Invariance of the Measurement Model Underlying the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV in the United States and Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A measurement model describes both the numerical and theoretical relationship between observed scores and the corresponding latent variables or constructs. Testing a measurement model across groups is required to determine if the tests scores are tapping the same constructs so that the same meaning can be ascribed to the scores. Contemporary tests of intelligence describe a number of closely related cognitive abilities, each ability being sampled by a set of observed scores. This study examined the invariance of the measurement model underlying the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—IV (WAIS-IV) in the U.S. and the Canadian standardization samples. The model satisfied the assumption of invariance across samples with subtest scores reflecting similar construct measurement in both samples. Consistent with previous research with the WAIS-III, slightly higher latent variable means were found in the Canadian WAIS-IV normative sample. The results demonstrate the generality of construct validity in measurement of cognitive abilities across U.S. and Canadian samples and highlight the importance of local norms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it