Elevated scaled scores when using the digital version of the WISC-V coding subtest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the digital version of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V) Coding subtest in a large Australian clinical and non-clinical sample of 6–11 year old children (N = 794). Data was retrospectively pooled from several studies. Results showed the digital Coding scaled score was significantly elevated compared with all other subtests (M difference = 2.01, 95% CI. 1.74–2.27). Overall FSIQ was higher when calculated using Coding compared with Symbol Search (M difference = 2.067, 95% CI. 1.79–2.34). The Coding and Symbol Search discrepancy in digital administration did not vary according to age and was unrelated to general intelligence. Girls scored higher on average than boys on the digital Coding subtest, but there was no sex effect for the digital Symbol Search subtest (girls: M = 10.76, 95% CI 10.41–11.12; boys: M = 10.27, 95% CI 9.92–10.63). Inflated digital Coding scaled scores were observed across our subsamples of clinical and non-clinical cases, without any significant group differences. Overall, our findings support the notion that the digital WISC-V Coding subtest is inflated, particularly for girls, supporting cessation in the digital administration of this subtest.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".