Generally representative is generally representative: comment on Shuttleworth-Edwards

The aim of this paper is to provide comment on Shuttleworth-Edwards' criticism of the general population norms created for the South African adaptation of the WAIS-IV. In her criticism, she states that the norms are not applicable for any groups in South Africa, based on the fact that the norms were not stratified according to quality of education.

A discussion of some of the key issues that impact on the creation of general population norms in the South African context is provided. Demographic characteristics such as education level, quality of education, urban and rural demarcations, and home language are all considered.

While the utility of within-group norms is not denied, the adoption of these without reference to the general population is not advised. To recommend that practitioners simply dispense with the general population norm without evidence that it creates misclassification or does not function effectively for the intended population lacks scientific merit at the current time.

The need for clinical studies and further predictive validity research using the South African adaptation of the WAIS-IV is crucial to demonstrate the continued utility of the test in the South African context. Additional reference groups will improve the amount of comparative information available for clinicians to be able to make better informed decisions for diagnosis, but the general population norms will be an important starting point in this process.