About the WPPSI™-IV

Table of Contents

About the WPPSI-IV 3

1 Brief Description 3

2 About the Author 3

3 Quick Facts 4

4 Scales 4

5 Report Options 6

6 Scoring and Reporting Rules 8

7 Data Export Labels 8

8 FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) 11

Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

Pearson, the PSI logo, PsychCorp, WPPSI and WPPSI logo are
trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or
its affiliates(s).

2
 About the WPPSI-IV

1 Brief Description
The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Fourth Edition (WPPSI–IV)
is an individually administered clinical instrument designed to measure the cognitive
ability of children aged 2 years 6 months through 7 years 7 months (2:6–7:7). This
updated edition of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Third
Edition (WPPSI–III; Wechsler, 2002) provides subtest and composite scores that represent
intellectual functioning in specific cognitive domains (e.g., verbal comprehension,
working memory), as well as a composite score that represents general intellectual
ability (i.e., Full Scale IQ).

Significant revisions are incorporated into this edition, including an extended age
range, updated norms, new subtests and index scores, as well as major changes
to score terminology. Test materials have been updated to be more engaging, and
modifications to administration and scoring procedures have been made to improve
the usability of the scale.

2 About the Author

David Wechsler, PhD (1896-1981), who pioneered the field of cognitive psychology,
was one of the most renowned psychologists of the 20th century. Wechsler viewed
intelligence as an effect rather than a cause, and asserted that non-intellective factors,
such as personality, contribute to the development of each person’s intelligence.
He described intelligence as “the global capacity of a person to act purposefully,
to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment.” He developed the
Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale, which quickly became the most widely used adult
intelligence test in the United States and has authored several other highly respected
tests, including the WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children), the WAIS (Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale), the WMS (Wechsler Memory Scale), and the WPPSI (Wechsler
Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence). Since Dr. Wechsler’s passing in 1981, a
team of expert developers at Pearson have continued to evolve the Wechsler measures
by creating revisions of existing measures as well as developing new scales. The result
has been the continuation of innovation and precision that is based on contemporary
theory and current neurocognitive research. Some of the notable advancements are
the advent of a multi-factorial model a variety of new constructs and subtests that are a
reflection of the current landscape of modern psychology research and theory.

Table of
Contents

3
 3 Quick Facts

Author: David Wechsler, PhD

Publisher: Pearson
Date of Publication: 2012
Appropriate Ages: 2:6-7:7
Minimum Reading Level: Not Applicable
Administration Time: The average range for ages 2:6-3:11 is 27-32 minutes
The average range for ages 4:0-7:7 is 31-60 minutes
Scales 15 Subtests
10 Composites
Report Options: Score Report
Interpretive Report

4 Scales

Subtest Abbreviation Description

Block Design BD Working within a specified time limit, the child
views a model and/or a picture and uses one-
or two-color blocks to re-create the design.
Information IN For picture items, the child selects the response
option that best answers a question about a
general-knowledge topic. For verbal items, the
child answers questions about a broad range
of general-knowledge topics.
Matrix Reasoning MR The child views an incomplete matrix and
selects the response option that completes
the matrix.
Ages 4:0-7:7 only
Bug Search BS Working within a specified time limit, the
child marks the bug in the search group that
matches the target bug.
Ages 4:0-7:7 only
Picture Memory PM The child views a stimulus page of one or more
pictures for a specified time and then selects
the pictures from options on a response page.
Similarities SI For picture items, the child selects the response
option that is from the same category as two
other depicted objects. For verbal items, the
child is read two words that represent common
objects or concepts and describes how they
are similar.
Ages 4:0-7:7 only
Picture Concepts PC The child views two or three rows of pictures
and selects one picture from each row to form
a group with a common characteristic.
Ages 4:0-7:7 only

Table of
Contents

4
 4 Scales continued

Subtest Abbreviation Description

Cancellation CA Working within a specified time limit, the
child scans two arrangements of objects
(one random, one structured) and marks
target objects.
Ages 4:0-7:7 only
Zoo Locations ZL The child views one or more animal cards
placed on a zoo layout for a specified time and
then places each card in the previously viewed
locations.
Object Assembly OA Working within a specified time limit, the child
assembles the pieces of a puzzle to create a
representation of an identified object.
Vocabulary VC For picture items, the child names the depicted
object. For verbal items, the child defines words
that are read aloud.
Ages 4:0-7:7 only
Animal Coding AC Working within a specified time limit and using
a key, the child marks shapes that correspond
to pictured animals.
Ages 4:0-7:7 only
Comprehension CO For picture items, the child selects the response
option that represents the best response to a
general principle or social situation. For verbal
items, the child answers questions based on his
or her understanding of general principles and
social situations.
Ages 4:0-7:7 only
Receptive Vocabulary RV The child selects the response option that best
represents the word the examiner reads aloud.
Picture Naming PN The child names depicted objects.

Composite Abbreviation
Verbal Comprehension Index VCI
Visual Spatial Index VSI
Fluid Reasoning Index FRI Ages 4:0-7:7 only
Working Memory Index WMI
Processing Speed Index PSI Ages 4:0-7:7 only
Full Scale IQ FSIQ
Vocabulary Acquisition Index VAI
Nonverbal Index NVI
General Ability Index GAI
Cognitive Proficiency Index CPI Ages 4:0-7:7 only

Table of
Contents

5
 5 Report Options
WPPSI-IV Score Report
Sections included in this report:

Primary Summary
Scaled Score Summary
Subtest Scaled Score Profile
Composite Score Summary
Composite Score Profile

Primary Analysis
Index Level Strengths and Weaknesses
Index Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons
Subtest Level Strengths and Weaknesses
Subtest Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons

Ancillary Summary (Optional)

Scaled Score Summary
Index Score Summary
Ancillary Index Score Profile

Ancillary Analysis (Optional)

Index Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons
Subtest and Process Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons

WPPSI-IV Interpretive Report

Sections included in this report:

Interpretive Considerations (Optional)

Reason for Referral

Background (Personal, Language, Development, Health, Education, Employment)

Test Session Behavior

About WPPSI-IV Scores

Interpretation of WPPSI-IV Results

Full Scale IQ
Verbal Comprehension
Visual Spatial
Fluid Reasoning
Working Memory
Processing Speed

Table of
Contents

6
 5 Report Options continued
Ancillary Indexes (Optional)
Vocabulary Acquisition
Nonverbal Index
General Ability and Cognitive Proficiency

Summary

Recommendations

Primary Summary
Scaled Score Summary
Subtest Scaled Score Profile
Composite Score Summary
Composite Score Profile

Primary Analysis
Index Level Strengths and Weaknesses
Index Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons
Subtest Level Strengths and Weaknesses
Subtest Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons

Ancillary Summary (Optional)

Scaled Score Summary
Index Score Summary
Ancillary Index Score Profile

Ancillary Analysis (Optional)

Index Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons
Subtest and Process Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons

Parent Summary (Optional)

Reason for Referral
Background (Personal, Language, Development, Health, Education, Employment)
Test Session Behavior
About the WPPSI-IV
WPPSI-IV Score Interpretation
WPPSI-IV Test Scores

Table of
Contents

7
 6 Scoring and Reporting Rules
Administration Scorability Rules
The administration of this assessment cannot be scored if any of the following
conditions are true:
• (Child’s identification number is missing or invalid) and (child’s first or last name is
missing or invalid)
• Birth date is missing or invalid
• Test date is missing or invalid
• Examiner’s name is missing or invalid
• Gender is missing or invalid
• Age is less than 2 years, 6 months, 0 days or greater than 7 years, 7 months, 30 days

If an administration is unscorable, you must fill in the appropriate responses before you
can score the instrument.

7 Data Export Labels

Demographics
Column Header Description Special Values
(if applicable)
First Name Examinee’s first name
Middle Name Examinee’s middle name
Last Name Examinee’s last name
ID Examinee’s ID number
Birth Date Examinee’s date of birth
Gender Examinee’s gender 1 = Male; 2 = Female
Date of Assessment Date of administration
Age Examinee’s age at administration
Form Form administered 1 = 2:6-3:11; 2 = 4:0-7:7
Ethnicity Examinee’s race/ethnicity 1 = Black/African-American
2 = Hispanic/Latino(a)
3 = White
4 = Pacific Islander
5 = Asian
6 = American Indian/
Alaska Native
7 = Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander (no longer
available)
8 = Multiracial
9 = Native Hawaiian
77 = Other
99 = Prefer not to answer

Table of
Contents

8
 7 Data Export Labels continued

Language Language spoken in 1 = English

examinee’s home 2 = Spanish
3 = Bilingual English
and Spanish
4 = Bilingual other
5 = French
6 = German
7 = Tagalog
8 = Chinese
9 = Vietnamese
10 = Korean
11 = Russian
12 = Italian
13 = Portuguese
14 = Japanese
15 = Swedish
16 = African
17 = Arabic
18 = American Sign
Language
19 = Braille
77 = Other
Handedness Handedness 1 = Right; 2 = Left;
3 = Ambidextrous
Demographics
Column Header Description Special Values
(if applicable)
Grade Examinee’s grade at administration 94 = at home with relatives
95 = daycare
96 = preschool
0 = kindergarten
1 = 1st grade
2 = 2nd grade
3 = 3rd grade
4 = 4th grade
5 = 5th grade
6 = 6th grade
7 = 7th grade
8 = 8th grade
9 = 9th grade
10 = 10th grade
11 = 11th grade
12 = 12th grade
13 = college freshman
14 = college sophomore
15 = college junior
16 = college senior
17 = graduate student
18 = post-doctoral
77 = other
Retest Is this a retest? 1 = Yes; 0 = No
Examiner Examiner’s name
Custom1 User-defined field 1
Custom2 User-defined field 2
Custom3 User-defined field 3

Table of
Contents

9
 7 Data Export Labels continued

Custom4 User-defined field 4

Raw Scores
Column Header Description Special Values
(if applicable)
wppsi4_bd_raw Block Design (BD) Raw Score
wppsi4_in_raw Information (IN) Raw Score
wppsi4_mr_raw Matrix Reasoning (MR) Raw Score
wppsi4_bs_raw Bug Search (BS) Raw Score
wppsi4_pm_raw Picture Memory (PM) Raw Score
wppsi4_si_raw Similarities (SI) Raw Score
wppsi4_pc_raw Picture Concepts (PC) Raw Score
wppsi4_ca_raw Cancellation (CA) Raw Score
wppsi4_zl_raw Zoo Locations (ZL) Raw Score
wppsi4_oa_raw Object Assembly (OA) Raw Score
wppsi4_vc_raw Vocabulary (VC) Raw Score
wppsi4_ac_raw Animal Coding (AC) Raw Score
wppsi4_co_raw Comprehension (CO) Raw Score
wppsi4_rv_raw Receptive Vocabulary (RV) Raw Score
wppsi4_pn_raw Picture Naming (PN) Raw Score
wppsi4_car_raw Cancellation Random(CAR) Raw Score
wppsi4_cas_raw Cancellation Structured (CAS)
Raw Score
Derived Scores
Column Header Description Special Values
(if applicable)
wppsi4_bd_ss Block Design (BD) Scaled Score
wppsi4_in_ss Information (IN) Scaled Score
wppsi4_mr_ss Matrix Reasoning (MR) Scaled Score
wppsi4_bs_ss Bug Search (BS) Scaled Score
wppsi4_pm_ss Picture Memory (PM) Scaled Score
wppsi4_si_ss Similarities (SI) Scaled Score
wppsi4_pc_ss Picture Concepts (PC) Scaled Score
wppsi4_ca_ss Cancellation (CA) Scaled Score
wppsi4_zl_ss Zoo Locations (ZL) Scaled Score
wppsi4_oa_ss Object Assembly (OA) Scaled Score
wppsi4_vc_ss Vocabulary (VC) Scaled Score
wppsi4_ac_ss Animal Coding (AC) Scaled Score
wppsi4_co_ss Comprehension (CO) Scaled Score
wppsi4_rv_ss Receptive Vocabulary (RV) Scaled
Score
wppsi4_pn_ss Picture Naming (PN) Scaled Score

Table of
Contents

10
 7 Data Export Labels continued

wppsi4_car_ss Cancellation Random (CAR) Scaled

Score
wppsi4_cas_ss Cancellation Structured (CAS) Scaled
Score
wppsi4_vci_ss Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI)
Standard Score
wppsi4_vsi_ss Visual Spatial Index (VSI) Standard
Score
wppsi4_fri_ss Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI) Standard
Score
wppsi4_wmi_ss Working Memory Index (WMI)
Standard Score
wppsi4_psi_ss Processing Speed Index (PSI)
Standard Score
wppsi4_fsiq_ss Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) Standard Score
wppsi4_vai_ss Vocabulary Acquisition Index (VAI)
Standard Score
wppsi4_nvi_ss Nonverbal Index (NVI) Standard
Score
wppsi4_gai_ss General Ability Index (GAI) Standard
Score
wppsi4_cpi_ss Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI)
Standard Score

8 FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

Test Framework, Revision Goals, and General Practice Issues
How has the test structure changed?
The changes in the test structure were influenced by contemporary structural models
of intelligence, neurodevelopmental theory and neurocognitive research, clinical utility
and factor-analytic studies. Changes include new and separate Visual Spatial and
Fluid Reasoning index scores for ages 4:0–7:7, new measures of working memory, and a
new working memory composite. The separation of Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning
composites results in greater interpretive clarity, and the addition of working memory
enhances the scale’s clinical utility due to its sensitivity to a wide variety of clinical
conditions and important outcomes (e.g., achievement).

Were expressive language requirements reduced?

Yes. New picture items were added to Similarities and Comprehension to ensure that
children aged 4:0–7:7 with expressive language issues can indicate responses to some
items even if they cannot or do not speak at all. These items provide children with
expressive language issues an opportunity to demonstrate verbal concept formation
and comprehension without a verbal response. Only Vocabulary and Picture Naming
require expressive responses on the floor items, and neither of these subtests are core
to the primary index scores or FSIQ for either age band. Also, two ancillary index scores,
the Verbal Acquisition Index (VAI) and the Nonverbal Index (NVI), provide additional
information about the performance of children with expressive language issues.

Table of
Contents

11
 8 FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) continued
Why were Working Memory subtests added?
Working memory is a key aspect of intellectual functioning, with strong ties to fluid
reasoning. It is also implicated in a wide variety of academic problems and clinical
conditions that affect young children. Accordingly, the incorporation of working
memory measures was a revision goal from the beginning of WPPSI–IV development.

What are the language requirements for the Working Memory subtest instructions?
The verbatim instructions for the Working Memory subtests are succinct, and active
demonstration and practice are used to supplement verbal instructions because young
children are unlikely to maintain attention and focus during lengthy verbal explanations.
The instructions were tested repeatedly with children aged 2:0–2:5 (younger than the
youngest children in the WPPSI–IV age range), as well as with children with intellectual
disabilities, to ensure children with developmental delays or low intellectual ability would
understand task demands. A WPPSI–IV study comparing the performance of English
Language Learners and a matched control group showed no significant differences
between the means on the Working Memory subtests for the two groups.

Why are the Working Memory subtests visual/visual-spatial rather than pure
auditory/verbal as on WISC–IV and WAIS–IV? What happened to auditory
working memory?
Many traditional verbal working memory tasks are impractical and developmentally
inappropriate for children in the WPPSI–IV age range. Relative to older children,
young children have more difficulty with verbal tasks because they often involve
comprehending complex verbal instructions, using rehearsal strategies, understanding
how to sequence information, and expressing responses verbally. Furthermore, current
research indicates that for young children, even memory storage in the visual domain is
strongly linked with processing, whereas verbal memory storage is not. Auditory working
memory is still a viable way to measure working memory in older children, adolescents,
and adults. With the younger kids, we are able to limit verbal demand, which is variable
in this age group.

Why were the Processing Speed subtests changed?

In response to a review of current child development literature, a number of
improvements were incorporated to improve the developmental appropriateness of
processing speed measures. The new subtests are more play-like to ensure more valid
assessment, because play is developmentally appropriate for young children. The new
stimuli are familiar and engaging to young children, and the tasks are reminiscent
of popular children’s games. Because fine motor skills are still developing during the
WPPSI–IV age range, all of the subtests employ an ink dauber rather than a pencil to
indicate responses. In addition, the stimuli are larger and have more space separating
them to reduce the likelihood of inadvertent stray marks. Also, to be more sensitive to
language and cognitive development, the subtests now involve instructions that avoid
using high-level vocabulary and concepts a young child cannot yet grasp.

Was the WPPSI–IV designed to line up with Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory?

Theory was not the only consideration that influenced the development of the WPPSI–
IV, and no single theory determined its structure. Neurodevelopmental research and
clinical utility were also important considerations when determining the WPPSI–IV test
structure. However, the WPPSI–IV model reflects contemporary structural theories, such
as CHC, and defensible theoretical perspectives and frameworks including CHC theory
can be utilized in its interpretation.

Table of
Contents

12
 8 FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) continued
Widely accepted structural intelligence models based on factor analytic results, such
as CHC theory, provide overwhelming evidence for general intelligence at the top of a
hierarchical model and for various related and distinguishable broad abilities at the level
beneath. In some models, the specific abilities are each composed of various narrow
abilities at the lowest level. Although evidence from structural models does not identically
converge, most indicate that verbal comprehension, visual spatial, fluid reasoning,
working memory, and processing speed abilities are among the important components,
and these are the five index scores available for the WPPSI–IV 4:0–7:7 age band. The
names of these factors vary based on the particular team of investigators to conform to
different taxonomy systems, and the CHC taxonomy provides names for these constructs
(Gc, Gv, Gf, Gsm, and Gs). The Wechsler intelligence scales have evolved in response,
and the WPPSI–IV continues this work by providing new measures of working memory and
a new working memory composite, offering separate visual spatial and fluid reasoning
composites, and improving upon the measure of verbal comprehension and processing
speed while continuing to offer composite scores for each.

Does the WPPSI–IV take longer to administer than the WPPSI–III?

Substantial efforts were made during development to achieve the briefest testing
time possible and still offer greater construct coverage and flexibility, and even
more composite scores. As a result, administration time is kept to a minimum and is
comparable to the WPPSI–III. Because administration time is determined by which
composite scores are desired, it varies based on the practitioner’s choices. In some
situations the administration time may be shorter than that of the WPPSI–III, but if more
composite scores are desired, administration time may be slightly longer.

Is there information in the WPPSI–IV Technical and Interpretive Manual about the
proportions of children with various clinical conditions that were included in the
normative sample? Are norms available that do not include children from these
special groups?
Representative proportions of children from the special group studies were included in
the normative sample. In addition to children with various clinical conditions, children
with intellectual giftedness also were included to appropriately represent children with
extremely high WPPSI–IV scores.

The proportions of children from special group studies are low, and accurately reflect
their presence in the population. It is unlikely the inclusion of very small proportions of
children with disabilities in the normative samples would result in many children scoring
within the normal range. Rather, differences in the test (e.g., of the move of many of the
language-laden items from the Bayley Cognitive scale to the Language scale) or other
factors (e.g., successful intervention) may explain the observed differences.

What are the recommendations for using the WPPSI–IV over the WISC–IV when
evaluating children aged 6:0–7:7?
Because the age ranges of the WPPSI–IV and the WISC–IV overlap for children aged
6:0–7:7, practitioners have the option of choosing the appropriate measure for a child
between these ages. For children suspected of below average cognitive ability, the
WPPSI–IV should be administered due to its lower floor at this age range. Also, children
with limited English proficiency, language impairments, or verbal or expressive issues
should be given the WPPSI–IV to reduce the confounding effects of language or verbal
expression on the composite scores. For children of high ability, however, the WISC–
IV should be considered due to its higher ceiling. For the average-ability child, the

Table of
Contents

13
 8 FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) continued
choice between the WPPSI–IV and the WISC–IV requires clinical judgment from the
educational and/or psychological professional. The WISC–IV requires the administration
of 10 subtests to calculate the FSIQ, whereas the WPPSI–IV requires the administration
of 6 subtests. Children who have difficulty completing a lengthier assessment may
benefit from use of the WPPSI–IV. The reasons for referral, familiarity with the tests, and
knowledge of the child’s characteristics (e.g., verbal ability, attention span) should be
taken into consideration.

How long do professionals have to transition from using the WPPSI–III to using
the WPPSI–IV?
Publications such as the current American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical
Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, the Standards for Educational
and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association, American
Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999),
and Assessment of Children: Cognitive Foundations (Sattler, 2008) provide guidance
about the use of obsolete tests. Most practitioners make the move to the new edition
within 8–12 months of the release. Consider your own practice situation and the stakes
of the evaluations you conduct when making the decision. For example, in cases where
the older edition is used, and an independent educational evaluation is requested, a
school system may be at a greater risk of having results called into question.

What is the appropriate composite score to use when evaluating for a learning
disability using ability-achievement discrepancy analyses?
The FSIQ is generally the first choice for an ability-achievement discrepancy analysis,
as it provides the broadest sample of behavior. However, there may be other
circumstances that influence your choice (e.g., significant discrepancies between
index scores and language disorders). In these situations, other scores might be
appropriate (i.e., VCI, VSI, FRI, GAI, NVI).

Subtests
Why were Vocabulary and Comprehension not chosen as core subtests? From a
language perspective, they provide a richer sense of the child’s ability to answer
open-ended questions—a more authentic skill for real-life.
In the online basic training that is included with each kit, we describe in more detail the
types of analyses that were conducted to make the decisions regarding which subtests
would be core and which would be supplemental. To summarize, the team looked
at psychometric properties such as floors, ceilings, reliability, validity, and construct
coverage; clinical utility; demographic differences; user-friendliness; and feedback
from practitioners and customers. There is nothing that precludes administration of
supplemental subtests if a practitioner believes that useful information will be gathered
for a particular child.

Why was Vocabulary, a subtest that typically holds one of the highest correlations
with general intellectual ability (g), replaced by Information, a “crystallized”
measure influenced by forces such as environment and education?
A variety of factors were considered when choosing between these two subtests,
including floors, ceilings, reliability, validity, clinical utility, user-friendliness, and
feedback from practitioners and customers. Expert consensus and factor-analytic
research have demonstrated that Vocabulary and Information both involve crystallized
knowledge and are both good measures of g. Despite clinical lore, there is no

Table of
Contents

14
 8 FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) continued
overwhelming evidence to suggest that Information is more influenced by environment
or education than the other Verbal Comprehension subtests, including Vocabulary.
It is the most efficient Verbal Comprehension subtest to administer and score, and
possesses identical reliability to that of Vocabulary. Information also requires only brief
expressive responses. This is a developmentally desirable feature in tests for young
children, who are often referred due to questions about delayed language.

Why was Word Reasoning dropped?

Word Reasoning was removed due to its construct overlap with Vocabulary, its lack of
strong validity evidence as a fluid reasoning measure, and its high correlation with the
Information subtest, which rendered it somewhat redundant psychometrically. Because
the floors for Similarities and Comprehension are substantially improved for the WPPSI–
IV, the utility of Word Reasoning’s strong floor on the Verbal Comprehension scale was
of reduced importance.

Did you consider removing the time limit for Object Assembly, or providing a table
to use for scoring that considers completion outside of the time requirement—in
essence, a process score for speed and for accuracy?
Removing the time limit on this subtest would result in a loss of the ceiling, greatly
reduced reliability, and a much lower correlation with general intelligence. Removing
the time limit results in children completing correctly who do not have commensurate
intellectual ability. These issues greatly reduce the meaningfulness of scores that could
be derived from the results. The additional puzzles that would be required to ensure a
ceiling without a time requirement would substantially raise the kit cost and kit weight
and greatly increase administration time. There is nothing that precludes a practitioner
from returning to Object Assembly after WPPSI–IV administration to test the child’s limits
of performance.

Why was Picture Completion dropped?

Picture Completion was removed to decrease the emphasis on speed in the battery
and to allow the inclusion of other measures of interest (e.g., working memory subtests).

How does Zoo Locations work with children with motor deficits such as Cerebral
Palsy? Is there an alternative test?
As with Block Design and Object Assembly, depending on the severity of the motor
impairment, Zoo Locations may or may not be appropriate. The grids are relatively
large, and unless the child has severe motor impairment, s/he may be able to
complete the task. You will need to evaluate the severity and impact of the motor
impairment for each case. You could also evaluate qualitatively using a modified
response strategy. Zoo Locations is not required to obtain the FSIQ for any age; however,
if Zoo Locations cannot be administered, the WMI and some ancillary index scores may
not be obtained, depending on the child’s age.

Why were Symbol Search and Coding dropped?

Symbol Search and Coding have been replaced with new processing speed measures
that are more developmentally appropriate and have fewer fine motor skill demands.

Table of
Contents

15
 8 FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) continued
On Animal Coding, the associated pairs are presented in one row for the key.
Each item is presented in a box. How did you decide on this box presentation and
is it developmentally appropriate?
We tested several formats, and this one emerged as the simplest for children, including
those with developmental delays and intellectual disability. Flashcards for preschoolers
mimic the box format. We had to limit it to three associations to ensure developmental
appropriateness, per Neo-Piagetian research and models. We also examined response
processes on Animal Coding to ensure that children were engaging the expected
cognitive processes. Rows were more difficult and required multicolored rows in a
response booklet because the children tended to search across other rows for a match.
Bug Search has a different color for each row for this exact reason.

Composite Scores
How is the WPPSI–IV FSIQ different than the WPPSI–III FSIQ?
The WPPSI–III FSIQ and the WPPSI–IV FSIQ differ in some respects for both age bands.
The WPPSI–III FSIQ for the 2:6–3:11 age band was based on four subtests: Information,
Receptive Vocabulary, Block Design, and Object Assembly. The WPPSI–IV FSIQ for
this age band is based on five core subtests: Information, Receptive Vocabulary,
Block Design, Object Assembly, and Picture Memory. Relative to the WPPSI–III FSIQ,
the WPPSI–IV FSIQ for this age band is a more comprehensive measure of general
intellectual functioning with the inclusion of Picture Memory, which is designed to
measure working memory: The WPPSI–III FSIQ did not include any measure of
working memory.

The WPPSI–III FSIQ for the 4:0–7:7 age band was based on seven subtests: Information,
Vocabulary, Word Reasoning, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Picture Concepts, and
Coding. The WPPSI–IV FSIQ for this age band is based on six subtests: Information,
Similarities, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Picture Memory, and Bug Search. Relative
to the WPPSI–III FSIQ, the WPPSI–IV FSIQ for this age band differs in a number of
ways. The WPPSI–IV FSIQ assigns a relatively lighter weight to Verbal Comprehension
ability, as it is based on two Verbal Comprehension subtests, whereas the WPPSI–III
FSIQ was based on three. The WPPSI–IV FSIQ places equal emphasis on the other
cognitive domains measured by the WPPSI–IV, with one subtest each from Visual
Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed contributing. With
the removal of Vocabulary and Word Reasoning and the addition of Similarities, the
WPPSI–IV FSIQ can be conceptualized as more heavily sampling acquired knowledge,
verbal concept formation, and verbal reasoning with less emphasis on vocabulary
knowledge and verbal expression. Relative to the WPPSI–III FSIQ, the WPPSI–IV FSIQ is
a more comprehensive measure of general intellectual functioning with the inclusion
of Picture Memory, which is designed to measure working memory: The WPPSI–III FSIQ
did not include any measure of working memory. The WPPSI–IV FSIQ includes a more
developmentally appropriate measure of processing speed with the inclusion of Bug
Search: The WPPSI–III FSIQ was based, in part, on Coding, which, relative to Bug Search,
had a weaker floor, depended more heavily on fine motor performance, and was less
play-like and appealing to children.

Table of
Contents

16
 8 FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) continued
What is the fundamental difference between the FSIQ and the primary index scores?
The FSIQ is usually considered the score that is most representative of general
intellectual functioning (g). The primary index scores (e.g., VCI, VSI, WMI) represent
intellectual functioning in specified cognitive areas (e.g., verbal comprehension, visual
spatial ability, working memory). The FSIQ is derived from a subset of the subtests that
contribute to each primary index score that is available for a given age band.

If there are significant discrepancies between the primary index scores (e.g., VCI,
WMI), is the FSIQ still interpretable (e.g., for diagnosing intellectual disability/
mental retardation)?
Research suggests that even when a cognitive ability composite score such as the
FSIQ is based on disparate abilities, it still has predictive validity. Best practice suggests
that you conduct a complete discrepancy analysis (looking at statistical and clinical
significance of strengths and weaknesses) and conduct additional assessments
(e.g., adaptive behavior, social and emotional functioning) to fully understand a
child’s needs. There may be times where there are such statistically and clinically
significant discrepancies in a child’s profile that the FSIQ does not represent a unitary
construct; however, this does not render the FSIQ invalid. Rather, the FSIQ may not tell
you everything that you need to know to plan appropriately for a child. In most cases,
abundant information regarding treatment needs can be gained from the various
primary and ancillary index scores (and other information) available. You will also need
to consider the child’s cultural, language, and background and consult your local
guidelines for eligibility in making a determination.

What does the Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI) measure?

The FRI may be conceptualized as measuring fluid and inductive reasoning, broad
visual intelligence, simultaneous processing, conceptual thinking, and classification
ability. Relative to the WPPSI–III PIQ for ages 4:0–7:7, the FRI has increased emphasis on
fluid and inductive reasoning and classification ability, and has reduced emphasis on
integration of part-whole relationships, spatial processing, visual-motor integration, and
speeded performance.

What does the Working Memory Index (WMI) measure?

The WMI is a measure of visual working memory, visual-spatial working memory,
and the ability to resist proactive interference. Working memory involves attention,
concentration, mental control, and reasoning. Contemporary research indicates that
working memory is an essential component of other higher-order cognitive processes.

How does the WMI on WPPSI–IV correlate with the WMI on the WISC–IV?
The corrected correlation coefficient between the WPPSI–IV WMI and the WISC–IV WMI
is .55. A correlation of this nature provides evidence of validity for this new WPPSI–IV
composite score. Given that the WPPSI–IV WMI involves visual and visual-spatial tasks,
and the WISC–IV WMI includes verbal tasks, the correlation between the two scores is
higher than expected and suggests that both are measuring a similar construct.

What is the difference between primary index scores and ancillary index scores?
The nine index scores available on the WPPSI–IV can be subdivided into two categories:
primary and ancillary. The five primary index scores include those factor-based
composite scores that are typically obtained for a comprehensive evaluation of
cognitive ability, including the Verbal Comprehension Index, Visual Spatial Index,
Fluid Reasoning Index, Working Memory Index, and Processing Speed Index. The four

Table of
Contents

17
 8 FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) continued
remaining ancillary index scores are primarily theoretically based and include the
Vocabulary Acquisition Index, Nonverbal Index, General Ability Index, and Cognitive
Proficiency Index. The ancillary index scores may be used to provide additional or
supporting information regarding a child’s WPPSI–IV performance.

The ancillary index scores are described below.

Vocabulary Acquisition Index (VAI) –The General Language Composite (GLC) is

retained from the WPPSI–III and is renamed the VAI to better reflect its construct
coverage. The VAI provides additional information about the performance
of children with expressive language issues and is an indicator of the child’s
acquisition of receptive and expressive vocabulary.

Nonverbal Index (NVI) – Offers an estimate of overall ability for children using
subtests that do not require any verbal responses. Due to the relatively reduced
verbal demands of its contributing subtests, the NVI may offer a more appropriate
estimate of overall ability than the FSIQ for children with expressive language
problems, with clinical conditions associated with expressive language issues (e.g.,
autism spectrum disorders), or who are English language learners.

General Ability Index (GAI) – Provides an estimate of general ability that is less reliant
on working memory and processing speed relative to the FSIQ.

Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI) – Provides an estimate of the efficiency with which
cognitive information is processed in the service of learning, problem solving, and
higher order reasoning. It is based on Working Memory and Processing Speed
subtests, and can be compared to the GAI for ages 4:0–7:7.

Is the NVI recommended for students with varying degrees of communication

deficits? Could you use the NVI to determine eligibility for students who are
nonverbal?
The NVI may be especially useful in these types of situations. Refer to the special group
studies in Chapter 5 and to Appendix C in the WPPSI–IV Technical and Interpretive
Manual for more information about a given condition. Ability-achievement discrepancy
analyses are available for the NVI in Appendix B of the WPPSI–IV Technical and
Interpretive Manual.

What is the difference between the FSIQ and the GAI?

The GAI provides an estimate of general intellectual ability that is less impacted
by working memory and processing speed than the FSIQ. Children with
neurodevelopmental disorders associated with difficulties in working memory
and processing speed, such as learning disabilities, ADHD, Language Disorder, or
autism spectrum disorders, may obtain lower FSIQ scores than children without such
difficulties, because these areas of relative weakness are included in the FSIQ. In
these situations, the lower FSIQ score may mask meaningful differences between
general cognitive ability (represented by the FSIQ) and other cognitive functions (e.g.,
achievement, memory, and specific neuropsychological functions). The GAI was
specifically developed to help practitioners with the identification of relative strengths
and weaknesses that are based on comparisons between general ability and other
cognitive functions. Relative to the FSIQ, the GAI provides the practitioner with an
estimate of general intellectual ability that is less sensitive to the influence of working
memory and processing speed difficulties by excluding those subtests. The FSIQ can

Table of
Contents

18
 8 FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) continued
be compared to the GAI to assess the effects of a weakness in cognitive proficiency (as
measured by the working memory and processing speed subtests) on the child’s overall
cognitive functioning. In some situations, it may be appropriate to use the GAI for score
comparisons with measures of achievement or other cognitive functions. An evaluation
of the significance and frequency of GAI–FSIQ differences may inform decisions about
when to use the GAI in specific clinical situations.

Are there data for the gifted population and frequency of GAI minus
CPI differences?
Table D.5 in the WPPSI–IV Technical and Interpretive Manual reports this information
by total sample and by ability level. One portion of this table reports the information
for children with GAI ≥ 120. There is not an analogous table that reports these data by
special group.

If I substitute a supplemental subtest for a core subtest to derive a composite

score, is it considered a standard administration?
No. Because this procedure estimates performance on a core subtest using a
supplemental subtest, the results should be interpreted with caution and considered
non-standard.

How was it decided that one subtest score could or could not be substituted
for another?
Because substituted subtests are being used as an estimate of performance on
another subtest, only supplemental subtests within the same cognitive domain that are
sufficiently highly related to the core subtest can be substituted.

Can I substitute the supplemental subtests for a core subtest?

For composite scores that are derived from more than two subtests (i.e. FSIQ, NVI, GAI,
and CPI), a maximum of one substitution may be made. However, the supplemental
subtest must be from the same cognitive domain as the core subtest.

Can I administer all of the core and supplemental subtests and choose to use the
highest subtest scaled scores when computing composite scores?
No. When deriving composite scores, you can only substitute supplemental subtests
for core subtests that are spoiled or invalidated, or for a specific clinical purpose.
Supplemental subtests can also provide additional information on cognitive functioning. If
you need to substitute a supplemental subtest in place of a core subtest, it is best practice
to decide this before you administer the subtest—not after you have derived scaled scores.
Supplemental subtests are also useful when the scores within a primary index score are
widely discrepant. In this situation, additional information from supplemental subtests can
help to shed light on factors that may contribute to such disparate results.

Why isn’t supplemental subtest substitution allowed on the VCI, VSI, FRI, WMI,
or PSI?
Because the use of supplemental subtest substitution for core subtests may introduce
measurement error into derived composite scores, substitution is limited. The primary
index scores are derived from only two subtests, and the risk of such error therefore is
greater for these composite scores. Furthermore, if a supplemental subtest substitutes
for a core subtest for the FSIQ or an ancillary index score that permits substitution, the
Q-globalTM scoring software will not allow calculation of the primary index score to
which the substituted subtest contributes.

Table of
Contents

19
 8 FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) continued
Is score proration still available?
Under specific guidelines and circumstances, prorating is available for the FSIQ only.
Substitution, if available, is preferred over proration.

Kit Materials
On the WPPSI–III, a pencil was used to draw forms in Coding (thus also assessing
fine motor skills). It seems like it will be more difficult to assess fine motor skills
when children are only using the ink dauber. Have you found this to be true?
In terms of the fine motor demands, yes, the ink dauber reduces the influence of fine
motor demands on the measure of processing speed. Using the pencil was difficult for
many 4-year-old children with developmental delays or other fine motor issues. Because
the assessment of fine motor control was mainly qualitative in nature on the prior tasks,
other measures such as the Beery VMI or portions of the NEPSY–II and consulting with
an occupational therapist may be helpful if the referral question requires investigation
of fine motor skills.

Have you found the ink dauber to be distracting to the children?

Children have found the ink dauber to be fun, but this does not result in unwillingness
to complete the tasks. Similar daubers are quite commonly used in many daycare,
preschool, and no-cost community recreational programs, so most children have
encountered them. Dauber practice was built into the WPPSI–IV standard administration
procedures; consequently, children are familiar with the dauber prior to completing any
test items. Extra dauber use might also be used as a reinforcement technique following
test completion.

How long do the ink daubers last? Are there replacement ink daubers available?
The ink dauber is approximately 4 inches long, with a standard amount of ink inside.
The duration will be directly linked to how often it is used. Two daubers are provided in
each WPPSI–IV test kit, and replacement ink daubers are available for purchase.

Can I replace an ink dauber with one I purchase at a craft store?

A similar ink dauber may be purchased from another source to use as a replacement;
however, it is recommended that the replacement be as close to the original ink
dauber as possible (e.g., color and size), and that it meets the necessary safety
requirements for use with young children.

Is the ink in the dauber washable?

Yes, the ink is washable. It is also non-toxic. Product safety requirements to which all kit
components adhere are discussed in the WPPSI–IV Administration and Scoring Manual.

Q-global Scoring and Reporting

What is Q-global?
Q-global is a web-based scoring and reporting platform that offers accessibility
from any computer connected to the Internet and allows for quick and automatic
organization of examinee information and the ability to generate scores and produce
accurate and detailed results. Reports are available in a PDF or Word document format.

When will the WPPSI–IV scoring assistant and WPPSI–IV writer be available?
WPPSI–IV scoring and reporting is available on Q-global. The score report is available
now. The interpretive report generally becomes available approximately 6 months
following the publication of a test.

Table of
Contents

20