American College of California Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition Presentation TURNITIN SCORE MUST BE AT OR BELOW 20%…as I will be checking

American College of California Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition Presentation TURNITIN SCORE MUST BE AT OR BELOW 20%…as I will be checking

APA FORMAT PLEASE with use of Quotations…citeing accordingly

Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read the required textbook chapters and articles for this week. Select two tests about which to write your review. The first test must be selected from List A and the second test must be selected from List B. Your choice of tests include the following:

List A (Select one test from this list.)

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV)
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fifth Edition (WISC-V)
Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence- Fourth Edition (WPPSI – IV)

List B (Select one test from this list.)

Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III)
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II)
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-3)
Sequential Tests of Educational Progress (STEP)
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5)
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition (WIAT- III)
Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV) Tests of Achievement
Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV) Tests of Cognitive Abilities

Create a PowerPoint presentation with 10-12 slides (not including the title and reference slides) entitled Review of [Insert the name of the tests reviewed]. Your presentation must provide at least one slide for each of the required topics and include appropriate citations of your referenced sources. Separate reference slides, which follow APA formatting guidelines for a References page, must be included at the end of the presentation. You must create your own template and organize your presentation in the sequence provided. Do not use a font smaller than 18 pt. You are encouraged to insert relevant figures and graphics. Make sure to appropriately cite any images, tables, figures, or information from the test publisher’s website used. The notes section of each slide must include the text for oral comments you would make while presenting the materials to a live audience.

References must be cited according to APA guidelines as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. (Links to an external site.) For assistance with creating a visually engaging and readable presentation, you may review Garr Reynolds’s tips for creating presentations. (Links to an external site.)

The presentation must cover each of the following topics in the order presented below. Two tests may be discussed on the same slide using the side-by-side comparison format.
Required topics to be addressed for each test:

Name of the test, author or authors, publisher and publication date
Qualifications of the test user
Common professional uses of the test
Explain what the test is purported to measure along with any reliability and validity evidence that supports the author’s or publisher’s claims.
Describe the appropriate applications of the test in terms of the population(s) on which the test is validated (including age ranges) and any information regarding populations for which the test’s use is not recommended.
Subtest names and brief descriptions
Administration and scoring procedures
Cost and administration time
Your critique of the instrument, including an evaluation of the test’s strengths and weaknesses as a measure of the theoretical constructs of intelligence and/or achievement
Evaluate reviewers’ comments from at least one scholarly, peer-reviewed journal article published in the last 10 years that provides an appraisal of basic measurement issues related to the tests you selected.

The presentation

Must consist of 10 to 12 slides (not including title and reference slides) that are formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. (Links to an external site.)
Must include a separate title slide with the following:
Title of presentation
Student’s name
Course name and number
Instructor’s name
Date submitted
Must use the assigned chapters in the course text and a minimum of 1 peer-reviewed journal article published within the last 10 years.
Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
Must include separate reference slides formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

RESOURCES BELOW:

Donoso, O.A., Bernandez, B., & Horin, E.V (2010). Use of psychological tests within vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation.32, 191-200. Retrieved from http://www.iospress.nl/journal/journal-of-vocation…

The full-text version of this article can be accessed through the EBSCOhost database in the Ashford University Library. The authors present findings from a study in which they examined the testing practices of professionals who conduct psychological assessments for the vocational rehabilitation system.

Salthouse, T.A. (2014). Evaluating the correspondence of different cognitive batteries. Assessment, 21(2), 131-42. Retrieved from http://asm.sagepub.com/

The full-text version of this article can be accessed through the Sage database in the Ashford University Library. The author analyzed data from two cognitive batteries including the WASI-IV to determine the correspondence of ability factors between the two batteries.
TEDx Talks (2014, June 26). Do standardized tests matter? Nathan Kuncel TEDxUMN (Links to an external site.). [Video file]. Retrieved from
Nathan Kuncel discusses the importance of standardized test scores. The presentation includes a discussion of the relationship between scores and both academic and career achievement.

TEDx Talks (2012, December 3). None of the above – Why standardized testing fails: Bob Sternberg at TEDxOStateU (Links to an external site.). [Video file]. Retrieved from

Former American Psychological Association President, Bob Sternberg, discusses the faults in standardized testing and provides recommendations for assessment practices to meet contemporary societal needs.

Blickle, G., Kramer, J., & Mierke, J. (2010). Telephone-administered intelligence testing for research in work and organizational psychology: A comparative assessment study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 154-161. Retrieved from https://us.hogrefe.com/products/journals/ejpa

The full-text version of this article can be accessed through the EBSCOhost database in the Ashford University Library. The authors used the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT) to assess the quality of intelligence testing by telephone with a sample of working adults and compared the results with intelligence testing by face-to-face test administration.

Reynolds, G. (2014). Top ten slide tips (Links to an external site.). Retrieved from http://www.garrreynolds.com/preso-tips/design/

The author of this web-based article provides important tips on how to design an engaging slide presentation.

Sternberg, R. J., Bimey, D. P., Stemler, S.E, Otterbach, R., Randi, J., Jarvin, L., Naples, A., Newman, T., Parish, C., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2014). Testing the Theory of Successful Intelligence in teaching grade 4 Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 881-899. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/edu/

The full-text version of this article can be accessed through the EBSCOhost database in the Ashford University Library. The authors presented findings from a study in which they investigated whether prior successes with educational interventions grounded in the theory of successful intelligence could be used as the primary basis for instruction in language arts, mathematics, and science. 486690
research-article2013
ASMXXX10.1177/1073191113486690AssessmentSalthouse
Article
Evaluating the Correspondence
of Different Cognitive Batteries
Assessment
2014, Vol. 21(2) 131­–142
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1073191113486690
asm.sagepub.com
Timothy A. Salthouse1
Abstract
It is widely accepted that abilities are a meaningful level of abstraction for distinguishing among individuals with respect to
their levels of cognitive functioning. However, relatively little is known about the extent to which different combinations
of tests reflect the same cognitive abilities, or about the relation of cognitive abilities in one test battery with specific tests
in another battery. Data from two cognitive batteries were analyzed to determine the correspondence of ability factors
in the two batteries, and to evaluate the relative influence of cognitive abilities from one battery on the subtest scores in
the other battery. Although the batteries involved different combinations of tests, correlations between the theoretically
similar ability factors in the two batteries were very high (i.e., r > .84). Furthermore, with only a few exceptions, the
primary influences on the subtest scores in one battery were from the theoretically relevant ability factor in the other
battery.
Keywords
abilities, equivalence, validity
A very large number of cognitive tests have been developed, and many have been combined into batteries to provide a broad assessment of cognitive functioning. However,
because different test batteries involve different combinations of tests, an important question is whether the same
cognitive ability constructs are being assessed in each battery. A key assumption in psychological measurement (e.g.,
Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Messick, 1989) is that a theoretical construct can be considered to be valid to the extent that
the construct is not specific to particular methods of measurement (i.e., exhibits convergent validity), and is not
redundant with other constructs (i.e., exhibits discriminant
validity). In the domain of cognitive functioning, this
assumption implies that the meaningfulness of a cognitive
ability construct is determined, at least in part, by the degree
to which it is correlated with theoretically similar constructs
based on alternative methods of assessment.
One way the question of correspondence of constructs
across batteries can be investigated is with exploratory factor analyses in which measures from different test batteries
are included in the same analysis to determine if they load
on the same factor. Although this method can be informative about which measures group together, interpretations
of the groupings can be somewhat subjective. Another
approach consists of examining correlations of composite
scores or latent variables hypothesized to represent similar
cognitive abilities in separate batteries. Moreover, if the
constructs are arranged in a hierarchical structure, correlations can be examined at different levels in the hierarchy,
including the highest order factor representing general
cognitive ability, or g (e.g., Johnson, Bouchard, Krueger,
McGue, & Gottesman, 2004; Johnson, te Nijenhuis, &
Bouchard, 2008; Keith, Kranzler, & Flanagan, 2001).
Although valuable, a potential limitation of research
examining across-battery correspondence at the level of
ability factors is that it implicitly assumes that each measure
is a valid indicator of its respective construct. The current
study explicitly tested this assumption by investigating
unique influences of the ability factors from one cognitive
battery on individual subtest scores from the other battery.
Because it was originally designed to investigate influences
on target variables in the context of age-related differences
in relevant cognitive abilities, the analytical procedure has
been termed contextual analysis (e.g., Salthouse, 2005;
Salthouse, Pink, & Tucker-Drob, 2008; Salthouse, Siedlecki,
& Krueger, 2006). The analytical framework, in which different cognitive abilities serve as simultaneous predictors of
a target variable, is illustrated in the left panel of Figure 1.
Coefficients for the relations portrayed by dotted lines are
of greatest interest for the current purpose as they indicate
the relations between the ability factors from one test battery on individual subtest scores in the other test battery. If
1
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Timothy A. Salthouse, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia,
102 Gilmer Hall, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Email: salthouse@virginia.edu
132
Assessment 21(2)
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of contextual analysis procedures with two different analytical models.
Note. In each case, latent constructs corresponding to cognitive abilities (portrayed as circles) are defined by observed variables (portrayed as squares),
and they are used as simultaneous predictors of the target variable (portrayed as a square). In addition, age variation in the reference abilities and the
target variable is controlled by specifying relations of age to the ability constructs and to the target variable. The latent variables are correlated with
one another on the model on the left, and all observed variables are related to a common factor on the model on the right.
the target variable reflects a single factor it would be
expected to have a strong unique relation with the relevant
factor from the other battery, and little or no relations with
other factors. In contrast, a discovery that the variable was
unrelated to any of the factors, or had moderate to strong
relations with several factors, would suggest that it reflects
other ability factors instead of, or addition to, the hypothesized factor.
When a predictor is considered in isolation, its regression coefficient reflects all the influences shared with other
variables in addition to influences unique to that variable.
An advantage of the simultaneous analysis portrayed in the
left panel of Figure 1 is that the coefficients reflect unique
relations of each predictor, independent of the influences of
the other predictors in the analysis. However, a disadvantage of simultaneous analysis is that collinearity can result
if the predictors are strongly correlated, which can reduce
the meaningfulness of the regression coefficients. One solution to the collinearity problem is to conduct separate analyses in which only one of the correlated predictors is in each
analysis. This approach was used in the current study with
predictors which had correlations with one another of .80 or
greater.
Another method of dealing with the collinearity problem
is to represent the shared influences with an orthogonal
common factor related to all observed variables but not to
any of the ability factors, and then examining relations of
the ability factors and the orthogonal common factor on the
target variable. A model of this type is portrayed in the right
panel of Figure 1. The major advantage of the orthogonal
common factor approach is that shared influences that
might be responsible for high correlations among ability
predictors are explicitly represented as a separate factor, but
it has the limitation that the common factor may absorb
influences of variables and factors that are strongly related
to it. In an attempt to converge on the most meaningful conclusion regarding ability influences on specific target variables, both the correlated predictors and orthogonal
common factor models portrayed in Figure 1 were examined in this study.
The two batteries investigated in the current project were
a combination of the most recent versions of the Wechsler
cognitive (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV
[WAIS-IV], Wechsler, 2008) and memory (Wechsler
Memory Scale–IV [WMS-IV], Wechsler, 2009) test batteries, and a cognitive battery used in an ongoing longitudinal
133
Salthouse
study (the Virginia Cognitive Aging Project [VCAP]).
These test batteries are well suited to address questions of
comparability because, at least when the WAIS-IV and
WMS-IV batteries are combined, both batteries assess a
mixture of cognitive and memory abilities, and each had
three or more tests representing each ability. Salthouse
(2009) conducted parallel analyses of WAIS-IV/WMS-IV
and VCAP data, and found similar structural patterns in the
two batteries. However, because the data were derived from
independent samples, no direct comparisons were possible
in that report. The current study included data from a linkage sample of 90 adults who performed both the WAIS-IV/
WMS-IV and VCAP batteries in addition to data from the
WAIS-IV and WMS-IV normative samples, and data from
the VCAP sample (as of the end of 2011).
To summarize, the primary research questions in this
study were whether the ability factors hypothesized to represent similar abilities in two different test batteries were highly
correlated with one another, and whether individual subtests
from one battery were most strongly related to the relevant
ability factor in the other test battery. Negative answers to the
questions would raise concerns about the validity of the factors in one or both test batteries, whereas positive answers
would increase confidence in the validity of the cognitive
abilities and the specific tests in each battery.
Method
Participants
The WAIS-IV/WMS-IV data were derived from the samples
used to establish the norms for those test batteries (Wechsler,
2008, 2009). The participants ranged in age from 16 to 90
years and were selected to match demographic proportions
in the U.S. population. The sample sizes differed across variables because some of the tests were not administered to
adults older than 69 years, and there was not complete overlap of the individuals in the samples used to establish the
WAIS-IV norms and the WMS-IV norms. Further details on
the sampling methods, and the representativeness of the
samples, can be found in the Technical and Interpretive
Manuals (i.e., Wechsler, Coalson, & Raiford, 2008;
Wechsler, Holdnack, & Drozdick, 2009).
The VCAP data were collected between 2001 and 2011
with participants recruited from newspaper advertisements, flyers, and referrals from other participants. The
sample sizes varied across variables, primarily because
some tests were introduced in later years of the project.
Participants ranged from 18 to 97 years old, and females
outnumbered males because of their higher volunteering
rates. Approximately 80% of the participants identified
themselves as White, 10% as Black, and small percentages
in other ethnicities, or reporting more than one ethnicity.
More details on the samples are available in earlier reports
(e.g., Salthouse, 2005; Salthouse et al., 2006; Salthouse
et al., 2008).
The new linkage sample consisted of 90 healthy adults
ranging from 25 to 79 years of age, with 10 males and 20
females in each 20-year age band. None of the individuals
had previously participated in VCAP, and all had Mini
Mental State Exam (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975)
scores greater than 23. Approximately 78% identified themselves as White, 17% as Black, and 5% reported more than
one ethnicity. Each participant completed three 2-hour sessions within a period of approximately 1 month, with the
VCAP battery performed on the first session, the WAIS-IV
subtests on the second session, and the WMS-IV subtests
on the third session.
Tests
Prior research (e.g., Salthouse, 2009) has established that a
six-factor model (crystallized ability or Gc, fluid ability or
Gf, working memory, verbal memory, visual memory, and
processing speed)1 provided a good fit to variables from the
combined WAIS-IV and WMS-IV batteries, and that a fivefactor model (vocabulary, reasoning, spatial visualization,
memory, and speed) provided a good fit to the variables in
the VCAP battery. These factor structures, which are illustrated with their relevant tests in Figure 2, were therefore
used in the current analyses after two minor modifications
from the analyses reported in Salthouse (2009). First, both
immediate and delayed measures of the memory tests were
included in the current analyses to broaden the coverage of
the memory factors in the Wechsler battery. And second,
different versions of the Vocabulary and Logical Memory
tests were used in the VCAP battery for the linkage sample
to avoid repetition of the very similar tests used in the
WAIS-IV and WMS-IV batteries.
Detailed descriptions of the Wechsler tests are available
in the WAIS-IV and WMS-IV manuals, and the VCAP tests
and their sources are briefly described in the appendix. Test
reliabilities, results of factor analyses, and age relations in
both batteries were reported in Salthouse (2009).
Results
Means and standard deviations of the variables in each sample are reported in Table 1. The rightmost column contains
effect sizes in d units for individual subtests. It can be seen
that many of the means in the linkage sample were higher
than the means from the WAIS-IV/WMS-IV sample (i.e.,
median d of .25 for the WAIS-IV variables and .41 for the
WMS-IV variables), and that many of the means in the linkage sample were lower than those in the VCAP sample (i.e.,
median d of −.15). However, it is important to note that the
similar values of the standard deviations imply that the samples had comparable levels of between-person variability.
134
Assessment 21(2)
Figure 2. Subtest scores used to represent each ability construct in the two test batteries. See Salthouse (2009) for details of the
analyses used to establish these structures.
Note. WAIS-IV = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV; WMS-IV = Wechsler Memory Scale–IV; VCAP = Virginia Cognitive Aging Project; Gc =
crystallized ability; Gf = fluid ability; WM = working memory.
Correspondence at the Ability Level
The correspondence between factors in the two test batteries was examined with correlations between composite
scores, formed by averaging z scores of relevant variables.
The correlations are reported in Table 2, with values above
the diagonal from the linkage sample, values below and to
the left from the VCAP sample, and values below and to the
right from the WAIS-IV/WMS-IV sample. The similar values above and below the diagonal indicate that the correlations of the composite scores in the linkage sample were
generally comparable to those in the VCAP and WAIS-IV/
WMS-IV samples.
Correlations between theoretically similar constructs in
the two batteries, indicated by the values in boldface, ranged
from .84 to .88. Estimates of the reliability of the composites can be obtained from coefficient alpha with the subtest
scores used to form composites serving as items. After
adjusting for unreliability of the relevant constructs, the
correlations between theoretically similar constructs ranged
from .97 to 1.02. Correlations were also computed between
composite scores formed after deleting the VCAP subtests
derived from earlier versions of the Wechsler tests (i.e.,
Wechsler Vocabulary, Digit Symbol, and Logical Memory).
These correlations were very similar to the original correlations in Table 2 as the Gc–Vocabulary correlation was .87,
the correlation between the two speed constructs was .78,
and the correlation between the Wechsler verbal memory
and the VCAP memory constructs was .83. Correlations
computed separately for males and females were also very
similar to those in the table, as the correlations for theoretically parallel constructs ranged from .80 to .95.
The next analysis consisted of a structural equation
model with hierarchical structures in both the Wechsler and
VCAP data (see Figure 2, and Salthouse, 2009). These and
other structural equation analyses carried out in this study
were conducted with the AMOS (Arbuckle, 2006) statistical package. The model with the combined data had a
135
Salthouse
Table 1. Means (Standard Deviations) and Effect Sizes (d) for Comparisons Across Samples.
Variable
N
Age (years)
Proportion female
Years of education
Vocabulary
Information
Similarities
Comprehension
Block Design
Matrix Reasoning
Visual Puzzles
Picture Completion
Figure Weights
Digit Span
Arithmetic
Letter Number Sequencing
Symbol Search
Coding
Cancellation
Full-Scale IQ
Verbal Comprehension Index
Perceptual Reasoning Index
Working Memory Index
Perceptual Speed Index
Visual Reproduction Immediate
Visual Reproduction Delayed
Designs Total Immediate
Designs Total Delayed
Verbal Paired Associates Immediate
Verbal Paired Associates Delayed
Logical Memory Immediate
Logical Memory Delayed
Symbol Span
Spatial Addition
Auditory Memory Index
Visual Memory Index
Immediate Memory Index
Delayed Memory Index
Vocabulary
Picture Vocabulary
Synonym Vocabulary
Antonym Vocabulary
Ravens
Shipley Abstraction
Letter Sets
Spatial Relations
Paper Folding
Form Boards
Word Recall
Paired Associates
Logical Memory
Digit Symbol
Pattern Comparison
Letter Comparison
Linkage
90
50.8 (15.2)
0.68
15.6 (3.1)
42.8 (10.5)
16.3 (5.9)
27.5 (5.7)
26.6 (5.4)
38.5 (12.5)
17.9 (4.5)
14.4 (4.9)
11.3 (3.7)
14.4 (4.9)
28.9 (5.2)
15.5 (3.5)
20.3 (3.1)
31.4 (8.8)
67.2 (16.3)
35.9 (9.0)
107.4 (16.3)
109.2 (17.3)
103.9 (15.3)
106.1 (14.3)
104.2 (15.8)
35.6 (5.5)
26.6 (9.6)
69.7 (15.6)
58.5 (14.1)
37.9 (11.5)
11.4 (2.9)
29.1 (6.5)
25.3 (7.7)
24.4 (7.4)
11.9 (5.1)
109.8 (15.2)
103.3 (15.1)
106.5 (15.4)
108.7 (15.5)
48.9 (9.4)
16.0 (5.8)
6.4 (2.9)
6.0 (3.1)
6.9 (3.3)
12.9 (3.7)
10.7 (2.7)
8.3 (5.0)
5.8 (2.7)
8.3 (5.0)
33.6 (6.9)
3.0 (1.9)
44.1 (7.4)
69.7 (15.6)
15.0 (3.6)
10.3 (2.7)
WAIS-IV/WMS-IV
900-2,200
45.0 (22.9)
0.52
NA
34.6 (11.1)
13.5 (5.3)
23.9 (5.8)
22.9 (6.2)
38.8 (13.7)
16.0 (5.6)
13.6 (5.1)
12.1(4.4)
14.5 (5.0)
26.8 (6.1)
13.6 (3.7)
19.6 (3.8)
29.5 (9.6)
62.8 (19.7)
39.6 (9.7)
100.0 (15.0)
100.0 (15.0)
100.0 (15.0)
100.0 (15.0)
100.0 (15.0)
33.2 (7.7)
23.0 (10.6)
74.6 (16.9)
60.3 (16.4)
29.2 (12.7)
8.8 (3.8)
26.8 (7.9)
20.1 (8.2)
21.0 (8.7)
14.0 (4.8)
100.0 (15.0)
100.0 (15.0)
100.0 (15.0)
100.0 (15.0)
50.5 (10.5)
18.3 (5.4)
7.1 (2.7)
6.6 (2.8)
7.8 (3.3)
13.2 (3.6)
11.0 (2.9)
8.7 (5.0)
6.2 (2.8)
7.1 (4.2)
34.7 (6.5)
3.0 (1.8)
44.1 (10.1)
72.1 (18.0)
16.2 (3.8)
10.5 (2.5)
VCAP
d
2,973-3,796
50.9 (18.4)
0.65
15.7 (2.7)
—
—
—
—
.78
.47
.63
.69
−.02
.42
.16
−.22
−.02
.40
.54
.23
.22
.27
−.41
−.49
−.61
−.26
−.41
−.28
.44
.38
−.31
−.13
.76
.90
.35
.68
.46
−.41
−.65
−.22
−.43
−.58
−.17
−.40
−.24
−.19
−.27
−.08
−.11
−.08
−.15
.24
−.16
.00
.00
−.15
−.33
−.07
Note. WAIS-IV = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV; WMS-IV = Wechsler Memory Scale–IV; VCAP = Virginia Cognitive Aging Project
136
Assessment 21(2)
Table 2. Correlations of Composite Scores in VCAP and WAIS-IV/WMS-IV Samples.
VCAP
Vocab
Reas
Space
Memory
Speed
Gc
Gf
WM
VbM
VisM
Spd
WAIS-IV/WMS-IV
Vocab
Reas
Space
Memory
Speed
Gc
Gf
WM
VbM
VisM
Speed
X
.43*
.32*
.37*
.13*
.64*
X
.73*
.63*
.60*
.46*
.74*
X
.52*
.52*
.43*
.65*
.50*
X
.53*
.23*
.55*
.44*
.47*
X
.88*
.72*
.48*
.58*
.38*
X
.58*
.48*
.48*
.27*
.36*
.56*
.87*
.84*
.70*
.68*
.64*
X
.72*
.47*
.67*
.60*
.28*
.74*
.61*
.64*
.62*
.38*
.80*
X
.51*
.62*
.57*
.44*
.69*
.45*
.85*
.35*
.56*
.63*
.54*
X
.48*
.39*
.21
.69*
.62*
.65*
.56*
.28*
.73*
.70*
.62*
X
.52*
.26*
.62*
.51*
.48*
.85*
.40*
.65*
.58*
.42*
.61*
X
Note. VCAP = Virginia Cognitive Aging Project; WAIS-IV = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV; WMS-IV = Wechsler Memory Scale–IV; Gc = crystallized ability; Gf = fluid ability; WM = working memory; VbM = verbal memory; VisM = visual memory. The constructs are defined by the variables listed
in Figure 1. Values above the diagonal are from the Linkage sample, values below the diagonal in the upper left quadrant are from the VCAP sample,
and values below the diagonal in the lower right quadrant are from the WAIS-IV/WMS-IV sample. All correlations are significant at p < .01. Values in boldface... Purchase answer to see full attachment