IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i13p6835-d582426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Cognitive Abilities Using the WAIS-IV: An Item Response Theory Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Gomaa Said Mohamed Abdelhamid

    (Quantitative Psychology Unit, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, 08035 Barcelona, Spain
    Group on Measurement Invariance and Analysis of Change (GEIMAC), Institute of Neurosciences, University of Barcelona, 08035 Barcelona, Spain
    Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, Fayoum University, Fayoum 63514, Egypt)

  • Marwa Gomaa Abdelghani Bassiouni

    (Department of Methods of Social Work, Faculty of Social Work, Fayoum University, Fayoum 63514, Egypt)

  • Juana Gómez-Benito

    (Quantitative Psychology Unit, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, 08035 Barcelona, Spain
    Group on Measurement Invariance and Analysis of Change (GEIMAC), Institute of Neurosciences, University of Barcelona, 08035 Barcelona, Spain)

Abstract

Background : The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) has been adapted to 28 different cultures and there has been considerable interest in examining its structure through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. This study investigates item and scale properties of the Egyptian WAIS-IV using item response theory (IRT) models. Methods : The sample consisted of 250 adults from Egypt. The item-level and subtest statistical properties of the Egyptian WAIS-IV were established using a combination of four dichotomous IRT models and four polytomous IRT models. In addition, factor analysis was performed to investigate the dimensionality of each subtest. Results : Factor analysis indicated the unidimensionality of each subtest. Among IRT models, the two-parameter logistic model provided a good fit for dichotomous subtests, while the graded response model fitted the polytomous data. Most items of the Egyptian WAIS-IV showed high discrimination, and the scale was adequately informative across the levels of latent traits (i.e., cognitive variables). However, each subtest included at least some items with limited ability to distinguish between individuals with differing levels of the cognitive variable being measured. Furthermore, most subtests have items that do not follow the difficulty rank they are ascribed in the WAIS-IV manual. Conclusions : Overall, the results suggest that the Egyptian WAIS-IV offers a highly valid assessment of intellectual abilities, despite the need for some improvements.

Suggested Citation

  • Gomaa Said Mohamed Abdelhamid & Marwa Gomaa Abdelghani Bassiouni & Juana Gómez-Benito, 2021. "Assessing Cognitive Abilities Using the WAIS-IV: An Item Response Theory Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:13:p:6835-:d:582426
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/13/6835/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/13/6835/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura Maldonado-Murciano & Halley M. Pontes & Mark D. Griffiths & Maite Barrios & Juana Gómez-Benito & Georgina Guilera, 2020. "The Spanish Version of the Internet Gaming Disorder Scale-Short Form (IGDS9-SF): Further Examination Using Item Response Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Geoff Masters, 1982. "A rasch model for partial credit scoring," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 149-174, June.
    3. Caterina Primi & Giulia Fioravanti & Silvia Casale & Maria Anna Donati, 2021. "Measuring Problematic Facebook Use among Adolescents and Young Adults with the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale: A Psychometric Analysis by Applying Item Response Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-15, March.
    4. van Schuur, Wijbrandt H., 2003. "Mokken Scale Analysis: Between the Guttman Scale and Parametric Item Response Theory," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 139-163, April.
    5. Heon-Jae Jeong & Hsun-Hsiang Liao & Su Ha Han & Wui-Chiang Lee, 2020. "An Application of Item Response Theory to Scoring Patient Safety Culture Survey Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-10, January.
    6. Eun-Young Park & Soojung Chae, 2020. "Rasch Analysis of the Korean Parenting Stress Index Short Form (K-PSI-SF) in Mothers of Children with Cerebral Palsy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-11, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. César Merino-Soto & Gina Chávez-Ventura & Verónica López-Fernández & Guillermo M. Chans & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano, 2022. "Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L): Psychometric and Measurement Invariance Evidence in Peruvian Undergraduate Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Rudy Ligtvoet & L. Ark & Wicher Bergsma & Klaas Sijtsma, 2011. "Polytomous Latent Scales for the Investigation of the Ordering of Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 76(2), pages 200-216, April.
    3. Anja C. Rohenkohl & Monika Bullinger & Andreas M. Pleil & Levente Kriston & Julia H. Quitmann, 2016. "A Brief Version of the Quality of Life in Short Stature Youth Questionnaire - the QoLISSY-Brief," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 9(4), pages 971-984, December.
    4. Roberto Burro & Riccardo Sartori & Giulio Vidotto, 2011. "The method of constant stimuli with three rating categories and the use of Rasch models," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 43-58, January.
    5. P. A. Ferrari & S. Salini, 2008. "Measuring Service Quality: The Opinion of Europeans about Utilities," Working Papers 2008.36, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    6. Chang, Hsin-Li & Yang, Cheng-Hua, 2008. "Explore airlines’ brand niches through measuring passengers’ repurchase motivation—an application of Rasch measurement," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 105-112.
    7. Enzo Loner, 2016. "A new way of looking at old things. An application of Guttman errors analysis to the study of environmental concern," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 823-847, March.
    8. Ivana Bassi & Matteo Carzedda & Enrico Gori & Luca Iseppi, 2022. "Rasch analysis of consumer attitudes towards the mountain product label," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, December.
    9. Antonio Caronni & Marina Ramella & Pietro Arcuri & Claudia Salatino & Lucia Pigini & Maurizio Saruggia & Chiara Folini & Stefano Scarano & Rosa Maria Converti, 2023. "The Rasch Analysis Shows Poor Construct Validity and Low Reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0) Questionnaire," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-19, January.
    10. Hua-Hua Chang, 1996. "The asymptotic posterior normality of the latent trait for polytomous IRT models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 61(3), pages 445-463, September.
    11. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    12. Curt Hagquist & Raili Välimaa & Nina Simonsen & Sakari Suominen, 2017. "Differential Item Functioning in Trend Analyses of Adolescent Mental Health – Illustrative Examples Using HBSC-Data from Finland," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 10(3), pages 673-691, September.
    13. Edward Ip & Yuchung Wang & Paul Boeck & Michel Meulders, 2004. "Locally dependent latent trait model for polytomous responses with application to inventory of hostility," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 191-216, June.
    14. Chen-Wei Liu & R Philip Chalmers, 2018. "Fitting item response unfolding models to Likert-scale data using mirt in R," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, May.
    15. Janna Niens & Lisa Richter-Beuschel & Tobias C. Stubbe & Susanne Bögeholz, 2021. "Procedural Knowledge of Primary School Teachers in Madagascar for Teaching and Learning towards Land-Use- and Health-Related Sustainable Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-36, August.
    16. Thilo J. Ketschau & Janne Kleinhans, 2019. "Concept and Implementation of a Two-Stage Coding Scheme for the Development of Computer-Based Testing (CBT)-Items in Traditional Test Software," J, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9, January.
    17. T. W. G. Meer & E. Ouattara, 2019. "Putting ‘political’ back in political trust: an IRT test of the unidimensionality and cross-national equivalence of political trust measures," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(6), pages 2983-3002, November.
    18. Marko Böhm & Jan Barkmann & Sabina Eggert & Claus H. Carstensen & Susanne Bögeholz, 2020. "Quantitative Modelling and Perspective Taking: Two Competencies of Decision Making for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-32, August.
    19. Salzberger, Thomas & Newton, Fiona J. & Ewing, Michael T., 2014. "Detecting gender item bias and differential manifest response behavior: A Rasch-based solution," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 598-607.
    20. Rasmus A. X. Persson, 2023. "Theoretical evaluation of partial credit scoring of the multiple-choice test item," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 81(2), pages 143-161, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:13:p:6835-:d:582426. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.