Opinion

Wait, Where’s the Flynn Effect on the WAIS-5?

Emily L. Winter 1, * , Sierra M. Trudel 2 and Alan S. Kaufman 3

1 School of Health Sciences, Touro University, 3 Times Square, New York, NY 10036, USA
2 Department of Psychology, Marist College, 3399 North Road, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601, USA;
[Link]@[Link]
3 Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Charles B. Gentry Building, 249 Glenbrook Road
U-3064, Storrs, CT 06269, USA; [Link]@[Link]
* Correspondence: ewinter6@[Link]

Abstract: The recent release of the WAIS-5, a decade and a half after its predecessor, the WAIS-
IV, raises immediate questions about the Flynn effect (FE). Does the traditional FE of points per
decade in the U.S. for children and adults, identified for the Full Scale IQs of all Wechsler scales
and for other global IQ scores as well, persist into the 2020s? The WAIS-5 Technical and Interpre-
tive Manual provides two counterbalanced validity studies that address the Flynn effect directly—
N = 186 adolescents and adults (16–90 years, mean age = 47.8) tested on the WAIS-IV and WAIS-5;
and N = 98 16-year-olds tested on the WISC-V and WAIS-5. The FE is incorporated into the diagnostic
criteria for intellectual disabilities by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities (AAIDD), by DSM-5-TR, and in capital punishment cases. The unexpected result of the
two counterbalanced studies was a reduction in the Flynn effect from the expected value of 3 IQ
points to 1.2 points. These findings raise interesting questions regarding whether the three point
adjustment to FSIQs should be continued for intellectual disability diagnosis and whether the federal
courts should rethink its guidelines for capital punishment cases and other instances of high stakes
decision-making. Limitations include a lack of generalization to children, the impact of the practice
effects, and a small sample size.

Keywords: Flynn effect; IQ tests; cognitive assessment; Wechsler scales; WAIS-5; WAIS-IV;
intelligence testing; capital punishment cases; intellectual disabilities

Citation: Winter, Emily L., Sierra M.

Trudel, and Alan S. Kaufman. 2024. 1. Introduction
Wait, Where’s the Flynn Effect on the 1.1. Intelligence
WAIS-5? Journal of Intelligence 12: 118. Broadly defined, intelligence is a person’s ability to learn from their experience, adapt,
[Link]
influence, and choose environments (Holden and Hart 2021; Sternberg 2012). Several theo-
jintelligence12110118
ries seek to understand the underlying makeup and components of intelligence (Sternberg
Received: 13 September 2024 2012). Intelligence theories consider the biological basis for intelligence (Duncan et al.
Revised: 29 October 2024 2000; Jung and Haier 2007), understanding the systems of the mind (Davis et al. 2011;
Accepted: 8 November 2024 Sternberg 1984), and psychometric evidence (Carroll 1993). At the heart of intelligence is
Published: 15 November 2024 an individual’s problem-solving skills and capacity for knowledge acquisition (Gardner
1983; Wasserman 2018). Domains within intelligence include areas such as fluid reasoning,
visual-spatial processing, working memory, processing speed (Schneider and McGrew
2018), attention, simultaneous and successive processing, and planning (Das and Abbott
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
1995), among others. Together, these domains can influence an individual’s ability to think,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
act, and learn within their environment (Sternberg 2012).
distributed under the terms and
Despite the importance of the measurement of separate cognitive abilities and pro-
conditions of the Creative Commons
cesses, and an overwhelming research base that supports the validity and utility of these
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// theories (Flanagan and McDonough 2018), the global score (g) often assumes prominence
[Link]/licenses/by/ for decision-making. Wechsler’s scales have been the most popular IQ tests worldwide for
4.0/). more than a half century (e.g., Lichtenberger and Kaufman 2013; Rabin et al. 2005; Wright

J. Intell. 2024, 12, 118. [Link] [Link]

J. Intell. 2024, 12, 118 2 of 13

et al. 2017), and Wechsler’s prominence shows no sign of subsiding with the publication of
the state-of-the-art Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fifth Edition (WAIS-5; Wechsler et al.
2024a, 2024b). The WAIS-5 yields scales that are easily interpretable from the vantage point
of Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory, and it includes new subtests that have emerged from
theories of working memory and processing speed; but, ultimately, it is the g score—Full
Scale IQ (FSIQ)—that is of immediate extraordinary interest to clinicians and researchers
alike because of its central role in the diagnosis of intellectual disabilities (ID). After a wait
of 16 years, longer than expected for a Wechsler scale due to the COVID-19 pandemic, one
question that needs to be answered concerns the Flynn effect.

1.2. Flynn Effect

Cross-culturally, shifts in cognitive intelligence (as measured by IQ) have been ob-
served since 1932 (Rundquist 1936), through a phenomenon that was later dubbed the
Flynn effect in tribute to the researcher who introduced the concept more than a generation
ago (Flynn 1984, 1987, 2007, 2012). These changes in population-wide intelligence range in
their magnitude depending on the country (gains in some nations average 7 or 8 points per
decade), with the United States reporting a growth of 3 IQ points every ten years, a pattern
that has been constant for about a century (Flynn 1984, 1987, 2007; Pietschnig and Voracek
2015; Trahan et al. 2014), with the effect potentially observed in animal populations as well
(Woodley et al. 2022). Simply put, the Flynn effect suggests that younger generations score
higher on IQ tests than those prior (Dworak et al. 2023). This phenomenon has extended
to other clinical areas, including in academic skills, such as vocabulary and math scores
(Qi and Xiong 2023) or cognitive subskills, such as increases in abstract reasoning, verbal
skills, and vocabulary, while decreasing rote calculation, visual spatial abilities, and verbal
meanings (Colom et al. 2023). Dworak and colleagues (2023) remind us that the Flynn
effect does not mean that younger generations are practically “smarter”, but rather they
are outperforming their older colleagues on similar standardized measures, thus with
measurements favoring those who are younger.
The Flynn effect is a population-based observation; however, this phenomenon impacts
groups of people and individuals in “high stakes” decision-making, namely in the diagnosis
of intellectual disability (ID), in guiding educational placement and governmental services,
and in capital punishment cases (McGrew 2015; Schalock and AAIDDUGW 2012). Despite
their ubiquitous use in such decision-making, Flynn (2007) warned that these effects would
not be forever reaching, but rather, for younger groups, the effects he hypothesized would
diminish as time progressed. Recent research, along with findings from this paper, highlight
that Flynn’s original hypothesis may indeed be correct that the effects may not last forever.
For the first time in history, recent research has suggested a plateau of this effect, and
in some cases a reverse Flynn effect cross-culturally, which has already been observed in
several European countries (Bratsberg and Rogeberg 2018; Dutton and Lynn 2013; Dutton
et al. 2016; Sundet et al. 2004; Teasdale and Owen 2005, 2008). Yet, it is important to note,
despite the novelty of these findings, many studies espouse considerable methodological
limitations, such as through the use of unconventional “intelligence” measurements (or
using other types of skills as a “proxy” for IQ; Shakeel and Peterson 2022), relying on group-
administered assessments instead of individual assessments, small sample sizes, or using
abbreviated (instead of Full Scale) measures (Platt et al. 2019). Even within counterbalanced
research (such as within the present paper), concerns with sample size and practice effects,
as well as generalizability (such as with differing age groups), may come into effect.
Other scholars argue that although the Flynn effect may be alive and well, the effect’s
presence may be inconsistent, varying depending on age or range of intelligence. For
instance, on a Wechsler measure, the Flynn effect was observed only for children in the low
IQ ranges (Kanaya et al. 2003), as children (when using the new norms of the test) were
more likely to receive an educational classification of intellectual disability as compared to
the prior version (i.e., suggesting that with newer, more stringent, norms, students were
“easier” to classify). These studies have also faced design flaws with smaller sample sizes
J. Intell. 2024, 12, 118 3 of 13

(Zhou et al. 2010) and extrapolating findings from different educational classifications,
such as learning disabilities (Sanborn et al. 2003). A more recent study on the Flynn effect,
using an abbreviated measure of g (matrices) with more than 10,000 adolescents aged 13–18,
found the Flynn effect within particular segments of the populations; the Flynn effect was
a significant function of both age and ability level. Specifically, Platt and colleagues (2019)
observed that IQ rose about 3.5 points per decade for individuals with an IQ greater than
130 (consistent with Flynn effect predictions) but decreased 4.9 points for people with IQs
under 70 (i.e., a reverse Flynn effect). Similarly, chronological age interacted significantly
with the direction and magnitude of the Flynn effect. At age 13, IQ rose by 2.3 points,
consistent with a Flynn effect, but IQ decreased by 1.6 points at age 18, a reverse Flynn
effect.
These findings, across multiple studies, suggest that generalizing the Flynn effect to all
people within the population may not be an accurate reflection of the phenomenon; rather,
the effects are more nuanced based on ability and age, amongst other factors. It has been
widely known from Flynn’s early publications that nations vary widely in the magnitude of
generational change in IQ, and this finding has been confirmed by meta-analysis (Pietschnig
and Voracek 2015). In the United States, “Flynn’s early publications indicated that children
and adults score higher on IQ tests than previous generations at the rate of approximately
3 IQ points per decade”; (Platt et al. 2019, p. 2) this finding also has also been verified by
meta-analysis (Pietschnig and Voracek 2015), although the value is sometimes closer to
2 points (Trahan et al. 2014; Wongupparaj et al. 2023). Trahan et al. (2014) noted a rise in
IQ with an average of 2.31 points per ten years (SD = 0.15) in the United States, observing
consistency across various factors, including age and ability level; Wongupparaj et al. (2023)
studied the Flynn effect cross-culturally, including within the United States, and noted in
their meta-analytic review that the effect was most present in middle-income countries and
younger generations (an average gain of +0.22 points per year). Cross-cultural research
also suggests that positive Flynn effects may be occurring in less economically developed
nations, whereas negative Flynn effects are observed in economically advantaged countries,
revealing an economic and cognitive convergence (Meisenberg and Lynn 2023).

1.3. Why Does the Flynn Effect Matter?

For adult populations, the Flynn effect matters substantially, especially for those with
ID in high stakes decision-making contexts. In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Men-
tal Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR; American Psychiatric Association
2022), an intellectual disability is marked by deficits in adaptive functioning and “deficits
in intellectual functioning, such as reasoning, problem-solving, planning, abstract thinking,
judgment, academic learning, and learning from experience, confirmed by both clinical
assessment and individualized, standardized intelligence testing” (p. 37). Individuals with
intellectual disabilities typically perform at least two standard deviations below the mean
(e.g., 65–75 which includes ±5 points for measurement error). Furthermore, the DSM-5-TR
recommends taking into consideration the Flynn effect as one of the key factors that impact
test scores (American Psychiatric Association 2022).
Additionally, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabili-
ties (AAIDD) stipulates that IQs must be adjusted for the Flynn effect when diagnosing
intellectual disabilities: “Current best practice guidelines recommend that in cases in which
an IQ test with aged norms is used as part of a diagnosis of ID, a correction of the full-scale
IQ score of 0.3 points per year since the test norms were collected is warranted” (Schalock
et al. 2021, p. 42).
IQ adjustments for ID play a critical role in the criminal justice system and, more
specifically, regarding the death penalty (McGrew 2015). The Flynn effect has had an impact
on capital punishment cases for individuals having a suspected intellectual disability. The
outcome from the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case Atkins v. Virginia (2002, 536 U.S. 304)
invoked the Eighth Amendment to prohibit the execution of individuals with an intellectual
disability—such an execution would amount to “cruel and unusual punishment”. Since
J. Intell. 2024, 12, 118 4 of 13

this ruling, federal and state courts have typically applied the Flynn effect in cases where
the defendant is suspected of having an intellectual disability to mitigate the irrevocable
punishment of the death penalty (Fabian et al. 2011). Additionally, Reynolds and colleagues
(2010) note that the inclusion of the Flynn effect on capital cases involving the death penalty
is a “true matter of life and death” (p. 477). The authors implore, “To do less is to do wrong—
what possible justification could there be for issuing estimates of general intelligence in a
death penalty case that are less than the most accurate estimates obtainable?” (Reynolds
et al. 2010, p. 478).
In the school and clinical settings, the Flynn effect adjustment is less relevant. McGrew
(2015) states, “The use of the Flynn effect correction in clinical settings is less of an issue
given that psychologists in such settings typically have more leeway to interpret scores
as ranges, invoke clinical judgment, and incorporate information regarding measurement
error in interpretation of scores when making a diagnosis” (p. 160). School psychologists
follow similar guidelines within the school setting. Additionally, in schools, the Flynn
effect is less relevant due to the evaluation mandates put forth by the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004). Students who qualify for special education are
required to be re-evaluated at least once every three years (IDEA 2004). However, for
students with an intellectual disability who are transitioning out of high school (i.e., over
the age of 16), obsolete tests and outdated norms for adult cognitive assessment tools
can lead to inflated IQ scores, which may change eligibility classification from ID to
learning disability (Trahan et al. 2014). For students who are leaving high school and
entering the independence required of adulthood, this change in classification may impact
government supported social security and disability supports that require evidence of
impaired intellectual functioning (Trahan et al. 2014).

1.4. Statement of the Problem

Intelligence tests for children and adults are traditionally re-normed and released
with contemporary normative data every 10–15 years to update content and make other
modifications based on societal changes, culture shifts, advances in theory, and innovations
in technology. But the urgency to revise and re-standardize became paramount when the
Flynn effect became an axiomatic fact of life, sometime in the 1990s. The 1949 WISC was
not revised for a quarter century (Wechsler 1949, 1974) and the same was true for the WAIS
and WAIS-R (Wechsler 1955, 1980). Test publishers are no longer able to get away with
that slow pace. Clinicians were able to quote chapter and verse of the Flynn effect and
demand accountability from test publishers. They became well aware that IQ test norms
become out of date at the rate of three IQ points per decade. Older norms tend to produce
spuriously high IQs because they become increasingly “soft” as time goes by (i.e., children
and adults answer more questions correctly, and solve more problems accurately, than their
parents did). The artificially inflated IQs require adjustment when diagnosing ID, namely
0.3 points must be subtracted from a person’s Wechsler FSIQ for each year that its norms
are out of date (Schalock et al. 2021). Test publishers listened, with a chief impetus coming
from the proliferation of “Atkins cases” following the 2002 court ruling.
The WAIS-IV, normed in 2007–2008, yields IQs that are spuriously high by about
5 points. Although ID diagnoses are dependent on adaptive behavior as well as IQ, it
is quite clear that subtracting 5 points from an incarcerated person on death row’s FSIQ
can truly be a matter of life and death. The publication of the WAIS-5 in August 2024
(Wechsler et al. 2024a, 2024b) immediately raised the question of whether the traditional
3-points-per-decade Flynn effect has continued into the mid-2020s, or whether it has
reduced in magnitude, as it has in some other nations. Validity data presented in the WAIS-
5 Technical and Interpretive Manual (Wechsler et al. 2024b) based on 186 adolescents and
adults tested on the WAIS-IV and WAIS-5 in counterbalanced order—as well as a second
counterbalanced study of 98 16-year-olds tested on the WISC-V and WAIS-5—directly
address the magnitude of the Flynn effect for contemporary American society.
J. Intell. 2024, 12, 118 5 of 13

1.5. Research Questions

What is the magnitude of the Flynn effect for adolescents and adults in post-pandemic
American society based on the results of two rigorously conducted validity studies reported
in the WAIS-5 Technical and Interpretive Manual (Wechsler et al. 2024b)?
What are the implications of the results of this study for ID diagnosis, especially on
its potential impact for capital punishment court cases and, in general, on high-stakes
decision-making in cognitive assessment?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants
As reported by Wechsler et al. (2024b, Table 5.3), data for two samples were analyzed
in this investigation and both tested post-pandemic in 2023 during the standardization and
validation of the WAIS-5.
The first sample participated in the WAIS-IV—WAIS-5 study: 186 adolescents and
adults ages 16–90 (mean age = 47.8); 65.1% female. Ethnicity = 15.6% African American,
10.2% Asian, 22.0% Hispanic, 43.0% White, 9.1% Other. Education = 16.6% less than 12 years
schooling, 23.7% high school graduates, 23.1% some college, 37.6% college graduates.
The second sample participated in the WISC-V—WAIS-5 study: 98 16-year-olds (mean
age = 16.4); 60.2% female. Ethnicity = 11.2% African American, 3.1% Asian, 23.7% Hispanic,
50.0% White, 2.0% Other. Education = 21.4% less than 12 years schooling, 18.4% high school
graduates, 26.5% some college, 33.7% college graduates.

2.2. Procedure
As reported by Wechsler et al. (2024b, pp. 82–89), 186 adolescents and adults, ages
16–90, were tested in counterbalanced order on the 2008 WAIS-IV and the 2024 WAIS-5.
The intervals between tests ranged from 7 to 134 days with a mean of 28.2 days. In a
second study, 98 16-year-olds were tested in counterbalanced order on the 2014 WISC-V
and the 2024 WAIS-5. The intervals between tests ranged from 1 to 112 days with a mean of
26.9 days. Pearson product moment correlation analyses were conducted for each study to
assess the construct validity of the new WAIS-5. Full Scale IQs correlated 0.92 between the
two versions of WAIS, and 0.87 between the fifth editions of WISC and WAIS (Wechsler et al.
2024a, 2024b). Of special interest for our study are the mean FSIQs for the two Wechsler
scales in each study. This particular paper reports additional Mean IQ Difference, not
reported in the manual, which has implications for understanding the Flynn effect between
the WAIS-IV, WISC-V, and WAIS-5.

2.3. Instrument
The WAIS-5 (Wechsler et al. 2024a, 2024b) was standardized between February 2023
and January 2024 on 2020 adolescents and adults aged 16 through 90 years. The sample
comprised 180 per age band for ages 16–69 and 100 per age band for ages 70–90. It was
stratified by age, sex, ethnicity, education level, and geographic region; proportions of the
normative sample matched closely with the proportions reflected in the 2022 U.S. Bureau of
the Census data (Ruggles et al. 2023). Within sex, 16 examinees reported gender as different
from their sex (n = 6 female for sex and indicated man for gender; n = 5 male for sex and
indicated woman for gender; n = 4 gender as nonbinary; n = 1 genderqueer).
The WAIS-5 includes 20 subtests organized into five primary indexes, and a diverse
array of clinically meaningful ancillary indexes; it yields four global scores—FSIQ, Non-
verbal Index, Nonmotor Index, and General Ability Index. For our study, we focused
only on the FSIQ, which is a composite of seven subtests—Vocabulary, Similarities, Block
Design, Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights, Digit Sequencing, and Coding. The mean
reliability of the FSIQ averaged 0.97 across the age range; the stability coefficient was 0.93
for 201 individuals aged 16–90 that were tested twice (average interval = 29 days).
J. Intell. 2024, 12, 118 6 of 13

3. Results
Table 1 presents the results of the present investigation. Analyses from both counter-
balanced studies yielded the identical unexpected results—a dramatic, unexpected Flynn
effect of 1.2 IQ points per decade, well below the values of 2.6–2.8 points identified more
than 15 years ago based on comparable WAIS-III vs. WAIS-IV analyses (Wechsler 2008;
data also presented in Table 1), strikingly lower than the 3 points per decade identified
from meta-analyses (Pietschnig and Voracek 2015; Trahan et al. 2014) and sanctioned as an
adjustment to be made for Wechsler FSIQs in ID diagnosis by AAIDD (Schalock et al. 2021),
especially in capital punishment court cases.

Table 1. Flynn effects on Wechsler scales for ages 16–90 years based on counterbalanced studies of
WAIS-III, WAIS-IV, WAIS-5, and WISC-V.

Age Range Mean FSIQ Older Mean FSIQ Newer Mean IQ Points/Decade
WAIS Versions N
(Mean) Wechsler Scale Wechsler Scale Difference (Flynn Effect)
WAIS-III vs. WAIS-IV
Non-Clinical 240 16–88 (52.7) 102.9 100.0 2.9 2.6
Low-IQ 49 16–65 (30.6) 68.6 65.5 3.1 2.8
WAIS-IV vs. WAIS-5
Non-Clinical 186 16–90 (47.8) 101.6 99.7 1.9 1.2
WAIS-5 vs. WISC-V
16-0–16-11
98 100.4 99.2 1.2 1.2
(16.4)

The precise agreement in the results from both counterbalanced studies of the WAIS-5
provides a degree of cross-validation of the present findings. However, the key analysis
is the WAIS-IV vs. WAIS-5 study, which included a large heterogeneous sampling of
adolescents and adults. Those findings generalize to older adolescents, young adults,
middle-aged adults, and the elderly population. The results for 16-year-olds in the WISC-
WAIS study generalize only to 16-year-olds. They do not generalize to adolescents in
general, and they in no way suggest any reduction in the Flynn effect for children. The
significant and striking interaction between age and the Flynn effect reported for 10,000+
adolescents ages 13–18 on a test of fluid reasoning (Platt et al. 2019) underscores the need
to avoid generalizing the findings to any child or adolescent below age 16. Platt et al.
(2019) observed the following Flynn effects for each separate age group in their large-scale
investigation: age 13 (+2.33), age 14 (+0.88), age 15 (−0.89), age 16 (−0.19), age 17 (−0.76),
and age 18 (−1.66).

4. Discussion
In scholarly works seeking to examine the “why” question of the Flynn effect, research
has recognized the connection between environment and human growth intelligence (HGI),
especially in the context of what environmental factors may have on both intellectual
growth of people (HGI) and on technology (i.e., artificial general intelligence [AGI]; Kanaya
and Magine 2024). Various theories have tackled “why” from a theoretical perspective, such
as through the co-occurrence model (Woodley 2012) and through the evaluation of several
“Flynn paradoxes”. O’Keefe and colleagues (2023) argue two perspectives, speaking to the
metaphor of “clouded spectacles” in understanding the reason for the effect, summarizing
nicely the differing perspectives of (1) within-person and/or between-person changes
or (2) implicit/explicit age/period/cohort effects (O’Keefe et al. 2023). A robust list of
potential reasons exist for the Flynn effect (see Table 1 in O’Keefe et al. 2023), such as
improvements across various arenas of health (e.g., nutrition, lead levels), education (e.g.,
better, longer, child/parental education), parenting styles (e.g., education, smaller number
of children), social causes (e.g., niche selection, complex social settings), technology (e.g.,
computers, artificial light), genetic (e.g., heterosis), and others (e.g., slowed life, experience
with tests, collective unconscious), with some of these concepts discussed at length in
J. Intell. 2024, 12, 118 7 of 13

particular connection to children and adolescent cognitive development (Shakeel and

Peterson 2022). Furthermore, scholars have suggested a “parental executive model”, which
posits that adults involved in the lives of children consciously or unconsciously optimize
outcomes through accessing and using the resources as mentioned above, which improves
the child’s wellbeing and intellectual development (Rodgers and O’Keefe 2023). Given
the fact that the pandemic intervened between the collection of “old test” data (WAIS-IV
and WISC-V, data collected 2007–2008 and 2013, respectively) and “new” 2023 WAIS-5
test data, society’s broad response to the pandemic and its far-reaching impact into every
aspect of American society introduces yet another intervening variable with an unknown
(yet potentially powerful) interaction with the magnitude of the Flynn effect. Additionally,
given the timely and recent discussion of the impact of social media on mental wellbeing
and cognitive functioning, concepts related to modern day technological life may also
become increasingly relevant (Haidt 2024).
One change from the WAIS-IV to WAIS-5 is noteworthy—the reduction in the number
of subtests that contribute to the Full Scale, from 10 to 7. Compounding that change is the
different contribution made by the primary indexes (and hence by the CHC broad abilities)
to FSIQ. Most notably, the Processing Speed Index and Working Memory Index comprised
40% of the WAIS-IV Full Scale, a value that was reduced to 28.6% on the WAIS-5. Just as
important, the construct measured by the WAIS-IV Working Memory Index differs from
the comparable construct measured by the WAIS-5 because one subtest was eliminated
(Arithmetic), one was added (Running Digits), and one was substantially modified (Digit
Span, now called Digit Sequencing). There were also significant construct changes made to
Digit Span, now called Digit Sequencing. Historically, each broad ability and each Wechsler
subtest has a different history of Flynn effects (Flynn and Weiss 2007). So, changing the mix
of broad abilities and subtests that contribute to FSIQ could change the FE for FSIQ.
Regardless of “why”, the greatly reduced Flynn effect revealed in the analyses pre-
sented here, based on validity data reported in the WAIS-5 Technical and Interpretive
Manual (Wechsler et al. 2024b), has the potential to shake up the diagnostic process in
clinics, schools, and courtrooms. As our study indicates, the Flynn effect for the American
population of older adolescents and adults of all ages is no longer three points; rather, it is
closer to 1 point. With evidence that the Flynn effect is substantially reduced, the AAIDD
best practices for a three-point adjustment for outdated norms may need to be re-evaluated.
Beyond providing an accurate representation of an individual’s abilities, this reduction in
the Flynn effect may also impact who qualifies for state services that support those with an
intellectual disability. Capital punishment cases may also be affected, strikingly so in many
instances. With a reduced Flynn effect, the number of people who will no longer qualify for
an intellectual disability will increase, ultimately meaning more deaths. We are in no way
approving of the way IQ is being used to determine irrevocable life and death decisions, yet
we understand clearly the potentially grave implications of such a finding. It is important
to note that these findings are not generalizable to the entire population, as the sample was
only for individuals aged 16 and older, which is the age range of people who potentially
face the death penalty. As people first, none of the authors want more individuals to die;
that is not the goal of this paper. Rather, our goal as scholars is to bring to light that the best
science should be used to make decisions, especially high stakes decisions. With the recent
publication of the WAIS-5, the gold standard and latest measure of intelligence, the present
norming data suggest a different pattern of population IQ growth. With this, we ask, is
it scientifically defensible to correct for IQ by three points given these most recent data
with a strong sample, a counterbalanced design, and that were found post-pandemic, with
arguably the best IQ measure on the market? Simply put, federal and state courts should
review the present state of the literature to consider the reduced Flynn effect revealed in
the analyses summarized here based on validity data reported in the WAIS-5 manual.
Table 2 illustrates how the Flynn effect can be a matter of life and death. This table
illustrates test data for Jerome D. (a pseudonym). His sentencing hearing was held in 2024
in a state that does not permit the diagnosis of ID if a criminal’s IQ—after adjustment for
J. Intell. 2024, 12, 118 8 of 13

the Flynn effect and practice effects—is 76 or greater. To meet the Prong 1 criterion for
subaverage IQ in this state, the adjusted IQ must be 75 or below. Jerome D. was tested on
the WISC-III in 1991 as a 16-year-old while serving in a juvenile detention center. He was
subsequently administered the WAIS-III at age 25 and again at age 30 within the prison
system. After his release, he was convicted of murder in 2009, administered the WAIS-IV,
and sentenced to be executed. He was on death row for years and was ultimately granted
a new sentencing hearing in 2024 as an Atkins case. He was once again administered the
WAIS-IV, this time when the norms were extremely out of date. When his adjusted IQs
are examined over time, he never scored below 76 on any assessment, although he came
close every time—until he was administered the very out-of-date WAIS-IV. The Flynn effect
mandated subtracting 5 points from his obtained IQ of 80, and the 75 qualified him for
an ID diagnosis when paired with Prong 2 (subaverage adaptive behavior) and Prong
3 (early onset) criteria, both of which were met. But how different the outcome would
have been with a Flynn effect of 1.2 points per decade! The adjustment would have been
2 points, and his adjusted IQ would have been 78—too high for an ID diagnosis. These
issues must be weighed carefully by AAIDD, DSM-5-TR, and the court system to decide
the most appropriate guidelines for ID diagnosis as we move toward the future.

Table 2. Wechsler Full Scale IQs earned by Jerome D. between 1991 and 2024, starting in juvenile
detention and continuing on death row.

Test WISC-III WAIS-III WAIS-III WAIS-IV WAIS-IV

Year 1991 2000 2005 2009 2024
Age 16 25 30 34 49
IQ 77 78 81 78 80
How Outdated Are Norms? 2 years 5 years 10 years 1.5 years 16.5 years
(0.6 points) (1.5 points) (5 points) (0.5 points) (5 points)
Adjusted IQ
76.4 76.5 78 77.5 75

And the Flynn effect reduction is not the only provocative finding presented by
Wechsler et al. 2024. Additionally, the test–retest reliability study (N = 201, ages 16–90,
M = 53, mean interval = 29 days) reveals that the practice effect (see Table 3)—like the Flynn
effect—has gotten smaller over time. Table 3 shows mean gain scores from test to retest on
three versions of WAIS for different age groups (Wechsler 1997, 2008; Wechsler et al. 2024b).
For the WAIS-III, mean gains on FSIQ were about 4–6 points for young and middle-aged
adults; for the WAIS-IV, those gains were 4.5–5 points; but on the WAIS-5, they dropped
to 3.7 IQ points for ages 16–34 and 35–69. The fact that the practice effect has historically
been smaller for elderly adults than for young and middle-aged adults was maintained
for the WAIS-5, but again the differences across generations are notable. FSIQ gain scores
for the elderly were 3–4 points for both the WAIS-III and WAIS-IV. That number dipped to
2.3 points for the WAIS-5 at ages 70–90.

Table 3. Practice effects on Full Scale IQ, by age (WAIS-III to WAIS-IV to WAIS-5).

Mean Gain Mean Gain Mean Gain Mean Gain

WAIS Version Year
(Younger Age) (Middle Age) (Middle Age) (Older Age)
WAIS-III 16–29 (+5.7) 30–54 (+5.1) 55–74 (+3.9) 75–89 (+3.2)
WAIS-IV 16–29 (+4.6) 30–54 (+4.4) 55–69 (+5.0) 70–90 (+3.9)
WAIS-5 16–34 (+3.7) 35–69 (+3.7) – 70–90 (+2.3)
Note. Data are from WAIS-IV Technical & Interpretive Manual (Wechsler 2008) and from WAIS-5 Technical &
Interpretive Manual (Wechsler et al. 2024b).

Just as the Flynn effect requires careful consideration when diagnosing ID, so too
does the practice effect. Whereas the specific numerical adjustment is quantified for the
Flynn effect (3 points per decade), it is not for the practice effect. Nonetheless, both the
AAIDD diagnostic manual (Schalock et al. 2021) and DSM-5-TR (American Psychiatric
J. Intell. 2024, 12, 118 9 of 13

Association 2022) make it imperative that examiners take practice effects fully into account
when diagnosing ID.
It is common for incarcerated people on death row to have multiple Wechsler’s
scores in their records, often four or more. There are childhood measures (e.g., Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children [WISC]) from special education and juvenile court and WAIS
measures from earlier imprisonments prior to the crime, which resulted in a death sentence.
Sometimes it is the practice effect that holds the clue to a person’s “true IQ”.
Table 4 shows the repeated Wechsler tests administered to a death row incarcerated
individual, Mr. Justin C. (a pseudonym). He was tested seven times between ages 10.5 and
32. He was initially given the WISC-R (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised)
when referred for special education in fourth grade, and was given the same test at ages 11
and 12.5 by juvenile court psychologists. This pattern continued such that when Mr. C. was
arrested in 1997 for murder (for which he received the death penalty), he had been tested
on WISCs five times before achieving his first WAIS. He was on death row for 12 years
when his lawyers appealed his sentencing claiming the “Atkins defense” of ID. He was
administered the WAIS-IV, which had only been out for a year. So, the Flynn effect was
not an issue, and neither was the practice effect because of the 12-year interval since the
previous Wechsler administration.

Table 4. Justin C. sample Flynn effect case.

Test Date Test Justin’s Age Verbal IQ Performance IQ Full Scale IQ

February 1988 WISC-R 10 ½ 73 74 72
November 1988 WISC-R 11 70 86 76
April 1990 WISC-R 12 ½ 81 96 87
March 1992 WISC-III 14 ½ 77 90 81
December 1993 WAIS-IV 16 70 92 80
November 1997 WAIS-IV 20 75 98 85
December 2009 WAIS-IV 32 72 77 73
Note. Data are from WAIS-IV Technical & Interpretive Manual (Wechsler 2008, pp. 73–80) and from WAIS-5
Technical & Interpretive Manual (Wechsler et al. 2024b, pp. 82–86). Low IQ comprise 25 adults diagnosed with
mild intellectual disabilities + 24 with borderline intellectual functioning. Test intervals averaged about 1 month.

Table 3 shows exactly how the practice effect (known as progressive error when
multiple Wechsler scales are administered to the same person) can impinge on accurate
diagnosis. Nonverbal and speeded tasks have a substantially larger practice effect than
verbal tasks. Traditional performance tests are intended to measure fluid reasoning and
visual-spatial problem solving, the types of problems not taught in education. When these
tasks are administered a second time, the novelty is gone, and nonverbal standard scores
are spuriously inflated by 7 to 10 points (verbal tasks go up by 2–3 points); Full Scale IQs
rise by 5–8 points. When a person is tested a third time, a fourth time, and so forth, the
progressive error continues to inflate the person’s nonverbal and global scores.
Mr. C.’s scores over time illustrate these phenomena. His initial Performance IQ of 74
was untainted. But the 86 he earned nine months later was exactly what you would predict
from the practice effect, and the values in the 80s and 90s are vintage progressive errors.
Switching from the WISC to the WAIS at age 20 makes no difference. The practice effect
holds regardless of which Wechsler scale is administered.
Therefore, all Full Scale IQs obtained at ages 11 through 20 (mostly in the 80s) are
spuriously high due to the practice effect and progressive error and are not interpretable.
The FSIQ of 72 at age 10.5 would be adjusted downward into the 60s because of the Flynn
effect (the WISC-R norms were 16 years old when Mr. C. was tested). What is Mr. C.’s true
IQ? This is clearly not a simple question. Can one have confidence that his WAIS-IV IQ of
73 is valid? No, because faking a bad score is always a possibility for a person on death
row. But clearly, practice effects can play a key role in capital punishment cases, no less
than the Flynn effect. In sum, given the recent findings in the WAIS-5 (a strong sample
with counterbalanced design on the gold standard most up to date measure) should be
J. Intell. 2024, 12, 118 10 of 13

considered in light of other findings highlighting the suspected diminishing Flynn effect by
decision-makers involved in the AAIDD and DSM-5-TR for ID diagnosis, and by the courts
for capital punishment cases.

5. Limitations and Future Directions

5.1. Limitations
As noted, the results of the WISC-V vs. WAIS-5 do not generalize to any other age
group except 16-year-olds. We are left with no knowledge of the contemporary Flynn
effect for anyone ages 15 and younger. This limitation is frustrating given the precedent of
prior research on the impact of the Flynn effect in younger populations of adolescents and
children (Platt et al. 2019) and the documented decline of reading and mathematics abilities
across the United States (U.S. Department of Education 2022a). Findings from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicate a stark decline in reading (5-point
drop) and mathematics (7-point drop) scores for 9-year-old children during the COVID-19
pandemic, the largest drop in performance since 1990 (U.S. Department of Education 2022a).
This decline is not new. Decreases in testing scores have been documented for students
before the pandemic, too (U.S. Department of Education 2022b). Prior to the pandemic,
reading scores for 4th grade, 8th grade, and 12th grade students had decreased by 1 point,
3 points, and 2 points from 2015 to 2019, respectively (U.S. Department of Education 2022b).
It is clear that these decreases in performance lead to a future call for research in this area.
Undoubtedly, that future call will be answered by Pearson when the WISC-6 is published
in a few years.
Another limitation is that counterbalanced studies necessarily use that experimental
design to control for the practice effect. That means whichever test is administered second
(whether the older test or the newer test) will have an added bump from the practice effect.
The ultimate mean difference between the old test and the new test is the average of the
mean IQs obtained from each test sequence—e.g., WAIS-IV first—WAIS-5 second and WAIS-
5 first—WAIS-IV second Wechsler et al. (2024b) explain: “For the counterbalanced studies,
means, SDs, and correlation coefficients corrected for range restriction were calculated
separately for the portion of the sample taking each administration sequence and then
averaged. This method prevents repeated administration effects from artificially lowering
the correlation coefficients” (p. 83). The statistical procedure is the correct one for dealing
with the impact of practice effects. But counterbalanced designs, by definition, introduce
unwanted errors into the analyses. A second important limitation of our study is that data
are based on relatively small sample sizes—<200 for one study and <100 for the second
study. These sample sizes are ample for producing results and corresponding implications
with evidence of reliability and validity. But, nonetheless, the Flynn effect is intended to
provide a broad-based comparison of large normative samples (each >2000); and it does
this by analyzing data from much smaller subsamples.

5.2. Future Directions

A natural curiosity given the limitations of the present data set for age includes seeing
if this pattern is observed to stand with younger adolescents and children. With the sixth
edition of the slotted Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-6) for release within the
coming years (it is currently in the pilot testing phase), the examination of these findings in
a more robust sample will be helpful to more fruitfully understand the connection between
adult findings and youth implications. Additionally, as scholars, we are left wondering
about the following: how do these effects hold up on a subtest level? Several researchers
have expressed interest in understanding the shift in IQ to a domain level interpretation as
opposed to a Full Scale measure (Colom et al. 2023).
Additionally, future research on the question of how construct and subtest changes
from the WAIS-IV to the WAIS-5 may have affected the Flynn effect for adults is needed.
These modifications to the Full Scale are an alternative hypothesis that competes with the
J. Intell. 2024, 12, 118 11 of 13

hypothesis that the Flynn effect is in decline. At the very least, these changes may explain a
portion of the apparent decline.
Finally, the authors are curious to understand the “why” of these findings in a modern
lens. Given the resounding research and clinical interest in social media on development
(Haidt 2024), coupled with the impact of a pandemic on a developing brain, the “why”
within a more modern approach to consider the cognitive impact of social media, tech-
nology, and a worldwide pandemic is of interest (Haidt 2024). Finally, this subject will
be of great interest to the AGI development world to understand how changes in human
general intelligence across generations can, and might, impact artificial general intelligence
for bots.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.L.W., S.M.T. and A.S.K.; methodology, A.S.K.; for-
mal analysis, E.L.W., S.M.T. and A.S.K.; writing—original draft preparation, E.L.W., S.M.T. and
A.S.K.; writing—review and editing, E.L.W., S.M.T. and A.S.K.; visualization, S.M.T.; supervision,
A.S.K.; project administration, E.L.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are available in the WAIS-5 Technical and Interpretive Manual
(Wechsler et al. 2024b).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
American Psychiatric Association. 2022. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Text Rev. Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Association. [CrossRef]
Atkins v. Virginia, Volume 536 U.S. 304. 2002.
Bratsberg, Bernt, and Ole Rogeberg. 2018. Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115: 6674–78. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Carroll, John B. 1993. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Colom, Roberto, Luis F. García, Pei Chun Shih, and Francisco J. Abad. 2023. Generational intelligence tests score changes in Spain: Are
we asking the right question? Intelligence 99: 101772. [CrossRef]
Das, Jagannath P., and J. Abbott. 1995. PASS: An alternative approach to intelligence. Psychology and Developing Societies 7: 155–83.
[CrossRef]
Davis, Katie, Joanna Christodoulou, Scott Seider, and Howard Earl Gardner. 2011. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Edited by R. J.
Sternberg and S. B. Kaufman. Cambridge: Handbook of Intelligence, pp. 485–503.
Duncan, John, Rüdiger J. Seitz, Jonathan Kolodny, Daniel Bor, Hans Herzog, Ayesha Ahmed, Fiona N. Newell, and Hazel Emslie. 2000.
A neural basis for general intelligence. Science 289: 457–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dutton, Edward, and Richard Lynn. 2013. A negative Flynn effect in Finland, 1997–2009. Intelligence 41: 817–20. [CrossRef]
Dutton, Edward, van der Dimitri Linden, and Richard Lynn. 2016. The negative Flynn effect: A systematic. literature review. Intelligence
59: 163–69. [CrossRef]
Dworak, Elizabeth M., William Revelle, and David M. Condon. 2023. Looking for Flynn effects in a recent online. U.S. adult sample:
Examining shifts within the SAPA Project. Intelligence 98: 101734. [CrossRef]
Fabian, John M., William W. Thompson, IV, and Jefferey B. Lazarus. 2011. Life, death, and IQ: It’s much more than just a score:
Understanding and utilizing forensic psychological and neuropsychological evaluations in Atkin intellectual disability/mental
retardation cases. Cleveland State Law Review 59: 399–430.
Flanagan, Dawn P., and Erin M. McDonough, eds. 2018. Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues, 4th ed. New
York: Guilford.
Flynn, James R. 1984. The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin 95: 29. [CrossRef]
Flynn, James R. 1987. Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin 101: 171. [CrossRef]
Flynn, James R. 2007. What Is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flynn, James R. 2012. Are We Getting Smarter?: Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flynn, J. R., and L. G. Weiss. 2007. American IQ gains from 1932 to 2002: The WISC subtests and educational progress. International
Journal of Testing 7: 209–24. [CrossRef]
Gardner, Howard. 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
J. Intell. 2024, 12, 118 12 of 13

Haidt, Jonathan. 2024. The Anxious Generation. New York: Penguin Press.
Holden, LaTasha R., and Sara A. Hart. 2021. Intelligence can be used to make a more equitable society but only when properly defined
and applied. Journal of Intelligence 9: 57. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 2004. 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
Jung, Rex E., and Richard J. Haier. 2007. The Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory (P-FIT) of intelligence: Converging neuroimaging
evidence. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30: 135–87. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kanaya, Tomoe, and Ali Magine. 2024. How can the current state of ai guide future conversations of general intelligence? Journal of
Intelligence 12: 36. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kanaya, Tomoe, Matthew H. Scullin, and Stephen J. Ceci. 2003. The Flynn effect and U.S. policies: The impact of rising IQ scores on
American society via mental retardation diagnoses. The American Psychologist 58: 778–90. [CrossRef]
Lichtenberger, Elizabeth O., and Alan S. Kaufman. 2013. Essentials of WAIS-IV Assessment, 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley.
McGrew, Kevin. 2015. Norm obsolescence: The Flynn effect. In The Death Penalty and Intellectual Disability. Edited by E. A. Polloway.
Silver Spring: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, pp. 155–69.
Meisenberg, Gerhard, and Richard Lynn. 2023. Ongoing trends of human intelligence. Intelligence 96: 101708. [CrossRef]
O’Keefe, Patrick, Linda Wänström, and Joseph Lee Rodgers. 2023. Reframing the clouded scientific spectacles of the Flynn effect: A
view through two lenses. Intelligence 97: 101735. [CrossRef]
Pietschnig, Jakob, and Martin Voracek. 2015. One century of global IQ gains: A formal meta-analysis of the Flynn effect (1909–2013).
Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 10: 282–306. [CrossRef]
Platt, Jonathan M., Katherine M. Keyes, Katie A. McLaughlin, and Alan S. Kaufman. 2019. The Flynn effect for fluid IQ may not
generalize to all ages or ability levels: A population-based study of 10,000 U.S. adolescents. Intelligence 77: 101385. [CrossRef]
Qi, Yaquiang, and Yajie Xiong. 2023. Intercohort upsurge of cognitive ability among the general population in China: Evaluating a
Flynn effect. Intelligence 98: 101752. [CrossRef]
Rabin, Laura A., William B. Barr, and Leslie A. Burton. 2005. Assessment practices of clinical neuropsychologists i the United States
and Canada: A survey of INS, NAN, and APA Division 40 members. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 20: 33–65. [CrossRef]
Reynolds, Cecil R., John Niland, John E. Wright, and Michal Rosenn. 2010. Failure to apply the Flynn correction in death penalty
litigation: Standard practice of today maybe, but certainly malpractice of tomorrow. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 28:
477–81. [CrossRef]
Rodgers, Joseph Lee, and Patrick O’Keefe. 2023. A synthetic theory to integrate and explain the causes of the Flynn effect: The parental
executive model. Intelligence 98: 101740. [CrossRef]
Ruggles, Steven, Sarah Flood, Matthew Sobek, Daniel Backman, Annie Chen, Grace Cooper, Stephanie Richards, Renae Rogers, and
Megan Schouweiler. 2023. IPUMS U.S.A. (Version 14.0) [Data Set]. Minneapolis: IPUMS. [CrossRef]
Rundquist, Elizabeth A. 1936. Intelligence test scores and school marks of high school seniors in 1929 and 1933. School and Society 43:
301–4.
Sanborn, Kathryn J., Stephen D. Truscott, LeAdelle Phelps, and James L. McDougal. 2003. Does the Flynn effects differ by IQ level in
samples of students classified as learning disabled? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 21: 145–59. [CrossRef]
Schalock, Robert L., and American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities User’s Guide Workgroup (AAIDDUGW).
2012. User’s Guide: To Accompany the 11th Edition of Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports:
Applications for Clinicians, Educators, Organizations Providing Supports, Policymakers, Family Members and Advocates, and Health Care
Professionals. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
Schalock, Robert L., Ruth Luckasson, and Mark J. Tasse. 2021. Intellectual Disability: Definition, Diagnosis, Classification, and Systems of
Supports, 12th ed. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD).
Schneider, W. Joel, and Kevin S. McGrew. 2018. The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. Contemporary Intellectual
Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues 2018: 73–163.
Shakeel, Danish M., and Paul E. Peterson. 2022. A half century of progress in us student achievement: Agency and Flynn effects, ethnic
and SES differences. Educational Psychology Review 34: 1255–342. [CrossRef]
Sternberg, Robert J. 1984. Toward a triarchic theory of human intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7: 269–287. [CrossRef]
Sternberg, Robert J. 2012. Intelligence. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 14: 19–27. [CrossRef]
Sundet, Jon M., Dag G. Barlaug, and Tore M. Torjussen. 2004. The end of the Flynn effect? A study of secular trends in mean intelligence
test scores of Norwegian conscripts during half a century. Intelligence 32: 349–62. [CrossRef]
Teasdale, Thomas W., and David R. Owen. 2005. A long-term rise and recent decline in intelligence test performance: The Flynn effect
in reverse. Personality and Individual Differences 39: 837–43. [CrossRef]
Teasdale, Thomas W., and David R. Owen. 2008. Secular declines in cognitive test scores: A reversal of the Flynn effect. Intelligence 36:
121–26. [CrossRef]
Trahan, Lisa H., Karla K. Stuebing, Jack M. Fletcher, and Merrill Hiscock. 2014. The Flynn effect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin
140: 1332–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
U.S. Department of Education. 2022a. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2022 Age 9 Long-Term Trend Reading and Mathematics Highlights Report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
J. Intell. 2024, 12, 118 13 of 13

U.S. Department of Education. 2022b. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), Explor Results for the 2022 NAEP Reading Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Wasserman, John D. 2018. A history of intelligence assessment: The unfinished tapestry. In Contemporary Intellectual Assessment, 4th ed.
Edited by D. P. Flanigan and E. M. McDonough. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 3–55.
Wechsler, David. 1949. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, David. 1955. Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, David. 1974. Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). San Antonio: The Psychological
Corporation.
Wechsler, David. 1980. WAIS-R: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, David. 1997. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 3rd ed. Manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, David. 2008. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th ed. Technical and Interpretive Manual. San Antonio: Pearson.
Wechsler, David, Susan E. Raiford, and Katherine Presnell. 2024a. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 5th ed. Administration and Scoring
Manual. San Antonio: Pearson.
Wechsler, David, Susan E. Raiford, and Katherine Presnell. 2024b. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 5th ed. Technical and Interpretive
Manual. San Antonio: Pearson.
Wongupparaj, Peera, Rangsitrat Wongupparaj, Robin G. Morris, and Veena Kumari. 2023. Seventy years, 1000 samples, and 300,000 SPM
scores: A new meta-analysis of Flynn effect patterns. Intelligence 98: 101750. [CrossRef]
Woodley, Michael A. 2012. A life history model of the Lynn–Flynn effect. Personality & Individual Differences 53: 152–56. [CrossRef]
Woodley, Michael A., Mateo Penaherrera-Aguirre, and Matthew A. Sarraf. 2022. Signs of a Flynn effect in rodents? Secular
differentiation of the manifold of general cognitive ability in laboratory mice (Mus musculus) and Norwegian rats (Rattus
norvegicus) over a century—Results from two cross-temporal meta-analyses. Intelligence 95: 101700. [CrossRef]
Wright, Caroline V., Shanon G. Beattie, Daniel I. Galper, Abere S. Church, Lynn F. Bufka, Virginia M. Brabender, and Bruce L. Smith.
2017. Assessment practices of professional psychologists: Results of a national survey. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice
48: 73–78. [CrossRef]
Zhou, X., J. Gregoire, and J. Zhu. 2010. The Flynn effect and the Wechsler scales. In WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation: Scientist-
Practitioner Perspectives, 1st ed. Edited by L. G. Weiss, D. H. Saklofske, D. Coalson and S. E. Raiford. San Antonio: Academic Press,
pp. 141–66.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.