A Cluster Analytic Study of the Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children-IV in Children Referred for Psychoeducational Assessment Due to Persistent Academic Difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children-IV core subtest scores of 472 children were cluster analyzed to determine if reliable and valid subgroups would emerge. Three subgroups were identified. Clusters were reliable across different stages of the analysis as well as across algorithms and samples. With respect to external validity, the Globally Low cluster differed from the other two clusters on Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II Word Reading, Numerical Operations, and Spelling subtests, whereas the latter two clusters did not differ from one another. The clusters derived have been identified in studies using previous WISC editions. Clusters characterized by poor performance on subtests historically associated with the VIQ (i.e., VCI + WMI) and PIQ (i.e., POI + PSI) did not emerge, nor did a cluster characterized by low scores on PRI subtests. Picture Concepts represented the highest subtest score in every cluster, failing to vary in a predictable manner with the other PRI subtests.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".