Wais Iv Index Scores Percentiles10/18/2021
If NO, then there’s too much variation in the index scores toKeep in mind, I’m not a professional, but I do know a bit about psychometrics.Interpretation of WAISIV Results. Subtract lowest index score from highest index score Is the size of the standard score difference < 1.5 SDs (or < 23 points) If YES, then FSIQ can be interpreted as a reliable and valid estimate of one’s global intellectual ability. Subtests all scores were between the 25th and 75th percentile ranks. Today’s post was supposed to be about Ann Coulter, but I thought I’d write a quick post about a commenter who is currently using the pseudoname “Jesse Watters” who claims to have obtained some freakishly high scores on the WAIS-IV.Percentile ranks also provide a common language for comparing WAISIV scores with. Standard Score Percentile Rank Scaled Score ETS Score T-Score Z-Score Description 89 23 Low Average 88 21 425 42 -0.75 Low Average 87 19 Low Average 86 18 Low Average 85 16 7 400 40 -1.00 Low Average 84 14 Low Average 83 13 375 38 -1.25 Low Average 82 12 Low Average 81 10 Low Average 80 9 6 367 37 -1.33 Low Average 79 8 Borderline 78 7 350 35.Is the size of this difference less than 1.5The WAIS-IV is an IQ test that actually consists of 15 mini IQ tests (subtests), however to differentiate the subtest scores from overall IQ scores, the subtest scores are expressed as scaled scores. Subtract highest from lowest. Look at 4 WAIS-IV indexes. To decide between FSIQ and GAI: 1a. Due to variable performance across ability areas, it is difficult to describe Female’s overall intellectual functioning with a single score on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleFourth Edition (WAISIV).ability for individuals whose scores on memory tests (Working Memory Index, WMI) or speed tests (Processing Speed Index) deviate significantly from scores on verbal and nonverbal tasks.
Wais Iv Index Scores Percentiles Full Scale IQHowever we can estimate, from the roughly linear relationship between sum of scaled scores and IQ, that he is above 160.From here we can deduce that full-scale IQ = 0.697057(sum of scaled scores) + 31.533486.Plugging in “Jesse Watters’s” prorated sum of scaled scores of 187.3 into this formula gives a full-scale IQ of 162, however even this might be an underestimate, because look at his scaled scores, when listed from lowest to highest:17,18,18,19,19,19,19,19,19,19,19,19,19,19,19Notice how his lowest scaled scored (17) is below his median scaled score (19), but his highest scaled score (19) is equal to his median scaled score (19). The prorated sum is 187.3, remarkably close to the 186 he actually obtained on the 10 core subtests.Unfortunately, the WAIS-IV assigns all sum of scaled scores of 181 or higher, an IQ of 160. WAIS-IV produces all four index scores and the Full Scale IQ with just ten.So commenter “Jesse Watters” claims to have obtained the following scaled scores on the 15 WAIS-IV subtests:Now the subtests in brackets are supplementary tests, which are not supposed to be used to calculate the full-scale IQ unless one of the other subtests gets “spoiled” or is deemed inappropriate for that subject a priori, however since he took all 15 subtests, I am going to sum them all, and then prorate to estimate his sum of scaled score if only the 10 core subtests were given. Population, the scaled scores have a mean of 10 and an SD of 3, and as commenter Animekitty noted, can be converted to IQ equivalents by multiplying by 5 and then adding 50.will elevate low score, does not give accurate percentile ranking and may. Ricoh base system device driverTo put that in perspective, the average American young adult (men and women combined) is about 5’7″ with a standard deviation of about 4 inches. Because only one in 251,515, Americans have a deviation IQ of 167+.An IQ of 167 is 4.47 standard deviations above the U.S. Since the median score (50 percentile) is the average score in a normal distribution, and since the sum of scaled scores is just the average scaled score multiplied by the number of scaled scores, we can guess that if not for the artificial ceiling, Jesse’s sum of 10 scaled scores (actually he has 15, but we will prorate) would be:Sum of scaled scores = (Median scaled score)(10)Now converting sum of scaled scores to full-scale IQ using the formula I suggested above:Full-scale IQ = 0.697057(sum of scaled scores) + 31.533486Full-scale IQ = 0.697057(194) + 31.533486If his self-reported scores are true, that would make him almost certainly the smartest person to ever post on this blog, or any other blog you frequently visit. Assuming his distribution of scaled scores would have been Gaussian had the artificial ceiling of 19 not been imposed on each subtest, we can extrapolate linearly from those two Z scores to guess that a Z score of 0 in his distribution of scores (the median score) would have been 19.385. Now if I knew “Jesse Watters’s” raw scores and age, I might be able to extrapolate some of his scaled scores beyond 19, but without that information, all I can do is calculate that a scaled score of 17 is at the 7th percentile of Jesse’s distribution of scaled scores ( normalized Z = -1.5) , and that a scaled score of 18 is at the 20th percentile of his distribution (normalized Z = -0.87). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorLarry ArchivesCategories |