HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Psychol Assess. 2016 December ; 28(12): 1709–1715. doi:10.1037/pas0000302.

Norm Comparisons of the Spanish-language and English-

language WAIS-III: Implications for Clinical Assessment and Test
Adaptation
Cynthia M. Funes,
Department of Psychology, Georgia State University

Juventino Hernandez Rodriguez, and

Author Manuscript

Department of Psychology, University of Arkansas

Steven R. Lopez
Department of Psychology, University of Southern California

Abstract
This study provides a systematic comparison of the norms of three Spanish-language WAIS-III
batteries from Mexico, Spain and Puerto Rico, and the US English-language WAIS-III battery.
Specifically, we examined the performance of the four normative samples on two identical subtests
(Digit Span and Digit Symbol-Coding) and one nearly identical subtest (Block Design). We found
that across most age groups the means associated with the Spanish-language versions of the three
subtests were lower than the means of the US English-language version. In addition, we found that
Author Manuscript

for most age ranges the Mexican subsamples scored lower than the Spanish subsamples. Lower
educational levels of Mexicans and Spaniards compared to US residents are consistent with the
general pattern of findings. These results suggest that because of the different norms, applying any
of the three Spanish-language versions of the WAIS-III generally risks underestimating deficits,
and that applying the English-language WAIS-III norms risks overestimating deficits of Spanish-
speaking adults. There were a few exceptions to these general patterns. For example, the Mexican
subsample aged 70 and above performed significantly better on the Digit Symbol and Block
Design than the US and Spanish subsamples. Implications for the clinical assessment of US
Spanish-speaking Latinos and test adaptation are discussed with an eye toward improving the
clinical care for this community.
Author Manuscript

Keywords
Cognitive assessment; Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; Spanish language norms; Latino;
Hispanic

Of the over 50 million Latinos residing in the US, more than 9 million (19%) reported
speaking English not well or not at all (US Census Bureau, 2012). As a result, the
assessment of Spanish-speakers has received increasing attention from clinical researchers

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steven R. Lopez, Department of Psychology, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA 90089. lopezs@usc.edu.
 Funes et al. Page 2

(e.g., Siedlecki et al., 2010) and test developers (e.g., Riverside Publishing and Pearson).
Author Manuscript

Understanding the normative samples of measures developed for Spanish-speakers can

improve our ability to assess this linguistic group residing in the United States.

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales (WAIS) have long been the gold standard for the
evaluation of cognitive abilities in adults in the US, and several Spanish-language versions
have been developed. During the last 15 years, the three most relevant published Spanish-
language versions of the WAIS include one from Mexico (WAIS-III-M; Wechsler, 2003),
Spain (WAIS-III-S; Wechsler, 2001), and Puerto Rico (EIWA-III-PR; Wechsler, 2008). Of
these batteries, the WAIS-III from Spain has garnered the most attention by researchers (e.g.,
Choca, Krueger, de la Torre, Corral, & Garside, 2009). The WAIS-III-M and EIWA-PR are
also important to consider as their normative samples are drawn from Mexico and Puerto
Rico, the origin of the greatest number of US Latinos (Ennis, Rios-Vargas & Albert, 2011).
Author Manuscript

It is not clear what the strengths and weaknesses are of the norms for the three versions.
Prior research indicates that the normative samples from the Mexican WAIS-III and the
earlier Puerto Rican EIWA scored much lower than the US English language normative
sample (e.g., Suen & Greenspan, 2009). As a result some clinical investigators argue against
their use (e.g., Melendez, 1994). There is some evidence that these differences are related to
differences in the educational level of the normative samples (López & Romero, 1988). In
addition, previous research has only examined in any given study the norms of a single
Spanish-language WAIS as it relates to the norms of the US WAIS (e.g., López & Taussig,
1991). It is unclear how the different Spanish-language norms compare to each other.

In the current study, we examine the normative data of the three published Spanish-language
versions of the WAIS-III from Mexico, Spain and Puerto Rico, as well as the US WAIS-III
Author Manuscript

from which they were adapted. Our purpose was not to assess the differences in language
used across the Spanish versions. Instead, we examined differences in the performance of
the normative samples by comparing group performance on identical subtests. Based on past
research, we first predicted that the Spanish-language normative samples would have lower
educational attainment than the US sample. Accordingly, we then hypothesized that the
Spanish-language normative samples would score lower than the English-language sample
on identical subtests. We also explored whether the Spanish-language versions of the WAIS
differed from each other with regard to the normative samples’ level of education and their
performance on identical subtests. Together these data have the potential to guide clinicians
and researchers in the difficult task of assessing Spanish-speaking immigrants to the United
States.
Author Manuscript

Method
Four versions of the WAIS-III were used (see Table 1). The Escala Wechsler de Inteligencia
para Adultos (WAIS-III-M, Wechsler, 2003) was standardized on a sample of 970 Mexicans
with an age range of 16 – 89 years. The Escala de Inteligencia de Wechsler para Adultos
(WAIS-III-S, Wechsler, 2001) was standardized on 1,369 Spaniards with 15 – 94 years of
age. The Escala de Inteligencia Wechsler para Adultos III (EIWA-III-PR, Wechsler, 2008)
was standardized on 330 Puerto Ricans between the ages of 16 and 61. Although the US

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.

 Funes et al. Page 3

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV (WAIS-IV, Wechsler, 2008) has already been
Author Manuscript

published, we opted to use the WAIS-III (Wechsler, 1997) because the Spanish versions of
the WAIS, at the time this research was initiated, were all adapted from the third version of
the WAIS. The WAIS-III-US was standardized on a national sample of 2,400 persons
between the ages of 16 – 89. Note that the reliability estimates based on the samples were
nearly identical across all available IQ and index scores and slightly lower for the subtests of
the Spanish language versions than the US English language version (see Table 1).

Two bilingual raters, a graduate student and an undergraduate student, independently

examined the administrative and technical manuals, stimulus booklets, and scoring
procedures of the four tests. Differences in administration (e.g., the starting item number in a
subtest), instructions, procedures (e.g., time constraints), and scoring (e.g., item value and
maximum scores) were documented by both parties. For subtests that were identical or
nearly identical in content across measures, we examined whether the means of the samples
Author Manuscript

differed across measures. To carry out these analyses we either used the published means
from the technical manuals or we estimated the means and standard deviations by following
the procedures outlined in Lopez and Romero (1988).

We carried out this calculation with all the age groups listed in the technical manuals. The
EIWA-III-PR was excluded from comparisons because the manual did not provide sufficient
information to determine the composition of the age groups. Since the composition of some
age groups differed across the tests, we collapsed some of the age groups so that they were
comparable to the other instruments for comparison. For example, the WAIS-III-M only has
one older adult age group (i.e., 70+) with no further specification. In contrast, the WAIS-III-
US delineates 4 specific age groups above the age of 70. To compare these groups, we
collapsed the 4 age groups from the WAIS-III-US and took an average of their combined
Author Manuscript

mean scores.

A similar procedure was used to assess the comparability of the educational background of
each of the WAIS versions’ samples. To compare levels of education across groups, two
education groups were created: a low education group (≤ 8 years) and a high education
group (≥ 9 years). The WAIS-III-S required additional attention given that their four
educational levels could not simply be collapsed into the same categories of the other WAIS
versions: 0 – 8 and 9+ years of age. For the WAIS-III-S, these two educational levels were
extrapolated as their actual categories were 0 – 7 years and then three other categories--the
highest educational degree that the person obtained from either primary school, secondary
school, or higher education/university. The second educational level then ranges from 8 – 10
years since those students would have received a degree from primary school (8 years) but
Author Manuscript

they would not have received a degree from secondary school, defined as 11 years (Choca et
al., 2009). To estimate the n of those completing 0 – 8 years of schooling, we divided the n
associated with the 8 – 10 years group by 3 and then added one-third to the 0 – 7 years
category. The remaining sample comprised the high educational level. See Table 1 for
further description of the education groups.

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.

 Funes et al. Page 4

Results
Author Manuscript

We first identified the identical or near identical subtests across the four Wechsler scales, we
then assessed the comparability of the samples’ educational background, and then we tested
for differences in the performance of the samples on the identified subtests. Two of the
subtests, Digit Span and Digit Symbol-Coding, were found to be identical across all four
versions of WAIS. Block Design was nearly identical across the test batteries, as only one
difference was noted with the Puerto Rican version; items 7 and 8 were inverted such that
they were items 8 and 7 of the three other versions. In addition, the direction of the red
interior design was angled to the left for the Puerto Rican version and to the right for the
other versions. Because the scoring was the same for both items across all tests, and the
differences in the stimuli were minimal, we also included the Block Design in our analyses.
The other eight subtests differed in some manner and were excluded from analyses. The
coders agreed on all but one of the judgments of whether the subtests were identical to the
Author Manuscript

US subtests (K = .94). The one disagreement occurred with the Digit Symbol subtest. After
discussion, both coders agreed that the subtest was identical.

With regard to the educational attainment of the subgroups, the Mexican WAIS-III sample
(low educational level 42%, high educational level 58%) reflects a lower educational level
than the US WAIS-III sample (low 12%, high 88%), χ2 (1, N = 3420) = 406.56, p < 0.001.
The educational attainment estimates of the Spanish sample (33% low, 67% high) also are
lower than the US sample (12% low, 88% high), χ2 (1, N = 3819) =1269.14, p < 0.001, but
are higher than the Mexican sample (42% low, 58% high), χ2 (1, N = 2339) = 23.82, p <
0.01. Such comparisons were not possible with the Puerto Rican sample due to the lack of
educational information.
Author Manuscript

The estimated raw score means for the three subtests and each age group are noted in Table
2. To examine whether these differences are significant and reliable, independent sample t-
tests with Bonferroni adjustments (.05/48) were conducted using the estimated means and
standard deviations for each age group within the three subtests. Mean comparisons of the
WAIS-III-M and the WAIS-III-US reveal significant differences across most of the three
subtests and age groups, such that the Mexican subsamples performed at a lower level than
the US subsamples. These differences reflected medium to large effect sizes (Cohen’s d):
Digit Span −0.61 to −1.24; Digit Symbol-Coding −0.64 to −1.40 and Block Design −0.42 to
−0.83. An exception was found in the Block Design subtest for age groups 16–17, 18–19,
20–24, 25–29, 55–64, and 65–69 in which no significant differences were observed. The
analysis also revealed that the Mexican 70+ sample performed significantly better than the
US 70+ sample on the Block Design (d = 1.34) and Digit Symbol-Coding (d = 1.66)
Author Manuscript

subtests.

When comparing the WAIS-III-S to the WAIS-III-US, the pattern of findings resembles a
subtest by age group interaction. On the Digit Span subtest, the WAIS-III-S had lower scores
than the WAIS-III-US across all age groups (ds ranged from −0.29 to −1.56). On the Digit
Symbol-Coding subtest, however, the results varied across age groups. There were no
significant differences between the performances of the younger subgroups (16–34 years of
age). For subsamples 35 years old and above, however, the Spanish subsamples had lower

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.

 Funes et al. Page 5

scores than their US peers (ds ranged from −0.39 to −1.61). For the Block Design subtest,
Author Manuscript

the findings for the two same age groups diverged again. This time the younger Spanish
subsamples scored significantly higher than their US counterparts (ds ranged from 0.34 to
0.40), whereas the older Spanish subsamples (35 years and older) scored significantly lower
than the older US subsamples (ds ranged from −0.22 to −1.24).

The performance of the Mexican and Spanish normative groups on the Digit Span subtest
also varied by age group. The 25–34 age group of the Mexican subsample performed
significantly lower than the Spanish sample (d = −0.50) whereas for the 55–69 age group the
Mexican subsample performed significantly better than Spanish subsample (d = 0.49).
Comparisons across other age groups were not significantly different. On the Digit Symbol-
Coding subtest, the Mexican subsample had lower mean scores than the Spanish subsample
(ds = −0.63 to −0.87) in every age group with the exception of the 55–69 (d = 0.17) and 70+
age group (d = 3.03). On the Block Design, a similar pattern emerged in which the Mexican
Author Manuscript

subsample performed lower than the Spanish subsample for most age groups (16–54, ds = −.
68 to −1.21) except for the 55–69 group (d = 0.14) and the 70+ age group, for which the
Mexican subsample of the eldest group again outperformed the Spanish subsample (d =
2.23).

Discussion
Consistent with previous findings (Lopez & Romero, 1988; Melendez, 1994, Suen &
Greenspan, 2004), the means associated with the Spanish-language versions of the three
identified subtests were lower than the means of the US version across most age groups.
Figure 1 illustrates this general pattern. Although we were unable to compare statistically
the EIWA-III-PR, nearly all of the subgroup means of the Puerto Rican sample fell below
Author Manuscript

those of the US sample. Comparisons of the Spanish-language samples also revealed

differences between the subsamples. For most age ranges from 16 – 54 years, the Mexican
subsamples performed lower than the Spanish subsamples across subtests. These findings
were robust as 9 of the 12 comparisons were statistically significant after statistical
corrections. These observed differences suggest that the WAIS-III-M and the WAIS-III-S are
not interchangeable.

The differences observed across samples may be due to several factors, including differences
in socioeconomic level, access to medical care, nutrition, and prevalence of vascular disease
and other conditions known to affect cognition. Given the available normative data provided
in the test manuals, our study was only able to examine the possible role of formal
education. The proportion of the three samples with 8 years or less of schooling was 42%,
33%, and 12% respectively for the Mexican, Spanish (estimated), and US samples. These
Author Manuscript

educational levels are congruent with the generally lower performance of the Mexican
sample.

Not all comparisons followed the general pattern of the lower Spanish language norms and
the higher US English language norms. Mexican older adults performed significantly better
on the Digit Symbol and Block Design subtests than the combined US subgroups aged 70
and above, and they also achieved equal or higher means than most of the younger age

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.

 Funes et al. Page 6

groups of their own sample (See Figure 1). The fact that the 70+ subsample does as well as
Author Manuscript

or outperforms many of their younger cohorts raises serious concerns about the Mexican
older adult norms. Different sampling methods may have played a role. Sánchez Escobedo
and Hollingworth (2009) noted that persons of higher educational level were
overrepresented in the Mexican normative sample. This is supported by OECD (2004) data
that indicate that only 14% of the Mexican population 25 – 64 years of age completed lower
secondary education (approximately 8 years). This contrasts with the large percentage of the
WAIS-III-M older adult subsamples that completed at least 9 years of schooling--51%.

Education alone, however, does not seem to explain how well the older adult Mexicans did
relative to the US sample. Another possible explanation is that the Mexican subsample is
significantly younger than the US subsample. To test this possibility, we examined the
performance of the older Mexican subsample (70+) to each of the older age groups of the
US subsample, 70 – 74, 75 – 79, 80 – 84, 85 – 89. If the Mexican 70+ subsample was indeed
Author Manuscript

younger, then we would expect no differences at the younger age range but differences at the
older age range. The t-tests revealed that on both Digit Symbol and Block Design, the
Mexican older adult sample outperformed each of the four older adult US groups by more
than one standard deviation (p < .001). Thus, the noted advantage of the older Mexican
subsample was not likely due to the subsample being younger than the older US subsample.

A related finding was the precipitous drop in performance of Spanish older adults. We
considered two possible explanations for this difference—educational level and limited
cognitive screening. With regard to education, only one-third of the 70+ subsample of the
WAIS-III-S had at least a 9th grade education. Choca et al. (2009) suggested that older
Spaniards had less access to education than younger adults given the Spanish Civil War in
1936 – 1939 and its aftermath. A second possibility is that there may have been limited
Author Manuscript

screening in ruling out mild cognitive impairment among the older Spaniards. Including
some older adults with such impairment would significantly lower the means. In any case,
the Spanish older adults’ norms also pose significant problems for assessing this age group.

In addition to the discrepant findings for the older adults, Digit Span had a unique pattern of
results. The Mexican older adult subsample outperformed the US older adult subsample on
the Digit Symbol and Block Design but not on the Digit Span. Similarly, the Spanish
younger adults (a) did better than the US sample of younger adults on Block Design, (b) did
the same on the Digit Symbol, and (c) did worse than their US counterparts on the Digit
Span. Characteristics of the Digit Span may contribute to this discrepant set of findings. The
Digit Span requires individuals to manipulate and hold in memory strings of numbers of
increasing length. Given that the number of syllables of stimuli are associated with
Author Manuscript

increasing task difficulty (Baddeley, 1992; Lewandowsky & Farrell, 2008), the differences in
the Spanish- and English-language representations of numbers (1.7 versus 1.1 syllables per
digit) may increase the cognitive load of this test for Spanish-speakers (see also
Loewenstein, Arguelles, Barker & Duara, 1993).

Implications
With regard to the clinical assessment of Spanish-speaking individuals in the United States,
the critical question is: What set of norms is most appropriate for a given individual? Much

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.

 Funes et al. Page 7

of the available clinical research advocates for applying only one set of norms. Some
Author Manuscript

investigators point out how the Mexican, Spanish, and Puerto Rican norms deviate from US
norms and argue that the Spanish-language versions of the WAIS should not be used
(Melendez, 1994; Suen & Greenspan, 2009) or should be adjusted (Choca et al., 2009).
Other researchers, in promoting standardization in the assessment of Spanish-speaking
Alzheimer patients, have put together a battery with a single set of norms from the US
English-language WAIS-R subtests of Digit Span and Digit Symbol (Acevedo, Krueger,
Navarro, Ortiz et al., 2009).

Our findings raise questions about adhering to a given set of norms. When using the norms
from the Spanish-language versions of the WAIS, the potential risk of underestimating
cognitive deficits of US Latinos has been clearly articulated (Melendez, 1994; Suen &
Greenspan, 2009). We agree that this is a valid concern. However, much less attention has
been given to the potential risk of applying US norms and even Spanish national norms in
Author Manuscript

evaluating Spanish-speaking Latinos, as the level of cognitive impairment for some will be
overestimated. This is suggested by the fact that the US and Spanish national samples
outperformed the Mexican and Puerto Rican samples in most age groups and is consistent
with prior research (e.g., Lopez and Taussig, 1991). The risk in overestimating deficits is
particularly the case with the Digit Span, a subtest commonly used in neuropsychology
batteries. Given that many immigrants with very limited educational backgrounds are likely
to be poorly represented in the normative samples from the US or even from Spain, using
those norms risks ascribing cognitive deficits to low performance on tests when there are no
cognitive deficits.

Given that any specific test and their associated norms are at risk to over- or underestimate
deficits and functioning, it is difficult to advocate for any one set of norms or any given
Author Manuscript

Spanish-language version of the WAIS. Accordingly, we recommend that clinicians

carefully consider the strengths and risks of the given WAIS options. If a clinician prefers
using one specific Spanish-language version, it is important that they become familiar with
the risks associated with that particular test and take steps to address the potential errors.
Consideration should be given to an individual’s education level, their national/ethnic origin,
along with other characteristics represented in the respective normative sample. For
example, for Spanish-speaking adults who are 70 years and older, both the Mexican and
Spanish norms appear problematic. The Mexican norms will likely overestimate deficits and
the Spanish norms will likely underestimate deficits. The fact that the type of potential error
differs by subtest and age range points out why familiarity with a test is most important.
Considering the available test options, being familiar with the risks with each test option
allows the examiner to fit the test to the person. Nonverbal tests (e.g., Bracken and
Author Manuscript

McCallum, 1998) are another option although their norms should be carefully reviewed as
well given that studies have noted similar challenges in the use of nonverbal measures (Saez
et al., 2014).

Having carefully reviewed four versions of the WAIS-III, we also have recommendations for
the adaptation of future non-English-language WAIS batteries. Most importantly, if test
developers are going to permit test adaptations to be carried out in other countries, then it is
important that adequate resources be made available to carry out quality test adaptations.

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.

 Funes et al. Page 8

The EIWA-III only sampled 330 native Puerto Ricans across 11 age ranges with the oldest
Author Manuscript

age being 61. There are no reports in the technical manual or relevant publications (e.g.,
Pons, Matias-Carrelo, Rodriguez, Herrans et al, 2008) specifying the ns within each age
level. Limited resources also may have contributed to the divergent norms for the 70 and
older age group for the Mexican and Spanish WAIS-III. Every effort should be made to
obtain older adult subsamples that represent this segment of the respective countries. Test
publishers have the potential to make an important contribution by supporting the strongest
test adaptation possible. (See Lopez & Weisman, 2004).

Limitations
First, we were not able to include subtests across the verbal ability domains given that there
were no identical subtests across this domain. As such, we are not able to generalize our
findings to the verbal domain nor are we able to make inferences as to how our findings
Author Manuscript

relate to the assessment of global intelligence. Second, we could not conduct statistical
comparisons with the Puerto Rican version of the WAIS-III due to the limited published
data. Third, given that we did not have access to the raw data for the individuals in the
samples, we were unable to carry out analyses to determine the specific relationship between
the demographic factors and the performance of each sample. The only demographic data
that we were able to consider was educational level. That analysis, however, was limited as
we reduced educational level to only two levels. As a result, we could only estimate whether
education was indeed related to normative performance. Furthermore, there were no data
available to consider literacy levels or quality of their formal education, as both factors could
affect the appropriateness of a specific set of norms (e.g., Manly, Byrd, Touradji, & Stern,
2004). One final limitation is that the WAIS-IV for Mexico and Spain were recently
published and are now available for purchase. Given that the relative educational attainment
Author Manuscript

of these regions has not changed, the general pattern of findings observed with the WAIS-III
may still apply.

Conclusion
Having available multiple published Spanish-language assessment tools is a significant
advance not only for Spanish-speaking countries but also for the large Spanish-speaking
adult population of the United States. The identified normative performance differences and
the associated limitations with the specific Spanish-language WAIS-III versions and the US
English language version however highlight the importance of psychologists being careful
when selecting assessment measures for use with Spanish speaking adults in the US.
Persistent efforts by practitioners, researchers, and test developers, and continued
communication among these professionals are essential for Spanish-speaking Latinos to
Author Manuscript

receive the very best clinical services.

Acknowledgments
This research was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities,
T37 MD003405. We thank Ana Bridges and Daniel Nation for their assistance.

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.

 Funes et al. Page 9

References
Author Manuscript

Acevedo A, Krueger KR, Navarro E, Ortiz F, Manly JJ, Padilla-Velez MM, Mungas D. The Spanish
translation and adaptation of the uniform data set of the National Institute on Aging Alzheimer’s
Disease Centers. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders. 2009; 23(2):102–109. [PubMed:
19474568]
Baddeley A. Is working memory working? The fifteenth bartlett lecture. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology. 1992; 44A:1–31.
Bracken, BA.; McCallum, RS. Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside;
1998.
Choca JP, Krueger KR, de la Torre GG, Corral S, Garside D. Demographic adjustments for the Spanish
version of the WAIS-III. Archives of Neuropsychology. 2009; 24:619–629.
Ennis, SR.; Rios-Vargas, M.; Albert, NG. The Hispanic population: 2010 Census Briefs. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau; 2011. (C201BR-04)
Lewandowsky, S.; Farrell, S. Short-term memory: New data and a model. In: Ross, BH., editor. The
Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York, NY: Elsevier; 2008. p. 1-48.
Author Manuscript

Loewenstein DA, Arguelles T, Barker WW, Duara R. A comparative analysis of neuropsychological

test performance of Spanish-speaking and English-speaking patients with Alzheimer’s disease.
Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 1993; 48:142–149.
López S, Romero A. Assessing the intellectual functioning of Spanish-speaking adults: Comparison of
the EIWA and the WAIS. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 1988; 19:263–270.
López SR, Taussig IM. Cognitive-intellectual functioning of impaired and nonimpaired Spanish-
speaking elderly: Implications for culturally sensitive assessment. Psychological Assessment:
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1991; 3:448–454.
López, SR.; Weisman, A. Integrating a cultural perspective in psychological test development. In:
Velasquez, RJ.; Arellano, LM.; McNeill, BW., editors. The handbook of Chicana/o psychology
and mental health. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004. p. 129-151.Publishers
Manly JJ, Byrd D, Touradji P, Stern Y. Acculturation, reading level, and neuropsychological test
performance among African American elders. Applied Neuropsychology. 2004; 11(1):37–46.
[PubMed: 15471745]
Author Manuscript

Melendez F. The Spanish version of the WAIS: Some ethical considerations. The Clinical
Neuropsychologist. 1994; 8(4):388–393.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Education at a glance: OECD indicators.
Cedex, France: OECD; 2004.
Pons JI, Matías-Carrelo L, Rodríguez M, Rodríguez JM, Herrans LL, Jimenez ME, Yang J. Estudios
de validez de la Escala de Inteligencia Wechsler para Adultos versión III, Puerto Rico (EIWA-III).
Revista Puertorriquena de Psicología. 2008; 19:75–111.
Saez PA, Bender HA, Barr WB, Rivera Mindt M, Morrison CE, Hassenstab J, Rodriguez M, Vasquez
B. The impact of education and acculturation on nonverbal neuropsychological test performance
among Latino/a patients with epilepsy. Applied Neuropsychology. 2014; 21(2):108–119.
[PubMed: 24826504]
Sánchez Escobedo P, Hollingworth L. Annotations on the use of the Mexican norms for the WAIS-III.
Applied Neuropsychology. 2009; 16:223–227. [PubMed: 20183175]
Siedlecki KL, Manly JJ, Brickman AM, Schupf N, Tang M, Stern Y. Do neuropsychological tests have
the same meaning in Spanish speakers as they do in English speakers? Neuropsychology. 2010;
Author Manuscript

24(3):402–411. [PubMed: 20438217]

Suen HK, Greenspan S. Serious problems with the Mexican norms for the WAIS-III when assessing
mental retardation in capital cases. Applied Neuropsychology. 2009; 16(3):214–222. [PubMed:
20183174]
US Census Bureau. [Retrieved January 11, 2015] Language spoken at home by ability to speak English
for the population 5 years and over (Hispanic or Latino). American Community Survey. 2012.
Factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?
pid=ACS_12_1YR_B16006&prodType=table

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.

 Funes et al. Page 10

Wechsler, D. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation; 1997.
Author Manuscript

Wechsler, D. WAIS-III: Escala de Inteligencia Wechsler Para Adultos-III. Madrid, Spain: T.E.A.
Ediciones; 2001.
Wechsler, D. Escala Wechsler de Inteligencia para Adultos-III. Mexico City, Mexico: Manual
Moderno; 2003.
Wechsler, D. Escala de Inteligencia Wechsler Para Adultos – Tercera Edicion (EIWA-III). San
Antonio, TX: Pearson; 2008.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.

 Funes et al. Page 11
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Subtest raw score means by age group.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.

 Funes et al. Page 12

Table 1

Demographic Summary of WAIS-III Measures

Author Manuscript

Measure Sample Education Education - Regrouped Reliability

Escala Wechsler de Inteligencia para Adultos 970 adults Low: ≤8 years (42%) Low: ≤8 years (42%) IQ & Index: .70–.87
(WAIS-III-M; Wechsler, 2003). Ages: 16–89 High: ≥9 years (57%) High: ≥9 years (58%) Subtests: Not provided
54% Female

Escala de Inteligencia de Wechsler para 1,369 adults None (22%) Low: ≤8 years (33%) IQ & Index: .87–.97
Adultos Ages: 15–94 Primary School (32%) High: ≥9 years (67%) Subtest: .77–.98
(WAIS-III-S; Wechsler, 2001). 51% Female Secondary School (38%)
Higher/University (8%)

Escala de Inteligencia Wechsler para Adultos 330 adults 0–8 years IQ & Index: .86–.98
III Ages: 16–61 9–11 years Subtests: .73–.92
(EIWA-III-PR; Wechsler, 2008). 48% Female 12 years
13–15 years
≥16 years

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale –III 2,400 adults ≤8 years (12%) Low: ≤8 years (12%) IQ & Index: .88–.97
(WAIS- Ages: 16–89 9–11 years (12%) High: ≥9 years (88%) Subtests: .82–.93
III-US; Wechsler, 1997). 80% White 12 years (35%)
Author Manuscript

8% Hispanic 13–15 years (24%)

50% Female ≥16 years (18%)

Note. The EIWA-III-PR technical manual did not provide percentages for education levels.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.

 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 2

Mean Comparisons and Effect Sizes of Three WAIS Subtests by Age Group

WAIS-III-M WAIS-III-S WAIS-III-US tM-US dM-US tS-US dS-US tM-S dM-S

Funes et al.

Age N M(SD) N M (SD) N M (SD)

Digit Span
16–17 99 15.00 (4.00) - - 200 17.50 (4.25) −4.88* −0.61 - - - -

18–19 110 14.50 (3.50) - - 200 17.50 (4.25) −6.08* −0.72 - - - -

20–24 95 14.50 (3.75) - - 200 17.50 (4.50) −5.63* −0.70 - - - -

25–29 97 14.50 (3.50) - - 200 17.50 (4.50) −5.77* −0.72 - - - -

30–34 96 13.50 (3.75) - - 200 17.00 (4.25) −6.88* −0.86 - - - -

35–44 97 13.00 (3.50) - - 200 17.00 (4.25) −8.57* −1.06 - - - -

45–54 94 13.00 (3.50) - - 200 17.00 (4.25) −7.99* −1.00 - - - -

55–64 98 12.50 (4.00) - - 200 16.00 (4.50) −6.54* −0.81 - - - -

65–69 77 13.00 (3.50) - - 200 16.00 (4.25) −5.51* −0.74 - - - -

70+ 107 10.50 (4.25) - - 650 14.63 (3.75) −10.34* −1.24 - - - -

Digit Span†
16–19 209 14.75 (3.75) 163 16.00 (4.00) 400 17.50 (4.25) - - −3.86* −0.36 −3.10 −0.32

20–24 95 14.50 (3.75) 153 16.00 (4.25) 200 17.50 (4.25) - - −3.18* −0.34 −2.82 −0.38

25–34 193 14.00 (3.63) 272 16.00 (4.25) 400 17.25 (4.38) - - −3.68* −0.29 −5.30* −0.50

35–54 191 13.00 (3.50) 408 14.00 (4.00) 400 17.00 (4.25) - - −8.51* −0.60 −2.96 −0.27

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.

55–69 175 12.75 (3.75) 237 11.00 (3.50) 400 16.00 (4.38) - - −14.98* −1.23 4.87* 0.49

70+ 107 10.50 (4.25) 136 9.00 (3.50) 800 14.63 (3.75) - - −16.83* −1.56 −3.02 −0.39

Digit Symbol
16–17 99 65.00 (16.00) - - 200 77.00 (15.75) −6.17* −0.76 - - - -

18–19 110 69.00 (15.00) - - 200 81.00 (16.00) −6.46* −0.77 - - - -

20–24 95 61.50 (23.00) - - 200 80.00 (16.25) −7.95* −0.99 - - - -

25–29 97 63.50 (18.00) - - 200 78.00 (15.50) −7.16* −0.89 - - - -

Page 13
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

WAIS-III-M WAIS-III-S WAIS-III-US tM-US dM-US tS-US dS-US tM-S dM-S

Age N M(SD) N M (SD) N M (SD)

30–34 96 62.50 (18.50) - - 200 77.00 (16.00) −6.91* −0.86 - - - -
Funes et al.

35–44 97 54.00 (19.50) - - 200 75.00 (16.50) −9.68* −1.20 - - - -

45–54 94 47.50 (18.00) - - 200 70.00 (15.25) −11.12* −1.40 - - - -

55–64 98 44.00 (22.00) - - 200 61.00 (15.00) −7.83* −0.97 - - - -

65–69 77 42.50 (24.00) - - 200 54.00 (15.00) −4.78* −0.64 - - - -

70+ 107 65.00 (16.00) - - 200 43.75 (14.63) 13.79* 1.66 - - - -

Digit Symbol†
16–19 209 67.00 (15.50) 163 77.00 (16.50) 400 79.00 (15.88) - - −1.34 −0.13 −6.00* −0.63

20–24 95 61.50 (23.00) 153 77.50 (15.00) 200 80.00 (16.25) - - −1.48 −0.16 −6.63* −0.87

25–34 193 63.00 (18.25) 272 76.00 (16.75) 400 77.50 (15.75) - - −1.18 −0.09 −7.94* −0.75

35–54 191 50.75 (18.75) 408 65.00 (23.00) 400 72.50 (15.88) - - −5.49* −0.39 −7.48* −0.66

55–69 175 43.25 (23.00) 237 39.50 (21.50) 400 57.50 (15.00) - - −12.40* −1.02 1.70 0.17

70+ 107 65.00 (16.00) 136 20.00 (14.00) 800 43.75 (14.63) - - −17.35* −1.61 23.35* 3.03

Block Design
16–17 99 36.50 (10.75) - - 200 41.50 (13.50) −3.21 −0.40 - - - -
18–19 110 37.50 (11.25) - - 200 41.50 (13.50) −2.64 −0.31 - - - -
20–24 95 38.50 (12.50) - - 200 41.50 (13.50) −1.83 −0.23 - - - -
25–29 97 40.00 (10.75) - - 200 41.50 (13.50) −0.10 −0.12 - - - -
30–34 96 35.50 (12.75) - - 200 41.00 (13.50) −3.38* −0.42 - - - -

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.

35–44 97 29.50 (14.00) - - 200 40.50 (13.00) −6.67* −0.83 - - - -

45–54 94 30.50 (12.25) - - 200 36.50 (12.00) −3.97* −0.50 - - - -

55–64 98 29.00 (11.00) - - 200 33.50 (12.00) −3.12 −0.39 - - - -

65–69 77 25.50 (11.00) - - 200 29.50 (11.75) −2.58 −0.35 - - - -
70+ 107 36.50 (10.75) - - 200 26.00 (8.75) 11.11* 1.34 - - - -

Block Design†
16–19 209 37.00 (11.00) 163 46.50 (11.00) 400 41.50 (13.50) - - 4.19* 0.39 −8.26* −0.87
Page 14
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

WAIS-III-M WAIS-III-S WAIS-III-US tM-US dM-US tS-US dS-US tM-S dM-S

Age N M(SD) N M (SD) N M (SD)

20–24 95 38.50 (12.50) 153 46.50 (11.00) 200 41.50 (13.50) - - 3.73* 0.40 −5.28* −0.69
Funes et al.

25–34 193 37.75 (11.75) 272 45.50 (11.25) 400 41.25 (13.38) - - 4.31* 0.34 −7.19* −0.68

35–54 191 30.00 (13.13) 408 37.00 (12.75) 400 38.50 (12.50) - - −3.16* −0.22 −13.73* −1.21

55–69 175 27.25 (11.00) 237 25.50 (13.50) 400 31.50 (11.88) - - −5.85* −0.48 1.40 0.14

70+ 107 36.50 (10.75) 136 15.00 (18.75) 800 26.00 (8.75) - - −13.33* −1.24 17.19* 2.23

Note. For comparisons with the US, the negative values of the t and d indicate that the Mexican or Spanish mean is lower than the US test norm. For comparisons between Spain and Mexico, the negative
values refer to the Mexican sample doing worse than the Spanish sample.
†
Mean comparisons with the WAIS-III-S have a small age range and require a separate listing.
M-USWAIS-III-S and WAIS-III-US mean comparisons.
S-USWAIS-III-M and WAIS-III-US mean comparisons.
M-SWAIS-III-M and WAIS-III-S mean comparisons.
*
= p < .001.

Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 December 01.

Page 15