Abstract
Objective
The WISC-V can now be administered in paper format or digitally. Though most subtests are comparable, Processing Speed Index (PSI) subtests, Coding and Symbol Search required complete redesign for digital presentation. We initially collected data to assess comparability of paper versus digital PSI tasks for future use. However, in March of 2020, Pearson issued an alert stating that, due to a programming error, Coding scores may be inflated secondary to timing inaccuracy; they advised against further use of digital Coding. We refocused our analyses to assess the degree to which inaccurate digital Coding impacted overall test results.
Method
Children with neurological disorders (N=104) received both versions of the PSI subtests (order randomized). Correlational analyses assessed relations between versions, t-tests assessed for administration order effects, and Kappa coefficients assessed agreement across platforms.
Results
Correlations between paper and digital subtests (r=.570 to .853) and composites (r=.848 to .987) were robust. As expected, Coding was higher digitally (difference=1.91, p < .01, d=.52), but Symbol Search, PSI, and FSIQ were comparable (p>.05). Given evident practice effects, subsequent analyses considered “first administered” versions and score range agreement was best when PSI tasks were administered digitally first (Kappa=.452, p < .001) versus paper first (Kappa=.153, p=.023). Agreement was strong for FSIQ regardless of order (Kappa≥.760, p < .001). Importantly, in highest stakes evaluations (i.e., presence versus absence of intellectual disability), agreement was extraordinarily strong (Kappa≥.93, p < .001).
Conclusions
Digital Coding scores are inflated in comparison to traditional paper version, but the impact of this programming error was minimal at the level of PSI and FSIQ.