MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999889531 · doi:10.2147/prbm.s5074

A review and empirical study of the composite scales of the Das–Naglieri cognitive assessment system

2009· review· en· W1999889531 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology Research and Behavior Management · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionNeuropsychologyNeuroimagingFunctional neuroimagingCognitive psychologyPrefrontal cortexNeuroscienceDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review and empirical study of the composite scales of the Das–Naglieri cognitive assessment system Simon M McCreaJP Das Developmental Disabilities Center, Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaAbstract: Alexander Luria’s model of the working brain consisting of three functional units was formulated through the examination of hundreds of focal brain-injury patients. Several psychometric instruments based on Luria’s syndrome analysis and accompanying qualitative tasks have been developed since the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, JP Das and colleagues defined a specific cognitive processes model based directly on Luria’s two coding units termed simultaneous and successive by studying diverse cross-cultural, ability, and socioeconomic strata. The cognitive assessment system is based on the PASS model of cognitive processes and consists of four composite scales of Planning–Attention–Simultaneous–Successive (PASS) devised by Naglieri and Das in 1997. Das and colleagues developed the two new scales of planning and attention to more closely model Luria’s theory of higher cortical functions. In this paper a theoretical review of Luria’s theory, Das and colleagues elaboration of Luria’s model, and the neural correlates of PASS composite scales based on extant studies is summarized. A brief empirical study of the neuropsychological specifi city of the PASS composite scales in a sample of 33 focal cortical stroke patients using cluster analysis is then discussed. Planning and simultaneous were sensitive to right hemisphere lesions. These findings were integrated with recent functional neuroimaging studies of PASS scales. In sum it was found that simultaneous is strongly dependent on dual bilateral occipitoparietal interhemispheric coordination whereas successive demonstrated left frontotemporal specificity with some evidence of interhemispheric coordination across the prefrontal cortex. Hence, support for the validity of the PASS composite scales was found as well as for the axiom of the independence of code content from code type originally specified in 1994 by Das, Naglieri, and Kirby.Keywords: stroke, focal cortical lesions, Alexander Luria, syndrome analysis, Planning–Attention–Simultaneous–Successive (PASS), cognitive assessment system, hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis, specificity

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.549
GPT teacher head0.623
Teacher spread0.073 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it