ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Structural validity of the German WISC-V beyond primary assessment: a factor-analytical approach to the ancillary index scales.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Aligning with the factor-analytical procedure already established for the original test version, the present study examined the structural validity and diagnostic viability of the German Methods: Representing the first comprehensive investigation into the ancillary index structure of the German WISC-V, competing hierarchical and bifactor model solutions were systematically evaluated via confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and supplemented by model-based reliability analyses. Results: The results provided structural support for the retention of the Discussion: Consequently, study limitations and boundaries for evidence-based assessment are discussed, emphasizing that subsequent diagnostic decision-making in clinical practice based on the ancillary index scales alone should be approached with caution absent further cross-cultural and clinical validation.
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.