Regression
Equations
Australian
Age-Education and Premorbid Cognitive/Intellectual
Estimates for the WAIS-III Rebecca Sullivan and Dr.
Graeme Senior
Department of Psychology, University of Southern
Queensland
and
Dr. Maria Hennessy
Department of Psychology, James Cook University
Poster
Presented at the 6th Annual Conference of the
APS College of Clinical Neuropsychologists
Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia
October 12 – October 15, 2000
INTRODUCTION
The third edition of the
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III) has been
available in Australia for the past three years
(Wechsler, 1997). Two limitations in this latest version
of one of the most popular cognitive/intellectual test
batteries are the absence of normative data permitting
adjustment for the impact of different levels of formal
education, and equations for estimating premorbid levels
of intellectual functioning. This type of information
has been available for the WAIS-R since the mid-1980s
and has become an integral part of the standard
interpretation of this test. Adjustments for the
influence of most demographic variables can be performed
on individual WAIS-R subtests (Kaufman, McLean, &
Reynolds, 1988) and IQ composites (Matarazzo & Herman,
1984; Ryan, Paolo, & Findley, 1991). Additionally,
clinicians currently enjoy a number of methods for
estimating premorbid intellectual levels using
demographic variables (Barona & Chastain, 1986),
combinations of demographic variables and WAIS-R
subtests (Krull, Scott, & Sherer, 1995), and even
estimates based upon other current test performances,
such as the NART (Nelson, 1991). The absence of this
type of information for the WAIS-III, has led some
assessors to caution against the use of the WAIS-III in
current clinical practice (Senior, Douglas, & Lange,
1999). These authors recommend continuing to utilise the
WAIS-R until these methods become available for the
latest edition.
The role of the current study was to, at least in the
Australian context, resolve some of these limitations in
the WAIS-III. Since its introduction we have been
conducting normative studies designed to examine the
relationship of the WAIS-III to other commonly
administered psychological tests. While not viable as an
Australian standardisation, the data does permit us to
formally evaluate the impact of a number of demographic
variables upon WAIS-III subtests and composite scores
and generate regression equations for estimating
WAIS-III composite levels. In addition, methods for
estimating WAIS-III composites from other tests such as
the NART, the AUSNART, Spot-the-Word, the SILS
Vocabulary subtest, and WRAT-3 Reading subtest will be
provided.
METHOD
Participants
The participants in these studies were derived from
three normative studies conducted through the Psychology
departments at the University of Southern Queensland and
James Cook University. In each normative study the
relationship between WAIS-III subtests and other tests
of cognitive functioning was the primary focus of data
collection. Demographic characteristics of the three
groups are displayed below.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Three Normative
Groups
|
Sex
|
Age
|
Education
|
|
(Male/Female)
|
Mean (SD)
|
Mean (SD)
|
Group 1 (USQ)
|
72/57
|
36.1 (13.3)
|
12.5 (2.3)
|
Group 2 (USQ)
|
48/45
|
34.2 (8.5)
|
12.5 (2.7)
|
Group 3 (JCU)
|
51/49
|
42.3 (15.8)
|
4.6 (1.2)*
|
* The JCU participants had
education coded according to a 6 point coding system
where 4 corresponded to 11-12 years of education and 5
corresponded to 13-15 years of education. All USQ data
were similarly coded for analyses using combined
datasets.
Materials and Procedures
Group 1 participants were
administered all WAIS-III verbal subtests, Digit
Symbol-Coding, and Symbol Search along with the NART,
AUSNART, Shipley Institute of Living Scale, WRAT-3
Reading test, and Spot-the-Word test. Group 2
participants were administered WAIS-III Block Design,
Matrix Reasoning and the Working Memory subtests. Group
3 participants were administered all WAIS-III subtests
and the NART, AUSNART, Spot-the-Word, and WRAT-3 Reading
test. All test administrations were conducted according
to standardised instructions found in each test manual.
RESULTS
Influence of
Demographic Variables
Table 2 summarises the findings from individual analyses
of variance conducted on each of the WAIS-III subtests
and composite scores. The role of these analyses was to
examine whether education or sex differentially impacted
upon WAIS-III scores when age had already been adjusted
for using the tables available in the manual. The table
reports the p value for all significant effects in the
analyses of variance. The analyses were deliberately
conducted on the age-adjusted scaled and standard scores
and NOT on raw scores. This is due primarily to the way
in which scaled scores, IQ scores, and Factor scores are
now computed on the WAIS-III - a clinician attempting to
adjust for other demographic variables on the WAIS-III
will be doing so with the age-adjusted scores.
As can be seen in the table,
performances on virtually all subtests and composites
demonstrate significant effects for education, while sex
influences only Arithmetic and Digit Symbol-Coding.
Surprisingly, despite the use of age-corrected scores a
significant main effect was still found for age on the
Vocabulary subtest. The significant effects for age on
VIQ, FSIQ, and VCI are presumably due to the
contribution of the Vocabulary subtest to each of these
composites. If this is a robust finding, it raises the
concern that the American normative data used to adjust
for the influence of age may be insufficient when
applied to Australian performances on the Vocabulary
subtest.
With the exception of the
Arithmetic subtest and the Full Scale IQ composite no
interactions were significant in any of the analyses of
variance. This is encouraging as it suggests that the
influence of education is essentially additive and would
be relatively easy to adjust with appropriate normative
data.
Table 2
Summary of Results from Analyses of Variance of
Individual WAIS-III Subtests and Composite Scores
WAIS-III Subtest
|
N
|
Age*
|
Education
|
Sex
|
Significant
Interactions
|
Information
|
129
|
|
.000
|
|
|
Vocabulary
|
338
|
.004
|
.000
|
|
|
Similarities
|
338
|
|
.000
|
|
|
Comprehension
|
129
|
|
.003
|
|
|
Arithmetic
|
223
|
|
.001
|
.035
|
Sex x Educ x Age
(.002)
|
Digit-Span
|
223
|
|
.002
|
|
|
Letter-Number
Seq.
|
223
|
|
.001
|
|
|
Digit
Symbol-Coding
|
129
|
|
.007
|
.000
|
|
Symbol Search
|
129
|
|
|
|
|
Matrix Reasoning
|
93
|
|
.023
|
|
|
Block Design
|
93
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VIQ
|
229
|
.011
|
.000
|
|
|
PIQ
|
100
|
|
.006
|
|
|
FSIQ
|
100
|
.007
|
.000
|
|
Age x Educ
(.037)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VCI
|
229
|
.002
|
.000
|
|
|
POI
|
100
|
|
.001
|
|
|
WMI
|
229
|
.03
|
.002
|
|
|
PSI
|
229
|
|
.013
|
.001
|
|
* As all scores analysed in
this table were age-adjusted scaled or standard scores
no significant effects were anticipated for this
variable.
Note: As of this
writing, individual subtest data for the Picture
Completion and Picture Arrangement subtests were
unavailable for analysis.
A second method for investigating the differential
impact of age, education, and sex to WAIS-III
performance is through examination of raw score variance
through stepwise regression. Table 3 displays the
results of regressions for each of the subtests where
education has been entered first, followed by age, and
then finally sex. In this way the unique
contributions of age and sex above and beyond that of
education can be examined. Note that these are raw
scores and age is now essentially unrestricted.
While it is clear that age
accounts for considerable variance in most of the
WAIS-III subtests, it is only with the two processing
speed measures (Digit Symbol and Symbol Search) that the
variance accounted for by age exceeds that accounted for
by education. This again stresses the need for WAIS-III
normative data that permits clinicians to compensate or
account for the contribution of education to WAIS-III
subtest performance. As was the case with
its predecessor the WAIS-R, this data would suggest that
if one were to choose a single demographic variable for
which raw scores should be adjusted it would be
education rather than age, at least for the age range of
participants in these studies.
Table 3
WAIS-III Subtest Raw Score Variance Accounted for by
Education, Age, and Sex.
WAIS-III Subtest
(Raw Scores)
|
N |
Variance
Accounted for by Education
|
Additional
Variance Accounted for by Age
|
Additional
Variance Accounted for by Sex
|
Information
|
129
|
23.3
|
12.6
|
1.7
|
Comprehension
|
129
|
13.8
|
9.3
|
0.7
|
Vocabulary
|
337
|
13.6
|
6.7
|
0.1
|
Arithmetic
|
223
|
11.3
|
2.9
|
3.5
|
Block Design
|
93
|
8.9
|
4.8
|
4.2
|
Matrix Reasoning
|
93
|
8.8
|
2.1
|
0.6
|
Digit Span
|
223
|
4.2
|
0.9
|
0.1
|
Letter-Number
Sequencing
|
223
|
3.3
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
Digit
Symbol-Coding
|
129
|
3.0
|
10.3
|
12.1
|
Symbol Search
|
129
|
0.9
|
23.5
|
0.1
|
Predicting WAIS-III Verbal
Composites
One of the most valuable methods of analysis available
to neuropsychologists who utilise the WAIS-R as part of
their test battery, is the ability to estimate premorbid
levels of intellectual functioning. These estimates can
then be compared with current performance levels and
examined for abnormal discrepancies. The absence of
these measures for the WAIS-III seriously limits its
clinical utility and the clinician adopting the latest
edition of the test is currently giving up some valuable
tools with which to test clinical hypotheses.
The goal of the studies reported below was to correct
this problem in Australia by generating regression
equations for the WAIS-III. In doing so we were struck
with two observations regarding the clinical literature:
1. While many clinicians
and researchers repeatedly highlight the limited utility
of IQ scores in favour of the more clinically meaningful
factor scores, no studies have generated estimates of
WAIS factor indices.
2. Some of the equations
available seem to make little clinical sense, such as
estimating Performance IQ based on one’s ability to read
irregular words (NART). The majority of measures
currently used to estimate level of intellectual
functioning are reading tests such as the NART and
WRAT-3 Reading subtest, or tests of word knowledge such
as the Shipley Institute of Living Scale. It is
uncertain how these measures could be expected to
predict cognitive abilities such as visual organization.
For these reasons the tables
presented below permit the estimation of only WAIS-III
Verbal IQ and Verbal Comprehension Index scores. The
correlations of the tests administered with PIQ, POI,
PSI, and WMI are so small that there would be little
clinical value in any equations generated to predict
them.
Table 4
Regression Equations for Predicting WAIS-III Verbal IQ
from Demographic Variables and a Number of Commonly
Administered Verbal Tests
Equation
Predicting WAIS-III VIQ
|
N
|
r
|
r2
|
SEe
|
85.54 +
5.0(Educ) + 0.2(Age) – 2.87(Sex)
|
229
|
.546
|
.298
|
9.36
|
101.32 –
0.58(NARTerr) + 4.18(Educ)
|
129
|
.635
|
.403
|
8.44
|
110.51 –
0.48(AUSNARTerr) + 2.97(Educ) – 3.01(Sex)
|
214
|
.660
|
.436
|
8.50
|
59.27 +
0.68(STW) + 3.75(Educ) + 0.11(Age) –
2.7(Sex)
|
229
|
.604
|
.364
|
8.92
|
45.65+0.98(WRAT3)+ 3.5(Educ)+ 0.11(Age)–
3.24(Sex)
|
229
|
.652
|
.425
|
8.49
|
54.90+1.38(SHIPvoc)+3.66(Educ)-0.18(Age)
|
128
|
.658
|
.433
|
8.28
|
Table 5
Regression Equations for Predicting WAIS-III Verbal
Comprehension Index from Demographic Variables and a
Number of Commonly Administered Verbal Tests
Equation
Predicting WAIS-III VCI
|
N
|
r
|
r2
|
SEe
|
78.88 +
5.32(Educ) + 0.21(Age)
|
229
|
.542
|
.293
|
9.20
|
100.28 –
0.54(NARTerr) + 3.75(Educ)
|
129
|
.634
|
.402
|
8.02
|
103.30 –
0.46(AUSNARTerr) + 3.36(Educ)
|
214
|
.653
|
.427
|
8.38
|
46.71 +
0.85(STW) + 3.74(Educ) +0.10(Age)
|
229
|
.632
|
.400
|
8.50
|
45.48 +
0.85(WRAT3) + 3.92(Educ) + 0.13(Age)
|
229
|
.626
|
.392
|
8.55
|
57.15 +
1.25(SHIPvoc) + 3.60(Educ) – 0.15(Age)
|
128
|
.651
|
.424
|
7.92
|
Where:
Age = age in years Sex: 1 = Male
2 = Female
Educ:
1 = less than 9 years
NARTerr = NART Error Score
2 = 9 to 10 years
AUSNARTerr = AUSNART Error Score
3 = 11 to 12 years
STW = Spot-the-Word raw score
4 = 13 to 15 years
WRAT3 = WRAT3 Reading raw score
5 = 16 or more years
SHIPvoc = Shipley Vocabulary raw score
Each of the equations were generated using hierarchical
regression and examined for multicollinearity. In
addition to the variables indicated above, an
occupational code was also entered into the regression
but was never retained in any of the analyses,
presumably because it adds no unique variance to the
prediction. Because the data in these analyses come from
three separate studies, the decision was made not to
conduct both a development and cross-validation.
However, some comparisons can be made with those
equations that correspond to methods developed for the
WAIS-R. For example, Barona & Chastain (1986) in
predicting WAIS-R VIQ from demographic variables
reported a correlation of 0.68 and a standard error of
estimate of 10.96. The current study generated a
somewhat lower correlation of 0.55 but a smaller
standard error of estimate of 9.36. The standard error
of estimate for predicting WAIS-R VIQ from NART
performance is reported as 7.3 (Nelson, 1991) as
compared to 8.44 found for the WAIS-III in the current
study.
Perhaps not surprisingly, all methods of estimation that
utilise other test score performances consistently
outperform demographic variables alone. Demographic
variables account for no more than 30% of WAIS-III VIQ
or VCI variance, while only a further 10 to 13% is
accounted for by the addition of a current test
performance.
DISCUSSION
Concern has been expressed about the critical need for
clinicians to adjust for the impact of education on
WAIS-III test performance. In the absence of these
corrections, clinicians are likely to over-identify low
education individuals as exhibiting deficits on these
tests, and under-identify abnormal performances in
highly educated individuals. The results of the current
study support this concern by demonstrating that
substantial variance on virtually all WAIS-III subtests
and composites can be accounted for by education. In
most cases education accounts for much more variance
than does age, the variable that can be currently
accommodated through age-adjusted tables. It is beyond
the scope of the current data to serve as a mechanism
for correcting WAIS-III scores, but they do highlight
the critical need for an Australian standardization or,
at least, the publication of age-education adjusted
scores for the U.S. standardization.
This study also provided a series of regression
equations to fill the need for methods of estimating
WAIS-III composite scores. Due to the verbal nature of
the tests employed in the study, equations were
generated for predicting only WAIS-III VIQ and VCI
scores. Cross-validation of these equations will need to
be performed before being adopted into clinical
practice. It is hoped that with the addition of
these equations, Australian psychologists will be able
to find a greater role for the WAIS-III in their
psychological assessments.
REFERENCES
Barona, A., & Chastain, R.L.
(1986). An improved estimate of premorbid IQ for blacks
and whites on the WAIS-R. International Journal of
Clinical
Neuropsychology, 8 (4), 169-172.
Kaufman, A.S., McLean, J.E.,
& Reynolds, C.R. (1988). Sex, race, residence, region,
and education differences on the 11 WAIS-R subtests.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44 (2), 231-248.
Krull, K.R., Scott, J.G., &
Sherer, M. (1995). Estimation of premorbid intelligence
from combined performance and demographic variables. The
Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9 (1), 83-88.
Matarazzo, J.D., & Herman,
D.O. (1984). Relationship of education and IQ in the
WAIS-R standardization sample. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 52 (4), 631-640.
Nelson, H. (1991). National
Adult Reading test (NART). Second Edition. Test Manual.
NFER-Nelson: Windsor.
Ryan, J.J., Paolo, A.M., &
Findley, P.G. (1991). Percentile rank conversion tables
for WAIS-R IQs at six educational levels. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 47 (1), 104-107.
Senior, G.J., Douglas, L.A.,
& Lange, R.T. (1999). Advances in psychological test
data interpretation in clinical neuropsychology. Special
topic presentation at the 19th Annual Conference of the
National Academy of Neuropsychology. San Antonio, Texas,
USA. 10-13 November.
Wechsler, D. (1997).
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition. San
Antonio, Texas: The Psychological Corporation.
|