MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241133324 · doi:10.1177/0013164408318769

Invariance of the Measurement Model Underlying the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—III in the United States and Canada

2008· article· en· W4241133324 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephen C. Bowden, Rael T. Lange, Lawrence G. Weiss, Donald H. Saklofske

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational and Psychological Measurement · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryBC Mental Health & Substance Use ServicesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasurement invariancePsychologyNormativeLatent variableStatisticsWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleLatent variable modelPsychometricsTest (biology)Item response theorySample (material)Level of measurementScale (ratio)Structural equation modelingConfirmatory factor analysisIntelligence quotientSet (abstract data type)Developmental psychologyMathematicsCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A measurement model is invoked whenever a psychological interpretation is placed on test scores. When stated in detail, a measurement model provides a description of the numerical and theoretical relationship between observed scores and the corresponding latent variables or constructs. In this way, the hypothesis that similar meaning can be derived from a set of test scores can be tested by examination of a measurement model across groups. This study examines the invariance of a measurement model underlying Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition scores in the U.S. and the Canadian standardization samples. The measurement model, involving four latent variables, satisfies the assumption of invariance across samples. Subtest scores also show similar reliability in both samples. However, slightly higher latent variable means are found in the Canadian normative sample.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.775
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational and Psychological MeasurementSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207