A review and empirical study of the composite scales of the Das–Naglieri cognitive assessment system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 specificity 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.
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 | 0.021 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".