Cognitive Assessment System - Criticisms

Criticisms

The CAS meets at least two challenges, first in terms of its factor-analytic purity (Naglieri & Das,1997 Interpretive handbook), and second in extending its scope by supplementary tests, especially for assessment of Executive Functions.

The validity of CAS comprising the 4 PASS constructs is adequately supported by several books and studies (Das, Naglieri, & Kirby, 1994; Das, Kar & Parilla, 1996; Das, 2009). The CAS Interpretive Handbook, (Naglieri and Das, 1997) reported information about the factor structure of the CAS providing evidence that the PASS four-factor solution was the best solution based on the convergence of factor-analytic results, clinical utility of the four separate scores, evidence of strategy use and theoretical interpretation of the subtests.

Keith and Kranzler (1999) challenged this position and argued that there was insufficient support. Naglieri (1999 B) and Puhan, Das & Naglieri (2005) responded with reasonable evidence and rational arguments in defense of the structure of the test and the validity of the 4-factor CAS. However, the issue has not yet been resolved as yet.

Additionally, the importance of using factor-analysis in support of theories of intelligence has not been supported by major contemporary theories of intelligence such as those advanced by Gardner, Robert Sternberg, Das (2004) or even by Jensen (2006) in his chronometric approach to general intelligence, Clocking the Mind. An insistence on factor analytic confirmation may even be a hindrance to the desirable goal of closing the gap between psychology and the business of intelligence test development. The challenge for CAS is to extend itself into new areas of cognitive importance such as Executive Functions, and evaluation of neuropsychological impairments in an aging population. Curiously enough, few if any of the existing assessment instruments for these areas have emphasized the necessity of factor analysis.

Insofar as constructive criticism goes, supplementary tests are necessary for extending the application of CAS. To begin with existing tests, the Successive subtests should have a nonverbal measure, such as Luria’s test that asks participants to continue a series “+++__ __+++__ __+++__ __......”, or a motor response of tapping to dot sequences such as “… .. … .. … … .. ” as given in Das, Kirby & Jarman (1979).

Similarly, Attention subtests should include both a continuous performance test, and a more cognitively loaded vigilance test (Das, Naglieri & Kirby,1994). In regard to Executive Functions, one would notice that elements of it are already included in CAS : Expressive attention (Stroop) = inhibition of response; Planned Connection (Trails) = shifting. But the existing Planning scale must be supplemented by tests of complex planning (Das,Kar & Parrila,1996), and so-called ‘hot’ tests that involve affective decision making, such as the predicament test (Channon, 2004).

In conclusion, the CAS will increase its reach as a system for assessment of intelligence in keeping up with advances in psychological and neurological foundations of cognitive functions. Thus it may follow Cronbach’s (1975) advice for closing the gap between psychology and intelligence testing.