Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 8 (2014) 1200–1207

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders

Journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/RASD/default.asp

Testing nonverbal IQ in children with Autism Spectrum

Disorders
Nicole Bardikoff *, Margaret McGonigle-Chalmers
Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: 15 high-functioning school aged children with ASD and 15 neurotypically developing age
Received 25 April 2014 matched controls were assessed using the WISC-IV and the KABC-II in order to assess
Accepted 20 June 2014 whether the WISC-IV has rectified problems associated with the WISC-III’s undue
Available online 9 July 2014 emphasis on timing measures. No significant group differences were found for the PRI sub-
scale of the WISC-IV nor for the nonverbal scale of the KABC-II, but the ASD group scored
Keywords: significantly lower than controls on the Processing Speed Index of the WISC-IV. This
WISC-III supports the need to isolate of timing criteria when IQ testing in populations with ASD, as
WISC-IV
is now the case with the WISC-IV. However significantly higher scores were obtained for
KABC-II
the KABC-II versus the PRI for children with ASD only. The reasons for this are discussed
Nonverbal IQ
Children with Autism
with regard to a possible cultural bias in the Picture Concepts subtest of the WISC-IV.
Spectrum Disorders ß 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Intelligence testing is employed in a variety of ways in research on Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) from differential
diagnosis of high and low functioning individuals (Goldstein et al., 2008; Mayes & Calhoun, 2008; Mayes, Calhoun, Bixler, &
Zimmerman, 2009; Minshew, Turner, & Goldstein, 2005; Oliveras-Rentas, Kenworthy, Roberson, Martin, & Wallace, 2012) to
the guiding of individualized educational interventions. In a research context, IQ scores are used extensively as a basis for
matching individuals with ASD and appropriate experimental control groups. A meta-analysis of 133 behavioural and
cognitive studies (Mottron, 2004) found that IQ is the most common variable for matching in autism research, utilized in
51.2% of instances. Within that figure, the Wechsler tests were the most frequently used measures (46.9%).
The assessment of intelligence in individuals with ASD has recently come under scrutiny, however, after various research
teams found that the ‘‘gold standard’’ of intelligence testing, the Wechsler tests, may be unreliable for assessing intelligence
in individuals with ASD (Bölte, Dziobek, & Poustka, 2009; Charman et al., 2011; Dawson, Soulières, Gernsbacher, & Mottron,
2007; McGonigle-Chalmers & McSweeney, 2012; Soulières, Dawson, Gernsbacher, & Mottron, 2011). The problem arises
because assumptions made about ‘typical’ intellectual profiles may not be applicable to clinical groups, causing errors
ranging from under-estimating their intelligence to inadvertently excluding the very group effects under study. In the latter
case, it has been noted that the use of a global measure to determine participant eligibility can result in the ‘‘matching away’’
of possible group differences at the component level (Burack, Iarocci, Flanagan, & Bowler, 2004; Jarrold & Brock, 2004). This is
particularly pertinent to research on cognitive and executive processes where the processes under experimental
investigation are also implicated in the IQ tests (McGonigle-Chalmers, Bodner, Fox-Pitt, & Nicholson, 2008).

* Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9QU, Scotland, UK. Tel.: +1 613 533 6407.
E-mail addresses: n.bardikoff@ed-alumni.net, 12nb42@queensu.ca (N. Bardikoff).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.06.007
1750-9467/ß 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 N. Bardikoff, M. McGonigle-Chalmers / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 8 (2014) 1200–1207 1201

Further confounds and difficulties of interpretation that can arise from IQ matching are the characteristic ‘peaks and
troughs’ present at the subtest level in IQ profiles of individuals with ASD. Peaks occur on tasks that measure visuospatial
ability, such as the Wechsler subset Block Design, while troughs often manifest as poor performance on tasks such as
Comprehension, a verbal subtest, and Coding, a measure of processing speed (Dawson et al., 2007; Goldstein et al., 2008;
Mayes & Calhoun, 2004; Mayes & Calhoun, 2008; Shah & Frith, 1993). Due to this subtest scatter, a comparison control group
may have a similar averaged out Full Scale IQ without a matched performance on tests of individual abilities. In effect, the
level and type of performance on certain tasks between the two groups may be significantly dissimilar to render meaningless
any comparison based on overall IQ.
A further factor that can distort sampling and effect educational assessment in ASD populations using the WISC-III is the
selective sensitivity to timing criteria in nonverbal IQ subtests. A recent study compared performance on the five subtests of
the Performance IQ subscale of the WISC-III with the five subtests of the Nonverbal Index (NVI) of the Kaufman Assessment
Battery for Children, 2nd edition (KABC-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). It was discovered that while children with ASD
performed significantly worse than age matched controls on the WISC-III PIQ, the same was not true when they were
assessed using the KABC-II – an instrument with a reduced demand on speed of responding (McGonigle-Chalmers &
McSweeney, 2013).
Furthermore, in the study by McGonigle-Chalmers and McSweeney (2013), six children were classified as ‘low
functioning’ using ICD-10 criteria (IQ below 70) when assessed with the WISC-III, whilst only two were considered to be in
this category based on KABC-II results. This difference was found to be a direct result of the WISC-III’s stringent timing
criteria and emphasis on time dependent bonus points.

1.1. Changes made in the WISC-IV

The WISC-IV (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2004) demonstrates the most significant divergence from the original Wechsler
design to date. The WISC-IV index scales are the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Working Memory Index (WMI),
Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) and Processing Speed Index (PSI). Replacing the WISC-III ‘Perceptual Organization
Index’ (POI) sub-scale, the PRI, places less importance on timing criteria and limitations. While the POI had five timed
subtests (and three with bonus points for quick completion), the PRI now contains only one timed subtest. The test
developers state that removing the emphasis on speed and timing is part of an effort to increase the ‘‘developmental
appropriateness’’ of the test (Wechsler, 2003). Although children with ASD show strengths in visual tasks requiring fast
motor responses, they are also noted for visuomotor slowing on more complex tasks (Miller & McGonigle-Chalmers,
2014), The PRI may therefore serve to highlight previously underestimated cognitive abilities (Allen, Lincoln, & Kaufman,
1991; Black, Wallace, Sokoloff, & Kenworthy, 2009; Goldstein, Johnson, & Minshew, 2001; Goldstein et al., 2008; Green,
Baird, Barnett, Henderson, & Henderson, 2002; Mayes & Calhoun, 2003a; Mayes & Calhoun, 2003b; Mayes & Calhoun,
2008; Wechsler, 2003).

1.2. The timing component

Another measure taken to improve the validity of the WISC-IV was to isolate the assessment of processing speed, now
localized within the PSI. As individuals with ASD consistently show impairments in measures of speed, this allows for a
more legitimate assessment of processing speed deficits without impacting the measurement of other abilities (Calhoun
& Mayes, 2005; Mayes & Calhoun, 2007; Mayes & Calhoun, 2008; Oliveras-Rentas et al., 2012; Scheuffgen, Happé,
Anderson, & Frith, 2000). There is a wealth of research on how processing speed and reaction time tie into intelligence.
Historically, tests of these abilities consistently load lowest on general intelligence, commonly referred to as g, a fact true
for both the PSI as well as its subtests (Calhoun & Mayes, 2005; Flanagan & Kaufman, 2009; Keith, Fine, Taub, Reynolds, &
Kranzler, 2006; Wechsler, 2003). The PSI also demonstrates the lowest correlation with Full Scale IQ scores (0.58),
suggesting that processing speed is more independent of IQ than the other factors (Calhoun & Mayes, 2005; Wechsler,
1991, 2003).

1.3. WISC-IV research to date in autism

The new instrument was validated with small samples of special groups including children with both Asperger’s
Syndrome and Autistic Disorder (Wechsler, 2003), but despite being published in 2003, there is little research available
concerning the use of the WISC-IV in clinical populations. With the exception of the special group studies discussed in the
WISC-IV manual, there have only been two studies published to our knowledge which examine the IQ profile of children
with ASD on the WISC-IV (Mayes & Calhoun, 2008; Oliveras-Rentas et al., 2012). Mayes and Calhoun concluded that the
WISC-IV is an improvement on the WISC-III as it appears to capture strengths in visual reasoning whilst identifying
weaknesses in graphomotor and processing speed. Similar findings were obtained by Oliveras-Rentas et al. (2012). By
eliminating some the social reasoning and timing pressures, the WISC-IV may be a better and more nuanced reflection of
nonverbal intelligence in ASD.
However, it remains to be seen if the improved nonverbal index of the WISC-IV now serves to make it comparable to other
nonverbal assessments. Of particular interest is whether if it will actually reverse the difference found between the WISC-III
1202 N. Bardikoff, M. McGonigle-Chalmers / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 8 (2014) 1200–1207

and the KABC-II by McGonigle-Chalmers and McSweeney (2013), when the PRI is compared to the KABC-II NVI. Unlike the
WISC, the KABC-II is firmly rooted in psychological theory and is KABC-II is comparable to the WISC in terms of difficulty
(KABC-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). However, it places less emphasis on timing and more on the assessment of fluid
intelligence (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004; Klin, Saulnier, Tsatsanis, & Volkmar, 2005). Yet, timing constraints and bonuses do
apply on some of the subtests, and it may produce a lower IQ assessment than the new PRI. At the very least, the two tests
might be expected to be roughly equivalent in their assessments.
Given the various changes, the aim of this study is to assess the WISC-IV as far as possible in the same terms as the WISC-
III was assessed by McGonigle-Chalmers and McSweeney (2013). In that study, five subtests of the KABC-II were compared
with five subtests of the WISC-III. In the current study, the scores from the NVI were compared with the PRI and PSI. The
hypothesis under test was that there would be no significant group differences in standard scores from the combined
subtests of the PRI versus the KABC-II NVI. Should any significant difference be obtained in terms of higher scores on one test
than the other, it was hypothesized that it would now be in favour of the PRI. Finally, it was hypothesized that the individuals
with ASD would perform significantly worse than controls on the PSI.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

2.1.1. Autism spectrum cohort

The experimental cohort consisted of 15 male children, ranging from 13 years, 3 months to 16 years, 8 months
(M = 14.75 years, SD = 9.4 months). Participants were recruited from a special school in Edinburgh for children with
(high functioning) ASD. All the children had been previously diagnosed by a multi-disciplinary team using ICD-10
criteria.10 had been diagnosed with autism; the remaining five with Asperger’s Syndrome. All had English as their first
language.

2.1.2. Neurotypical control cohort

The neurotypical (NT) cohort consisted of 15 children (9 = male, 6 = female), ranging from 12 years, 4 months to 15 years,
2 months (M = 13.82 years, SD = 1 year). The NT sample was recruited from a high school in the same area of Edinburgh as the
experimental ASD group. All had English as their first language.
An independent sample t test showed that ages between the two samples did not differ significantly, n = 30, p = 0.016.

2.2. Materials

2.2.1. Perceptual Reasoning Index (WISC-IV)

 Block design – The child is given coloured blocks with two white sides, two red sides and two half red, half white sides. They
are asked to form geometric designs, which are displayed in two-dimensional form in a stimulus book. Each item is timed,
limits ranging from 30 to 120 s.
 Picture concepts – The child is shown two to three rows of two to four pictures and is asked to select one picture from each
row that go together. There are no time limits.
 Matrix reasoning – The child is shown an incomplete set of four to nine pictures that form a logical pattern and are asked to
select the missing image. There are no time limits.

2.2.2. Processing Speed Index (WISC-IV)

 Coding – The child is presented with a legend that pairs the numbers one to nine with different symbols, and asked to fill in
the correct symbol under corresponding numbers. Scores are the correct number of symbols drawn in 120 s.
 Symbol search – The child is shown rows of symbols with two additional target items. They are asked to scan a search group
and mark ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No’’ based on whether target items appear in the search row. Scores the correct, minus incorrect,
responses marked in 120 s.

2.2.3. KABC-II Nonverbal Index

 Story completion – The child is presented with an incomplete row of pictures telling a story. They are given pictured cards to
fill in the missing pieces, with 30–120 s time limits per item. Later items include quick completion bonus point.
 Triangles – The child is given identical foam triangles that have one yellow and one blue side. They are asked to form
different geometrical shapes depicted in a series of pictures ranging from two to nine triangles. Time limits vary from 30 to
105 s. The final 11 items include quick completion bonus points.
 Block counting – The child is shown pictures of stacked blocks, with some hidden from view. They are required to count the
number of blocks in each photo. The last 15 items must be completed in 30 and 60 s. Later items include quick completion
bonus points.
 N. Bardikoff, M. McGonigle-Chalmers / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 8 (2014) 1200–1207 1203

 Pattern reasoning – The child is shown a serious of images that form a logical linear pattern with one missing and must
choose the appropriate match. There are no time limits. Later items include quick completion bonus points.
 Hand movements – The child watches displays of tapping hand movements and is asked to copy the sequences
demonstrated. There are no time limits.

2.3. Procedure

The participants were each seen individually in the same room at their respective schools on two separate occasions. The
PRI and PSI were administered during the first session, the KABC-II NVI during the second. The second session was on average
12 days after the first, minimum interval 5 days. We did not counterbalance as the sample was particularly small and we
were interested in individual differences between groups and test type. In addition, to compare results to the previous study,
the procedure was modelled after McGonigle-Chalmers and McSweeney (2013). The six subtests were administered in the
same order they would have been had the whole test been utilized.
The Ethics Committee at the University of Edinburgh granted ethical approval for this study.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive statistics

Mean standard scores were calculated for the WISC-IV PRI and PSI as well as the KABC-II NVI (see Table 1). As the table
shows, both groups of children performed best on the KABC-II. The scores for all three tests were highly similar for the NT
group, though much more variable for the ASD group. Because of the gender split in the NT sample, independent t tests were
performed for the PRI, PSI and KABC-II but no differences were found between males and females (PRI: t(13) = 0.57, p = 0.58;
PSI: t(13) = 0.33, p = 0.75; KABC: t(13) = 0.13, p = 0.89).
To ensure that both instruments were assessing similar characteristics of intelligence, correlational analyses were
conducted. For the total sample, a Pearson product-moment correlation showed that there was a significant positive
relationship between the PRI and the KABC-II, r = 0.82, n = 30, p < 0.001. This was also present in the individual group analysis
(ASD: r = 0.83, n = 15, p < 0.001; NT: r = 0.88, n = 15, p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between the strength of
the correlation in the two samples (p = 0.16). Therefore, it can be inferred that both the PRI and the KABC-II NVI are assessing
comparable aspects of intelligence. Analysis between the PSI and the KABC-II did not display a similarly strong relationship
although there was still a positive correlation, r = 0.38, n = 30, p = 0.04. Analysis at the group level demonstrated a positive
correlation in the control sample alone (ASD: r = 0.48, n = 15, p = 0.07; NT: r = 0.61, n = 15, p < 0.05).

3.2. WISC-IV Perceptual Reasoning Index vs. the KABC-II

A mixed 2 (PRI/KABC)  2 (ASD/NT) ANOVA was conducted to determine main effects with PRI/KABC-II as the within
subject factor and ASD/NT as the between subject factor. All analyses were carried out using standard scores. These were
tested for normal distribution using Shapiro–Wilks tests. In both groups all scales were found to adhere to a normal
distribution (mean p value = 0.68).
The analysis revealed a main effect for test, with higher scores present on the KABC-II, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.63, F(1,
28) = 16.54, p < 0.05, Partial Eta squared = 0.37. The overall mean score on the KABC-II was 97.4 (SD = 13.34) while the overall
mean score on the PRI was 91.87 (SD = 13.81). At the group level, only the ASD sample showed a significant difference
between the scores obtained on the two tests, demonstrating significantly higher IQ scores with the KABC-II (M = 99.07,
SD = 13.96) than on the PRI (M = 90.07, SD = 14.25), t(14) = 4.18, p < 0.05. The mean increase in IQ scores reported for the
ASD sample was 9.0 points, 95% CI 13.62 to 4.38. For the NT control sample there was no significant difference between
scores on the PRI (M = 93.67, SD = 13.61) and the KABC-II (M = 95.73, SD = 12.95), t(14) = 1.24, p = 0.23. There was a mean
increase of only 2.06 IQ points, 95% CI 5.63 to 1.50.
There was a significant interaction between group and test: Wilks’ Lambda = 0.81, F(1, 28) = 6.49, p < 0.05, Partial Eta
squared = 0.19, indicating a significant difference in the group by test condition. The NT control group scored on average 3.90
IQ points higher than the ASD sample on the PRI but actually scored 3.34 IQ points lower than the ASD sample on the KABC-II.
Therefore there was an average difference of 7.14 IQ points between the two groups on the two batteries (KABC-II/PRI).

Table 1
Mean and standard deviations for WISC-IV and KABC-II standard scores.

ASD (15) NT (15)

PRI 90.07 (14.25)a 93.67 (13.61)

PSI* 76.67 (12.49)b 93.73 (11.82)
KABC-II 99.07 (13.96) 95.73 (12.95)
a
Significant difference with KABC-II at the intra-group level, p = 0.05.
b
Significant difference with PRI at the intra-group level, p = 0.05.
* Significant difference in favour of NT control group, p = 0.05.
1204 N. Bardikoff, M. McGonigle-Chalmers / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 8 (2014) 1200–1207

However, independent sample t tests showed that the differences were not significant (PRI: t(28) = 0.71, p = 0.48; KABC-II:
t(28) = 0.68, p = 0.50). No main effect was found for group F(1, 28) = 0.001, p = 0.97, Partial Eta squared = 0.00.

3.3. WISC-IV Processing Speed Index vs. the KABC-II

A mixed 2 (PSI/KABC-II)  2 (ASD/NT) ANOVA with PSI/KABC-II as the within subject factor and ASD/NT as the between
subject factor was conducted. A significant main effect for test was found, with higher IQ scores reported for the KABC-II as
opposed to the PSI, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.48, F(1, 28) = 31.15, p < 0.05, Partial Eta squared = 0.53. At the group level this was true
only for the ASD sample (PSI: M = 76.67, SD = 12.49; KABC-II: M = 99.07, SD = 13.96), t(14) = 6.41, p < 0.05. The mean in IQ
scores for the ASDs was 22.4 IQ points, 95% CI 29.89 to 14.90. While the NT control group showed no significant difference
between scores (PSI: M = 93.73, SD = 11.82; KABC-II: M = 95.73, SD = 12.95), t(14) = 0.76, p = 0.46. The mean increase for the
NTs was only 2.00 IQ points, 95% CI 7.63 to 3.63.
There was no significant main effect for group F(1, 28) = 2.75, p = 0.11, Partial Eta squared = 0.09, although there was a
significant group by test interaction, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.56, F(1, 28) = 21.77, p < 0.05, Partial Eta squared = 0.44. At the group
level, the NT control cohort performed significantly better than the ASD sample on the PSI (t(28) = 3.84, p < 0.05). The
magnitude of the difference in the means (mean difference = 17.06 IQ points, 95% CI 7.97–26.16) was large. As shown
previously, there was no significant difference between the two groups on the KABC-II.

3.4. WISC-IV Perceptual Reasoning Index vs. Processing Speed Index

To assess differences within the WISC-IV indices, a mixed 2 (PRI/PSI)  2 (ASD/NT) ANOVA with PRI/PSI as the within
subject factor and ASD/NT as the between subject factor, was conducted. A significant main effect for test was found, with
significantly higher scores on the PRI, Wilks Lambda = 0.78, F(1, 28) = 7.80, p < 0.05, Partial Eta squared = 0.22. At the group
level, there was a significant difference in the scores obtained with the two indices for the ASD sample only, t(14) = 3.67,
p < 0.05. The mean increase in IQ scores reported for the ASD sample was 13.4 IQ points, 95% CI 21.24 to 5.56. The NT
control cohort displayed no significant difference in scores between the two scales, t(14) = 0.02, p = 0.98, with a mean
increase of only 0.07 IQ points, 95% CI 6.52 to 6.65.
A significant main effect for group was also found, F(1, 28) = 6.24, p < 0.05, Partial Eta squared = 0.18. There was a
significant interaction between group and index, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.77 F(1, 28) = 7.96, p < 0.05, Partial Eta = 0.22. Results
from follow up analyses are reported in previous sections.

3.5. Subtest analyses

Standard scores for subtests are shown in Table 2. A between group repeated measures ANOVA was performed to
investigate results at the subtest level. For the KABC-II, no significant difference was found at the group level when assessing
variables together, F(1, 28) = 0.39, p = 0.54, Partial Eta squared = 0.01. No interaction effect was found between group and
task, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.89, F(4, 25) = 0.95, p = 0.44, Partial Eta squared = 0.03.
Similar analysis was performed for PRI scores. No significant group differences were found when the subtests were
analyzed together, F(1, 28) = 0.45, p = 0.51, Partial Eta squared = 0.01, nor was there an interaction between tasks and group,
Wilks’ Lambda = 0.86, F(2, 27) = 2.97, p = 0.059, Partial Eta squared = 0.09.
These analyses were carried out once more to determine subtest differences on the PSI. A significant effect for group was
found when the two dependent variables were analyzed conjointly, F(1, 28) = 12.39, p < 0.05, Partial Eta squared = 0.32,
indicating a large effect. No interaction effect between combined task and group was found, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.921, F(1,
28) = 2.40, p = 0.13, Partial Eta squared = 0.08. Independent t tests were performed for each subtest and a significant group

Table 2
Mean and standard deviations for WISC-IV and KABC-II subtests.

ASD (15) NT (15)

PRI
Block design 9.47 (3.04) 9.20 (3.32)
Picture concepts 7.00 (3.34) 9.20 (3.12)
Matrix reasoning 8.73 (2.46) 8.47 (1.96)
PSI
Coding* 5.13 (3.18) 9.00 (3.02)
Symbol search* 6.73 (2.28) 9.00 (2.14)
KABC-II
Story completion 9.33 (3.11) 9.80 (2.48)
Triangles 9.93 (2.60) 9.20 (3.67)
Block counting 9.80 (2.34) 10.07 (2.49)
Pattern reasoning 10.53 (3.42) 9.00 (2.14)
Hand movements 9.67 (2.97) 8.93 (3.06)

* Significant difference in favour of NT control group, p = 0.05.

 N. Bardikoff, M. McGonigle-Chalmers / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 8 (2014) 1200–1207 1205

Fig. 1. Profile of standard scores between McGonigle-Chalmers and McSweeney (2013) and the current study.

difference for Coding: t(28) = 3.41, p < 0.05, Partial Eta squared = 0.29 and Symbol Search: t(28) = 2.81, p < 0.05, Partial Eta
squared = 0.22 was found. Visual inspection of the mean scores showed that the group difference was in favour of the NT cohort.

3.6. Bonus points

The effects of the bonus points for Block Design were assessed through the use of the new BDN (Block Design No Time
Bonus) process scores. Tools for analysis are available within the WISC-IV record booklet. Through scaled score conversions
at p = 0.05, differences between scores with and without added points were analyzed. Bonus points did not contribute
significantly to scores on Block Design for either sample. No other WISC-IV subtest used included bonus points.
Wilcoxon signed ranks test were used for the KABC-II subtests with bonus points. No significant effect was found in either
of the groups.

3.7. Comparison across studies

The two studies could be compared directly by the profiles of standard scores on the subtests common to both studies.
These are shown in Fig. 1 and it can be seen that, although the current study showed higher absolute scores, the relative
relationships for both groups across these subtests was maintained across studies. Chi-square tests show that the
distributions, expressed as a proportion of the total score are for all 7 scores are not significantly different (x2 = 4.991,
p = 0.87).

4. Discussion

In regard to the use of the Wechsler intelligence measures in clinical populations, and in particular in ASD, it has been
noted that: ‘‘The Wechsler scales are sometimes not viable for this population because of not only language requirements but
also their reliance on timed tasks, knowledge of specific content and number of tasks that are exclusively auditory in
nature. . .’’ (Klin et al., 2005, p. 789) The purpose of this study was to determine if the changes made to the WISC-IV resolves
the previously cited concerns in regards to its use with children with ASD. IQ scores obtained from the WISC-IV PRI were
compared with those from KABC-II NVI for children with ASD and typically developing age-matched controls. The hypothesis
under test was that the standard scores would show a reduction or reversal in the discrepancy between the two tests for the
children with ASD found by McGonigle-Chalmers and McSweeney (2013).
This prediction was confirmed using a design and procedure modelled on that earlier study. No overall differences were
found across groups for the PRI versus the KABC-II NVI. While group differences were found earlier on three of the WISC-III
subtests (Picture Completion, Picture Arrangement and Coding) the removal of the first two of these, and the re-location of
the last to the PSI seems to have the effect of equalizing the two forms of assessment. This suggests that the sampling and
general procedures were sufficiently comparable to draw valid conclusions regarding the improvements to the WISC-IV. This
is supported by the strong similarities in profiles across the two studies for the subtests that were common to both. Also fully
consistent with the previous findings was the fact that both tests of the PSI produced significantly lower performance for the
children with ASD than controls.
What was not found, however, was a reversal of the original difference in favour of the KABC-II over the WISC-IV. While
the control children scored higher than the experimental group on the PRI by 3.6 points, the ASD sample actually scored
higher on the KABC-II by 3.34 points. This is surprising at first glance, as it is now the KABC-II that imposes selective timing
constraints on the scoring. One obvious reason could be that the KABC was tested on average approximately 12 days after the
WISC-IV. Given that this was a follow up to McGonigle-Chalmers and McSweeney (2013), the procedure was replicated in
order to preserve comparability with that earlier study. It was also noted that Matrix Reasoning – a task similar to Pattern
Reasoning – was considerably, though not significantly, lower for participants with ASD. Given task order effects and sample
1206 N. Bardikoff, M. McGonigle-Chalmers / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 8 (2014) 1200–1207

size, other possible reasons have to be speculative, but it may be that the task formats require slightly different types of
reasoning. The Pattern Reasoning test has a linear layout and requires selection of the ‘next’ in the series from a set of
alternatives. Matrix Reasoning has a tabular layout in which a missing element is inferred by analogy with a comparison set.
In that regard it is somewhat similar to Ravens Progressive Matrices on which individuals with ASD are known to excel
(Dawson et al., 2007; Soulières et al., 2011) or perform at least as well as control children (Morsanyi & Holyoak, 2010). Indeed
the children with ASD scored higher in the current study on Matrix Reasoning than the NT group. Nevertheless a reduction in
the analogical element (which some have argued to have a semantic component) in Pattern Reasoning as compared with
Matrix Reasoning may explain the particularly strong performance on the former by the ASD group. Whatever the
interpretation, the relatively low scores on Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts had the result that, unlike previous
studies with the WISC-IV (Mayes & Calhoun, 2008; Oliveras-Rentas et al., 2012), Block Design was the highest subtest within
the PRI for the ASD group.
The lowest subtest for the ASD group in the PRI was Picture Concepts (M = 7.00). A potential explanation for this low score
was that unlike the other PRI subtests, Picture Concepts seems to draw on social knowledge. According to the exploratory
factor analysis reported in the WISC-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual, Picture Concepts loads the lowest on the Perceptual
Reasoning factor (0.45) when all ages are considered and is, in fact, the lowest factor loading of all the core subtests. When
broken down further it splits at ages 6–7 to 0.20 Perceptual Reasoning and 0.21 Verbal Comprehension. Later ages
demonstrate a much higher loading on Perceptual Reasoning (0.39–0.57) and smaller loadings on Verbal Comprehension
(Wechsler, 2003). However, Picture Concepts is still the most language based conceptual measure. Known weaknesses in
verbal ability in ASD could indicate that the Picture Concepts subtest functions differently for individuals with ASD, and, as
such, is less a pure measure of nonverbal IQ than it is purported to be.
The only other study with individuals with ASD to date that has published Picture Concepts scores from the WISC-IV is
Mayes and Calhoun (2008). Data from Picture Concepts (and Number Sequencing) were ‘‘not available’’ from the Oliveras-
Rentas study (2012, p. 659). Mayes and Calhoun (2008) did not find a low performance on Picture Concepts with their group
of children with ASD. However, their sample’s group mean for the PRI was 115 and 107 for the VCI, which could imply better
language and reasoning abilities than the current ASD sample.
Possible semantic and linguistic effects apart, one clear result is that, in line with previous research, results from this
study revealed a processing speed deficit in children with ASD. Scores on the PSI for the ASD group were significantly lower
than the scores of the control group. In addition, PSI scores were significantly lower than PRI or KABC-II scores for the ASD
group only and failed to correlate with the KABC-II. These findings highlight the processing speed weakness in ASD and
provide further evidence that the particularly stringent emphasis on timing criteria in the WISC-III has had a selective
negative effect on this particular population.
There are however, several limitations to this study. The small sample size, although specifically matched to that used in
the comparison study by McGonigle-Chalmers and McSweeney (2013), calls for caution when drawing broader conclusions
regarding the applicability of the WISC-IV. A larger study would help to clarify the significance of the unexpected finding
with regard to the superiority of the KABC-II versus the PRI and the low scores on Matrix Reasoning. A larger sample size with
greater scope for counterbalancing could also assess possible order effects across tasks. In addition, the experimental ASD
group was composed entirely of males. High proportions of males are commonplace in autism research; Oliveras-Rentas had
an ASD group composed of 82% males, and Mayes and Calhoun (2008) used a group that was 89% males. McGonigle-
Chalmers and McSweeney (2013) used an experimental group that was 93% male, while the control group was only 66%
males. Our study used a control group that was 60% male, in line with previous research. It is important to note that a t test
showed no differences between male and female scores on any measure. However in the future, greater gender matching
would be desirable. In addition, whilst the Asperger’s Syndrome diagnosis has now been removed and collapsed into classic
autism in the DSM-V, it is possible that language delay should be taken into account even when assessing so-called
nonverbal intelligence.
It is not being suggested here that, speed of processing apart, NVIQ should be qualitatively and quantitatively the same for
participants with ASD as for age matched typically developing children. Rather, the key concern is to be clear as to what the
IQ tests are measuring, so that relative strengths and weaknesses can be accurately profiled in relation to the cognitive skills
under experimental investigation. And as for educational placement, the evaluation of children who have ASD will also
benefit from an instrument that is more specific in its evaluation, generous with regard to strengths and comparable with
other instruments.
Although the creation of the PRI appears to have clarified issues connected with the WISC-III, interestingly this scale still
appears to function differently in this clinical group than it does in typically developing children, raising questions for future
research. In particular, there are outstanding issues regarding possible semantic difficulties with Picture Concepts and
Matrix Reasoning that would urge that it is used with caution until these issues are more clearly resolved.

References

Allen, M., Lincoln, A., & Kaufman, A. (1991). Sequential and simultaneous processing abilities of high-functioning autistic and language-impaired children. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 21, 483–502.
Black, D. O., Wallace, G. L., Sokoloff, J. L., & Kenworthy, L. (2009). Brief report: IQ split predicts social symptoms and communication abilities in high-functioning
children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 1613–1619.
 N. Bardikoff, M. McGonigle-Chalmers / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 8 (2014) 1200–1207 1207

Burack, J., Iarocci, G., Flanagan, T. D., & Bowler, D. M. (2004). On mosaics and melting pots: Conceptual considerations of comparison and matching strategies.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 65–73.
Bölte, S., Dziobek, I., & Poustka, F. (2009). Brief report: The level and nature of autistic intelligence revisited. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39,
678–682.
Calhoun, S. L., & Mayes, S. D. (2005). Processing speed in children with clinical disorders. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 333–343.
Charman, T., Pickles, A., Simonoff, E., Chandler, S., Loucas, T., & Baird, G. (2011). IQ in children with autism spectrum disorders: Data from the special needs and
autism project (SNAP). Psychological Medicine, 41, 619–627.
Dawson, M., Soulières, I., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Mottron, L. (2007). The level and nature of autistic intelligence. Psychological Science, 18, 657–662.
Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2009). Essential of WISC-IV assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Goldstein, G., Johnson, C., & Minshew, N. (2001). Attentional processes in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 433–440.
Goldstein, G., Allen, D. N., Minshew, N. J., Williams, D. L., Volkmar, F., Klin, A., et al. (2008). The structure of intelligence in children and adults with high functioning
autism. Neuropsychology, 22, 301–312.
Green, D., Baird, G., Barnett, A., Henderson, L., & Henderson, S. (2002). The severity and nature of motor impairment in Asperger’s syndrome: A comparison with
specific developmental disorder of motor function. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 5, 655–668.
Jarrold, C., & Brock, J. (2004). To match or not to match? Methodological issues in autism-related research. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34,
81–86.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman assessment battery for children: Second edition (KABC-II). Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
Keith, T. Z., Fine, J. G., Taub, G. E., Reynolds, M. R., & Kranzler, J. H. (2006). Higher order, multisample, confirmatory factor analysis of the Wechsler intelligence scale
for children – fourth edition: What does it measure? School Psychology Review, 35, 108–127.
Klin, A., Saulnier, C., Tsatsanis, K., & Volkmar, F. R. (2005). Clinical evaluation in autism spectrum disorders: Psychological assessment within a transdisciplinary
framework. In F. R. Volkmar, R. Paul, A. Klin, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Mayes, S., & Calhoun, S. (2003a). Analysis of WISC-III, Stanford-Binet: IV, and academic achievement test scores in children with autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 33, 329–341.
Mayes, S., & Calhoun, S. (2003b). Ability profiles in children with autism: Influence of age and IQ. Autism, 7, 65–80.
Mayes, S., & Calhoun, S. (2004). Similarities and differences in Wechsler intelligence scale for children – third edition (WISC-III) profiles: Support for subtest
analysis in clinical referrals. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 18, 559–572.
Mayes, S., & Calhoun, S. (2007). Learning, attention, writing, and processing speed in typical children and children with ADHD, autism, anxiety, depression, and
oppositional-defiant disorder. Child Neuropsychology, 13, 469–493.
Mayes, S., & Calhoun, S. (2008). WISC-IV and WIAT-II profiles in children with high-functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 428–439.
Mayes, S., Calhoun, S., Bixler, E., & Zimmerman, D. (2009). IQ and neuropsychological predictors of academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19,
238–241.
McGonigle-Chalmers, M., Bodner, K., Fox-Pitt, A., & Nicholson, L. (2008). Size sequencing as a window on executive control in children with autism and Asperger
syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 1382–1390.
McGonigle-Chalmers, M., & McSweeney, M. (2013). The role of timing in testing nonverbal IQ in children with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
43, 80–90.
Miller, L., & McGonigle-Chalmers, M. (2014). Exploring perceptual skills in children with autism spectrum disorders: From target detection to dynamic perceptual
discrimination. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1977-6
Minshew, N. J., Turner, C. A., & Goldstein, G. (2005). The application of short forms of the Wechsler Intelligence scales in adults and children with high functioning
autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 45–52.
Mottron, L. (2004). Matching strategies in cognitive research with individuals with high-functioning autism: Current practices, instrument biases, and
recommendations. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 19–27.
Morsanyi, K., & Holyoak, K. (2010). Analogical reasoning ability in autistic and typically developing children. Developmental Science, 13, 578–587.
Oliveras-Rentas, R., Kenworthy, L., Roberson, R. B., Martin, A., & Wallace, G. L. (2012). WISC-IV profile in high-functioning autism spectrum disorders: Impaired
processing speed is associated with increased autism communication symptoms and decreased adaptive communication abilities. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 42, 655–664.
Scheuffgen, K., Happé, F., Anderson, M., & Frith, U. (2000). High ‘‘intelligence,’’ low ‘‘IQ’’?. Speed of processing and measured IQ in children with autism.
Development and Psychopathology, 12, 83–90.
Shah, A., & Frith, U. (1993). Why do autistic individuals show superior performance on the block design task? Journal of Child Psychiatry, 34, 1351–1364.
Soulières, I., Dawson, M., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Mottron, L. (2011). The level and nature of autistic intelligence II: What about Asperger Syndrome? PLoS ONE, 6,
253–260.
Wechsler, D. (1991). The Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed. WISC-III). New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2003). WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2004). The Wechsler intelligence scale for children (4th ed. UK version WISC-IV). London, England: Pearson Assessment.