Contributing Towards a Cultural Neuropsychology Assessment Decision-Making Framework: Comparison of WAIS-IV Norms from Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Spain, United States, and Canada

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Test and normative data selection in cross-cultural neuropsychology remain a complex issue. Despite growing awareness, more studies and instruments are needed to adequately address the impact of cultural factors, such as quantity and quality of education. In this study, we examine the interpretive effects of applying six relevant WAIS-IV norms to a Colombian sample. METHOD: A sample of 305 highly educated Colombian corporate executives completed the WAIS-IV. Data were scored using norms from Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Spain, United States, and Canada and scores were compared using ANOVA. Additionally, a comparative sociodemographic framework was established to contextualize our sample to the standardization samples and populations of the six countries. RESULTS: Colombian and Chilean norms yielded systematically similar FSIQ/Index scores (mean range = 117-121), while incrementally lower scores were found with norms from Mexico (-3-9 points), Spain (-3-11 points), USA (-8-13 points), and Canada (-11-18 points). Verbal scores differed, with highest scores obtained with Mexican and Spanish norms. Working memory and processing speed scores had the lowest score agreement across norms. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Chilean norms are more frequently used in Colombia, the recently developed Colombian norms appear optimal for our sample; the scores do not have meaningful differences with those obtained with Chilean norms and offer local population representation fidelity. Mexican, Spanish, US, and Canadian norms underestimated WAIS-IV scores and distorted the sample's score distribution. Finally, verbal scores highlight potential education representation within Spanish and Mexican norms, while working memory and processing speed scores suggest cultural nuances likely captured within different norms.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 53 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.