Copyright 1993 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1040-3590/93/S3.QO

Psychological Assessment
1993, Vol. 5, No. 2,193-196

Interpretation of Individual Subtest Scores on the WISC-III

Joel H. Kramer

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Tables are provided that facilitate the clinical interpretation of individual Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children-Ill (WISC-IU) subtest scores. Confidence intervals were computed for each
possible scaled score for each WISC-III subtest. The confidence intervals are centered around
estimated true scores and were calculated using the standard-error terms for true scores. A system
for converting scores into descriptive terms is also provided.

awareness of their psychometric properties. Measurement

error, for example, refers to factors that limit the precision with
which the obtained score represents the to-be-measured construct. For any given obtained score, there is a range of scores
within which an examinee's true score probably lies (Nunnally,
1980). The width of this range is inversely related to the subtest's
reliability and the risk of error the examiner is willing to tolerate.
The purpose of this article is to provide psychometric guidelines for the interpretation of individual subtest scores on the
newest of the Wechsler scales, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children-Ill (WISC-III). The tables provided here are
based on the view that the range of scores within which an
examinee's true score probably lies should be placed symmetrically around an examinee's estimated true score rather than his
or her obtained score (Brophy, 1986; Lord & Novik, 1968; Nunnally, 1980). The use of estimated true scores as the center point
adjusts for measurement error by taking into consideration the
reliability of the subtest.
Table 1 provides the range of scores that fall one standard
error of measurement (SEM) below and above the estimated
true score. Estimated true scores were calculated by the equation T = M + r(X - M), where T is the examinee's estimated
true score, X is the obtained score, M is the population mean
score (10 in the case of WISC-III subtests), and r is the subtest's
reliability coefficient (Nunnally, 1980). The appropriate formula for calculating the SEM around true scores (SEM,) is
SDx[r(l - r)]'A, where SDX is the subtest's standard deviation
(Brophy, 1986; Dudek, 1979; Knight, 1983). This formula for
SEM, referred to by Lord and Novik (1968) as the "standard
error of estimation," is the one recommended for establishing
confidence intervals; the more commonly used SEM term (and
the one used in the WISC-III manual), SD X (1 - r)'A, is a measure of error variance in a set of obtained scores and should not
be used to estimate true score ranges (Knight, 1983). The estimated true scores and SEM,s in Table 1 were calculated using
the average reliability coefficients derived by using the WISCIII standardization sample and reported in the WISC-III manual (Wechsler, 1991; p. 166). The rows in Table 1 represent each
possible obtained scaled score (1-19), and the columns represent individual subtests. Each coordinate contains the lower
and upper ends of the band of scores contained within one
SEM, of the estimated true score. Because the ranges are based
on one SEM,, there is a 68.26% probability that the examinee's

The intelligence quotient (IQ) has played a significant role in

clinical psychology since its inception in the early 1900s. Recent
trends, however, particularly in neuropsychology, deemphasize
IQ scores (Lezak, 1988; Siegel, 1989). The major reason for this
is that IQ scores are composites, lumping together performances on a range of tasks into a single index. The resulting loss
of information concerning an individual's cognitive strengths
and weaknesses runs counter to the increasing appreciation of
the multifaceted nature of intelligence and cognitive functioning (Ellis & Young, 1988).
The Wechsler scales offer some opportunity for going beyond
a single IQ score by providing individual scores on up to 13
separate tasks. Interpretation of these individual subtest scores
is typically conducted in one of two ways. First, numerous investigations have attempted to identify clinically significant
profiles of scores. Regardless of IQ, therefore, particular patterns of high and/or low scores have been linked to the presence
of specific developmental learning disabilities (Bannatyne,
1974; Hale & Saxe, 1983; Kaufman, 1979); neuropsychological
deficits (Rourke, Bakker, Fisk, & Strang, 1983); and emotional
disorders (Dean, 1977). A second approach has been to use
individual subtests as measures of specific cognitive function or
functions. The Boston Process approach (Kaplan, 1988; Kaplan, Fein, Morris, & Delis, 1991), for example, has developed a
rich system for inferring the various component cognitive processes that contribute to success or failure on a given subtest.
Using individual subtest scores, however, requires consideration of several theoretical and psychometric issues. Most of
the subtests on the Wechsler scales are heterogeneous; performance successes and failures can be attributed to a number of
different possible underlying cognitive skills. Observation and
quantification of such variables as the types of errors made and
problem-solving strategies used often provide more clues about
the status of an examinee's intellectual operations than the
final achievement score (Kaplan, 1988).
Responsible reporting of individual subtests also requires

Joel H. Kramer, Department of Psychiatry, University of California,

San Francisco Medical Center.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joel
H. Kramer, BoxCPT-0984, Department of Psychiatry, UCSF Medical
Center, 401 Parnassus, San Francisco, California 94143.

193

194

JOEL H. KRAMER

Table 1
Confidence Intervals for Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Ill Subtest Scores
SS
1

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

0
7

10
i \J

11
12
13
14

16
17
11 o
8

19

Info

Sim

Ari

Voc

Comp

DSp

PCo

Cod

PAr

BD

OA

Sym

Maz

SS

1.3
3.5
2.2

1.5
3.9
2.3

1.7
4.2

1.9
4.4

2.3
5.1
3.0
5.8
3.7
6.5

4.7

7.4
5.7

6.8
5.5

7.4
5.7

3.2
2.0
4.0
2.9
4.9
3.8
5.8
4.6
6.7

2.4
5.2
3.1

3.2
5.5
4.0
6.3
4.8

1.9
4.4
2.6
5.2
3.4
6.0
4.2
6.7
4.9
7.5

1.2

4.7

1.8
4.3
2.6
5.1
3.3
5.9
4.1
6.6
4.9

1.7
4.1

3.0
5.2
3.9
6.1
4.7
6.9

1.8
4.3
2.6
5.1
3.3
5.9
4.1
6.6
4.9

1.3
3.4

4.4

1.2
3.2
2.0
4.0
2.9
4.9
3.8
5.8
4.6
6.7
5.5
7.5
6.4
8.4
7.3
9.3
8.1
10.1
9.0
11.0
9.9
11.9
10.7

8.2
6.4
9.0
7.2
9.7
8.0
10.5
8.7
11.3
9.5
12.0
10.3
12.8
11.0
13.6
11.8
14.3
12.6
15.1

7.7
6.4

8.2
6.4
9.0
7.2

5.5
7.7
6.4

8.6
7.2
9.4
8.1
10.3
8.9
11.1
9.7
11.9
10.6
12.8
11.4
13.6
12.3
14.5
13.1
15.3
13.9
16.1
14.8
17.0
15.6
17.8
16.5
18.7

7.1
5.6
7.9
6.4
8.7
7.2

9.6
8.0
10.4
8.8
11.2
9.6
12.0
10.4
12.8
11.3
13.6
12.1
14.4
12.9
15.2
13.7
16.0
14.5
16.8
15.3

2.5
5.0
3.3
5.8
4.1

6.6
4.9
7.3
5.6
8.1
6.4
8.9
7.2
9.7
8.0
10.5
8.8
11.2
9.5
12.0
10.3
12.8
11.1
13.6
11.9
14.4
12.7
15.1
13.4
15.9
14.2
16.7

17.7

15.0
17.5

16.1
18.5

15.8
18.3

12.7
11.6

13.6
12.5
14.5
13.3
15.4
14.2
16.2
15.1
17.1
16.0
18.0
16.8
18.8

13.4

15.9
14.1
16.7
14.9
17.4
15.7
18.2

2.1
4.3

3.0
5.1
3.8
6.0

8.5
7.2
9.4
8.1
10.2
8.9
11.1
9.8
11.9
10.6
12.8
11.5
13.6
12.3
14.5
13.2
15.3
14.0
16.2
14.9
17.0
15.7
17.9
16.6
18.7

9.7

8.0
10.5
8.7
11.3
9.5
12.0
10.3
12.8
11.0
13.6
11.8
14.3
12.6
15.1
13.4
15.9
14.1

16.7
14.9
17.4
15.7
18.2

2.5
4.9
3.2
5.7
4.0

6.5
4.8
7.3
5.6
8.1
6.4
8.9
7.2

9.6
8.0
10.4
8.8
11.2
9.6
12.0
10.4
12.8
11.1
13.6
11.9
14.4
12.7
15.2

13.5
16.0
14.3
16.8
15.1
17.5
15.9

18.3

5.7

8.2
6.4
9.0
7.2
9.8
8.0
10.5
8.7
11.3
9.5

12.0
10.2
12.8
11.0
13.6
11.8
14.3
12.5
15.1
13.3
15.8
14.0
16.6
14.8
17.4
15.6
18.1

5.5
7.5
6.4
8.4

7.3
9.3
8.1
10.1
9.0
11.0
9.9
11.9
10.7
12.7
11.6
13.6
12.5
14.5
13.3
15.4
14.2
16.2
15.1
17.1
16.0
18.0
16.8
18.8

5.9
3.8
6.6
4.5
7.2
5.2
7.9
5.9

8.6
6.5
9.3
7.2

10.0
7.9
10.7

8.6
11.4
9.3
12.1
10.0
12.8
10.7
13.5
11.4
14.1
12.1

14.8

12.8
15.5
13.4
16.2
14.1
16.9
14.8
17.6

2.6
5.2
3.4
6.0
4.2
6.7
4.9
7.5
5.7
8.2
6.4
9.0
7.2
9.8
8.0
10.5
8.7
11.3
9.5
12.0
10.2
12.8
11.0
13.6
11.8
14.3
12.5
15.1
13.3
15.8
14.0
16.6
14.8
17.4
15.6
18.1

4.4
7.2
5.1
7.9

5.8
6.5
6.4
9.3
7.2
10.0
7.9
10.7
8.6
11.4
9.3
12.1
10.0
12.8
10.7
13.5
11.4
14.2
12.1
14.9
12.8
15.6
13.5
16.3
14.2
17.0
14.9
17.7

9
10
11

13
14

15
16
17

18
19

1 (~\

Note. SS = subtest score; Info = Information; Sim = Similarities; Ari = Arithmetic; Voc = Vocabulary;
Comp = Comprehension; DSp = Digit Span; PCo = Picture Completion; Cod = Coding; PAr = Picture
Arrangement; BD = Block Design; OA = Object Assembly; Sym = Symbol Search; Maz = Mazes.

true score falls within the range provided in Table 1 (Nunnally,

1980).
It is also important for practitioners to have available a means
for converting scores into descriptive terms. Wechsler (1991, p.

Table 2
Classification of Ability Levels for Individual Subtest Scores
Subtest score

Classification

16 and above
14.0-15.9
12.0-13.9
8.0-11.9
6.0-7.9
4.0-5.9
3.9 and below

Significantly above average (very superior)

Above average (superior)
High average (high average)
Average (average)
Low average (low average)
Below average (borderline)
Significantly below average (intellectually deficient)

32) has provided a scheme for classifying IQ scores into different qualitative and diagnostic categories (e.g., high average or
intellectually deficient). A second purpose of this article, therefore, is to adapt Wechsler's (1991) system for use with subtest
scores. The adaptation of the classification system was accomplished by converting the IQ ranges into standard scores (e.g.,
.66 > z > 1. 28 = high average) and then calculating the subtest
scaled score equivalents of the standard scores. Wechsler's
terms for the lowest and highest scores have been substituted
with less value-laden terms; Wechsler's original terms are in
parentheses.
As is evident in Table 1, the reliability of an individual subtest
significantly affects the interpretation of a given obtained score.
For example, an obtained score of 6 on Object Assembly, the
least reliable subtest, indicates a true score between 5.9 and 8.6.
Considerable caution must be exercised in interpreting such a
score because the estimated true score falls within a rather

195

WISC-III SUBTEST SCORES

114
A

accurate confidence intervals for these age groups, Table 3 presents bands of scores based on the reliability coefficients for the
less reliable subtests.
Tables 1-3 provide guidelines for more accurate clinical interpretation of individual subtest scores. It must be emphasized, however, that the ranges in Table 1 represent a band of
only one SEMt. This means that the probability of the examinee's true score falling within that band is .68. Greater degrees of confidence require broader ranges. Interested readers
should use the formula [T SEM, (z)] to compute broader
ranges; z values of 1.15, 1.44, 1.64, 1.96, and 2.58 will yield
confidence intervals of 75%, 85%, 90%, 95%, and 99%, respectively. For some of the less reliable subtests, however, use of
broader ranges will make meaningful interpretation of an individual score more difficult.
Although the proposed guidelines are designed primarily for
normative interpretation of subtest performance, there are
clear implications for ipsative approaches. The psychometric
limitations of the WISC-III subtests argue for a highly conservative approach to profile analysis. Studies with the WISC-R
have raised concerns about the unreliability of individual subtests, questionable reliability of difference scores (Berk, 1983),
and instability of subtest scores over time (Bauman, 1991). Although some tables offered in the WISC-III manual assist in
interpreting differences between subtests and between a subtest and average scores (Wechsler, 1991; pp. 263-266), studies
specifically addressing the reliability, stability, and discriminant validity of WISC-III profiles are needed.

1 f.

References

Table 3
Confidence Intervals for the Least Reliable WISC-III Subtests:
6-7 Year Olds (Info, Voc, Cod, BD), 14 Year Olds
(OA), and 15 Year Olds (Ma)
SS
1
1
'J

2.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

9
I A

1U

11
12
13

15
i f\

ID

18
19

Info

Voc

Cod

BD

OA

Ma

2.1
4.8
2.8
5.5
3.6
6.2
4.3
7.0
5.0
7.7
5.7
8.4
6.5
9.1
7.2
9.9
7.9
10.6
8.7
11.3
9.4
12.1
10.1
12.8
10.9
13.5
11.6
14.3
12.3
15.0
13.0
15.7
13.8
16.4
14.5
17.2
15.2
17.9

1.7
4.1
2.5
4.9
3.2
5.7
4.0
6.5
4.8
7.3
5.6
8.1
6.4
8.9
7.2
9.6
8.0
10.4
8.8
11.2
9.6
12.0
10.4
12.8
11.1
13.6
11.9
14.4
12.7
15.2
13.5
16.0
14.3
16.8
15.1
17.5
15.9
18.3

2.3
5.1
3.0
5.8
3.7
6.5
4.4
7.2
5.1
7.9
5.8
8.6
6.5
9.3
7.2
10.0
7.9
10.7
8.6

1.8
4.3
2.6
5.1
3.3
5.9

3.1
6.1
3.7
6.7
4.3
7.3
4.9
7.9
5.5
8.5
6.1
9.1
6.7
. 9.7
7.3
10.3
7.9
10.9
8.5
11.5
9.1
12.1
9.7
12.7
10.3
13.3
10.9
13.9
11.5
14.5
12.1
15.1
12.7
15.7
13.3
16.3
13.9
16.9

3.0
6.0
3.7
6.6
4.3
7.2
4.9
7.8
5.5
8.4
6.1
9.0
6.7
9.6
7.3
10.2
7.9
10.9
8.5
11.5
9.1
12.1
9.8
12.7
10.4
13.3
11.0
13.9
11.6
14.5
12.2
15.1
12.8
15.7
13.4
16.3
14.0
17.0

11.4

9.3
12.1
10.0
12.8
10.7
13.5
11.4
14.2
12.1
14.9
12.8
15.6
13.5
16.3
14.2
17.0
14.9
17.7

4.1

6.6
4.9
7.4
5.7
8.2
6.4
9.0
7.2
9.7
8.0
10.5
8.7
11.3
9.5
12.0
10.3
12.8
11.0
13.6
11.8
14.3
12.6
15.1
13.4
15.9
14.1
16.7
14.9
17.4
15.7
18.2

SS
1
1

9
1A
1U

11
12
13

16

18

Note. WISC-III = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Ill;

SS = subtest score; Info = Information; Voc = Vocabulary; Cod = Coding; BD = Block Design; OA = Object Assembly; Ma = Mazes.

broad (and clinically meaningless) range from below average

(borderline) to average. In contrast, the meaning of more reliable subtests such as Vocabulary and Block Design can be reported with greater certainty.
The bands of scores in Table 1 are based on the average reliability coefficients for the entire WISC-III standardization sample. These scores provide reasonably accurate and conservative
confidence intervals for most of the subtests across most age
groups. The subtests of the WISC-III are least reliable for
younger subjects, however. Four of the 13 reliability coefficients
for the 6- and 7-year-old groups are lower than the average
reliability coefficient by a margin of .08 or greater. Two subtests
(Coding and Object Assembly) for the 14-year-olds and one subtest (Mazes) for the 15 year olds also have reliability coefficients
that are at least .08 less than the average. To provide more

Bannatyne, A. (1974). Diagnosis: A note of recategorization of the

WISC scaled scores. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 212-214.
Bauman, E. (1991). Determinants of WISC-R subtest stability in children with learning difficulties. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47,
430-435.
Berk, R. A. (1983). The value of WISC-R profile analysis for the differential diagnosis of learning disabled children. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 39, 133-135.
Brophy, A. L. (1986). Confidence intervals for true scores and retest
scores on clinical tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 989-991.
Dean, R. S. (1977). Patterns of emotional disturbance on the WISC-R.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 486-490.
Dudek, E J. (1979). The continuing misinterpretation of the standard
error of measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 335-337.
Ellis, A. W, & Young, A. W (1988). Human cognitive neuropsychology.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hale, R. L., & Saxe, J. E. (1983). Profile analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, I, 155-161.
Kaplan, E. (1988). A process approach to neuropsychological assessment. In T. Boll & B. K. Bryant (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology and
brain function: Research, measurement, and practice (pp. 129-167).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kaplan, E., Fein, D, Morris, R., & Delis, D. C. (1991). WAIS-R as a
neuropsychological instrument. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

196

JOEL H. KRAMER

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Kaufman, A. S. (1979). Intelligent testing with the WISC-R. New York:

Wiley-Interscience.
Knight, R. G. (1983). On interpreting the several standard errors of the
WAIS-R: Some further tables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 51, 671-673.
Lezak, M. D. (1988). IQ: RIP. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 10, 351-360.
Lord, F. M., & Novik, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test
scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Nunnally, J. C. (1980). Introduction to psychological measurement. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Rourke, B. P., Bakker, D. X, Fisk, J. L., & Strang, J. D. (1983). Child

neuropsychology: An introduction to theory, research, and clinical
practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learningdisabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469-478.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Ill. San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Received June 8,1992
Revision received October 12,1992
Accepted October 30,1992

Ethical Standards for the Reporting and Publishing

of Scientific Information
The following ethical standards are extracted from the "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of
Conduct," which appeared in the December 1992 issue of the American Psychologist (Vol. 47, No. 12, pp.
1597-1611). Standards 6.21-6.26deal with the reporting and publishing of scientific information.

6.21

Reporting of Results

(a) Psychologists do not fabricate data or

falsify results in theirpublications.
(b) If psychologists discover significant errors in their published data, they take reasonable
steps tocorrectsucherrorsinacorrection, retraction,
erratum, or other appropriate publication means.

6.22

Plagiarism

Psychologists do not present substantial portions or elements of another's work or data as

their own, even if the other work or data source
is cited occasionally.

6.23

Publication Credit

(a) Psychologists take responsibility and

credit, including authorship credit, only for work
they have actually performed or to which they
have contributed.
(b) Principal authorship and other publication
credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or
professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere
possession of an institutional position, such as
Department Chair, does not justify authorship
credit. Minor contributions to the research or to
the writing for publications are appropriately
acknowledged, such as in footnotes or in an
introductory statement.

(c) A student is usually listed as principal

author on any multiple-authored article that is
substantially based on the student's dissertation
or thesis.

6.24

Duplicate Publication of Data

Psychologists do not publish, as original

data, data that have been previously published.
This does not preclude republishing data when
they are accompanied by proper acknowledgment.

6.25

Sharing Data

After research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which
their conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to
use such data only forthat purpose, provided that
the confidentiality of the participants can be
protected and unless legal rights concerning
proprietary data preclude their release.

6.26

Professional Reviewers

Psychologists who review material submitted

for publication, grant, or other research proposal
review respect the confidentiality of and the
proprietary rights in such information of those
who submitted it.