The Relationship between Cognitive Processing and Reading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study discusses the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) in assessing cognitive processing. CAS is capable of measuring not only the cognitive ability and process but also of able to determine the deficits in relation with specific reading skills. Therefore, this study aims to examine the relationship of PASS cognitive processes with the reading components of Wide Range Achievement Test-4 (WRAT-4). The CAS and WRAT-4 were administered to a hundred primary standard three Malaysian children but based on American norms. The full scale of CAS mean scores was 98 which is the average level of cognitive processing among the subjects. While the WRAT-4 reading components showed the mean score of overall reading performance was 90 which slightly reach the average level. Correlation analysis revealed that cognitive processes were significantly correlated with overall reading performance with r=0789, p<0.01. Simultaneous and Planning processing had quite strong relationship with the overall reading performance which was r=0.724, p<0.01 and r=0.676, p<0.01 respectively. However, Successive processing had low score of r = 0.393, p < 0.01 for the correlation with reading comprehension. CAS is one of the alternatives in providing such capabilities in measuring cognitive processes that could predict reading deficits and relevant to identify performance on reading-related skills.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".