ildren between the age group 6 to 16, meant to generate scores of IQ based on a comprehensive test model that includes ten core subtests and five supplemental tests. All these tests are verbal, and each of them carries equal weightage. The main testing spheres include verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, processing speed, and working memory. Application of WSIC in the sphere of IQ testing has been more successful than in clinical testing for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other learning disabilities in children.
This test was founded by Alfred Binet, and has undergone many modifications, the present one being 5th edition. This intelligence test is modeled to test using both verbal and nonverbal methods, aimed to assess reasoning, knowledge, analytical reasoning, visual-spatial processing and memory. The SB-5 is proven to be better in terms of assessing individuals and is more reliable (Becker, 2003).
Based on a study conducted by Watkins et al. (1998), it was inferred that the WSIC test cannot distinguish between children with learning disabilities and those without disabilities. Further, the test could not predict academic achievement among children with learning disabilities. In this regard, the SB-5 is more suitable as it distinguishes children with different levels of intelligences and learning abilities.
Research indicated weak reliability scores for WSIC, with low internal consistency reliability criterion; inconsistent results across time were also observed, thus complicating individual decisions and assessments. Owing to the deviation of subtest measurements from normative methods, ipsative methods based on transformation to person-relative metrics have been opted. However, these are not empirical, and are intuitive; because of this, the results so obtained are psychometrically incongruent. Instability of subtests measurements makes the test less reliable. Statistical differences of group mean scores will not help in