PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 19, 2026Assessment0 citations

Construct Validity of the WAIS- 5: Complementary Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the 20 Primary and Secondary Subtests

View Full Paper
GCGary L. CanivezMWMarley W. WatkinsRMRyan J. McGill

Key Points

  • This research aims to assess the construct validity of the WAIS-5 using factor analysis techniques.
  • Performed exploratory factor analyses (EFA) to assess latent factor structure.
  • Utilized confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to evaluate the best fitting model.
  • Analyzed data from a standardization sample of 2,020 using correlation matrices and descriptive statistics.
  • Corrected gaps in the WAIS-5 Technical and Interpretive Manual regarding model reliability.
  • EFA did not support five latent factors, merging Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning into the Perceptual Reasoning factor.
  • A four-factor model dominated by a general intelligence (g) was supported, similar to WAIS-IV findings.
  • CFA indicated that the bifactor model with four group factors provided the best fit, consistent with EFA results.

Abstract

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fifth Edition (WAIS-5) latent factor structure was assessed using complementary hierarchical exploratory factor analyses (EFA) with the Schmid and Leiman procedure and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) using the standardization sample ( N = 2,020) correlation matrix and descriptive statistics of the 20 primary and secondary WAIS-5 subtests. The WAIS-5 Technical and Interpretive Manual did not include EFA, CFA with fewer than five first-order (group) factors, CFA with rival bifactor models, or model-based reliability and dimensionality estimates; thus, the present independent structural validity assessment corrects this evidential lacuna to help guide ethical and evidence-based interpretation. EFA results did not support five latent factors with separate Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning factors. Instead, a four-factor model with Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning factors merged into the former Perceptual Reasoning factor and measurement dominated by a general intelligence ( g ) factor—similar to the WAIS-IV structure—was supported. CFA results indicated that a bifactor model with four group factors provided the best fit, consistent with the EFA findings. Overall, the EFA and CFA results did not support the purported WAIS-5 structure and instead replicated findings from independent assessments of the WISC-V with standardization and clinical samples, that indicated primary, if not exclusive, interpretation of the FSIQ as an estimate of psychometric g .

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Canivez et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6996a7b5ecb39a600b3ed9fahttps://doi.org/10.1177/10731911251412219
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Monte Carlo Modeling of Contemporary Intelligence Test (IQ) Factor Structure: Implications for IQ Assessment, Interpretation, and Theory2019 · 29 citations
  2. 2Factor Structure of the 10 WISC-V Primary Subtests Across Four Standardization Age Groups2017 · 66 citations
  3. 3Factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition: Exploratory factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests.2015 · 112 citations
  4. 4Human Cognitive Abilities1993 · 4,097 citations
  5. 5The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis1960 · 12,414 citations