This article presents a review of the "Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition" (WAIS-IV), an individually administered measure of cognitive ability for individuals aged 16 years, 0 months to 90 years, 11 months. The WAIS-IV was designed with a number of specific goals including updated norms, increased user friendliness, improved reliability and validity, as well as stimuli modifications to enhance test administration for both examiner and examinee. The reviewers' examination of the WAIS-IV has been largely positive. User friendliness has increased for examiners, and instructions and items have been modified so as to give examinees an enhanced opportunity to understand the tasks and to respond appropriately. The removal of old subtests and the creation of new subtests appears to be based on solid evidence and has improved validity estimates. The Record Form is well-structured, and highlights the start points and reverse/discontinue rules at the beginning of each subtest. The computer scoring software allows for efficient and straightforward data entry, and quickly created and detailed reports. A great deal of additional information is provided in the "Technical and Interpretive Manual" and the "Canadian Manual" to aid in the interpretation of WAIS-IV examinee profiles. Additionally, a number of review books on the WAIS-IV have been published, aiding examiners in furthering their understanding of this measure. However, there are a number of minor issues which the reviewers would hope to see improved in future versions of the WAIS. Although most of the subtest instructions are appropriate and unambiguous, the addition of practice items and corrective feedback has created some decidedly long-winded instruction sections. There are also a number of situations where the examiner is asked to repeatedly query the examinee (e.g., "Do you have an answer?" on the Figure Weights subtest) which may be more distracting than helpful. The removal of the Object Assembly and Picture Arrangement subtests, while certainly reducing motor demands, has also lessened the opportunity to observe examinees interacting with and physically handling materials. Also, the requirement that the Cancellation subtest be completed from left-to-right and top-to-bottom seems unjustified, as observing how an individual proceeds without explicit instruction may actually provide useful information. Finally, on a number of instances, the example responses for verbal subtest items were spread across the front and back of a single page. Though certainly a small complaint, flipping back and forth to search for responses while the examinee is providing answers is an awkward experience.