Schinka, J. A. Vanderploeg, R.D. Curtiss, G. (1997) WISC-III Subtest Scatter As A Function of Highest Subtest Scaled Score

Psychological Assessment
1997, Vol. 9, No. 2, 83-88
Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1040-3590/97/$3.00
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.
WISC-III Subtest Scatter as a Function of Highest Subtest Scaled Score

John A. Schinka and Rodney D. Vanderploeg
Glenn Curtiss
James A. Haley Veterans Affairs Medical Center,

Tampa, Florida, and University of South Florida
Henry M. Jackson Foundation and James A. Haley

Veterans Affairs Medical Center
The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenIII (WISC-III) standardization data were analyzed
to determine the frequency of occurrence for relative intersubtest scatter ranges. The relative scatter
range was denned as the difference between the highest and lowest subtest scaled scores based on
the value of the highest subtest scaled score. This approach to intersubtest scatter provides the
greatest precision in scatter analysis to help clinicians determine whether the amount of scatter
obtained in WISC-III clinical profiles is rare enough to be considered abnormal. For ease of clinical
use, tables are provided that report frequency of occurrence for the lowest subtest scaled score by
each level of highest subtest scaled score. Potential scatter range, rather than overall level of intelligence, was the primary determinant of the magnitude of scatter; the greater the possible range, the
larger the magnitude of scatter.
Since the introduction of the Wechsler scales in 1939, the

analysis of intelligence test subtest profiles has been a subject
of substantive clinical theorizing and research interest. The potential importance of variability in subtest profiles was spurred
initially by several reports (e.g., Black, 1974; Doehring, Reitan, & Klove, 1961; Simpson & Vega, 1971) of increased subtest
scatter in patients with demonstrable brain damage. Although
numerous studies have subsequently examined intelligence-battery subtest scatter in relation to a broad variety of forms of
psychopathology, there is little substantive evidence to support
the diagnostic utility of specific subtest patterns. Nevertheless,
highly recognized texts (e.g., Kaufman, 1990; Saltier, 1988)
provide strategies for generating clinical hypotheses based on
subtest scatter for the Wechsler intelligence scales.
As we have noted (Schinka, Vanderploeg, & Curtiss, 1994),
subtest score variability, or scatter, has been assessed by means
of three measures: (a) the absolute range (the difference between the highest and lowest subtest scaled scores, regardless
of the value of either score; Matarazzo, Daniel, Prifitera, &
Herman, 1988; McLean, Kaufman, & Reynolds, 1989; Silverstein, 1987, 1989); (b) the absolute subtest scaled score
range for different levels of IQ (Matarazzo et al., 1988); and
(c) the number of subtest scale scores differing by 3 points

from the individual's mean scaled score (e.g., at various frequencies of occurrence; McLean et al., 1989). Studies examining the relationships among these measures and demographic
variables for the revised Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
(WA1S-R; Wechsler, 1981) have shown that the range is the
most effective measure (Matarazzo et al., 1988; McLean et
al., 1989). Because scatter has been shown to increase with
increasing education or IQ with administration of the WAISR
to adults, tables presenting the frequencies of different scatter
ranges are typically broken down by levels of one of these
variables (e.g., IQ in Tables 4-6 of Matarazzo et al., 1988,
and Tables 4 and 5 in McLean et al., 1989). Matarazzo et al.
(1988) suggested that the greater intersubtest scatter observed
at higher IQ levels deserved further exploration, because statistically one would expect that widely deviate subtest scores
would average out, resulting in an IQ near the population mean.
Schinka et al. (1994), however, demonstrated that the amount
of scatter in the WAIS-R normative sample is simply a function of the potential range of scatter, and they provided tables
for examining the frequency of scatter on the basis of highest
subtest scale score.
In the manual for the latest edition of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III; Wechsler, 1991), the clinical importance of subtest scatter is recognized by the provision
of Table B5 (p. 266), which presents the percentage of children
in the standardization sample whose scores exhibited various
amounts of absolute scatter within Verbal, Performance, Full
Scale, and factor-based subtest groupings. Wechsler noted in
the manual that analyses conducted to establish whether scatter
varied with age or IQ level revealed no significant findings.
John A. Schinka, Psychology Service, James A. Haley Veterans Affairs

Medical Center, Tampa, Florida, and Department of Psychiatry, University of South Florida; Rodney D. Vanderploeg, Psychology Service,
James A. Haley Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Departments of
Neurology and Psychology, University of South Florida; Glenn Curtiss,
Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Tampa, Florida, and Psychology Service,
James A. Haley Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
This research was supported in part by the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Data reported in this article are standardization data of the
In this article we provide data on frequency of occurrence

for relative, rather than absolute, scatter ranges for the Verbal,
Performance, and Full-Scale subtest groupings for the WISCIII. The relative scatter range is defined as the difference between the highest and lowest subtest scaled scores based on the
value of the highest subtest scaled score. Use of relative ranges
assumes that, for example, a range of 6 may have a different
meaning when the highest subtest scaled score is 8 than it does
WECHSLER INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDRENTHIRD

EDITION. Copyright 1990 by The Psychological Corporation. Used
by permission. All rights reserved.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John A.
Schinka, Psychology Service (116B), James A. Haley Veterans Affairs
Medical Center, 13000 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, Tampa, Florida
33612. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to schinka@forum.
va.gov.
83
84
SCHINKA. VANDERPLOEG, AND CURTISS
Table 1
Verbal Scale (5 Subtexts): Percentage of Cases by Highest Subtext Scaled Score
at or Below the Value for the Lowest Subtest Scaled Score
Lowest
subtest
scaled
score
Highest subtest scaled score
17+
100.0
98.3
95.4
82.8
70.7
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
54.0
37.4
23.0
9.2
2.9
1.1
0.0
16
100.0
99.2
94.7
87.9
71.2
52.3
28.0
11.4
3.8
0.8
0.0
15
100.0
99.5
93.5
81.1
60.7
40.8
25.4
0.5
0.0
100.0
99.6
96.3
82.2
60.2
39.4
22.0
9.1
3.3
1.7
0.8
0.0
201
9.7
2.0
35.2
241
8.8
1.8
36.8
12.4
7.5
4.0
1.0
n
M
SD
%
174
11.3
2.1
38.0
132
10.5
1.7
34.3
14
13
12
100.0
97.7
87.9
luo.o
72.1
47.9
30.6
13.2
6.4
2.6
1.1
0.8
0.0
265
8.4
1.8
35.4
99.0
87.3
64.9
11
10
100.0
94.2
100.0
78.8
96.2
100.0
59.7
34.5
19.9
12.4
4.4
2.2
226
5.9
74.5
50.0
28.3
16.3
6.5
3.3
184
5.3
91.7
0.7
299
7.6
100.0
98.9
82.0
59.4
35.3
16.5
8.3
5.4
2.2
1.1
278
6.9
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
36.8
37.2
40.6
41.7
41.8
23.4
12.0
7.0
3.3
1.7
75.2
100.0
45.9
82.1
100.0
22.0
8.3
3.7
109
4.5
1.4
43.4
53.6
30.4
17.9
56
3.2
1.4
54.7
70.6
47.1
17.6
17
2.6
1.1
55.8
Note. M = mean lowest subtest score; SD = standard deviation of mean lowest subtest score; % =
proportion of the possible scatter range accounted for by average scatter (mean scatter range/highest subtest
score). Standardization data of the WECHSLER INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDRENTHIRD
EDITION. Copyright 1990 by The Psychological Corporation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Table 2
Performance Scale (5 Subtesls): Percentage of Cases by Highest Subtest Scaled Score
Lowest
subtest
scaled
score
16
15
14
13
12
II
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
n
M
SD
%

17+
100.0
99.6
97.6
91.0
81.6
66.5
51.0
31.0
19.2
10.2
4.9
2.0
1.2
0.4
0.4
245
9.4
2.3
49.6
16
15
100.0
98.3
96.0
91.3
100.0
77.5
62.4
42.8
24.9
12.1
4.6
2.3
0.6
0.0
99.6
98.2
95.5
86.5
71.7
56.5
34.5
22.0
12.1
4.5
2.2
0.9
0.4
173
8.9
2.1
44.5
223
8.2
2.2
45.7
14
100.0
99.2
97.0
89.8
77.4
62.6
42.6
24.5
15.1
8.7
4.2
2.3
1.1
265
13
12
100.0
98.2
91.8
100.0
99.7
92.3
84.3
66.2
48.1
32.8
18.1
10.8
4.9
1.4
287
6.4
2.1
46.5
75.3
7.8
51.2
34.1
18.3
10.1
4.9
1.2
0.9
328
7.1
2.3
1.9
44.6
45.1
11
100.0
97.1
88.0
72.0
50.2
34.5
22.9
12.7
7.3
3.6
275
6.1
82.8
100.0
100.0
60.6
40.4
21.2
15.2
10.1
99
4.8
1.9
47.1
83.6
54.5
38.2
18.2
14.5
55
3.9
1.6
51.1
92.0
76.0
68.0
10
100.0
99.5
92.5
100.0
99.0
94.9
73.5
50.5
34.0
18.5
9.0
5.0
200
5.2
2.2
1.8
44.4
48.3
44.0
32.0
25
2.9
1.7
58.9
100.0
93.3
73.3
60.0
33.3
15
2.4
1.4
60.0
WISC-IU SUBTEST SCATTER
85
Table 3
Full Scale (10 Subtests): Percentage of Cases by Highest Subtest Scaled Score
Lowest
subtest
scaled
score
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
n
M
SD
%

17+
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
100.0
98.3
94.5
85.1
68.8
46.1
30.1
16.3
8.3
5.0
2.8
1.1
0.6
362
8.4
2.1
55.3
100.0
98.2
92.8
79.2
59.3
42.5
29.0
14.5
6.8
3.2
2.3
0.9
221
7.7
2.1
51.9
100.0
99.3
99.3
97.2
88.7
76.1
51.4
33.8
23.2
12.3
4.2
1.1
0.4
284
7.1
2.0
52.5
100.0
99.3
97.3
86.4
67.0
42.5
26.9
16.0
9.5
5.1
2.7
294
6.5
2.0
53.8
100.0
98.1
93.8
79.5
56.8
35.7
12.1
12.7
5.9
2.8
322
5.9
1.9
54.4
100.0
99.6
97.8
88.2
73.2
50.7
33.1
21.3
10.7
5.1
272
5.2
2.0
56.7
100.0
98.5
95.0
82.0
59.5
38.5
25.0
10.0
5.0
200
4.9
1.8
55.8
100.0
92.6
86.1
64.8
43.4
24.6
15.6
122
3.7
1.7
62.7
100.0
98.5
94.1
76.5
55.9
35.3
25.0
68
3.1
1.6
65.0
100.0
97.5
72.5
52.5
37.5
40
2.4
1.3
70.0
100.0
90.9
90.9
72.7
11
1.5
0.9
79.2
Table 4
Verbal Scale (6 Subtests, Digit Span Included): Percentage of Cases by Highest Subtest
Scaled Score at or Below the Value for the Lowest Subtest Scaled Score
Lowest
subtest
scaled
score
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5

17+
100.0
98.1
89.6
82.0
71.1
58.3
40.3
25.1
10.0
4.7
2.8
0.9
0.9
0.0
3
2
1
n
M
SD
%
211
10.2
2.4
44.4
16
15
100.0
99.3
95.9
88.4
71.4
50.3
30.6
15.0
4.8
4.1
100.00
99.5
97.7
91.8
75.5
60.5
40.5
21.4
10.5
5.9
0.7
1.4
0.7
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.5
220
8.9
2.0
40.5
147
9.4
1.9
41.3
14
13
12
11
100.0
99.0
91.0
77.2
55.5
34.5
17.2
9.0
5.2
2.8
1.4
0.3
290
8.1
1.9
42.4
100.0
99.7
95.1
85.4
67.3
49.8
25.2
14.6
8.1
3.9
1.9
1.0
309
7.5
2.0
42.5
100.0
99.7
97.1
83.6
61.1
36.3
19.6
11.3
6.1
2.3
0.6
311
6.8
1.8
43.1
100.0
99.1
92.7
76.5
49.1
24.4
10.3
6.4
3.0
1.3
234
6.4
1.6
42.1
10
100.0
99.5
89.6
71.9
43.2
26.6
14.1
5.7
3.1
192
5.5
1.7
45.4
100.0
98.6
83.0
58.5
37.4
17.7
7.5
2.0
147
5.0
1.6
45.0
100.0
96.4
85.7
57.1
31.0
13.1
6.0
84
4.1
1.4
48.7
100.0
90.7
74.4
48.8
30.2
43
2.6
1.3
63.5
100.0
71.4
42.9
28.6
7
2.6
1.3
57.2
proportion of the possible scatter range accounted for by average scatter (mean scatter range/highest subtesl
86
SCHINKA, VANDERPLOEG, AND CURTISS
Table 5
Performance Scale (6 Subtexts, Mazes Included): Percentage of Cases by Highest Subtest
Scaled Score at or Below the Value for the Lowest Subtest Scaled Score
Lowest
subtest
scaled
score
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
17+
16
100.0
99.7
99.7
97.6
91.7
78.9
64.5
46.5
29.4
15.6
100.0
99.0
98.4
97.4
91.1
80.6
59.2
36.6
19.4
7.0
3.4
2.4
3
2
1'
0.6
327
8.6
2.2
530
n
M
SD
%
9.9
5.2
1.0
0.5
0.5
191
8.0
2.0
49.9
15
14
100.0
99.6
98.4
96.1
84.1
69.8
45.7
31.4
16.3
100.0
99.2
94.9
87.8
71.0
54.1
34.9
21.6
7.0
11.4
2.7
1.2
0.4
258
7.5
2.9
502
6.7
35
1.6
255
7.1
2.2
49 1
13
12
11
100.0
99.1
94.9
83.3
61.8
42.4
24.8
13.1
100.0
99.6
98.6
92.5
76.5
58.7
40.6
22.8
12.5
100.0
98.3
92.4
82.3
63.3
46.0
30.0
16.0
6.0
2 1
1.2
335
6.7
1.9
484
6.0
2.5
281
5.9
2.0
509
10
100.0
98.6
92.9
72.9
54.3
30.0
76
3.8
237
5.6
2.1
100.0
97.0
83.4
58.0
37.3
24.9
11.8
6.5
169
4.8
1.8
11.4
49 1
51.9
229
70
4.2
1.8
537
100.0
95.0
65.0
50.0
32.5
27.5
40
3.3
1.7
58.8
100.0
85.0
70.0
SOO
40.0
20
2.6
1.5
636
100.0
72.7
63.6
36,4
11
2.3
1.3
62.1
Note. M = mean lowest subtest score; SD = standard deviation of mean lowest subtest score; %
EDITION. Copyright 1990 by The Psychological Corporation. Used by permission. All right reserved.
when the highest subtest scaled score is 15. For ease of clinical
use, this work reports the lowest subtest scaled score for each
level of highest subtest scaled score, rather than a value for the
range. Clinically, the purpose of the analyses reported here was
to address the question, Given the participant's highest subtest
scaled score, what is the frequency of occurrence, or probability,
of his or her lowest subtest scaled score relative to the normal
sample?
Method
The participants were the 2,200 individuals of the WISC-ffl standardization sample described in detail in the WISC-III manual (Wechsler,
1991). In brief, participants were children, ages 6 through 16 years,
stratified on the basis of five demographic variables; age, gender, raceethnicity, parent education, and geographic region of residence. Our
analyses were derived from a data set that included subtest scale scores,
IQ scores, and data for these five demographic variables.
Ranges for subtest scaled scores were examined separately for the
Verbal and Performance scales and for all WISC-III subtests. Highest
and lowest subtest scaled scores were calculated for each participant,
and frequencies for the entire sample were then calculated for each
lowest scaled score across the range of highest scores from 6 to 17+.
Because there were so few highest scores of 18 and 19, scores of 17
and above were combined for the frequency analyses.
To expand further on Wechsler's (Wechsler, 1991) examination of the
importance of IQ level on subtest scatter, we examined the relative
relationships of highest subtest score and IQ to amount of subtest scatter.
In addition, the amount of scatter was examined as a function of its
proportion of the potential range. If the amount of scatter is primarily
a function of potential range, then the proportion should be relatively

stable across highest subtest scaled scores.
Results and Discussion

Tables 1 through 6 present the frequencies of occurrence of
lowest subtest scaled scores observed across the Rill, Verbal,
and Performance scales classified by the highest subtest scaled
score for both the 10- and 12-subtest administrations. The tables
are organized so that they indicate the frequency of a particular
value. Each entry shows the percentage of individuals whose
lowest subtest scaled score is at or below that level. For example,
the fourth column in Table 1 shows that for individuals with a
highest subtest scaled score of 14, only 1.7% had a lowest
subtest scaled score of 4 or less (i.e., a scatter range of 10 or
more) for the administration of five Verbal subtests.
Examination of the mean scatter across highest scaled scores
indicates that scatter increases with larger values for the highest
subtest scale score. These results are consistent with those reported previously by Matarazzo et al. (1988) for the WMS-R
and by Kaufman (1976a, 1976b) and Reynolds and Gutkin
(1981) for the WISC-R and Wechsler Preschool and Primary
Scale of IntelligenceRevised (WPPSI; Wechsler, 1989) standardization samples, respectively. The correlation between Full
Scale scatter and highest subtest scaled score was .48 for the 10subtest administration and .54 for the 12-subtest administration.
Correlations between Full Scale scatter and Full Scale IQ were
.06 and .07, respectively, for the 10- and 12-subtest administra-
87
WISC-m SUBTEST SCATTER

Table 6
Full Scale (12 Subtexts, Digit Span and Mazes Included): Percentage of Cases by Highest
Subtest Scaled Score at or Below the Value for the Lowest Subtest Scaled Score
Lowest
subtest
scaled
score
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
16
15
14
13
7.8
5.0
2.6
1.5
463
7.6
2.1
100.0
99.6
99.6
97.5
92.8
77.6
62.0
40.9
22.4
10.1
100.0
99.4
96.6
89.2
66.5
44.6
30.8
17.2
3.8
3.0
1.3
237
6.9
2.0
6.2
2.8
1.5
325
6.5
1.9
100.0
99.7
98.6
93.2
80.1
58.1
39.2
23.6
16.2
100.0
99.7
97.8
88.4
66.5
46.7
26.6
17.2
9.1
3.7
296
5.8
2.1
59.9
56.9
57.0
58.7
17+
100.0
98.5
93.3
83.2
66.3
44.5
24.4
13.4
3
2
1
n
M
SD
%
12
11
7.8
4.7
319
5.4
1.9
100.0
95.9
87.3
64.5
40.8
24.1
11.4
100.0
98.0
88.5
66.9
48.0
31.8
14.9
5.3
245
4.7
1.7
6.1
148
4.5
1.8
58.1
60.8
59.5
10
100.0
97.7
92.0
78.4
51.1
28.4
18.2
100.0
84.8
63.0
43.5
30.4
88
3.3
1.6
46
2.8
1.5
66.6
68.9
100.0
96.0
76.0
60.0
52.0
25
2.2
1.4
72.5
100.0
83.3
6
1.2
0.4
82.9
tions. Thus, these results are consistent with those reported for
the WAIS-R by Schinka et al. (1994) and confirm the findings
of Wechsler (1991) concerning the relationship of IQ to scatter
in the WISC-II1.
Tables 1 through 6 also present the average amount of scatter
as a percentage of potential scatter range (i.e., the average scatter
standardization sample with marked subtest scatter did in fact
divided by the highest subtest scaled score). It is clear that the
have undiagnosed pathology, it is very unlikely that all participants with marked subtest scatter did. Even very marked subtest
scatter is likely to reflect the state of normal individual differences in many or most cases. Third, the meaning of marked
scatter should only be addressed within the context of the
WISC-III subtests under consideration, the assessment ques-
proportion of average scatter is relatively stable across highest

subtest scaled scores, at approximately 38% for the Verbal, 46%
tion, and all of the assessment (including remaining WISC-III

subtests), medical, neurological, psychological, and psychoso-
for the Performance, and 54% for the Full Scales for the 10-
cial information.
An example may be useful. A scatter range of 9 within the
Verbal subtests in the 10-subtest administration is in itself not
subtest administration. For the 12-subtest administration, the

percentages climb approximately 5 percentage points, as would
be expected because of the contribution of an additional subtest
score to the range of scatter.
Tables 1 through 6 in this study provide the most precise
tables available to help clinicians determine whether the amount
of subtest scatter obtained in WISC-III clinical profiles is rare
enough to be considered remarkable, and hence, of potential
a meaningful finding. In contrast, a highest scale score of 14

on Vocabulary or Comprehension combined with a lowest scale
score of 5 on Arithmetic (base rate of occurrence of these
highest-lowest score values = 3.3%; see Table I ) would be
consistent with an arithmetic learning disability in the course
of a learning disability evaluation.
clinical importance. In this regard, comments and caveats made

by other authors on the interpretation of scatter (e.g., Kaufman,
References
1990) bear repeating. First, the base rate for any given level of
scatter is likely to be underestimated by most clinicians, especially when considering scatter across both Verbal and Performance subtests. The use of tables, such as the ones provided
herein, should be consulted whenever there is a question of
scatter of potential diagnostic significance. Second, even marked
subtest scatter is not necessarily indicative of pathology when
it constitutes the only evidence of neuropsychological deficit.
Although it is possible that some participants in the WISC-III
Black, F. W. (1974). Cognitive effects of unilateral brain lesions secondary to penetrating missile wounds. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 38,
387-391.
Doehring, D. A., Reitan, R. R., & Klove, H. (1961). Changes in patterns
of intelligence test performance associated with homonymaus visual
field defects. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 132, 227-233.
Kaufman, A. (1976a). A new approach to the interpretation of test
scatter on the WISC-R. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 160168.
SCHINKA, VANDERPLOEG, AND CUKTISS

Kaufman, A. S. (1976b). Do normal children have fiat ability profiles?
Psychology in the Schools, 13, 284-285.
Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Matarazzo, J. D., Daniel, M. H., Prifitera, A., & Herman, D. O. (1988).
Inter-subtest scatter in the WAIS-R standardization sample. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 44, 940-950.
McLean, J. E., Kaufman, A. S., & Reynolds, C. R. (1989). Base rates for
WAIS -R subtest scatter as a guide for clinical and neuropsychological
assessment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 919-926.
Reynolds, C. R., & Gulkin, T. B. (1981). Test scatter on the WPPSI:
Normative analyses of the WPPSI. Journal of Learning Disability,
14, 460-464.
Saltier, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego:
Author.
Schinka, J. A., Vanderploeg, R. D., & Curtiss, G. (1994). WAIS-R
subtest scatter as a function of maximum subtest scaled score. Psychological Assessment, 6, 364-367.
Silverstein, A. B. (1987). Two indices of subtest scatter on Wechsler's

intelligence scales: Estimated vs. empirical values. Journal of Clinical
Psychology. 43, 409-414.
Silverstein, A. B. (1989). Reliability and abnormality of scaled-score
ranges. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 926-929.
Simpson, C. D., & Vega, A. (1971). Unilateral brain damage and patterns of age-corrected WAIS subtest scores. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 204-208.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
ScaleRevised. New "York: Psychological Corp.
Wechsler, D. (1989). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of IntelligenceRevised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
ChildrenThird Edition. New York: Psychological Corp.
Received June 10, 1996
Revision received September 30, 1996
Accepted October 12, 1996
Low Publication Prices for APA Members and Affiliates

Keeping you up-to-date. All APA Fellows, Members, Associates, and Student Affiliates
receiveas part of their annual duessubscriptions to the American Psychologist and
APA Monitor. High School Teacher and International Affiliates receive subscriptions to
the APA Monitor, and they may subscribe to the American Psychologist at a significantly
reduced rate. In addition, all Members and Student Affiliates are eligible for savings of up
to 60% (plus a journal credit) on all other APA journals, as well as significant discounts on
subscriptions from cooperating societies and publishers (e.g., the American Association for
Counseling and Development, Academic Press, and Human Sciences Press).
Essential resources. APA members and affiliates receive special rates for purchases of
APA books, including the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association,
and on dozens of new topical books each year.
Other benefits of membership. Membership in APA also provides eligibility for
competitive insurance plans, continuing education programs, reduced APA convention fees,
and specialty divisions.
More information. Write to American Psychological Association, Membership Services,
750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.

Schinka, J. A. Vanderploeg, R.D. Curtiss, G. (1997) WISC-III Subtest Scatter As A Function of Highest Subtest Scaled Score

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Schinka, J. A. Vanderploeg, R.D. Curtiss, G. (1997) WISC-III Subtest Scatter As A Function of Highest Subtest Scaled Score

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Psychological Assessment

1997, Vol. 9, No. 2, 83-88

Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

WISC-III Subtest Scatter as a Function of Highest Subtest Scaled Score

James A. Haley Veterans Affairs Medical Center,

Henry M. Jackson Foundation and James A. Haley

Since the introduction of the Wechsler scales in 1939, the

(c) the number of subtest scale scores differing by 3 points

John A. Schinka, Psychology Service, James A. Haley Veterans Affairs

In this article we provide data on frequency of occurrence

WECHSLER INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDRENTHIRD

SCHINKA. VANDERPLOEG, AND CURTISS

Highest subtest scaled score

Highest subtest scaled score

WISC-IU SUBTEST SCATTER

Highest subtest scaled score

Highest subtest scaled score

SCHINKA, VANDERPLOEG, AND CURTISS

Highest subtest scaled score

a function of potential range, then the proportion should be relatively

Results and Discussion

WISC-m SUBTEST SCATTER

Highest subtest scaled score

standardization sample with marked subtest scatter did in fact

divided by the highest subtest scaled score). It is clear that the

proportion of average scatter is relatively stable across highest

tion, and all of the assessment (including remaining WISC-III

subtest administration. For the 12-subtest administration, the

a meaningful finding. In contrast, a highest scale score of 14

clinical importance. In this regard, comments and caveats made

SCHINKA, VANDERPLOEG, AND CUKTISS

Silverstein, A. B. (1987). Two indices of subtest scatter on Wechsler's

Low Publication Prices for APA Members and Affiliates

S-ar putea să vă placă și