Psychological Assessment1993, Vol. 5. No. 4. 430-437

Copyright 1993 by the American Psychological Association, Inc1040-3590/93/S3.00

Wechsler Comprehension and Picture Arrangement Subtestsand Social Adjustment

Joshua D. Lipsitz, Robert H. Dworkin, and L. Erlenmeyer-Kimling

Despite their widespread application, many of Rapaport, Gill, and Schafer's (1968) hypotheses re-garding the Wechsler intelligence tests have not achieved empirical support. To test the assumptionthat the Comprehension and Picture Arrangement subtests are socially sensitive components of theWechsler scales, individual subtest scores of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and WechslerIntelligence Scale for Children were correlated with clinician ratings of social competence and hos-tility. In these analyses, normal subjects and subjects at risk for psychopathology were examinedduring both childhood and adolescence. Although some support for the hypothesized relationshipregarding the Comprehension subtest was found for normal subjects in childhood, overall, the resultsdid not support the assumption that the Comprehension or Picture Arrangement subtests are gener-ally sensitive to social functioning. Implications of differences in patterns between at-risk and normalgroups across ages are discussed.

Though designed as components of an overall intelligencescale, individual Wechsler subtests have been thought to tap spe-cific capacities (Blatt & Allison, 1981; Kaufman, 1979; Rapa-port, Gill, & Schafer, 1968; Sattler, 1982). Because of their so-cially relevant content, the Comprehension and Picture Ar-rangement subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale(WAIS; Wechsler, 1955) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren (WISC; Wechsler, 1949), and their revisions (WAIS-R, Wechsler, 1981; WISC-R; Wechsler, 1974), are commonlythought to measure intelligence relevant to social functioning.Applying this assumption in clinical settings is particularly ap-pealing because psychopathological conditions often involvedeficits in social functioning. Yet, there remains little empiricalsupport for the notion that performance on the Comprehensionand Picture Arrangement subtests is especially indicative of so-cial functioning. Evidence therefore rests largely on face valid-ity.

The Comprehension subtest consists of a series of verbalquestions that test the individual's practical knowledge of his orher physical and social surroundings. "Emphasis is placed on

Joshua D. Lipsitz, Robert H. Dworkin, and L. Erlenmeyer-Kimling,College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University.

This article is based on the doctoral dissertation project of JoshuaD. Lipsitz toward the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the FerkaufGraduate School, Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY, completed under thesupervision of Robert H. Dworkin. Other committee members includedWilliam Arsenio, Morton Bortner, Irma Hilton, and Ross Levin. Re-search was supported in part by National Institute of Mental HealthGrants MH19560 and MH30921 to L. Erlenmeyer-Kimling.

We thank Ulla Adamo, Barbara Maminski, and Simone Roberts fortheir assistance and Clarice Kestenbaum and her colleagues for per-forming the videotaped interviews on which social adjustment ratingswere based. We also thank Genya Bernstein, Lucy Kaplansky, AnthonyRinaldi, and Sharon Slater, who rated the videotaped interviews.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toJoshua D. Lipsitz, Anxiety Disorders Clinic-Unit # 13, New York StatePsychiatric Institute, 722 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032.

the ability to verbalize probable or ideal behavioral reactionsand to justify behavior consistent with prevailing social values"(Zimmerman & Woo-Sam, 1973, p. 63). Comprehension isseen, therefore, as an index of social conventionality and socialjudgment (Rapaport et al, 1968). "Low scores may represent aneed to defy or ignore social conventionality, or they indicatean impairment in judgment or a diminished interest in socialinteraction" (Allison, Blatt, & Zimet, 1968, p. 25). The PictureArrangement subtest involves a number of picture series thatare presented to the subject out of sequence. The subject is chal-lenged to put the pictures in order so that they tell a story thatmakes sense. Because the picture series involve human charac-ters and interactions, the test also requires sensitivity to socialcues and an awareness of antecedents and consequences of so-cial events. "The subject is required to understand the innerrelationships of a series of events and to grasp the essential mes-sage of a social interaction" (Allison et al., 1968, p. 29). ThusSchafer (1948) concludes that elevated scores on Picture Ar-rangement may represent shrewdness or "street smarts" (p. 54).

In an early attempt to validate the Comprehension and Pic-ture Arrangement subtests as indices of social adjustment,Krippner (1964) compared scaled scores on these two subteststo scores on the Vineland Social Maturity Scale in a sample of8- to 12-year-old boys. Comprehension scores, but not PictureArrangement scores, were correlated significantly with the di-mension of Social Age on the Vineland. Picture Arrangementscores, on the other hand, have been linked to the dimension ofIntroversion/Extraversion in some studies of normal subjects(Schill, 1966; Schill, Kahn, & Meuhlman, 1968) but not in an-other study involving psychiatric patients (Johnson, 1969).Comprehension and Picture Arrangement subtest performancehave also been correlated with ego maturity (Browning & Quin-lan, 1985); impulsivity (Brannigan & Ash, 1977; Ramos & Die,1986); need for approval (Dickstein & MacEvitt, 1971; Nobo &Evans, 1986; Ramos & Die, 1986); and other socially relevantaspects of personality (Nobo & Evans, 1986; Sipps, Berry, &Lynch, 1987). Though some initial findings suggested simple

430

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

WECHSLER SUBTESTS AND SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT 431

relationships between performance on Comprehension and Pic-ture Arrangement subtests and specific dimensions of social ad-justment (Krippner, 1964; Schill, 1966), later studies providedlittle consistent evidence of such relationships (Nobo & Evans,1986; Ramos & Die, 1986).

These findings are difficult to interpret for a number of rea-sons. First, some investigators (e.g., Brannigan, 1975; Krippner,1964) fail to consider the role of overall intelligence in examin-ing the relationship between Comprehension and Picture Ar-rangement and measures of adjustment, even though overall in-telligence is itself related to social adjustment (Frank & Quin-lan, 1976; McConaughy & Ritter, 1986). Second, some studiesuse very small samples (e.g., Johnson, 1969; Nobo & Evans,1986), which makes it difficult to interpret negative findings.Finally, many studies use normal children or college studentswho display a limited range of deficits in social adjustment. Incontrast, the proposals made by Rapaport and his colleagues(1968) were based on observations in clinical populations inwhich social adjustment deficits tend to be more pronounced.

In the current investigation, we explore the relationship be-tween Comprehension and Picture Arrangement subtests andtwo indices of social adjustment—a clinician-rated measure ofoverall social competence, the Premorbid Adjustment Scale(Cannon-Spoor, Potkin, & Wyatt, 1982), and a three-item scaleof hostility (also clinician-rated). For this purpose, we use datafrom two different groups of subjects: (a) subjects who, becauseof parental schizophrenia or affective disorder, are at heightenedrisk for psychopathology themselves, and (b) a normal compar-ison group. Children whose parents have been diagnosed withschizophrenia or serious affective disorders are not only morevulnerable to these specific disorders but also present a widearray of behavioral and emotional dysfunctions (Downey &Coyne, 1990; Watt, Grubb, & Erlenmeyer-Kimling, 1982;Weintraub & Neale, 1984). Though not a clinical group per se,the higher frequency of social adjustment deficits found in thisat-risk group may make its examination more likely to yieldsupport for the hypothesized social sensitivity of Comprehen-sion and Picture Arrangement subtests than would the exami-nation of these relationships only in normal subjects. In addi-tion, our analyses are based on longitudinal data, which providea view of the construct validity of Comprehension and PictureArrangement as measures of intelligence relevant to social ad-justment in both childhood (7-12 years old) and adolescence(13-18 years old).

We undertake two distinct methods of testing this hypothesis.Correlations of scaled scores of several Wechsler subtests withmeasures of social adjustment are compared to determinewhether Comprehension and Picture Arrangement subtests ex-cel relative to other subtests. Also, ipsative scatter (deviation)scores are examined to see if strength and weakness on theComprehension and Picture Arrangement subtests, relative togeneral intelligence, is associated with better and poorer socialadjustment, respectively.

Method

Subjects

Wechsler intelligence test (WAIS, WISC) records and videotaped in-terviews were obtained from subjects in the New "Vbrk High Risk Proj-

ect, a longitudinal investigation of the offspring of parents with schizo-phrenia and major affective disorder. Methods of subject selection andclassification, and details of periodic assessment procedures of this proj-ect have been described elsewhere in detail (Erlenmeyer-Kimling &Cornblatt, 1987; Erlenmeyer-Kimling et al., 1984). Two independentsamples were included in the New York High Risk project (referred toas Sample A and Sample B), and we draw data from both of these. Thetwo samples each comprised subjects considered to be at heightenedrisk for psychopathology due to the presence of schizophrenia or majoraffective disorder in one or both parents, as well as normal comparisonsubjects. For this investigation, at-risk subjects, initially grouped ac-cording to parental diagnosis (children of parents with schizophreniavs. children of parents with major affective disorder) were combinedinto a single "at-risk for psychopathology" group in order to maximizeheterogeneity of social adjustment and to increase sample size forgreater statistical power. Data from the normal comparison subjectswere also examined.

Procedure

In the current analyses, the associations between WISC and WAISsubtest scores and ratings of social adjustment were examined. WISCand WAIS records were routinely collected during the New \brk HighRisk Project, and social adjustment ratings were derived from pre-viously videotaped psychiatric interviews. Intelligence tests and video-taped psychiatric interviews were administered concurrently when sub-jects were in childhood (mean age = 9.0 years; SD = 1. 82) and againabout 6 years later, while in adolescence (mean age = 15.2 years; SD =2. 04). After excluding individual cases in which raw data were missing(e.g., as a result of deterioration of videotapes on which interviews wererecorded), data from childhood assessments, based only on Sample B,1

included 82 at-risk and 62 normal comparison subjects. Data from ad-olescent assessments, based on both Samples A and B, included 124 at-risk subjects and 113 normal comparison subjects. The effects of someattrition reduced the sizes of Samples A and B somewhat for the assess-ments conducted in adolescence.

Measures

Wechsler intelligence scales. Scores from 8 of the 10 to 12 possiblesubtests of the WISC and WAIS (the latter for subjects over 16 years old)were available for the current analyses. These included the Comprehen-sion and Picture Arrangement subtests, as well as the Digit Span, Arith-metic, Vocabulary, Picture Completion, Block Design, and Object As-sembly subtests. About half of the subjects did not receive the DigitSpan subtest in the childhood assessments. Scaled scores were deter-mined for each subtest, and overall (Full Scale) IQ scores were proratedon the basis of available subtest scores. The characteristics and psycho-metric properties of the WISC and WAIS are well-documented (Wech-sler, 1949; Wechsler, 1955).

For a second set of analyses, ipsative "scatter" scores, measuring sub-test performance for each subject relative to overall intelligence, weredetermined individually for both Comprehension and Picture Arrange-ment subtests. Following Allison et al. (1968), Vocabulary subtest scoreswere used as overall intelligence indices, because this subtest correlatesmost highly with overall intelligence. Scatter scores were obtained bysubtracting scaled Vocabulary scores from scaled scores of the Compre-hension subtest and the Picture Arrangement subtest for each subject.Subjects were then grouped on the basis of these scores using deviationsof 3 points as cutoffs (Matarazzo, 1972; Wechsler & Jaros, 1965). Underthis system, a scatter score of +3 or more was classified as "positive

' For Sample A, psychiatric interviews during childhood were notvideotaped.

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

432 J. LIPSITZ, R. DWORKIN, AND L. ERLENMEYER-KIMLING

scatter," indicating that Comprehension or Picture Arrangement was arelative strength for that subject; a scatter score of—3 or less was classi-fied as "negative scatter," indicating a relative weakness; and a scatterscore of+2 to -2 was classified as "negligible scatter."

Measures of social adjustment. Videotapes of semistructured psychi-atric interviews conducted with all subjects were rated on a number ofdimensions of adaptive behavior and psychopathology, including socialadjustment (Dworkin et al., 1990; Dworkin et al., 1991). Each video-taped interview was rated independently by two advanced graduate stu-dents in psychology who were kept unaware of the subject's group sta-tus.

The Premorbid Adjustment Scale (PAS; Cannon-Spoor et al., 1982)was used to measure overall social competence. The PAS has demon-strated validity in research on premorbid adjustment in schizophrenia(Cannon-Spoor et al., 1982; Kelley, Gilbertson, Mouton, & van Kam-men, 1992), although its content reflects components of social compe-tence that are relevant to both normal and abnormal development.

We altered the first of the five PAS items—"sociability and with-drawal"—to assess sociability and withdrawal within the interview it-self. This was done to more clearly distinguish this rating from thatbased on the second item—"peer relationships." Other items of the PASinclude "reported adaptation to school," which reflects overall schoolfunctioning, not merely academic competence, and "degree of interestin life," a global rating of interest in hobbies, music, sports, work, andsocial activities. The age of the subject is used to determine the appro-priate anchor descriptions for the fifth item—"social-sexual aspects oflife during adolescence." Children under 12 years old are not rated onthis item, adolescents 12-15 years old are rated on gradations appropri-ate for early adolescence, and adolescents 16-18 years old are rated ona scale appropriate for adolescence and immediately beyond. In a sepa-rate study, ratings on this slightly modified version of the PAS werefound to correspond to independent ratings of social competence basedon parent reports (Lewis, Dworkin, Cornblatt, & Erlenmeyer-Kimling,1992).

A second measure of social adjustment, level of hostility, was basedon three single-item ratings made from the videotaped interviews. Twoof these items, drawn from the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rat-ing Scale (Asberg, Montgomery, Perris, Schalling, & Sedvall, 1978),were "reported hostile feelings," and "observed hostility." An additionalitem, "reported conduct disorder," based on the Diagnostic and Statis-tical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.; American Psychiatric Asso-ciation, 1980) description of conduct disorder, was included in order toaccount for manifestations of conduct problems in these youngsters.

Each item of both the PAS and the Hostility scale was rated on a7-point scale ranging from 0 (optimal adjustment or highest degree ofcompetence) to 6 (serious deficits in adjustment). Anchor descriptionswere provided for the raters to aid in making ratings. Internal consis-tency for both scales was determined using coefficient alpha for child-hood (PAS: r = .78; Hostility: r = .75) and adolescent (PAS: r = .66;Hostility: r = . 59) ratings. Global scores reflecting overall social com-petence (PAS) and overall hostility were derived from the means of theindividual item ratings for each scale. Interrater reliabilities for theseoverall scores are listed in Table 1. Intraclass correlation coefficientswere based on the ratings obtained from the two raters who had ratedeach videotape, and they reflect the reliability of the means of these twoglobal score ratings, which were used in all subsequent data analyses.

Correlations in this sample between the PAS and the Hostility scalereflect a significant, moderate, and positive association between thesetwo measures, both for at-risk (childhood: r = .50, p < . 001; adoles-cence: r = .44, p < .001) and normal comparison subjects (childhood:r = .35, p < .005; adolescence: r = .45, p < .001). The magnitude ofthese intercorrelations, however, is not so high as to suggest redundancyin the use of the two measures.

Table 1Group Comparisons of Scores on IQ, Social Competence(Premorbid Adjustment Scale-PAS), and Hostility Scales

Measure

nIQ (WISC)

MRangeSD

Mb

RangeSD

Hostility (#" = . 75)

RangeSD

nIQ (WISC, WAIS)

MRangeSD

PAS (R' = .80)

RangeSD

Hostility (R* = .78)Mb

RangeSD

At risk forpsychopathology

Childhood

82

98.8652-130

14.64

1.45.25-4.40

.72

.55.00-2.25

.47

Adolescence

124

100.8646-130

14.42

1.47.10-4.63

0.81

.91.00-3.33

.80

Normalcomparison /

62

111.34 5.52**80-139

11.62

1.38 0.57.13-4.00

.75

.49 0.81.00-2.33

.40

113

112.25 6.71**87-138

11.42

1.19 2.82*.00-3.33

.71

.62 3.24**.00-3.33

.54

Note. WISC = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children; WAIS =Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale." Interrater reliabilities based on intraclass correlation coefficients.b Higher mean scores reflect greater social competence deficits.*p<.005. **p<.001.

Results

Comparisons ofAt-Risk and Normal ComparisonGroups

Mean scores for Full Scale IQ and the two social adjustmentscales (global ratings) are presented in Table 1 for the group at-risk for psychopathology and the normal comparison group. Tomaximize range, we did not exclude subjects whose IQ scoreswere in the mentally retarded range, although they have beenexcluded from other studies in the New York High Risk Project.Group differences in IQ are due largely to higher-than-averageIQ scores in the normal comparison group, which may be afunction of sampling procedures in the New York High RiskProject. Meehl (1971), however, has argued that the practice ofcontrolling for intelligence in comparisons of psychopathologi-cal and normal groups neglects the possibility that intelligenceitself may be causally associated with the presence or absenceof psychopathology. The at-risk group did not differ from thenormal comparison group on the PAS or Hostility scale in as-sessments in childhood (Table 1). This is not surprising, given

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

WECHSLER SUBTESTS AND SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT 433

the initial sampling criteria that excluded children with obviouspsychopathology from both at-risk and normal comparisongroups. In adolescence, the at-risk group had significantlypoorer social competence (higher overall PAS score) and ahigher level of hostility than the normal comparison group, pat-terns consistent with expected developmental differences be-tween normal subjects and those at risk for psychopathology(Downey & Coyne, 1990; Watt etal., 1982).

Scaled Score Comparisons

Correlations of scaled scores on Comprehension, Picture Ar-rangement, and six other Wechsler subtests with ratings on boththe PAS and the Hostility scale are presented in Tables 2 and 3for both the at-risk and normal comparison groups. Becausehigher scores on both the PAS and Hostility scale indicatepoorer social adjustment, negative correlations with Wechslersubtests are in the expected direction. Significance levels weredetermined using familywise Bonferroni correction proceduresto correct for multiple comparisons. On this basis, neither Com-prehension nor Picture Arrangement subtests correlated sig-nificantly with level of hostility in either childhood (Table 2) oradolescence (Table 3) for either at-risk or normal comparisongroups. Significant correlations were found in both groups,however, between the Comprehension subtest and social com-petence as measured by the PAS.

Full Scale IQ in the at-risk group correlated significantly withthe PAS in both childhood (r = —.40, p < .05) and adolescent(r = —.49, p < .05) assessments. In the normal comparisongroup, correlations of IQ with the PAS were significant in child-hood only (r = -.25, p < .05). The correlation between FullScale IQ and the Hostility scale was significant only in the at-

Table 2Correlations of Wechsler Subtest Scores With PremorbidAdjustment Scale and Hostility Scalein Childhood Assessments

Premorbid adjustmentscale

Scale

ComprehensionPicture

ArrangementDigit Span"ArithmeticVocabularyPicture

CompletionBlock DesignObject

Assembly

At risk(n = 81)

-.36*

-.25-.35-.39*-.36*

-.18-.25

-.32*

Normalcomparison

(n = 62)

-.37*

-.18.11

-.21-.21

-.14-.09

-.01

Hostility scale

At risk(n = 81)

-.16

-.13-.20-.32*-.19

-.10-.14

-.25

Normalcomparison

(n = 62)

-.33

.01-.27-.04

.02

-.04-.11

-.04

Note. For all comparisons, negative correlations reflect a positive as-sociation between subtest performance and social adjustment.a Comparisons for Digit Span in childhood were based on 44 at-risk and28 normal comparison subjects.* p < .05, two-tailed, after Bonferroni correction.

Table 3Correlations of Wechsler Subtest Scores With PremorbidAdjustment Scale and Hostility Scalein Adolescent Assessments

Premorbid AdjustmentScale Hostility scale

Normal NormalAt risk comparison At risk comparison

Scale (n = 124) (n = 113) (n= 124) (n = 113)

ComprehensionPicture

ArrangementDigit SpanArithmeticVocabularyPicture

CompletionBlock DesignObject

Assembly

-.42*

-.20-.34*-.26*-.47*

-.21-.41*

-.35*

-.21

.18-.02-.13-.37*

-.02-.24

-.03

-.18

-.18-.18-.15-.19

-.08-.17

-.16

-.20

.12-.06-.08-.23

.06-.16

-.00

Note. For all comparisons, negative correlations reflect a positive as-sociation between substest performance and social adjustment.* p < .05, two-tailed, after Bonferroni correction.

risk group and only during adolescence (r = -.20, p < .05).Because general intelligence is linked to social adjustment, cor-relations of scaled subtest scores provide support for social sen-sitivity only if superior in this regard to subtests not hypothe-sized to be socially sensitive. Magnitudes of individual subtestcorrelations were therefore compared using Hotelling's / tests(Glass & Hopkins, 1984).

Comprehension was the sole subtest significantly correlatedwith the PAS in the normal comparison group in childhood,and this correlation was significantly greater (p < . 05, one-tailed) than three of the seven correlations of the other subtestswith this scale. In adolescence, Vocabulary was the only subtestsignificantly correlated with the PAS in the normal comparisongroup. For the at-risk group, in both childhood and adoles-cence, Comprehension was one of a number of subtests signifi-cantly correlated with the PAS, and the magnitude of this cor-relation was not significantly greater than the correlations ofthe other subtests with this scale. Picture Arrangement was notsignificantly correlated with social competence at either age ineither group.

Because it could be argued that examining the individualgroups might restrict the range of scores, we repeated scaledscore analyses, combining the at-risk and normal comparisongroups. The results of these analyses were no more consistentwith the hypothesis of social sensitivity in the Comprehensionand Picture Arrangement subtests than were the results of theanalyses described above.

Comparisons Based on Scatter

Comparisons of subjects grouped according to scatter scoresare shown in Table 4 for Comprehension scatter and Table 5for Picture Arrangement scatter. Comprehension scatter groupsdiffered significantly in PAS scores only in childhood and only

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

434 J. LIPSITZ, R. DWORKIN, AND L. ERLENMEYER-KIMLING

Table 4Comparisons on Premorbid Adjustment Scale (PAS) andHostility Scale for Groups Assigned on the Basis ofComprehension Scatter (Comprehension- Vocabulary)

Scale

Positivescattergroup(>+3)

M

Negligiblescattergroup

(-2 to +2)M

Negativescattergroup(^-3)

M F

Childhood

At riskPASHostility

Normal comparisonPASHostility

(n = 10)1.55.75

(«=12 )1.18a.33,

(n = 52)1.39.46

(n = 42)1.31b

.48

(«=18)1.42.61

(n = 8)2.03a.b.76,

.212.15

3.96*2.96

Adolescence

At riskPASHostility

Normal comparisonPASHostility

(«= 17)1.48.83

(72=13)

1.28.55

(«= 101)1.48.94

(n = 80)1.18.60

(« = 6)1.29.74

(/i = 20)1.14.70

.16

.29

.16

.69

Note. Higher mean scores on the PAS reflect greater social compe-tence deficits. Means sharing the same subscript differed significantly(p< .05) on Tukey-Kramer tests (Kirk, 1982).*/7<.05

in the normal comparison group. In subsequent analyses of thisdifference using Tukey-Kramer tests, the negative scatter groupscored significantly higher (p < . 05) on the PAS (indicatingpoorer social competence) than did both the positive and thenegligible scatter groups. This result suggests that children inthe normal comparison group for whom the Comprehensionsubtest reflects a weakness have more deficits in social compe-tence than do other children. Because the F value for mean Hos-tility score differences approached significance in the normalcomparison group in childhood, F(2, 59) = 2.96, p = . 059),individual groups were compared using Tukey-Kramer tests.Though the negative Comprehension scatter group scored sig-nificantly higher (p < .05) on the Hostility scale than the positivescatter group, neither of these groups differed significantly fromthe negligible scatter group.

Groups assigned on the basis of Picture Arrangement scatterscores (Table 5) differed significantly on the PAS and the Hostil-ity scale only in adolescence and only in the normal comparisongroup. Subsequent analyses of these groups, using Tukey-Kramer tests, showed that the positive scatter group scored sig-nificantly higher (p < .05) than both the negligible and negativescatter groups on the PAS and higher than the negative scattergroup did on the Hostility scale. The negative scatter group didnot score significantly lower on either scale than the negligiblescatter group did. The above pattern suggests, contrary to ourhypothesis, that subjects for whom the Picture Arrangementsubtest was a strength had greater social adjustment deficits andhigher hostility than did other subjects.

Discussion

In a recent investigation of a large sample of psychiatric pa-tients, Piedmont, Sokolove, and Fleming (1989) found "no evi-

dence" for the utility of many of the diagnostic hypotheses ofRapaport et al. (1968) using patterns of subtest scores on theWAIS and WAIS-R, with only 2 of 12 hypotheses supported.The applicability of many early hypotheses that attempt to as-sign subjects to diagnostic categories on the basis of subtest pat-terns is limited by the dramatic changes since that time in thediagnostic criteria with which patients are classified. Matarazzo(1972) has noted the crudeness of diagnostic categories as a lim-itation of early research using the WAIS. In the current study,we examined the use of the Wechsler subtest patterns in con-tributing descriptive information in psychological evaluation.Underlying many psychodiagnostic formulations using Wech-sler test data is the assumption that specific subtests tap specificcognitive capacities.

With respect to our primary hypothesis of social sensitivity inthe Comprehension and Picture Arrangement subtests, resultsmay be summarized as follows for the at-risk group. PictureArrangement subtest scores showed no association with eithermeasure of social adjustment as determined by either scaledscore comparisons or analyses based on scatter. Although theComprehension subtest was significantly correlated with thePAS in childhood and adolescent assessments, other subtestswere also significantly correlated with the PAS. Analyses basedon scatter groupings also failed to support a specific relationshipbetween Comprehension subtest performance and social ad-justment measures in the at-risk group.

Significant correlations in the at-risk group between the PASand various Wechsler subtests not hypothesized to reflect socialadjustment point to the role of overall intelligence in social ad-justment differences in this group. This role is supported by

Table 5Comparisons on Premorbid Adjustment Scale (PAS) andHostility Scale for Groups Assigned on the Basis of PictureA rrangement Scatter (Picture A rrangement- Vocabulary)

Positive Negligible Negativescatter scatter scattergroup group group(>+3) (-2 to+2) (<-3)

Scale M M M

Childhood

At riskPASHostility

Normal comparisonPASHostility

(« = 20)1.42.50

(«= 15)1.48.49

(n = 46)1.44.56

(n = 38)1.29.50

( n = 1 5 )1.33.47

(n = 9)1.60.44

.13

.27

.83

.07

Adolescence

At riskPASHostility

Normal comparisonPASHostility

(n = 47)1.57.89

(n = 33)1.54a,b

.77a

(n = 69)1.43.90

(n = 66)1.09,.61

(n = 8)1.181.12

(n = 14).80b-29a

.96

.30

7.62**4.09*

Note. Higher mean scores on the PAS reflect greater deficits in socialcompetence. Means sharing the same subscript (a, b) differed signifi-cantly (p < .05) on Tukey-Kramer tests (Kirk, 1982).*/><.05. **p<.Q01.

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

WECHSLER SUBTESTS AND SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT 435

significant correlations between Full Scale IQ scores and boththe PAS and the Hostility scale. On the basis of these resultsand other findings that link intelligence to social adjustment inclinical groups (e.g., Frank & Quinlan, 1976), future studies ofsocial functioning in psychiatric patients should carefully con-sider the role of general intelligence.

Alternatively, in this at-risk group, social adjustment differ-ences may not correspond to differences in intelligence per se.Rather, these differences may be associated with specific neuro-cognitive deficits that reflect the incipient pathogenic processesinvolved in the development of schizophrenia or affective disor-der (Cornblatt & Erlenmeyer-Kimling, 1985). This possibilitysuggests the need for a replication of the present study in a moretypical clinical sample in which effects of specific pathogenicprocesses (e.g., those involved in schizophrenia) are less pro-nounced.

In the normal comparison group, a somewhat different pat-tern emerged. In scaled score comparisons, Comprehension wasthe only subtest significantly correlated with social competencein childhood, and this correlation was significantly higher thancorrelations with some other subtests. This pattern is consistentwith scatter score results in which negative Comprehensionscatter in childhood was associated with poorer social compe-tence and higher hostility. In adolescence, the Vocabulary sub-test was the only subtest significantly correlated with socialcompetence, a finding consistent with the lack of associationbetween Comprehension scatter groupings and scores on socialadjustment scales at this age.

For normal subjects, relative weakness on the Comprehen-sion subtest may indicate greater deficits in social adjustment inchildhood but not in adolescence. A possible explanation forthis pattern is that focus on "knowledge of social conventions"in the Comprehension subtest may be crucial to social adjust-ment in childhood, when there is greater emphasis on confor-mity, but it may be less relevant to adjustment in adolescence,when competent social behavior requires less conformity andmore movement toward independence. At this later age, otheraspects of intelligence, such as verbal fluency (Vocabulary sub-test), may be more influential in positive social adaptation. Thislimited support for the "social sensitivity" of the Comprehen-sion subtest is consistent with findings in other samples of nor-mal children (Brannigan, 1975; Brannigan & Ash, 1977;Browning & Quinlan, 1985;Krippner, 1964). However, becausethis pattern of results was not found in the at-risk group, addi-tional research examining clinical samples is necessary beforethe Comprehension subtest can be considered a valid indicatorof social adjustment in child-patient populations.

The absence of a positive association between performanceon the Picture Arrangement subtest and either social adjust-ment measure is consistent with earlier negative findings in bothclinical (Johnson, 1969) and normal (Krippner, 1964; Simon &Evans, 1980) samples. Moreover, in this investigation, compar-isons using Picture Arrangement scatter scores suggest that nor-mal adolescents for whom the Picture subtest was a relativestrength (positive Picture Arrangement scatter) in fact hadgreater deficits in social adjustment. Brannigan (1975) has ob-served that even if Picture Arrangement performance does re-flect sensitivity in the social environment, this is not synony-mous with positive social adjustment or competence. Indeed,

our results are not inconsistent with the suggestion that elevatedscores on the Picture Arrangement subtest may indicateshrewdness and street smarts unrelated to appropriate socialjudgment and behavior (Rapaport et al., 1968). In one studyof delinquent adolescents, Picture Arrangement was one of thehighest scoring subtests and Vocabulary one of the lowest (Cul-berton, Feral, & Gabby, 1989). Though our normal comparisonsample did not display a high incidence of delinquency, adoles-cent subjects with positive Picture Arrangement scatter may dis-play subtle trends in this direction. Sipps and colleagues (1987),for example, found high scorers on the Picture Arrangementsubtest to be more manipulative than low scorers.

Because delinquent subjects generally score higher on Perfor-mance subtests than on Verbal subtests (Culberton et al., 1989),however, Picture Arrangement scatter may merely reflect a Per-formance-Verbal subtest discrepancy and not a specific sensi-tivity of the Picture Arrangement subtest. A similar pattern hasbeen noted in at-risk subjects in Sample A. Those who laterdeveloped psychopathology had achieved higher Performancethan Verbal IQ scores in childhood (Erlenmeyer-Kimling, Kes-tenbaum, Bird, & Hildoff, 1984).

Of the two social adjustment measures used, Wechsler subtestperformance and overall IQ scores were more closely associatedwith the PAS. Intellectual capacities measured by Wechsler sub-tests may be more closely related to the aspects of social adjust-ment (e.g., adaptation to school) assessed by the PAS than to themore narrow dimension of hostility. Such specificity is consis-tent with research using established measures of social intelli-gence such as means-ends problem solving (Spivack & Shure,1982), in which aspects of social intelligence may correspond tosome specific dimensions of adjustment and less so to others(Pellegrini, 1985). Because the scale Hostility has not been val-idated against other instruments, however, it is also possible thatthis scale does not provide an assessment of the dimension ofhostility as adequate as the PAS does with respect to overall so-cial competence.

Two additional findings have direct implications for futureresearch examining Wechsler intelligence test patterns. First,our inclusion of data from two distinct groups (at-risk and nor-mal comparison) was supported by somewhat different findingsbetween these two groups in both scaled score comparisons andanalyses based on scatter. This contrast highlights a shortcom-ing of prior studies of Wechsler subtest patterns that attempt togeneralize from a single group, one often comprising normalsubjects (e.g., Schill, 1966). Second, our finding of a differencein patterns across ages (e.g., in the normal comparison group)suggests that findings from studies of subjects of a specific age(e.g., 5th graders) may not be generalizable to different age lev-els. Age differences in this study remained in analyses of thechildhood data that examined only those subjects who were alsoincluded in adolescent assessments (Sample B). These differ-ences cannot be attributed to discrepancies between the WISCand WAIS because most subjects in the study received the WISCin both childhood and adolescence.

Although the structure and general content areas of the Com-prehension and Picture Arrangement subtests have been largelymaintained in subsequent revisions of the Wechsler intelligencescales (Wechsler, 1974, 1981, 1991), items constituting thesesubtests have changed, and this could potentially affect social

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

436 J. LIPSITZ, R. DWORKIN, AND L. ERLENMEYER-KIMLING

sensitivity. However, our results using earlier versions of thesesubtests, considered in light of negative findings using currentversions (Nobo & Evans, 1986; Ramos & Die, 1986), do argueagainst making an assumption of social sensitivity on the basisof face validity alone. Although there is no reason to assumethat the versions of the Comprehension and Picture Arrange-ment subtests included in the WAIS-R and WISC-III havegreater social sensitivity than earlier versions, further researchwill be needed to document this.

For the evaluator searching for clues to understanding psychi-atric and behavioral difficulties in children, adolescents, andadults, it is tempting to bestow great meaning on various sub-tests of the standardized intelligence tests. Yet, empirical stud-ies to date provide little support for many hypothesized rela-tionships between Wechsler subtest performance and specificcapacities or deficits. Nevertheless, it cannot be concluded thatthe Comprehension and Picture Arrangement subtests have novalue in assessing social adjustment in clinical evaluations. Itis impossible to replicate the inferential process of an astuteclinician, and hypotheses based on subtest patterns are typicallyapplied in the context of other pieces of evidence, such as qual-itative aspects of test responses, information from other tests,and interpersonal observations. Our findings do challenge theuse of one popular dimensional assumption about Wechslersubtests in a "cookbook" fashion in psychodiagnosis, however,as well as in computerized interpretations of Wechsler scalesbased on such assumptions.

References

Allison, J., Blatt, S. J., & Zimet, C. N. (1968). The interpretation ofpsychological tests. New York: Harper & Row.

Asberg, M., Montgomery, S. A., Ferris, C., Schalling, D., & Sedvall, G.(1978). A comprehensive psychopathological rating scale. Ada Psy-chiatra Scandinavia, Suppl. 271, 5-27.

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statisticalmanual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Blatt, S. J., & Allison, J. (1981). The intelligence test in personality as-sessment. In A. I. Rabin (Ed.), Assessment with projective techniques:A concise introduction (pp. 187-231). New York: Springer.

Brannigan, G. G. (1975). Wechsler Picture Arrangement and Compre-hension scores as measures of social maturity. Journal of Psychology,89, 133-135.

Brannigan, G. G., & Ash, T. (1977). Wechsler Picture Arrangement andComprehension scores as measures of social maturity. PsychologicalReports, 41, 466.

Browning, D. L., & Quinlan, D. M. (1985). Ego development and intel-ligence in a psychiatric population: Wechsler subtest scores. Journalof Personality Assessment, 49, 260-263.

Cannon-Spoor, H. E., Potkin, S. G., & Wyatt, R. J. (1982). Measure-ment of premorbid adjustment in chronic schizophrenia. Schizophre-nia Bulletin, 8, 470-484.

Cornblatt, B., & Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L. (1985). Global attentional de-viance in children at risk for schizophrenia: Specificity and predictivevalidity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 470-486.

Culberton, F. M., Feral, C. H., & Gabby, S. (1989). Pattern analysis ofWechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised profiles of delin-quent boys. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 651 -660.

Dickstein, L. S., & MacEvitt, M. (1971). Comprehension subtest of theWAIS and need for approval. Psychological Reports, 28, 482.

Downey, G., & Coyne, J. C. (1990). Children of depressed parents: Anintegrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 50-76.

Dworkin, R. H., Bernstein, G., Kaplansky, L., Lipsitz, J. D., Rinaldi,A. Slater, S., Cornblatt, B., & Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L. (1991). Socialcompetence and positive and negative symptoms: A longitudinalstudy of children and adolescents at risk for schizophrenia and affec-tive disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 1182-1188.

Dworkin, R. H., Green, S. R., Small, N. E., Warner, M. L., Corblatt,B. A., & Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L. (1990). Positive and negative symp-toms and social competence in adolescents at risk for schizophreniaand affective disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 1234-1236.

Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L., & Cornblatt, B. A. (1987). The New York HighRisk Project: A followup report. Schizophrenia Bulletin, IS, 451-461.

Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L., Kestenbaum, C., Bird, H., & Hildoff, U.(1984). Assessments of the New York High-Risk Project subjects inSample A who are now clinically deviant. In N. F. Watt, E. J. An-thony, L. C. Wynne, & J. E. Rolf (Eds.), Children at risk for schizo-phrenia: A longitudinal perspective (pp. 227-239). New \brk: Cam-bridge University Press.

Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L., Marcuse, Y, Cornblatt, B., Friedman, D.,Rainer, J. D., & Rutschmann, J. (1984). The New York High-RiskProject. In N. F. Watt, E. J. Anthony, L. C. Wynne, & J. E. Rolf (Eds.),Children at risk for schizophrenia: A longitudinal perspective (pp.169-189). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Frank, S., & Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Ego development and female de-linquency: A cognitive-developmental approach. Journal of Abnor-mal Psychology, 85. 505-510.

Glass, G. U., & Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Statistical methods in educationand psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Johnson, D. T. (1969). Introversion, extraversion, and social intelli-gence: A replication. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 181-183.

Kaufman, A. S. (1979). Intelligence testing with the WISC-R. NewYork: Wiley.

Kelley, M. E., Gilbertson, M., Mouton, A., & van Kammen, D. P.(1992). Deterioration in premorbid functioning in schizophrenia: Adevelopmental model of negative symptoms in drug-free patients.American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 1543-1548.

Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioralsciences (2nd ed.). Monterey: Brooks/Cole.

Krippner, S. (1964). WISC Comprehension and Picture Arrangementsubtests as measures of social competence. Journal of Clinical Psy-chology, 20, 366-367.

Lewis, J. A., Dworkin, R. H., Cornblatt, B. A., Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L.(1992, November). Parent and child reports of social competence inchildren and adolescents at risk for schizophrenia and affective disor-der. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Society for Research inPsychopathology, Palm Springs, CA.

Matarazzo, J. D. (1972). Wechsler's measurement and appraisal ofadult intelligence (5th ed.). Baltimore: William & Wilkins.

McConaughy, S. H., & Ritter, D. R. (1986). Social competence and be-havioral problems of learning disabled boys aged 6—11. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 19. 39-45.

Meehl, P. E. (1971). High-school yearbooks: A reply to Schwartz. Jour-nal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 143-148.

Nobo, J., & Evans, R. G. (1986). The WAIS-R Picture Arrangementand Comprehension subtests as measures of social behavior charac-teristics. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 90-92.

Pellegrini, D. S. (1985). Social cognition and competence in middlechildhood. Child Development, 56, 253-264.

Piedmont, R. L., Sokolove, R. L., & Fleming, M. Z. (1989). An exami-nation of some diagnostic strategies involving theWechsler intelli-gence scales. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 1, 181-185.

Ramos, M. C., & Die, A. H. (1986). The WAIS-R Picture Arrangement

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

WECHSLER SUBTESTS AND SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT 437

subtest: What do scores indicate? Journal of General Psychology, 113,251-261.

Rapaport, D.,Gill, M. M., & Schafer, R. (1968). Diagnostic psycholog-ical testing (rev. ed.). New York: International Universities Press.

Saltier, J. M. (1982). Assessment of children's intelligence and specialabilities (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Schafer, R. (1948). The clinical application of psychological tests. NewYork: International Universities Press.

Schill, T. (1966). The effects of MMPI social introversion on WAIS PAperformance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 72-74.

Schill, T, Kahn, M., & Meuhlman, T. (1968). WAIS PA performanceand participation in extracurricular activities. Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 24, 95-96.

Simon, J. M., & Evans, J. R. (1980). WISC-R Picture Arrangement andpeer acceptance/rejection. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 558.

Sipps, G. J., Berry, W, & Lynch, E. M. (1987). WAIS-R and socialintelligence: A test of established assumptions that uses the CPI. Jour-nal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 499-504.

Spivack, G., & Shure, M. B. (1982). Interpersonal cognitive problemsolving and clinical theory. In B. Lakey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Ad-vances in child clinical psychology (Vol. 5, 323-372). New York: Ple-num Press.

Watt, N. F., Grubb, T. W, & Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L. (1982). Social,emotional, and intellectual behavior at school among children at high

risk for schizophrenia. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,50, 171-181.

Wechsler, D. (1949). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children manual.New York: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1955). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale manual. NewYork: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revisedmanual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised man-ual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd ed.)manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D., & Jaros, E. (1965). Schizophrenic patterns of the WISC.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 288-291.

Weintraub, S., & Neale, J. M. (1984). Social behavior of children at riskfor schizophrenia. In N. F. Watt, E. J. Anthony, L. C. Wynne, & J. E.Rolf (Eds.), Children at risk for schiwprenia: A longitudinal perspec-tive^. 279-285). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zimmerman, I. L., & Woo-Sam, J. M. (1973). Clinical interpretation ofthe Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. New 'Vbrk: Grune & Stratton.

Received January 20, 1993Revision received April 21, 1993

Accepted May 10, 1993 •

of Ownership,Management andCirculationIfttquirmd by 39 U.S.C. 36951

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTII. MUCATHMW.

5 8 1 2 9/2<»/9J

QUARTERLY

r.C~vQ, Jwr •W28>*4 (j+t AW f

750 FIRST STREET NE, WASHINGTON, DC 20002-<t2't2

750 FIRST STREET NE, WASHINGTON, . DC 20002-*»2<t2

527/MEMBER, $67/INOV., S133/INST.

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, 750 FIRST STREET NEWASHINGTON^ DC 20002-42^2 _

JAMES N. BUTCHER PH.D., DEPT OF PSYCHOLOGY ELLIOTT HALL7 5 g . R I VER R D J=t H fjjNEAJ'QJ. I S, MN S5^A5 _

SUSAN KNAPP, APA, 750 FIRST STREET NE, WASHINGTON, DC 20002-^21*2

or Mw* of Tout Amewtl <A •»*..

B. fa Cttnetatfan

DHH ClMr*** OvriflffneiS^X NMta

6,902

FtM OtaMHKJOt bv kM. C»ri« or (MMT M

n Font 3826. iiium rot

wd'/t'dfya'**!'. tfo&fa, Snvtuf

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.