WAIS Domain Structure and Internal Discrepancy: Difference between revisions
PeteTyerman (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
PeteTyerman (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
Such divergence does not imply global impairment. It demonstrates uneven cognitive architecture. | Such divergence does not imply global impairment. It demonstrates uneven cognitive architecture. | ||
=== Further technical illustration === | |||
For illustrative modelling of internal domain divergence, see [[Technical Appendix: Illustrative Models of Uneven Cognitive Asymmetry]]. | |||
=== Why WAIS is relevant in this framework === | === Why WAIS is relevant in this framework === | ||
Latest revision as of 11:37, 10 February 2026
WAIS Domain Structure and Internal Discrepancy
This page explains how the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) provides structured, standardised evidence of internal cognitive differences across distinct domains.
WAIS does not measure a single, uniform intelligence. It separates cognitive functioning into multiple domains, including:
Verbal Comprehension (VCI)
Perceptual Reasoning (PRI)
Working Memory (WMI)
Processing Speed (PSI)
Each domain is standardised independently. This allows meaningful comparison between domains within the same individual.
Where substantial differences exist between domains, these differences are measurable rather than speculative.
Domain separation
WAIS distinguishes between reasoning-dominant domains (such as Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning) and efficiency-dominant domains (such as Working Memory and Processing Speed).
Because each domain has its own population distribution, large internal discrepancies can be identified even where the overall Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) appears average.
In such cases, an overall average score may conceal both high-level reasoning strengths and significant efficiency constraints.
Composite discrepancies (GAI and CPI)
Some WAIS frameworks distinguish between:
General Ability Index (GAI) – reasoning-weighted composite
Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI) – efficiency-weighted composite
Where large differences exist between GAI and CPI, this indicates internal cognitive asymmetry. These discrepancies are commonly observed in neurodevelopmental conditions such as dyslexia and ADHD.
Such divergence does not imply global impairment. It demonstrates uneven cognitive architecture.
Further technical illustration
For illustrative modelling of internal domain divergence, see Technical Appendix: Illustrative Models of Uneven Cognitive Asymmetry.
Why WAIS is relevant in this framework
WAIS is not the only way to conceptualise uneven cognitive profiles. However, it is one of the most widely recognised, standardised, and professionally accepted tools available for separating cognitive domains.
It therefore provides structured empirical support for distinguishing:
intrinsic reasoning capacity
constraints on expression under load
This supports the distinction between capacity and expression described elsewhere in this section.
Limits of WAIS
WAIS is an indicator, not a complete description of cognitive functioning.
It does not:
capture all aspects of cognition
define identity or potential
explain environmental or contextual factors
operate independently of interpretation
WAIS provides structured evidence of internal variation. It does not exhaust the concept of uneven cognitive profiles.
Its relevance lies in making domain-level differences measurable and visible within a recognised assessment framework.
Relationship to the wider framework
The distinction between capacity and expression, the failure of generic assessment under load, and the limits of cognitive adjustability all derive logically from the domain separation visible within WAIS.
WAIS therefore functions as empirical grounding for the broader structural argument concerning assessment validity.
Related pages
Uneven Cognitive Profiles and Assessment Validity
Uneven Cognitive Profiles Explained
Cognitive Capacity, Expression, and Compensability
Why Generic Assessment Fails with Uneven Cognitive Profiles