Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

16 (2001) 183 ± 191

Interpreting change on the WAIS-III/WMS-III in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/16/2/183/2006 by guest on 24 October 2020

clinical samples
Grant L. Iverson*
Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, 2255 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC,
V6T 2A1, Canada
Neuropsychiatry Units, Riverview Hospital, Canada
Accepted 19 February 2000

Abstract

Clinicians should note that there is considerable variability in the reliabilities of the index and
subtest scores derived from the third editions of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III) and
the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-III). The purpose of this article is to review these reliabilites and to
illustrate how they can be used to interpret change in patients' performances from test to retest. The
WAIS-III IQ and Index scores are consistently the most reliable scores, in terms of both internal
consistency and test ± retest reliability. The most internally consistent WAIS-III subtests are
Vocabulary, Information, Digit Span, Matrix Reasoning, and Arithmetic. Information and Vocabulary
have the highest test ±retest reliability. On the WMS-III, the Auditory Immediate Index, Immediate
Memory Index, Auditory Delayed Index, and General Memory Index are the most reliable, in terms of
both internal consistency and test ± retest reliability. The Logical Memory I and Verbal Paired
Associates I subtests are the most reliable. Data from three clinical groups (i.e., Alzheimer's disease,
chronic alcohol abuse, and schizophrenia) were extracted from the Technical Manual [Psychological
Corporation (1997). WAIS-III/WMS-III Technical Manual. San Antonio: Harcourt Brace] for the
purpose of calculating reliable change estimates. A table of confidence intervals for test ± retest
measurement error is provided to help the clinician determine if patients have reliably improved or
deteriorated on follow-up testing. D 2001 National Academy of Neuropsychology. Published by
Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: WAIS-III; WMS-III; Clinical samples

* Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, 2255 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
V6T 2A1. Tel.: +1-604-822-7588; fax: +1-604-822-7756.

0887-6177/01/$ ± see front matter D 2001 National Academy of Neuropsychology.

PII: S 0 8 8 7 - 6 1 7 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 0 - 3
184 G.L. Iverson / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 16 (2001) 183±191

At this point in time, based on available data, rehabilitation psychologists and neuropsy-
chologists should have the most confidence in the index scores derived from the third editions
of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III) and the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-
III). With some notable exceptions, many of the subtests, especially those from the WMS-III,
have reliabilities that limit their clinical usefulness as independent measures of specific
cognitive abilities. This is a common problem; many tests used in clinical neuropsychology
suffer from low reliability.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/16/2/183/2006 by guest on 24 October 2020

Reviewing test reliabilities should not be considered esoteric, or be relegated to
academic discussions of psychometric theory. Rather, these reliabilities have two very
practical implications for our day-to-day clinical evaluations. First, do the items that
comprise a test systematically measure a unified cognitive ability (e.g., expressive
vocabulary)? Second, to what degree can we measure these abilities over time, for the
purpose of determining improvement or decline? These fundamental issues are very closely
tied to test reliabilities.
The purpose of this article is to discuss some of the practical clinical implications of WAIS-
III/WMS-III scale reliabilities. In Section 1, a review of the subtest and index score internal
consistency and test±retest reliabilities is provided. Detailed information for interpreting
change on the IQ and Index scores in clinical samples is contained in Section 2.

1. Internal consistency and test±retest reliability

There are numerous reliability tables in the WAIS/WMS Technical Manual (Psychological
Corporation, 1997). These tables were studied, and some of the most relevant information for
graduate students and busy clinicians were distilled. First and foremost, the WAIS-III IQ and
Index scores are consistently the most reliable scores, in terms of both internal consistency
and test±retest reliability. The most internally consistent WAIS-III subtests are Vocabulary,
Information, Digit Span, Matrix Reasoning, and Arithmetic. Similarities and Block Design
also have quite high internal consistency. Information has the highest test±retest reliability,
followed by Vocabulary.
On the WMS-III, the Auditory Immediate, Immediate Memory, and General Memory
Indexes are the most internally consistent index scores. The Verbal Paired Associates I and
the Logical Memory I are the most internally consistent of the primary subtest scores. The
uncorrected test±retest reliabilities of the primary subtest scores, with the exception of Verbal
Paired Associates I in older adults, all range from 0.58 to 0.79. The following index scores
have uncorrected test±retest reliabilities greater than 0.80: Auditory Immediate, Immediate
Memory, Auditory Delayed Memory, and General Memory. The test±retest reliability of the
Working Memory Index in older adults is 0.80.
The Index and subtest scores were sorted into two groups, ``most reliable'' and ``least
reliable''. To be classified as ``most reliable,'' the score had to have adequate internal
consistency (0.85±0.99) and adequate test±retest reliability (0.75±0.99). To be classified as
``least reliable,'' the score had to have low internal consistency (<0.80) and low test±retest
reliability (<0.70), or a test retest reliability coefficient below 0.60. The classification results
are presented in Table 1.
 G.L. Iverson / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 16 (2001) 183±191 185

The information presented in the preceding text and in Table 1 has four clear implications
for day-to-day clinical practice. The WAIS-III Index scores and four of the WMS-III Indexes
(Auditory Immediate, Immediate Memory, Auditory Delayed, and General Memory) are the
most reliable, so the clinician should have the greatest confidence in the precision of these
scores. Second, if the psychologist wanted to choose certain subtests on the WAIS-III to
describe individually in a report, he or she may decide to select those with high internal
consistency, such as Vocabulary, Similarities, Information, Digit Span, Block Design, and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/16/2/183/2006 by guest on 24 October 2020

Matrix Reasoning (or those from the ``most reliable'' category). In contrast, the primary
subtest scores on the WMS-III do not have high reliability, with the exception of Logical
Memory I and Verbal Paired Associates I. Therefore, the clinician should have less
confidence in discussing these individual subtest results. Some of the WMS-III supplemen-
tary scores have high ``decision-consistency'' reliabilities, such as Mental Control, Informa-
tion and Orientation, Faces Percent Retention, Family Pictures Percent Retention, Verbal
Paired Associates II Percent Retention (in subjects aged 16±54), Word Lists II Percent
Retention (in the elderly), and Visual Reproduction Discrimination. The decision-consistency
reliability indicates the consistency of scaled score agreements between test and retest. These
reliabilities can increase the clinician's confidence in reporting these individual scores. Third,
the clinician should have the least confidence in reporting individual test scores if they fall in
the ``least reliable'' category. Finally, it is important to realize that these reliability estimates
are useful for determining whether a person has improved, remained the same, or deteriorated
on follow-up testing.

2. Interpreting change on the WAIS-III/WMS-III

Data provided in the Technical Manual (Psychological Corporation, 1997) can be used to
interpret change in several clinical samples on the WAIS-III/WMS-III. Some clinicians use
clinical judgment to interpret change, whereas others use psychometric data, such as standard
errors of measurement (SEMs), combined with clinical judgement. In general, incorporating
SEM information for the purpose of estimating change is preferred over clinical judgment
alone. However, a limitation of SEMs is that they are used to provide a confidence band
around a score at a single point in time. That is, they are most useful for interpreting single
test scores. The standard error of the difference (i.e., Sdiff) is more appropriate for creating a
confidence band relevant to two scores. The Sdiff formula includes the SEM from time 1 and
time 2. Therefore, it is the standard error of difference that provides the clinician with an
estimate of possible measurement error relating to test±retest scores. The purpose of this
section is to provide the clinician with tables to assist with determinations of improvement or
decline on the WAIS-III and WMS-III in three clinical samples.

3. Reliable change

A reliable change methodology (e.g., Jacobson & Truax, 1991; Chelune et al., 1993) can
be used for assessing whether a retest change in a given variable is reliable and meaningful.
186 G.L. Iverson / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 16 (2001) 183±191

Table 1
WAIS-III/WMS-III reliabilities
Adequate internal consistency (0.85 ± 0.99)
WAIS-III ages 16 ± 29: VC, AR, DS, IN, BD, MR, VCI, POI, WMI, PSI
WAIS-III ages 30 ± 54: VC, SI, AR, DS, IN BD, MR, VCI, POI, WMI, PSI
WAIS-III ages 55 ± 74: VC, SI, AR, DS, IN, CO, PC, BD, MR, VCI, POI, WMI, PSI
WAIS-III ages 75 ± 89: VC, SI, AR, DS, IN, LN, MR, VCI, POI, WMI, PSI
WMS-III ages 16 ± 54: LM I, VPA I, AII, IMI, ADI, GMI, WMI

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/16/2/183/2006 by guest on 24 October 2020

WMS-III ages 55 ± 89: LM I, VPA I, AII, IMI, ADI, GMI, WMI

Low internal consistency ( < 0.80)

WAIS-III ages 16 ± 29: LN, PA, OA
WAIS-III ages 30 ± 54: PA, OA
WAIS-III ages 55 ± 74: LN,
WAIS-III ages 75 ± 89: BD, PA, OA
WMS-III ages 16 ± 54: Faces I, LN, LM II, ARDTS, ARDI, LMTH I, WL I, VR I,
SPSF, SPSB, LMTH II, WL II Recall, WL II Recog., VR II,
VR II Recog., Copy
WMS-III ages 55 ± 89: Faces I, FP I, SPS, Faces II, ARDTS, ARDI, LMTH I, SPSF,
SPSB, LMTH II, Copy

Adequate test ± retest reliability (0.75 ± 0.99)

WAIS-III ages 16 ± 29: VC, AR, DS, IN, CD, BD, VCI, POI, WMI, PSI
WAIS-III ages 30 ± 54: VC, SI, AR, DS, IN, CO, PC, CD, BD, SS, OA, VCI, POI,
WMI, PSI
WAIS-III ages 55 ± 74: VC, SI, AR, DS, IN, CO, LN, PC, CD, BD, MR, SS, OA,
VCI, POI, WMI, PSI
WAIS-III ages 75 ± 89: VC, SI, AR, IN, CO, PC, CD, BD, SS, VCI, POI, WMI, PSI
WMS-III ages 16 ± 54: LM I, VPA I, LM II, AII, IMI, ADI, GMI
WMS-III ages 55 ± 89: LM I, VPA I, LN, VPA II, AII, VII, IMI, ADI, VDI, GMI,
WMI

Low test ± retest reliability ( < 0.70)

WAIS-III ages 16 ± 29: CO, LN, PA, SS, OA
WAIS-III ages 30 ± 54: MR
WAIS-III ages 55 ± 74: PA
WAIS-III ages 75 ± 89: DS, OA
WMS-III ages 16 ± 54: Faces I, FP I, LN, SPS, Faces II, FP II, ARDTS, ARDI,
WMS-III ages 55 ± 89: Faces I, SPS, Faces II,

Most reliable test scores

WAIS-III ages 16 ± 29: VC, AR, DS, IN, CD, BD, VCI, POI, WMI, PSI
WAIS-III ages 30 ± 54: VC, SI, AR, DS, IN, CD, BD, SS, VCI, POI, WMI, PSI
WAIS-III ages 55 ± 74: VC, SI, AR, DS, IN, CO, PC, CD, BD, MR, SS, VCI, POI,
WMI, PSI
WAIS-III ages 75 ± 89: VC, SI, AR, IN, CD, SS, VCI, POI, WMI, PSI
WMS-III ages 16 ± 54: LM I, VPA I, AII, IMI, ADI, GMI
WMS-III ages 55 ± 89: LM I, VPA I, AII, IMI, ADI, GMI, WMI

Least reliable test scores

WAIS-III ages 16 ± 29: LN, PA, SS, OA
 G.L. Iverson / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 16 (2001) 183±191 187

Table 1 (continued)
Least reliable test scores
WAIS-III ages 16 ± 29: LN, PA, SS, OA
WAIS-III ages 30 ± 54: None
WAIS-III ages 55 ± 74: PA
WAIS-III ages 75 ± 89: DS, OA
WMS-III ages 16 ± 54: Faces I, LN, Faces II, ARDTS, ARDI, LMTH I, WL I,
VR I, SPSF, SPSB, LMTH II, WL II, WLRecog, VR

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/16/2/183/2006 by guest on 24 October 2020

II, VRRecog, Copy
WMS-III ages 55 ± 89: Faces I, SPS, Faces II, LMTH, SPSF, SPSB, LMTH II,
Copy
Criteria for ``most reliable'': adequate internal consistency (0.85 ± 0.99) and adequate test ± retest reliability
(0.75 ± 0.99). Criteria for ``least reliable'': low internal consistency ( < 0.80) and low test ± retest reliability ( < 0.70),
or a test ± retest reliability coefficient below 0.60. The majority of the manual-based age groups contained within
these larger age bands (e.g., 2/3 or 3/4) must have met criteria to be included in each category.
Vocabulary = VC, Similarities = SI, Arithmetic = AR, Digit Span = DS, Information = IN, Comprehension =
CO, Letter ± Number Sequencing = LN, Picture Completion = PC, Coding = CD, Block Design = BD, Matrix
Reasoning = MR, Picture Arrangement = PA, Symbol Search = SS, Object Assembly = OA, Verbal
Comprehension Index = VCI, Perceptual Organization Index = POI, Working Memory Index = WMI, Processing
Speed Index = PSI.
Vocabulary, Arithmetic, and all WAIS-III Index and IQ scores meet criteria for ``most reliable'' for all age
groups.
Coding and Symbol Search meet criteria on the basis of their test ± retest reliabilities only, since internal
consistency coefficients are not calculated for these measures.

This method provides an estimate of the probability that a given difference score would not be
obtained by chance; that is, the score would not be due to measurement error. Essentially, a
confidence interval can be formed around a score that reflects the reliability of the test.
The primary measure of interest is the Sdiff. The Sdiff is derived from the SEM, which in
turn is derived from the test±retest reliability of the instrument (rxx) and the standard
deviation (SD) of the population of interest. The confidence band is formed by multiplying
the Sdiff by a value from the z-distribution. Multiplying by a value of 1.64, for example,
results in a change score in either direction that would be unlikely to occur by chance
( p<0.05 in each tail). The formulas for calculating reliable change are presented in Table 2.

4. Reliable change in three clinical groups

Data from three clinical groups (i.e., Alzheimer's disease, chronic alcohol abuse, and
schizophrenia) were extracted form the WAIS/WMS Technical Manual (Psychological
Corporation, 1997) for the purpose of calculating reliable change estimates. The SEMs and
Sdiff 's for all the IQ and Index scores are presented in Table 3. Rounding to two decimal
places occurred at each step in calculating these values. Since none of the clinical groups
were tested twice, the test±retest correlations from the normal subjects in the standardization
sample were used to calculate the SEMs. Similarly, no retest SEM could be calculated, so the
formula for the estimated Sdiff was used (see Table 2).
188 G.L. Iverson / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 16 (2001) 183±191

Table 2
Formulas for calculating reliable change
SEM p
SEM ˆ SD 1 ÿ r
SD = standard deviation of the comparison sample
r = test ± retest reliability of the comparison sample

Standard error of the difference

q
 (Sdiff )

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/16/2/183/2006 by guest on 24 October 2020

2 2
Sdiff ˆ SEM1 ‡ SEM2
q
Estimated Sdiff ˆ 2…SEM21 †a

a
This formula often has been used in the literature on reliable change. Technically, it is incorrect; it represents
an ``estimated'' standard error of difference because the SEM for time 1 is weighed instead of using the SEM for
time 2.

It should be obvious from the formulas in Table 2 that the size of the Sdiff is related to the
SD and the test±retest coefficient. Therefore, larger SDs and smaller correlations will result in
larger SEMs and Sdiff 's. The Auditory Immediate Index, for example, has an Sdiff of 6.07 for

Table 3
SEM and standard error of difference scores on the WAIS-III/WMS-III

Alzheimer's Chronic alcohol abuse Schizophrenia

SEM Sdiff SEM Sdiff SEM Sdiff
WAIS-III
Verbal IQ 2.23 3.15 2.79 3.94 3.34 4.72
Performance IQ 3.96 5.60 5.08 7.18 4.52 6.39
Full Scale IQ 2.62 3.70 2.70 3.82 3.55 5.02
Verbal Comprehension 2.40 3.39 2.51 3.55 3.61 5.10
Perceptual Organization 4.09 5.78 5.18 7.33 5.14 7.27
Working Memory 5.54 7.83 3.94 5.57 4.83 6.83
Processing Speed 4.75 6.72 4.50 6.36 4.25 6.01

WMS-III
Auditory Immediate 4.29 6.07 6.16 8.71 6.24 8.82
Visual Immediate 5.34 7.55 7.40 10.47 7.29 10.31
Immediate Memory 4.56 6.45 6.60 9.33 6.28 8.88
Auditory Delayed 3.84 5.43 6.51 9.21 6.68 9.45
Visual Delayed 3.97 5.61 6.89 9.74 7.55 10.68
Auditory Recognition 4.64 6.56 8.19 11.58 9.39 13.28
General Memory 3.12 4.41 5.11 7.23 5.69 8.05
Working Memory 7.61 10.76 5.12 7.24 7.65 10.82

The number of patients per group was as follows: Alzheimer's = 35, chronic alcohol abuse = 28, and
schizophrenia = 42.
The following uncorrected stability coefficients were used to calculate the SEMs: Alzheimer's group Ð WAIS-
III age group 55 ± 74 and WMS-III age group 55 ± 89; chronic alcohol abuse Ð WAIS-III age group 30 ± 54 and
WMS-III age group 16 ± 54; and schizophrenia Ð WAIS-III age group 30 ± 54 and WMS-III age group 16 ± 54.
 G.L. Iverson / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 16 (2001) 183±191 189

Table 4
Confidence intervals for measurement error in three clinical groups

Alzheimer's Chronic alcohol abuse Schizophrenia

0.80 0.90 0.80 0.90 0.80 0.90
WAIS-III
Verbal IQ 4.03 5.17 5.04 6.46 6.04 7.74

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/16/2/183/2006 by guest on 24 October 2020

Performance IQ 7.17 9.18 9.19 11.78 8.18 10.48
Full Scale IQ 4.74 6.07 4.89 6.26 6.43 8.23
Verbal Comprehension 4.34 5.56 4.44 5.82 6.53 8.36
Perceptual Organization 7.40 9.48 6.05 12.02 9.31 11.92
Working Memory 10.02 12.84 7.13 9.13 8.74 11.20
Processing Speed 8.60 11.02 8.14 10.43 7.69 9.86

WMS-III
Auditory Immediate 7.77 9.95 11.15 14.28 11.29 14.46
Visual Immediate 9.66 12.38 13.40 17.17 13.20 16.91
Immediate Memory 8.26 10.58 11.94 15.30 11.37 14.56
Auditory Delayed 6.95 8.91 11.79 15.10 12.10 14.50
Visual Delayed 7.18 9.20 12.47 15.97 13.67 17.52
Auditory Recog. Delayed 8.40 10.76 14.82 18.99 17.00 21.78
General Memory 5.64 7.23 9.25 11.86 10.30 13.20
Working Memory 13.77 17.65 9.27 11.87 13.85 17.25

Alzheimer's patients and 8.82 for persons with schizophrenia (Table 3). The 90% confidence
band for these two groups is ‹10 points and 15 points, respectively. This is because the
sample SD for the patients with Alzheimer's was only 11.0, compared to 15.6 for persons
with schizophrenia. Less variability in the sample resulted in lower reliable change scores.
The following three examples illustrate the clinical use of Table 4. First, a 67-year-old man
with suspected mild Alzheimer's disease is tested twice with the WMS-III at a 14-month
interval. His Auditory Delayed Index score dropped from 81 to 73. By looking at Table 4,
the clinician can conclude that this eight point decline is not due to measurement error
(0.80 confidence, two-tailed). Second, a 42-year-old woman with chronic alcoholism
completes the WMS-III after 1 month and 12 months of abstinence. Her General Memory
Index improves from 80 to 88. The clinician cannot be confident that her change in
performance is ``real''; that is, it is not due to measurement error. Third, a 37-year-old man
with schizophrenia completes the WAIS-III shortly after admission to a psychiatric facility.
His Working Memory and Processing Speed Index scores were 81 and 77, respectively.
His psychiatric condition is stabilized and 12 months post discharge (15-month test±retest
interval), he obtains a Working Memory Index score of 91 and a Processing Speed Index
score of 86. The clinician can be confident that these 10- and 9-point changes are not
due to measurement error (0.80 confidence interval, two-tailed).1 The purpose of Table 4

1
It is entirely possible that future research will alter the interpretation of change in this example. Specifically,
this patient may be showing some influence of practice and regression to the mean on his retest scores. As this
information becomes available, the values in Table 4 can be adjusted accordingly.
190 G.L. Iverson / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 16 (2001) 183±191

is to provide preliminary psychometric data that can be used to assist the psychologist's
clinical decision regarding whether a specific patient has improved, declined, or remained
stable on follow-up testing. These data are meant to supplement, rather than replace,
clinical judgement.

5. Discussion

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/16/2/183/2006 by guest on 24 October 2020

Interpreting change on psychological tests is a careful and deliberate process that is
intricately related to the psychometric properties of a given test for a given population. The
data provided in these tables are a crude estimate of the reliable change difference scores
for the WAIS-III and WMS-III. There are six factors that limit the accuracy and usefulness
of the data provided in Table 4. First, the sample sizes are very small. Second, the clinical
subjects were not tested twice. Therefore, there were no reliability coefficients for
calculating the SEMs. Instead, the reliability coefficients for the normal population with
the SDs from the clinical populations were used to calculate these SEMs. These test±retest
correlations may be considerably higher than those that would be obtained from clinical
samples. Third, since the subjects were not tested twice, the SEM from time 1 was used in
the formula for the Sdiff twice. This should be considered an ``estimated Sdiff,'' not the true
Sdiff (Iverson, 1998). Fourth, the values in Table 4 were not corrected for practice effects
because true practice effects for these clinical groups, at a reasonable interval (such as 1
year), are unknown. The clinician must use his or her judgment in this matter. Fifth, there is
no accounting for possible regression to the mean in these values. If it was known that
retest scores in certain clinical groups were influenced by regression to the mean (Speer,
1992), the low initial scores would require greater change and the high initial scores would
require lesser change to be considered reliable. Sixth, the values in Table 4 are based on
obtained scores, not estimated true scores. The confidence intervals would be more accurate
if they were applied to estimated true scores. The aforementioned problems could not be
overcome, given the limitations of applying this method to the data presented in the
Technical Manual. Most of these problems can be addressed only if the raw data from both
test and retest is examined.
The clinician can accommodate some of these problems with future research data. For
example, if it becomes clear that there is a reliable and consistent practice effect of three
points on the Auditory Immediate Index of the WMS-III in persons with schizophrenia who
are retested at a 1-year interval, then the clinician can add these three points to the values
presented in Table 4. Or, more preferably, tables giving the distribution of test±retest change
scores could be consulted.

References

Chelune, G. J., Naugle, R. I., Luders, H., Sedlak, J., & Awad, I. A. (1993). Individual change after epilepsy
surgery: practice effects and base-rate information. Neuropsychology 7, 41 ± 52.
Iverson, G. L. (1998). Interpretation of Mini-Mental State Examination scores in community-dwelling
elderly and geriatric neuropsychiatry patients. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 13, 661 ± 666.
 G.L. Iverson / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 16 (2001) 183±191 191

Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful
change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 59, 12 ± 19.
Psychological Corporation (1997). WAIS-III/WMS-III Technical Manual. San Antonio: Harcourt Brace.
Speer, D. C. (1992). Clinically significant change: Jacobson and Truax (1991) revisited. J Consult Clin
Psychol 60, 402 ± 408.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/16/2/183/2006 by guest on 24 October 2020