Psychological Assessment Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association

2004, Vol. 16, No. 3, 323–325 1040-3590/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.323

BRIEF REPORTS

Values for Comparison of WAIS–III Index Scores With Overall Means

R. Stewart Longman
Foothills Hospital, Calgary

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition (WAIS–III; Wechsler, 1997b) provides factor-
based index scores but allows only for pairwise comparison of these scores, producing inflated Type I
error rates and reducing profile interpretability. This article provides tables for simultaneous comparison
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

to the overall mean index score, thus reducing error rates and aiding interpretation. The Working Memory
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Index or Processing Speed Index can also be specifically compared when an individual is believed to
have a condition, such as a learning disability or traumatic brain injury, associated with the selective
depression of these indexes. Tables for the infrequency of specific differences are also provided, allowing
the practitioner to note how unusual an obtained difference is in the general population.

With the publication of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—
Third Edition (WAIS–III; Wechsler, 1997b), there has been the
provision of factor-based index scores, reflecting relatively more
homogenous selections of skills and abilities than those making up
the standard Verbal IQ (VIQ) and Performance IQ (PIQ). The
Verbal Comprehension (VCI) and Working Memory (WMI) in-
dexes are primarily based on subtests contributing to VIQ, whereas
the Perceptual Organization (POI) and Processing Speed (PSI)
indexes are primarily based on subtests contributing to the PIQ. In
addition, the WAIS–III manual contains much information that
was not available in previous editions, allowing for interpretation
of subtest or index score differences. For example, Table B.3 of the
WAIS–III manual (Wechsler, 1997b) allows for comparison of
individual subtest scores to the mean of subtest scores (within the
appropriate IQ scale or for comparison to all subtests), and Table
B.1 allows identification of statistically significant differences
between each pair of index scores.
The current method for interpretation of differences between
index scores is limited to pairwise comparisons. Unfortunately,
these comparisons do not address overall configuration, such as a
relative strength or weakness on a specific index as compared with
overall performance. Pairwise comparisons can also lead to results
that are either confusing or difficult to interpret. For example, an
individual aged 46 years may have a VCI of 95, a POI of 102, a
WMI of 102, and a PSI of 103. In this case, only the difference
between VCI and WMI is statistically significant (meaning likely
to be replicable) at the ␣ ⫽ .15 level, yet this is one of the smaller
differences. Communicating this finding and conceptualizing the
overall results is somewhat difficult. As well, although the differ-
ence between WMI and VCI may suggest further investigation and
consideration of clinical hypotheses, a difference this large or
larger is extremely common, found in 57.5% of adults (Wechsler,
1997b, pp. 206 –207).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to R. Stew-
art Longman, Department of Psychology, Foothills Hospital, 1403 29th
Street, Northwest, Calgary, Alberta T2N 2T9, Canada. E-mail: Stewart
.Longman@calgaryhealthregion.ca
In addition to the reduced conceptual clarity resulting from
pairwise interpretation, there is an increased chance of Type I
errors, because of the multiple comparisons that are made (Knight
& Godfrey, 1984). Indeed, given six possible pairwise compari-
sons, the probability of making a Type I error is 62% if using the
␣ ⫽ .15 significance level for individual comparisons and is still
26% when using the more stringent ␣ ⫽ .05 significance level. For
these reasons, some sources recommend against the pairwise com-
parisons of subtest scores (e.g., Glutting & Watkins, 1997).
There is emerging evidence that profiles of index scores may be
reliably characterized by a pattern of specific strengths or weak-
nesses and associated with particular diagnoses. For example, a
relative weakness on the PSI appears to be a common consequence
of traumatic brain injury (Axelrod, Fichtenberg, Liethen, Czarnota,
& Stucky, 2002; Donders, Tulsky, & Zhu, 2001; Wechsler, 1997a,
pp. 154 –156). For adults with a history of learning disabilities, a
reduced WMI is a relatively frequent finding (Wechsler, 1997a,
pp. 176 –178). For normal subjects in the WAIS–III normative
sample, five clusters were derived based on index score profiles
(Donders, Zhu, & Tulsky, 2001). Three profiles showed little
difference between index scores and differed only by mean eleva-
tion, whereas the remaining two profiles were characterized by a
relative strength or a weakness on the PSI, compared with the
remaining indexes. In the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Chil-
dren—III (WISC–III; Wechsler, 1991), similar clusters have been
found (Donders, 1996). These findings for normal and clinical
groups suggest that review of index score profiles may aid con-
sideration in the individual case.
Naglieri (1993) proposed two possible strategies to interpret
index scores when using the WISC–III. One method is to use the
Bonferroni correction for the six individual pairwise comparisons.
This reduces Type I error but does not address the concerns about
pairwise interpretation. The other method, the ipsative approach,
involves comparing index scores to the overall mean, which re-
duces the number of comparisons (and the degree of a Bonferroni
correction for multiple comparisons) and is also much easier to
interpret. This approach allows the clinician to state that an indi-
vidual shows a reliable strength (or weakness) on a specific index
compared with overall performance. Furthermore, if a targeted

323
 324 BRIEF REPORTS
comparison of one index against the overall mean is suggested a
priori, the Bonferroni correction can be eliminated, improving
clinical sensitivity.
These two considerations (increased risk of Type I error from
performing all possible pairwise comparisons and greater concep-
tual clarity and ease of communication of findings through per-
forming multiple comparisons simultaneously) suggest that com-
paring obtained index scores to the overall mean index score may
be preferable to the current practice of pairwise comparisons. This
should lead to reduced frequency of Type I errors without the high
degree of correction needed for a series of pairwise comparisons at
the same overall alpha level and may aid in characterizing an
individual WAIS–III profile as showing either no profile variation,
a relative strength, or a relative weakness on a specific index (or
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
indexes). This could aid in both conceptualizing and communicat-
ing assessment results.
Method
Davis (1959) provided a formula for calculating different scores required
for statistical significance for an individual subtest or index compared with
the overall mean of subtests or indexes. This formula requires obtaining
standard errors of measurement and choosing appropriate Z values. This
formula can be represented as
D ⫽ Z 冑共SEMt兲 2 /K2 ⫹ 关共K ⫺ 2兲/K兴共SEMi兲 2 .
In this formula, D is the deviation from the mean index score, Z is the
critical Z value (after Bonferroni correction), SEM2t is the sum of the
squared standard errors of measurement for all the indexes, K is the number
of indexes, and SEM2i is the squared standard error of measurement for the
particular index being compared.
Following Kaufman’s (1990, p. 436) and Naglieri’s (1993) studies, I
calculated Bonferroni corrected values for omnibus comparisons, using
two-tailed significance levels of .15, .05, and .01. These significance values
were chosen to reflect the values presented for both pairwise and ipsative
comparisons in the manual for the WAIS–III (Wechsler, 1997b), which
correspond to the .15 value recommended for hypothesis generation by
Davis (1959) and the .05 and .01 values for more stringent identification of
strengths and weaknesses proposed by Kaufman (1990). Data for the
standard errors of measurement were taken from Table 3.4 of the technical
manual (Wechsler, 1997a, p. 54), using the values for the index scores
averaged across all the age ranges. Averaged values were chosen for the
ease of using a single table and because inspection of tabled values did not
indicate any clear or consistent trends of increasing or decreasing standard
errors with increasing age.
In addition to the statistical significance of differences, the relative
infrequency of differences between a specific index and the overall mean
was calculated, to give the 25th, 10th, 5th, 2nd, and 1st percentile values,
helping to delimit relatively common and relatively uncommon discrepan-
cies. This requires the calculation of the standard deviation of the mean of
the four index scores (using formula 5-3 in Nunnally, 1978, p. 153), the
correlation of that mean with each index score (using formula 5-7 in
Nunnally, 1978, p. 166), and then the calculation of the abnormality of the
difference between two correlated scores, using the formula from Payne
and Jones (1957), which can be expressed as
A ⫽ Z 冑SD1 ⫹ SD2 ⫺ 2共r1, 2 SD1 SD2 兲.
2 2
In this formula, A is the difference associated with a relative abnormality,
Z is the standard normal deviate associated with a specific (two-tailed)
probability, SD1 is the standard deviation of the index score, SD2 is the
standard deviation of the mean of the index scores, and r1, 2 is the
correlation between a specific index score and the overall mean. All
percentiles were calculated as two-tailed values.
Results and Example
The standard errors and corresponding critical values for each
index are presented in Table 1. In addition, given that in particular
populations (individuals with suspected traumatic brain injury or
learning disabilities) it may be appropriate to compare a single
index score to the overall mean, critical values for a targeted
comparison of only one index score against the overall mean are
provided in Table 2. These use unprotected one-tailed alpha levels
of .05 and .01. As expected, given that the PSI is composed of only
two subtests, the standard error (and thus the required deviation
from the overall mean) is higher than for the remaining indexes,
both for the overall as well as the targeted comparisons. Finally,
Table 3 indicates the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 10th, and 25th percentiles for
differences between a specific index score and the overall mean.
These can be used to give an indication of the relative infrequency
of an obtained difference, and thus, the clinical importance of that
difference.
For example, consider a 25-year-old man with a history of
reading and spelling problems, referred for consideration of a
possible learning disability. He shows a VCI of 98, a POI of 102,
a WMI of 89, and a PSI of 96, giving an overall mean index score
of 96.25. For this individual, given a specific hypothesis of aca-
demic learning disability on the basis of his history and back-
ground, comparison of the WMI against the overall mean is
appropriate. In this case, the obtained value is 7.25, as compared
with a critical value of 5.75 for the ␣ ⫽ .05 level of statistical
significance, indicating a relative weakness in WMI compared
with his overall mean. None of his remaining indexes differ from
the overall mean. In this case, use of pairwise comparisons at an
␣ ⫽ .05 level only indicates a reliable difference between WMI
and POI. Table 3 indicates that this discrepancy, although statis-
tically significant, is not unusual, found in more than 25% of the
general population.
Consider the example given earlier, an individual with a VCI of
95, a POI of 102, a WMI of 102, and a PSI of 103. In this case, the
overall mean is 100.5, and none of the scores differs significantly
from that value. The WAIS–III index score profile would be
considered to show no overall strengths or weaknesses, and the
previously noted difference between VCI and WMI may represent
an overinterpretation of the data, as suggested by the relative
frequency of the obtained score difference.
Table 1
Differences Between Each Index Score and Mean Index Score
for Each Significance Level
Significance level (␣)
Index SEM .15 .05 .01
Verbal Comprehension 3.01 6.04 7.32 8.88
Perceptual Organization 3.95 7.09 8.60 10.43
Working Memory 3.84 6.96 8.44 10.24
Processing Speed 5.13 8.54 10.35 12.56
Note. SEM data are from the WAIS–III/WMS–III Technical Manual (p.
54) by D. Wechsler. Copyright @ 1997 by Harcourt Assessment, Inc.
Reproduced by permission. All rights reserved.
 BRIEF REPORTS 325

Discussion Table 3
Abnormality of Differences Between Index Scores and the
For interpretive purposes, differences between obtained index Overall Mean Index Score
scores and the overall index score mean are likely to be more
useful and easier to report than comparing pairs of indexes. That is, Cumulative infrequency
it is much easier to conceptualize and describe a profile as showing
a relative strength (or weakness) on one index, rather than stating Index 25% 10% 5% 2% 1%
that the difference between specific pairs of indexes was statisti- Verbal Comprehension 9.11 13.03 15.52 18.42 20.40
cally significant. Such an overall comparison may also be a better Perceptual Organization 8.69 12.43 14.81 17.58 19.46
reflection of the actual process of interpretation (Glutting & Working Memory 9.27 13.26 15.80 18.75 20.76
Watkins, 1997). The data provided in Table 1 allows for such Processing Speed 10.41 14.88 17.73 21.05 23.30
comparisons, thus providing better integration of overall results
than the current practice of pairwise comparisons. This is also
conceptually consistent with the recommended procedure for in- discrepancies between subtest or index scores for a sample of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

terpretation of subtest strengths and weaknesses. Just as with the adults with brain injury, demonstrating not only the replicability of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

index scores, subtest scores were initially interpreted through
pairwise comparisons, until the awareness of the logical and sta-
tistical difficulties involved led to the current emphasis on com-
parison of individual scores to the overall mean (Kaufman, 1990,
p. 425; Knight & Godfrey, 1984).
The Davis (1959) formula does not require that the measures
being compared have any particular properties, but the comparison
will be more sensitive when the measures are more reliable (as
index scores are more reliable than the individual subtests). The
values provided in Tables 1 and 2 do not indicate the relative
abnormality of specific differences but rather their statistical im-
probability when no true differences are expected, thus indicating
if this is a reliable difference. This is similar to the situation with
VIQ and PIQ, in which differences may be statistically significant
(unlikely to arise by chance and reflecting some true variation in
abilities) but may also be quite common.
Fortunately, the high correlations between the index scores and
the overall mean (.80 –.86) indicate that large discrepancies be-
tween index scores and the overall mean are relatively less com-
mon than similarly large discrepancies between pairs of index
scores. This can be seen by comparing Table B.2 of the WAIS–III
manual (Wechsler, 1997b) to Table 3 from the present study. This
suggests that a reliable and unusual discrepancy between an index
score and the mean score may well have some cognitive or
diagnostic correlates outside the domain of WAIS–III scores.
The methods and tables presented here are intended to give a
straightforward strategy for profile identification and description,
while recognizing that the pattern of WAIS–III scores, by itself,
may help to generate hypotheses, but further information is
needed, such as patient history and other test data, to test these
hypotheses. This may supplement studies such as that by Axelrod
et al. (2002), who noted the relative infrequencies of varying
Table 2
Differences Between WMI or PSI and Mean Score: .05 and .01
Significance Levels When Comparing a Single Index With the
Mean Index
Significance level (␣)
Index .05 .01
the overall group profile but also the variability of individual
findings within this broad diagnosis. The strategy of a single
overall comparison should reduce overinterpretation of test results
and direct attention to the most reliable and meaningful differ-
ences. Further studies examining WAIS–III profiles for different
clinical groups will be important in identifying how well individ-
ual profiles aid in diagnosis and treatment planning.
References
Axelrod, B. N., Fichtenberg, N. L., Liethen, P. C., Czarnota, M. A., &
Stucky, K. (2002). Index, summary, and subtest discrepancy scores on
the WAIS–III in traumatic brain injury patients. International Journal of
Neuroscience, 112, 1479 –1487.
Davis, F. B. (1959). Interpretation of differences among averages and
individual test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 162–170.
Donders, J. (1996). Cluster subtypes in the WISC–III standardization
sample: Analysis of factor index scores. Psychological Assessment, 8,
312–318.
Donders, J., Tulsky, D. S., & Zhu, J. (2001). Criterion validity of new
WAIS–III subtest scores after traumatic brain injury. Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society, 7, 892– 898.
Donders, J., Zhu, J., & Tulsky, D. (2001). Factor index score patterns in the
WAIS–III standardization sample. Assessment, 8, 193–203.
Glutting, J. J., & Watkins, M. M. (1997). The base rate problem and its
consequences for interpreting children’s ability profiles. School Psychol-
ogy Review, 26, 176 –188.
Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. Bos-
ton: Allyn & Bacon.
Knight, R. G., & Godfrey, H. P. D. (1984). Assessing the significance of
differences between subtests on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—
Revised. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 808 – 810.
Naglieri, J. A. (1993). Pairwise and ipsative comparisons of WISC–III IQ
and index scores. Psychological Assessment, 5, 113–116.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Payne, R. W., & Jones, G. (1957). Statistics for the investigation of
individual cases. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13, 115–121.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—III. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997a). WAIS–III/WMS–III technical manual. San Antonio,
TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997b). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition.
San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Working Memory 5.75 7.88 Received March 18, 2002

Processing Speed 6.83 9.67
Revision received July 16, 2003
Note. WMI ⫽ Working Memory Index; PSI ⫽ Processing Speed Index. Accepted November 19, 2003 䡲