ArticleThe Clinical neuropsychologist
Evaluation of multidimensional models of WAIS-IV subtest performance.
Article in The Clinical neuropsychologist. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to Compare Psychometric Factor and Network Models.Journal of Intelligence · 2020Article
- The Effects of Using Partial or Uncorrected Correlation Matrices When Comparing Network and Latent Variable Models.Journal of Intelligence · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe present study examined the extent to which the covariance structure of the WAIS-IV is best accounted for by models that assume that test performance is the result of group-level factors and multiple independent general factors.
methodStructural models with one to four general factors were evaluated with either four or five group-level factors. Simulations based on four general factors were run to clarify the adequacy of the estimates of the allocation of covariance by the models.
resultsFour independent general factors provided better fit than a single general factor for either model with four or five group-level factors. While one of the general factors had much larger loadings than all other factors, simulation results suggested that this might be an artifact of the statistical procedure rather than a reflection of the nature of individual differences in cognitive abilities.
conclusionsThese results argue against the contention that clinical interpretation of cognitive test batteries should primarily be at the level of general intelligence. It is a fallacy to assume that factor analysis can reveal the structure of human abilities. Test validity should not be based solely on the results of modeling the covariance of test batteries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.