Examining the relation of Cognitive Assessment System-2: Brief with academic achievement in a sample of Greek-speaking children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Cognitive Assessment System (CAS)-2: Brief was published in 2014 and it is used in applied settings all over the world, we still do not know how well it relates to academic achievement. Thus, this study aimed to examine the relations of CAS-2: Brief with reading and mathematics performance. Two hundred and twenty-two Greek-speaking children in Grade 6 (98 boys, 124 girls, Mage = 135.85 months) were assessed on CAS-2: Brief and on measures of reading (Wordchains and CBM-Maze) and mathematics (Mathematics Achievement Test and Mathematics Reasoning Test). Results of the correlational analysis showed first that the CAS-2: Brief total score correlated moderately with both reading and mathematics tasks (rs ranged from .36 to .53). Second, results of the multilevel analyses revealed that the CAS-2: Brief total score explained 11.4% of unique variance in mathematics and 27.6% of unique variance in reading. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".