Comparing Canadian and American Normative Scores on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychologists practicing in Canada must decide which set of normative data to use for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV). The purpose of this study was to compare the interpretive effects of applying American versus Canadian normative systems in a sample of 432 Canadian postsecondary-level students who were administered the WAIS-IV as part of an evaluation for a learning disability, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, or other mental health problems. Employing the Canadian normative system yielded IQ, Index, and subtest scores that were systematically lower than those obtained using the American norms. Furthermore, the percentage agreement in normative classifications, defined as American and Canadian index scores within five points or within the same classification range, was between 49% and 76%. Substantial differences are present between the American and Canadian WAIS-IV norms. Clinicians should consider carefully the implications regarding which normative system is most appropriate for specific types of evaluations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".