Construct Validity of the Das-Naglieri Cognitive

Introduction

The PASS Theory of Intelligence　　The Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) cognitive process-ing model (Das, Naglieri, & Kirby, 1994) can be described as a modern theory of intelligence (Das, 1998). It is based on Luria’s analyses of brain function (Luria, 1966, 1973).　　Luria described human cognitive processes within the framework of three functional units. The function of the ⁄rst unit is cortical arousal and attention; the second unit codes information, using simultaneous and successive processes; the third unit provides for planning, self-monitoring, and structuring of cogni-

—　729　—

Jpn. J. Spec. Educ., 49(6), 729―743, 2012.

Brief Note

Construct Validity of the Das-Naglieri CognitiveAssessment System Japanese Edition:

Tests With Four Age Groups

Takeshi NAKAYAMA ＊, Shinji OKAZAKI ＊＊,

and Hisao MAEKAWA ＊＊

The purpose of the present study was to re-examine the construct validity of the Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System Japanese Edition (CAS-J) with data from the standardization sample for the CAS-J (N ＝1,201), dividing the sample into 4 age groups: 5―7, 8―10, 11―13, and 14―17. Con⁄rmatory factor analyses were conducted to compare 4 models: a 1-factor model, a 2-factor model [(PA) (SS)], a 3-factor model [PA(SS)], and a 4-factor model [PASS]. The results from a χ2 test were the smallest at all 4 age groups on a 4-factor model. Indices suggested that the 4-factor PASS model was best/better ⁄t to the CAS-J standardization data in all 4 age groups. It was concluded that the PASS theory of intelligence was con⁄rmed in the Japanese standardization sample. The ⁄ndings also provided further information about the construct validity of the CAS-J. The present results suggest that the PASS theory of intel-ligence may be a useful model for Japanese children and adolescents.

Key Words: PASS theory of intelligence, Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System Japanese edition (CAS-J), construct validity, con⁄rmatory factor analysis

　　＊　Special Education Center, Fukuoka University of Education　　＊＊　Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Science, University of Tsukuba

tive activities. Luria’s work on the functional aspects of brain structures formed the basis of the PASS theory of intelligence. The PASS theory provides a model for conceptualizing human intellectual competence.　　Planning is a mental process by which an individual determines, selects, applies, and evaluates solutions to problems. The planning process provides the individual with the means to analyze cognitive activity, develop a method for solv-ing a problem, evaluate e‹ectiveness of a solution, and modify the approach used as needed. This process is necessary when an e›cient and/or systematic approach to solving a problem is required. That is, planning processes provide an individual with the facility for determining and utilizing an e›cient way to solve a problem through application of attention, simultaneous, and successive processes in conjunction with the individual’s existing base of knowledge.　　Attention is a mental process by which an individual selectively focuses on particular stimuli. Attention processes require individuals to direct their responses to particular stimuli and suppress reacting to competing stimuli.　　Simultaneous processing is a mental process by which an individual inte-grates separate stimuli into a single whole or group (Luria, 1970). The essence of simultaneous processing is that the individual must interrelate elements of stimuli into a perceptual or conceptual whole.　　Successive processing is a mental process by which an individual integrates stimuli into a speci⁄c serial order that forms a chain-like progression. The distin-guishing quality of successive processing is that each element is related only to those that precede it, and the stimuli are not interrelated. Successive processing has strong serial and syntactic components.　　An important addition to this conceptualization is the individual’s knowl-edge base, which is the context within which all cognitive processes operate. Information is received and processed, and an output is programmed, depend-ing on the individual’s knowledge base. This fund of accumulated knowledge can be thought of as the cumulative result of an individual’s experiences that have been stored in memory. Because all of the processes operate within the context of knowledge, this base of information in¤uences all cognitive processes and motor programs.

The Cognitive Assessment System and the CAS-J　　In 1997, Das and his colleagues (Naglieri & Das, 1997) developed the Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) as an operational measure of the PASS theory of intelligence The Cognitive Assessment System is an individually administered test of cognitive functioning for children and adolescents ranging from 5 through 17 years of age.　　The PASS theory and the Cognitive Assessment System were welcomed by many researchers. Anastasi and Urbina (1997) wrote that the Cognitive Assess-ment System would become an important, as well as innovative, tool for the assessment of cognitive status which, “because of its sound theoretical and empiri-

T. Nakayama, S. Okazaki, & H. Maekawa

—　730　—

cal bases and the careful, large-scale standardization it has undergone, . . . the CAS has been eagerly anticipated by many test users” (p. 233). Kortarsky and Mason (1998) stated that the Cognitive Assessment System has the potential to be a widely used test that is easily administered and scored, so that it should prove to be a useful instrument among clinical and educational professionals in determining special needs of children. Strauss, Sherman, and Spreen (2006) wrote that “the Cognitive Assessment System appears to be a well-designed, psychometrically sound instrument with a large standardization sample and good reliability. The manual is well written, thorough, and comprehensive, and contains detailed information on the psychometric properties of the test” (p. 142). Others who have evaluated the test and the PASS theory share this positive perspective.　　For Japanese children and adolescents, the Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assess-ment System Japanese Edition (CAS-J) was developed by Maekawa, Nakayama, and Okazaki (2007).

Utilization for Exceptional Children　　The Cognitive Assessment System is useful for evaluating clinical cases. The Cognitive Assessment System and PASS theory can be used to identify particular types of exceptional children so as to clarify the nature of these special individu-als (Naglieri, 1999). For example, Naglieri and Das (1997) obtained di‹erent patterns for 2 groups: children with speci⁄c learning disabilities (reading disabili-ties) and children with attention de⁄cit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The chil-dren with ADHD performed least well in Planning, with depressed scores on Attention. The children with speci⁄c learning disabilities had the lowest scores on the measure of Successive processing, and the highest on Simultaneous processing.

Examination of Construct Validity　　In order to examine construct validity of the Cognitive Assessment System, factor analytic studies have frequently been used. Con⁄rmatory factor analyses of the 4 components of the PASS model have been conducted to examine the consistency between the PASS theory and the Cognitive Assessment System subtests. For example, Naglieri and Das (1997) conducted con⁄rmatory and exploratory factor analyses of data from 4 age groups (5―7, 8―10, 11―13, and 14―17 years old), in order to examine the underlying structure of the Cognitive Assessment System. Support for a 4-factor PASS solution was found from a con⁄rmatory factor analysis. A 3-factor (PA)SS solution was obtained from an exploratory factor analysis.　　Maekawa et al. (2007) reported the results of factor analyses of the CAS-J. As with the Cognitive Assessment System, 3-factor and 4-factor solutions were found from analysis of the data from 2 age groups: 5―7 and 8―17 years old. In their research, construct validity was examined using only those 2 age groupings.

Construct Validity of the CAS-J

—　731　—

Factor analyses with the sample divided into 4 age groups were not conducted for the CAS-J. As with the Cognitive Assessment System, further information about construct validity using the more re⁄ned division into 4 age groups is needed.　　The purpose of the present study was to re-examine the construct validity of the CAS-J standardization data, dividing the participants into 4 age groups, and using con⁄rmatory factor analysis.

Method

Participants　　The present study used the CAS-J standardization sample. For that study, the Japan census data from 2000 were utilized to determine the proportion of exami-nees needed to ensure that the standardization sample was appropriately repre-sentative of the age groups in the population as a whole. Three variables were used to select the participants for the standardization sample: age (5 years 0 months through 17 years 11 months), gender (female, male), and region (east Japan, west Japan). Participants in the standardization sample were 1,201 children from 5 to 17 years old. They were divided into the same 4 age subgroups as was done with the Cognitive Assessment System. That is, the 5―7 age group was same as used in the original standardization of the CAS-J; in addi-tion, the original 8―17 age group used for the CAS-J was divided into 3 age groups: 8―10, 11―13, and 14―17 years old. The number of participants in each group is shown in Table 1. The size of the age groups ranged from 258 to 351. Gender di‹erences were not signi⁄cant (χ2

＝1.0, df＝3, p＝0.8).

Instrument　　CAS-J.　Items and stimuli in the subtests of the Cognitive Assessment System were translated into Japanese for use in the CAS-J. Because of a ceiling e‹ect in the pilot study for the Japanese version, some of the ⁄gures in the ⁄gure memory response book were changed so as to be more complex. One-, two-, and three-syllable words were used in the Speech Rate subtest in the Cognitive Assess-


—　732　—

TABLE 1　The CAS-J Standardization Sample by Gender and Age Group

TotalMaleFemaleGenderAge (Years)

3511711805―72581261328―1028814514311―1330415315114―17

1201595606Total

ment System, whereas 2- or-4-mora words were used in the CAS-J, because those words are familiar to Japanese children. Description of the scales and subtests, as well as evidence for the reliability of the individual subtest scores and the PASS Scale scores, are provided in the CAS-J manual (Maekawa et al., 2007). A brief description of the subtests of the CAS-J is given below. The average reliability coe›cients for the PASS scale were: Planning＝.89; Attention＝.87; Simultaneous＝.91; Successive ＝ .90.　　Planning scale.　The Planning scale includes the following subtests: Match-ing Numbers, Planned Codes, and Planned Connections.　　In the Matching Numbers subtest, children are presented with 4 pages containing 8 rows of numbers. The child is instructed to underline the 2 numbers that are the same in each row. The time to do all 4 pages, and the number correct on each page, is recorded; the subtest score is a combination of time and number correct.　　The Planned Codes subtest contains 2 pages, each with a distinct set of codes arranged in 7 rows and 8 columns. At the top of each page is a legend, which indicates how kana syllables are used in a simple code (e.g., あ＝ OX; い＝XX; う＝OO). The child is instructed to ⁄ll in the correct code beneath each corresponding kana syllable.　　The Planned Connections subtest contains 8 items. The ⁄rst 6 items require the child to connect numbers appearing in a quasi-random order on a page in sequential order. The last 2 items require the child to connect both numbers and kana syllables in sequential order, alternating between numbers and kana syllables (for example, 1―あ―2―い―3―う ). The items are constructed so that the lines in the sequences never cross over one another. The score is based on the total amount of time needed to complete all 8 items.　　Attention scale.　The Attention scale includes the following subtests: Expres-sive Attention, Number Detection, and Receptive Attention.　　For the Expressive Attention subtest, children 8 years and older are given 3 pages to complete. For the ⁄rst page, the child reads color words (i.e., blue, yellow, green, and red), that are written in a quasi-random order. On the second page, the child is instructed to name 3 of the colors in which a series of rectan-gles are printed (using in the aforementioned colors). On the third page, the color words are printed in a di‹erent color ink than the color that the words name (e.g., the word Red is printed in blue ink). The subtest score is calculated from time to complete the subtest and number correct.　　The Number Detection subtest asks the child to locate a target stimulus (e.g., the numbers 1, 2, and 3 printed in an open font) among many distractors (e.g., the same numbers printed in a di‹erent font). The subtest score is the ratio of accuracy (total number correct minus the number of false detections) to total time taken to complete all items.　　The Receptive Attention subtest is a 2-page paper-and-pencil test. On the ⁄rst page, the targets are those syllables that are physically the same (e.g., ああ,


—　733　—

and not あア), but on the second page, the targets are those syllables that have the same pronunciation (e.g., あア , and notいア). The subtest score is the ratio of accuracy (total number correct minus the number of false detections) to total time taken to complete all items.　　Simultaneous scale.　The Simultaneous scale includes the following subtests: Nonverbal Matrices, Verbal Spatial Relations, and Figure Memory subtests.　　Items on the Nonverbal Matrices subtest (33 items in the Japanese edition) are a variety of shapes and geometric designs interrelated through spatial or logical organization. For each item, the child is required to decode the relation, and choose the best of 6 possible answers in order to complete the grid. The subtest score is the total number correct.　　The Verbal Spatial Relations subtest (27 items in the Japanese edition) meas-ures the child’s comprehension of logical and grammatical descriptions of spatial relationships. In this subtest, the child is shown 6 drawings, arranged in a speci⁄c spatial manner, and a printed question. The child is instructed to choose the one drawing that is the best answer to each question, within a 30-s time limit. The subtest score is the total number of items answered correctly.　　For the Figure Memory subtest (27 items in the Japanese edition), the child is shown a 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional geometric ⁄gure for 5 s. The ⁄gure is then removed, and the child is presented with a response page that contains the original ⁄gure embedded in a larger, more complex geometric pattern. The child is asked to locate the original ⁄gure within the more complex ⁄gure. The score re¤ects the total number of correct items.　　Successive scale.　The Successive scale includes the following subtests: Word Series, Sentence Repetition, Speech Rate, and Sentence Questions.　　In the Word Series subtest (28 items in the Japanese edition), the examiner reads the child a series of words and then asks the child to repeat the words in the same order. This subtest uses 9 two-syllable high-frequency words. The presen-tation rate is 1 word per second. The subtest score is the total number of word series correctly repeated.　　For the Sentence Repetition subtest (20 items in the Japanese edition), sentences are read aloud to the child, and the child is asked to repeat each sentence exactly as presented. The sentences are composed of color words (e.g., “The blue yellows the green”), which reduces the in¤uence of simultaneous proc-essing and removes semantic meaning from the sentences. The subtest score is the total number of sentences repeated correctly.　　The Speech Rate subtest is timed, and is comprised of 8 items. The child is read a 3-word series and told to keep repeating the series until the examiner says to stop. The child is instructed to repeat the high imagery word series in order, 10 times in succession. The word length ranged from 2 to 4 syllables. The exam-iner begins timing when the child says the ⁄rst word in the series, and stops timing when the child ⁄nishes repeating the last word of the tenth repetition.　　The Sentence Questions subtest (21 items in the Japanese edition) uses the


—　734　—

same type of sentences as those in the Sentence Repetition subtest. The child is read a sentence and then is asked a question about it. For example, the exam-iner says, “The blue is yellowing”, and asks the following question: “Who is yellow-ing?” The correct answer is “The blue”. The subtest score is the total number of questions answered correctly.

Procedure　　The CAS-J was administered individually to each child in the sample by examiners who had been trained by the authors of the Japanese edition.

Data Analyses　　Correlations among the Cognitive Assessment System subtest scores were computed with the e‹ects of age removed for the 4 age groups. This partial correlation matrix was then subjected to con⁄rmatory factor analysis. The con⁄rmatory factor analyses were conducted by the maximum-likelihood method using the AMOS software package (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1995). This program was also used to examine structural relationships among the variables speci⁄ed by the model and to provide a test of the goodness of ⁄t of the overall model to the data.　　The comparative ⁄t of the 4 di‹erent models was evaluated for each of the 4 age groups. The 4 models examined include (a) a 1-factor model, in which all subtests comprise one factor. This model represent the general “g” factor of intel-ligence; (b) a 2-factor model, in which the Planning and Attention subtests comprise one factor, and the Simultaneous and Successive subtests a second factor. This model is symbolized as (PA) (SS); (c) a 3-factor model in which the Planning and Attention subtests comprise one factor, the Simultaneous subtests a second factor, and the Successive subtests a third factor. This model is symbol-ized as (PA)SS; and (d) the 4-factor PASS model. (See Fig. 1.)

Results

Raw Scores　　Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations of the raw scores on the CAS-J subtests for the 4 age groups in the standardization sample.　　Most of subtest means increased with age. However, the means on the Planned Connections subtest decreased with age from the 8- to 10-year-olds to the 14- to 17-year-olds because the raw score was total amount of time. The older subject, the faster the participant could do this subtest.　　For the Planned Connections subtest, the children 5 to 7 years of age were administered items 1 through 5, whereas the 8- to 17-year-old children were administered items 4 through 8. That is why the mean of the 5- to 7-year-old group on this subtest was the smallest of the 4 age groups on that subtest.


—　735　—


—　736　—

FIG. 1　Four Models Tested by Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Note.　DN-CAS＝Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System; [PA][SS]＝the 2-factor model, in which the Planning and Attention subtests comprise one factor, and the Simultaneous and Successive subtests a second factor; [PA]SS＝the 3-factor model, in which the Planning and Attention subtests comprise one factor, the Simultaneous subtests a second factor, and the Successive subtests a third factor; PASS＝the 4-factor cognitive processing model, in which the factors are Planning, Attention, Simulta-neous, and Successive.

Factor Analyses　　The results of separate con⁄rmatory analyses for the 4 age groups for each of the 4 models are shown in Table 3. Table 3 presents the results of the analyses in relation to the size of the χ2 value (largest to smallest).　　The χ2 values were the highest for the one-factor model, and the lowest for the 4-factor PASS model for the 4 age groups. The χ2 value for the 4-factor PASS model was signi⁄cantly better than the next best model for the 8―10 and 11―13 age groups. But the 4-factor PASS model was not signi⁄cantly better than the next best model for the 5―7 and 14―17 age groups.　　The values of the adjusted goodness-of-⁄t indices were lowest for the one-factor model for all 4 age groups. For the 8- to 10-year olds, the values of the adjusted goodness-of-⁄t indices were the highest for the 4-factor PASS model. For the other three age groups, the values of the adjusted goodness-of-⁄t indices were the highest for the 3-factor (PA)SS model.　　The root mean squared residual values were the highest for the one-factor model, and the lowest for the 4-factor model for all 4 age groups. For the 5―7 and 8―10 age groups, the root mean squared residual values were the same for the 3-factor (PA)SS model and the 4-factor PASS model.　　The Tucker-Lewis index values were highest for the 4-factor PASS model for the children in the 5―7, 8―10, and 11―13 age groups. For the 14―17 age group, the Tucker-Lewis index values were highest for the 3-factor (PA)SS model. For the 5―7 age group, the Tucker-Lewis index values were the same for the 3 factor (PA)SS model and the 4-factor PASS model.


—　737　—

TABLE 2　CAS-J Subtest Mean Raw Scores and SDs for the 4 Age Groups in the Standardization Sample

Total (5―17) 　　14―17　　　　11―13　　　　　8―10　　　　5―7　　Age Group

SDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMean

Subtest5.3112.594.3717.443.9114.413.649.683.979.04　Matching Numbers

37.1259.3828.1498.0824.5375.3119.3447.9313.9521.08　Planned Codes67.67143.6342.33123.0245.19145.5870.90210.7563.02110.45　Planned Connections21.9256.3520.2775.0817.3964.5315.3346.0714.0941.04　Expressive Attention25.2954.1018.1578.9514.9566.8613.7246.4513.4127.82　Number Detection14.9843.7911.3058.7410.1749.659.9035.489.7232.20　Receptive Attention

6.3416.904.6821.474.6319.754.7317.004.4110.53　Nonverbal Matrices5.0615.634.5119.654.0417.723.3114.922.9610.96　Verbal-Spatial Relations6.2715.153.7420.923.8318.693.9514.132.858.03　Figure Memory3.3610.593.1712.652.8511.712.6310.502.577.95　Word Series2.276.142.017.581.986.831.906.071.734.38　Sentence Repetition――――――――32.59158.18　Speech Rate3.6110.893.2912.323.3010.973.539.12――　Sentence Questions

　Note.　SD＝standard deviation.

Factor Loading　　The results shown in Table 3 suggest that the incremental χ2 ⁄t statistics provide support for the 4-factor PASS con⁄guration of subtests in the CAS-J. The maximum-likelihood factor loadings from the con⁄rmatory factor analyses for the 4-factor PASS model for the 4 age groups are presented in Table 4. All the values were higher than 0.400. These results indicate that the subtests demon-strated appropriate loadings on the factors to which they were assigned.


—　738　—

TABLE 3　Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Con⁄rmatory Factor Analyses of the Data from the 4 Age Groups for Each of the 4 Models

ImprovementGoodness of Fit Index

TLIDFχ2RMSRAGFIχ2/DFDFχ2Model

Ages 5―7―――.099.7796.0954328.64＊＊　One Factor

0.901175.95＊＊.072.8922.8853152.69＊＊　(PA) (SS)0.96264.50＊＊.054.9381.735188.19＊＊　(PA)SS0.9631.22 　　.054.9351.814886.97＊＊　PASS

Ages 8―10―――.092.7365.4154291.90＊＊　One Factor

0.8411119.24＊＊.069.8433.2653172.65＊＊　(PA) (SS)0.913258.90＊＊.057.8962.2351113.75＊＊　(PA)SS0.921311.61＊＊.057.8982.1348102.14＊＊　PASS

Ages 11―13―――.100.7246.2354336.33＊＊　One Factor

0.81143.64＊＊.078.8473.6453192.69＊＊　(PA) (SS)0.892269.07＊＊.059.9022.4251123.62＊＊　(PA)SS0.89438.32＊　.057.9012.4048115.31＊＊　PASS

Ages 14―17―――.102.6956.3254341.24＊＊　One Factor

0.9061214.61＊＊.056.8982.3953126.63＊＊　(PA) (SS)0.946235.10＊＊.050.9271.795191.53＊＊　(PA)SS0.9433　2.77.049.9241.854888.76＊＊　PASS

Note.　DF＝degrees of freedom; AGFI＝adjusted goodness-of-⁄t indices; RMSR＝root mean squared residual values; TLI＝Tucker-Lewis index values; (PA) (SS)＝the 2-factor model, in which the Planning and Attention subtests comprise one factor, and the Simultaneous and Successive subtests a second factor; (PA)SS＝the 3-factor model, in which the Planning and Attention subtests comprise one factor, the Simultaneous subtests a second factor, and the Succes-sive subtests a third factor; PASS＝the 4-factor cognitive processing model, in which the factors are Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive.

＊p ＜.05; ＊＊p ＜.01.

Discussion

Examination of the One-factor Model　　All the indices showed that the one-factor model was the worst ⁄t to the CAS-J standardization data. This result suggests that the general “g” factor of intelligence is not a su›cient approach to cognitive function. The theory of the g factor of intelligence is that intelligence is a general mental ability, that is, that there is a common trait of intelligence that runs across much of a person’s behav-ior (Das, 1998). The present results support Das and Dash’s (1983) hierarchical factor analysis study, which showed that a one-factor general ability approach to a planning, simultaneous, successive test battery was not su›cient.　　The failure to ⁄nd support for a single factor model of intelligence contrasts with the approach advocated by Jensen (1980, 1986), who stated that for scienti⁄c purposes, it is probably best to identify the concept of intelligence with “g”. While some may argue that the concept of g can be useful in a global sense, the examination of human cognitive processes will be more completely accom-plished through the use of a multiple-process conceptualization, which the present authors suggest explains human functioning more completely than the one-factor model (Naglieri, Das, Stevens, & Ledbetter, 1991).


—　739　—

TABLE 4　Maximum-likelihood Factor Loadings from the Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the 4 Age Groups

Age GroupSubtests

14―1711―138―105―7

Planning.645.628.685.790　Matching Numbers.623.557.625.694　Planned Codes.687.651.654.685　Planned Connections

Attention.401.566.526.521　Expressive Attention.661.718.728.780　Number Detection.768.681.836.769　Receptive Attention

Simultaneous.532.556.607.790　Nonverbal Matrices.761.677.694.694　Verbal-Spatial Relations.612.604.661.685　Figure Memory

Successive.742.764.709.775　Word Series.742.770.806.727　Sentence Repetition―――.514　Speech Rate

.610.616.578―　Sentence Questions

Comparison to the Original Analysis of the CAS-J　　The χ2 values in the present study were smaller than those reported for the original analysis of the CAS-J. The χ2 values were smaller for the 8―10, 11―13, and 14―17 age groups in the present study than for the broader 8―17 age group used in the original analysis of the CAS-J. This suggests that the distance is small between the model and the data.　　These results indicate that in the present study, additional information was obtained about the construct validity of the CAS-J.

Comparison to the Cognitive Assessment System　　The χ2 values in the present study were smaller than those obtained from an analysis of the Cognitive Assessment System for the 5―7, 8―10, and 14―17 age groups. In contrast, the χ2 value for the 11―13 age group was larger than that obtained in the analysis of the Cognitive Assessment System.　　The χ2 values for the 4-factor PASS model for the 5―7, 8―10, and 14―17 age groups were 86.97, 102.14, and 88.76 respectively on the CAS-J, in contrast with 155.34, 105.12, and 135.46 on the Cognitive Assessment System. Only the χ2 value for the 11―13 age group was larger for the CAS-J than for the Cognitive Assessment System. The χ2 valueon the CAS-J was 115.31 (PASS model), in contrast with 87.95 on the Cognitive Assessment System. Compared with the Cognitive Assessment System, the distance between the model and data was small for 3 of the 4 age groups on the CAS-J.　　Nakayama (2006) investigated the PASS model using the Cognitive Assess-ment System, which, for that study, was simply translated into Japanese. Subjects, 214 Japanese children ranging in age from 5 years to 12 years old, were divided into 2 age groups, 5―7 and 8―17. The results of a con⁄rmatory factor analysis showed that the χ2 value of the PASS model was the smallest of several models. The χ2 values for the 5―7 and 8―17 age groups were 72.17 and 51.22, respectively. These values are smaller than those from the Cognitive Assessment System, the CAS-J, and the present study. Consequently, these results suggest that the PASS model of intelligence is useful for Japanese children and youth.

Results of the Factor Analyses　　At all 4 age groups on the CAS-J, the results of the χ2 values and the root mean squared residual values suggest that the 4-factor PASS model is the best ⁄t to the data. The present results support Das, Kirby, and Jarman (1975) and Naglieri and Das (1988, 1990), who have stated that the planning, attention, simultaneous, successive processing model described by Luria is a potentially valu-able approach to operationalizing the assessment of human cognitive functioning. The PASS model provided a better ⁄t to the data than the other models tested in the present study. The present results suggest that the PASS model provides the best conceptualization of the interrelations underlying the subtests included in the CAS-J. Using a various criteria to evaluate the model’s


—　740　—

goodness of ⁄t, the PASS model was found to provide a good ⁄t at all 4 age groups. Relative comparisons of the 4 models also indicated that the PASS model was a signi⁄cant improvement over its nearest rival.　　At some age groups on the CAS-J, the adjusted goodness-of-⁄t indices and the Tucker-Lewis index values suggest that the 3-factor (PA)SS model was the best ⁄t, and the 4-factor PASS model, the next best ⁄t to the data. The distinc-tion between the 3- and 4-factor solution centered primarily on the question of combining the focus of earlier scholarly debates with experimental versions of the tests designed according to the PASS theory (Kranzler & Weng, 1995a, 1995b; Naglieri & Das, 1995). The decision to derive separate Planning and Attention scales was based on theoretical, empirical, and clinical grounds.　　Theorists in the ⁄elds of cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and neuropsychology have recognized that planning and attention are interre-lated and distinct constructs (Lyon & Krasnegor, 1996). Separate contributions for planning and attention have appeared in a number of models of integrated cognitive processing. For example, Luria (1973) di‹erentiated between the ⁄rst functional unit responsible for cortical tone and specialized forms of activation or of directed selective attention and the third functional unit, which deals with the creation of plans of action, self-regulation, and veri⁄cation of activity.　　Stuss and Benson (1986) conceptualized function as a set of top-down, hier-archically organized mental processes, with planning at the top and attention at the bottom. Barkley (1996) contended that behavioral disinhibition plays the central and primary role in attention-de⁄cit/ hyperactivity disorders, including a role that is critically related to planning. Puhan, Das, and Naglieri (2005), in a discussion of the possibility of separating planning and attention, showed evidence apart from factor analyses that there are many more reasons for regard-ing planning and attention as distinct but interdependent processes.　　To summarize, planning and attention have been described as separate but interwoven processes, and the Cognitive Assessment System results mirror this complex relationship (Naglieri & Das, 1997).　　The CAS-J is the ⁄rst psychological test for Japanese that is based on the PASS theory of intelligence. Although Maekawa et al. (2007)’s research exam-ined the construct validity of the CAS-J, the results of present study provide further information about the construct validity of the PASS theory of intelli-gence for Japanese.

Acknowledgments

　　Drs. J. P. Das and J.A. Naglieri gave us some suggestions and comments on writing this article. We acknowledge this, and thank them for their great help.


—　741　—

References

Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1997) Psychological testing (7th ed.). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Arbuckle, J. L. & Wothke, W. (1995) AMOS 4.0. Small Waters Corporation, Chicago, Illinois.

Barkley, R. A. (1996) Attention-de⁄cit/hyperactivity disorder. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology. Guilford Press, New York, 63―112.

Das, J. P. (1998) The working mind: An introduction to psychology. Sage, New Delhi.Das, J. P. & Dash, U. N. (1983) Hierarchical factor solution of coding and planning

processes: Any new insights? Intelligence, 7, 27―37.Das, J. J., Kirby, J., & Jarman, R. F. (1975) Simultaneous and successive synthesis: An

alternative model for cognitive abilities. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 87―103.Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994) Assessment of cognitive processes: The PASS

theory of intelligence. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts.Jensen, A. R. (1980) Bias in mental testing. Free Press, New York.Jensen, A. R. (1986) g: Artifact or reality? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 301―331.Kotarsky, D. & Mason, E. (1998) A review of the cognitive assessment system. Insight,

4―5.Kranzler, J. H. & Weng, L.-J. (1995a) Factor structure of the PASS cognitive tasks: A

reexamination of Naglieri et al. (1991). Journal of School Psychology, 33, 143―157.Kranzler, J. H. & Weng, L.-J. (1995b) Reply to the commentary by Naglieri and Das on

the factor structure of a battery of PASS cognitive tasks. Journal of School Psychology, 33, 169―176.

Luria, A. R. (1966) Human brain and psychological processes. Harper & Row, New York.Luria, A. R. (1970) The functional organization of the brain. ScientiŒc American,

222(3), 66―78.Luria, A. R. (1973) The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology. Basic Books,

New York.Lyon, G. R. & Krasnegor, N. A. (Eds.) (1996) Attention, memory, and executive functions.

Paul H. Brookes, Baltimore, Maryland.Maekawa, H., Nakayama, T., & Okazaki, S. (2007) The Das-Naglieri cognitive assessment

system: Japanese edition. Nihon Bunka Kagakusha, Tokyo. (in Japanese)Naglieri, J. A. (1999) Essentials of CAS assessment. Wiley, New York.Naglieri, J. A. & Das, J. P. (1988) Planning-arousal-simultaneous-successive (PASS): A

model for assessment. Journal of School Psychology, 26, 35―48.Naglieri, J. A. & Das, J. P. (1990) Planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive

cognitive processes as a model for intelligence. Journal of Psychoeducational Assess-ment, 8, 303―337.

Naglieri, J. A. & Das, J. P. (1995) A reply to Kranzler and Weng’s shooting in the dark. Journal of School Psychology, 33, 159―167.

Naglieri, J. A. & Das, J. P. (1997) Cognitive assessment system. Riverside Publishing, Itasca, Illinois.

Naglieri, J. A., Das, J. P., Stevens, J. J., & Ledbetter, M. F. (1991) Con⁄rmatory factor analysis of planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive cognitive processing


—　742　—

tasks. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 1―17.Nakayama, T. (2006) The PASS theory of intelligence and Das-Naglieri cognitive assess-

ment system in a Japanese elementary school and kindergarten sample. Annual Report of the Research and Clinical Center for Children with Disabilities, 19, 49―63. (in Japanese)

Puhan, G., Das, J. P., & Naglieri, J. A. (2005) Separating planning and attention: Evidential and consequential validity. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 20(1/2), 75―83.

Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006) A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary. Oxford University Press, New York.

Stuss, D. T. & Benson, D. F. (1986) The frontal lobes. Raven Press, New York.

―Received June 7, 2011; Accepted December 10, 2011―


—　743　—

Documents

Construct Validity of the Das-Naglieri Cognitive