The present study examined the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV; D. Wechsler, 2008a) standardization sample using exploratory factor analysis, multiple factor extraction criteria, and higher order exploratory factor analysis (J. Schmid & J. M. Leiman, 1957) not included in the WAIS-IV Technical and Interpretation Manual (D. Wechsler, 2008b). Results indicated that the WAIS-IV subtests were properly associated with the theoretically proposed first-order factors, but all but one factor-extraction criterion recommended extraction of one or two factors. Hierarchical exploratory analyses with the Schmid and Leiman procedure found that the second-order g factor accounted for large portions of total and common variance, whereas the four first-order factors accounted for small portions of total and common variance. It was concluded that the WAIS-IV provides strong measurement of general intelligence, and clinical interpretation should be primarily at that level.

The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) taxonomy of cognitive abilities married John Horn and Raymond Cattell’s Extended Gf-Gc theory with John Carroll’s Three-Stratum Theory. While there are some similarities in arrangements or classifications of tasks (observed variables) within similar broad or narrow dimensions, other salient theoretical features and statistical methods used for examining and supporting them are in direct opposition. In this article, the theoretical disagreements between Carroll and Cattell-Horn and theoretical incongruencies between their models are delineated, which raises substantive challenges to CHC. Additionally, there are practical and substantial measurement obstacles that further threaten practical application of CHC. We conclude that the problems are due to some fundamental differences that likely will not change, so call for an annulment of this arranged but unhappy marriage.

Independent exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) research with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition (WISC-V) standardization sample has failed to provide support for the five group factors proposed by the publisher, but there have been no independent examinations of the WISC-V structure among clinical samples. The present study examined the latent structure of the 10 WISC-V primary subtests with a large (N = 2,512), bifurcated clinical sample (EFA, n = 1,256; CFA, n = 1,256). EFA did not support five factors as there were no salient subtest factor pattern coefficients on the fifth extracted factor. EFA indicated a four-factor model resembling the WISC-IV with a dominant general factor. A bifactor model with four group factors was supported by CFA as suggested by EFA. Variance estimates from both EFA and CFA found that the general intelligence factor dominated subtest variance and omega-hierarchical coefficients supported interpretation of the general intelligence factor. In both EFA and CFA, group factors explained small portions of common variance and produced low omega-hierarchical subscale coefficients, indicating that the group factors were of poor interpretive value.

The reliability and factorial validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition: Canadian (WISC-V^CDN) was investigated. The higher-order model preferred by Wechsler (2014b) contained five group factors but lacked discriminant validity. An alternative bifactor model with four group factors and one general factor, akin to the traditional Wechsler model, exhibited the best global fit. The general factor accounted for 33.8% of the total variance and 67.6% of the common variance, but none of the group factors accounted for substantial portions of variance. All together, the general and group factors accounted for 50% of the total variance. Omega reliability coefficients demonstrated that reliable variance of WISC-V^CDN factor index scores was primarily due to the general factor, not the group factors. It was concluded that the cumulative weight of reliability and validity evidence suggests that psychologists should focus their interpretive efforts at the general factor level and exercise extreme caution when using group factor scores to make decisions about individuals.

Individually and collectively, it is now more important than ever that we engage in intentional and sustained action to advocate for and advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the field of school psychology. To create positive change and the momentum to sustain it, it is essential that school psychology colleagues, organizations, and entities—including journals—identify how each can contribute to advancing DEI efforts. Herein, the School Psychology Review leadership team offers a brief summary of several of our intentional efforts, to date, to advocate for and advance DEI in school psychology scholarship. These actions toward accountability include (a) establishing individual and collective commitments to advocating for and advancing DEI as the foundation of our scholarship; (b) diversifying the journal leadership; (c) diversifying the editorial advisory board; (d) preparing future diverse journal leadership through mentored editorial fellowship programs, especially focused on early research career individuals; (e) mentoring future colleagues by establishing a student editorial board with members from diverse backgrounds; (f) focusing on special topics relevant to diverse and minoritized children, youth, families, and school communities; (g) making available professional-development opportunities and resources; and (h) establishing a journal action plan focused on advancing DEI. All colleagues, organizations, and entities are invited to individually and collectively join us to Be the Change in advancing and sustaining DEI efforts in school psychology scholarship. IMPACT STATEMENT The School Psychology Review leadership team outlines actions to advocate for and advance diversity, equity, and inclusivity in school psychology scholarship. Actions and accountability discussed include: establishing individual and collective commitments; diversifying the journal leadership, as well as the editorial advisory board; establishing journal infrastructures to support further development and contributions of diverse students and early career colleagues; and establishing a journal action plan focused on advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion.