speed

indices. Report percentiles, indicate if they are higher,

lower, or consistent with the client’s general intelligence.

Explain, in plain language, why there are discrepancies.

If appropriate, indicate if discrepancies are consistent

with suspected diagnoses. For instance, WMI and PSI

can be implicated in learning and neuropsychological

disorders.

Interpretation and Write-Up (continued)

Discuss individual subtests that are strengths or

weaknesses. Discuss what the subtest measures and

the implications of a strength or weakness.

If several subtests are strong or weak, look for patterns

and commonalities and discuss implications. Some

common factors might be: timed or untimed, abstract or

concrete, school learning or incidental learning.

General Guidelines for Interpreting & Reporting the WAIS-IV and other Tests

You are primarily writing for your referral source (physician, social

worker, counselor, teacher, lawyer, psychotherapist, employer). You

should also keep in mind that the examinee may read the report.

As a general rule, your referral source is a college graduate, but has

little specific information about the WAIS-IV, statistics, or psychological

testing.

Your reader does not care about significance levels or detailed

descriptions of every index and subtest difference.

Your reader does want to understand the client’s abilities and wants to

use the test results to make decisions and help the client. A helpful

report provides clear, practical, plain English information.

General Guidelines for Interpreting the WAIS-IV and other Tests

(Continued) You’ve been taught to express yourself cautiously in psychology

research papers. Clinical reports use a different style. You are in

the best position to interpret your findings – don’t leave it to the

reader to decide among several options.

For instance, there are many reasons why VCI and PRI could

differ significantly – cultural difference, head injury, learning

disability, physical impairment. But you know the reason that

best fits your client. Don’t give your reader a list of possibilities –

give your explanation, based on your knowledge of the client.