Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive Research Articles

Information Processing and Creative Thinking Abilities of Residential and Non-Residential School Children

This study attempts to assess and compare the residential and non-residential schoolchildren in information-processing skills and creative thinking abilities. A sample of 80 children from Classes 5 and 7 were selected from two types of schools, residential/ashram (02) and non-residential/formal schools (02) in Bolpur subdivision of West Bengal in India where the medium of instruction is Bengali language/mother-tongue. All the children were individually administered the PASS (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive), Stroop, Matching Familiar Figure Test (MFFT-20), and creative thinking tasks. The residential school children were found to perform better both in information processing and creative thinking tasks. The developmental trend could not be clearly observed due to small sample size, but with increasing age, children were using better processing strategies. Due to ashram environment, creative pedagogy, and various co-curricular activities, the residential school children were found to be more creative than their formal school counterparts. Moreover, some significant positive correlations were found among information processing skills and creative thinking dimensions.

Cognitive Processes in ADHD and Asperger’s Disorder: Overlaps and Differences in PASS Profiles

Objective: Many studies report on the usefulness of the evaluation of Executive Functions (EF) in the assessment of participants with ADHD, while others underline how deficits of EF in these participants are not consistent and that the same executive deficits are present in many other disorders, particularly in Asperger’s disorder. Using the Planning Attention Simultaneous Successive (PASS) theory, the present study explores the cognitive profiles of participants with ADHD or Asperger’s disorder and compares the cognitive functioning of these two diagnostic groups. Method: Forty-four children, 24 with a diagnosis of ADHD and 20 with a diagnosis of Asperger’s disorder, participated and their cognitive processes were evaluated with the Cognitive Assessment System. Results: Results underline specific cognitive profiles in ADHD and Asperger’s disorder characterized by weaknesses in planning and attention, but with a diverse level of severity. Conclusion: Implications of the different cognitive profiles of these diagnostic groups are discussed.

A Cognitive Strategy Instruction to Improve Math Calculation for Children With ADHD and LD: A Randomized Controlled Study

The authors examined the effectiveness of cognitive strategy instruction based on PASS (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive) given by special education teachers to students with ADHD randomly assigned by classroom. Students in the experimental group were exposed to a brief cognitive strategy instruction for 10 days, which was designed to encourage development and application of effective planning for mathematical computation, whereas the comparison group received-standard math instruction. Standardized tests of cognitive processes and math achievement were given at pretest. All students completed math worksheets throughout the experimental phase. Standardized achievement tests (Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition, Math Fluency and Wechsler Individualized Achievement Test, Second Edition, Numerical Operations) were administered pre- and postintervention, and Math Fluency was also administered at 1 year follow-up. Large pre—post effect sizes were found for students in the experimental group but not the comparison group on math worksheets (0.85 and 0.26), Math Fluency (1.17 and 0.09), and Numerical Operations (0.40 and —0.14, respectively). At 1 year follow-up, the experimental group continued to outperform the comparison group. These findings suggest that students with ADHD evidenced greater improvement in math worksheets, far transfer to standardized tests of math (which measured the skill of generalizing learned strategies to other similar tasks), and continued advantage 1 year later when provided the PASS-based cognitive strategy instruction.

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

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.

The school neuropsychology of ADHD: Theory, assessment, and intervention

AbstractAlthough the five‐part diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM‐IV‐TR) for attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are behavioral and descriptive in nature, this condition has increasingly been defined as a disorder resulting from impaired behavioral inhibition leading to executive function deficits. Recent research, particularly involving the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) theory offers an understanding of the intellectual and neuropsychological processes implicated in ADHD. We provide an overview of ADHD as a neuropsychological condition; reviews of research on the PASS theory, which provide a process‐based understanding of ADHD; and recommendations for assessment and intervention. The research base summarized here provides support that ADHD have a distinctive profile of PASS processes that is consistent with the cognitive nature of their disorder and that researchers have shown increased academic performance when children are taught to better use planning processes when completing academic tasks. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Bilingual Hispanic children's performance on the English and Spanish versions of the Cognitive Assessment System.

This study compared the performance of referred bilingual Hispanic children on the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) theory as measured by English and Spanish versions of the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS; Naglieri & Das, 1997a). The results suggest that students scored similarly on both English and Spanish versions of the CAS. Within each version of the CAS, the bilingual children earned their lowest scores in Successive processing regardless of the language used during test administration. Small mean differences were noted between the means of the English and Spanish versions for the Simultaneous and Successive processing scales; however, mean Full Scale scores were similar. Specific subtests within the Simultaneous and Successive scales were found to contribute to the differences between the English and Spanish versions of the CAS. Comparisons of the children’s profiles of cognitive weakness on both versions of the CAS showed that these children performed consistently despite the language difference.

Review of Contemporary Intellectual Assessment, Theories, Tests and Issues, Second Edition.

DAWN P. FLANAGAN and PATTI L. HARRISON (Eds.) Contemporary Intellectual Assessment, Theories, Tests and Issues, Second Edition New York: Guilford Publications, 2005, 657 pages (ISBN 1-59385-125-1, US$70.00 Hardcover) The three primary objectives of this book are: 1) to present in-depth descriptions of prominent theories of intelligence, tests of cognitive abilities, and issues related to use of intelligence tests with special populations; 2) to provide important information about validity of contemporary intelligence tests; and 3) to demonstrate utility of a well-validated theoretical foundation for developing intelligence tests and interpretive approaches, and for guiding research and practice. This is a heady agenda. This Second Edition updates work begun in First Edition that addressed advances in cognitive science since early days of intelligence testing. The authors write that a second edition is needed because of tremendous growth in intelligence theory and measurement of cognitive constructs since 1997 (p. xi). Psychometric theory and tests have evolved to test human abilities identified by cognitive science. Practitioners now are challenged to align their assessment practices to these new theories by using new tests and interpretation guidelines. This edited volume provides 29 chapters by prominent historians, theorists, test developers, and assessment leaders in intelligence testing and school psychology. The first objective is met, to a fault. Part 1 provides two chapters tracing historical and theoretical origins of intellectual assessment and interpretation. These chapters specify paradigm shift: Once a psychologist knows these theories, which are marked by various similarities, he or she can interpret most modern intelligence tests with confidence (p. 34). Here we learn that intelligence tests seek to measure similar core constructs, they increasingly resemble commodities (p. 34). The implications for practitioners are far reaching. However, history of early development of intelligence tests gets repeated across remaining chapters, bogging book down in repetition, and detracting from authors' ultimate goal of providing professionals with knowledge necessary to use latest intelligence batteries effectively. The chapters of Part II present theories of intelligence outlining nature of human cognitive abilities as they are currently understood. Chapters include Horn's Three-Stratum Theory of Cognitive Abilities; Gardner's Multiple-Intelligences Theory; Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of Successive Intelligence; Nagleri and Das' Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) Theory; and McGrew's interpretation of Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities. These theories drive new models for test developments, providing alternative to long-established clinical model underlying intelligence tests. Part III, new to Second Edition, provides some of most informative chapters, which challenge conventional thinking in intelligence assessment and lay groundwork for a paradigm shift and new tests that deliver additional applied value. McGrew boldly asserts that the CHC theory of human cognitive abilities (or some slight variation) has been recognized and adopted as definitive psychometric theory upon which to construct a working taxonomy of cognitive differential psychology (p. 170). He quotes Jensen's (2004, p. 5) assertion that CHC framework is an open-ended empirical theory to which future tests of as yet unmeasured or unknown abilities could possibly result in additional factors at one or more levels in Carroll's hierarchy (p. 170). Each theory is described in detail. McGrew's table (pp. 151-157) with definitions of Broad (Stratum II) and Narrow (Stratum I) CHC Abilities is especially helpful for practitioners intent on describing people's abilities, rather than psychological tests in their assessment reports. …

Are Intellectual Processes Important in the Diagnosis and Treatment of ADHD?

It is widely accepted that there are two sets of behaviors associated with the diagnosis of attention deficit described as ADHD Hyperactive–Impulsive (ADHD–H) and ADHD Inattentive (ADHD–I) types along with a combined type that includes both dimensions. In this article we suggest that these types of ADHD should be assessed using a variety of measures and procedures but that psychometrically sound measures of basic psychological processes must be included. Assessment of the basic psychological processes addresses issues such as the role of “executive functions” in ADHD–H, the selective attention problems of those with ADHD–I, differential diagnosis of children with ADHD–H and ADHD–I as well as those with learning disabilities, and educational and behavioral treatment planning. This discussion will include references to previously published research papers but should also serve as a stimulus for needed research. Essentially, we suggest that ADHD–H can be viewed as a failure of what we (see Naglieri & Das, 2005) call Planning processing and ADHD–I is a failure of Attention processing. This discussion will begin with an examination of the connections between conceptualizations of these types of attention deficit and a theory of intelligence based on cognitive processing.

Utility of the PASS Theory and Cognitive Assessment System for Dutch Children With and Without ADHD

This study examined the utility of the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) theory of intelligence as measured by the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) for evaluation of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The CAS scores of 51 Dutch children without ADHD were compared to the scores of a group of 20 Dutch children with ADHD. The scores of the Dutch children were also compared to American standardization samples of children with and without ADHD. The findings showed that children with ADHD in both countries demonstrated relatively low scores on the Planning and Attention scales of the CAS, but average scores on the Simultaneous and Successive scales. These findings are similar to previously published research suggesting that the PASS theory, as operationalized by the CAS, has sensitivity to the cognitive processing difficulties found in some children with ADHD.

Mathematical Learning Difficulties and PASS Cognitive Processes

This study examined the relationships between mathematical learning difficulties (MLD) and the planning, attention, simultaneous, successive (PASS) theory of cognitive processing. The Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) was used to measure the PASS processes for a group of 267 Dutch students with MLD who attended either general or special education. The results showed that students with MLD performed lower than their peers on all CAS scales and that the MLD group contained many students with cognitive weaknesses in planning or successive processing. Moreover, students who had specific difficulties with the acquisition of basic math facts, the automatization of such facts, or word-problem solving were found to have distinct PASS cognitive profiles. In order to investigate the relationships between cognitive abilities and improvement in the mastery of basic math facts and problem solving, 165 of the students with MLD were given a special multiplication intervention. It appeared that the effectiveness of this particular intervention did not differ across the groups of students with specific cognitive weaknesses.

Gender differences in planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive (PASS) cognitive processes and achievement.

Gender differences in ability and achievement have been studied for some time and have been conceptualized along verbal, quantitative, and visual-spatial dimensions. Researchers recently have called for a theory-based approach to studying these differences. This study examined 1,100 boys and 1,100 girls who matched the U.S. population using the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) cognitive-processing theory, built on the neuropsychological work of A. R. Luria (1973). Girls outperformed boys on the Planning and Attention scales of the Cognitive Assessment System by about 5 points (d = .30 and .35, respectively). Gender differences were also found for a subsample of 1,266 children on the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement Proofing (d = .33), Letter-Word Identification (d = .22), and Dictation (d = .22). The results illustrate that the PASS theory offers a useful way to examine gender differences in cognitive performance.

Effectiveness of a Cognitive Strategy Intervention in Improving Arithmetic Computation Based on the PASS Theory

The purpose of this study was to determine if an instruction designed to facilitate planning, given by teachers to their class as a group, would have differential effects depending on the specific Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) cognitive characteristics of each child. A cognitive strategy instruction that encouraged planning was provided to the group of 19 students with learning disabilities and mild mental impairments. All students completed math worksheets during 7 baseline and 14 intervention sessions. During the intervention phase, students engaged in self-reflection and verbalization of strategies about how the arithmetic computation worksheets should be completed. The sample was sorted into one experimental and four contrast groups after the experiment was completed. There were four groups with a cognitive weakness in each PASS scale from the Cognitive Assessment System and one group with no cognitive weakness. The results showed that children with a cognitive weakness in Planning improved considerably (large effect size of 1.4), in contrast to those with a cognitive weakness in Attention (small effect size of 0.3), Simultaneous weakness (a slight deterioration and effect size of -0.2), Successive weakness (medium effect size of 0.4), and no cognitive weakness (small effect size of .2). These data showed that children with a Planning weakness benefitted from the instruction designed to help them be more plaful. Those children who received the planning-based instruction who were not low inplanning did not show the same level of improvement.

Mathematics instruction and PASS cognitive processes: an intervention study.

The purpose of this study was to determine if an instruction designed to facilitate planning, given by teachers to their class as a group, would have differential effects depending on the specific cognitive characteristics of the individual students. A cognitive instruction that facilitated planning was provided to a group of 12 students with learning disabilities. All students completed math work sheets during 7 sessions of baseline and 21 sessions of intervention (when the instruction designed to facilitate planning was provided). During the intervention phase, students engaged in self-reflection and verbalization of strategies about how mathematics problems were completed. The class was sorted according to planning scores, obtained using the Cognitive Assessment System, which is based on Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) theory; and low- and high-planning contrast groups were identified. The results, consistent with previous research, showed that teaching control and regulation of cognitive activity had beneficial effects for all students but was especially helpful for those who were poor in planning, as defined by the PASS theory. Implications of these findings are provided.

Contemporary intellectual assessment: theories, tests, and issues

Part I: The Origins of Intellectual Assessment. Wasserman, A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry. Kamphaus, Winsor, Rowe, Kim, A History of Intelligence Test Interpretation. Part II: Contemporary Theoretical Perspectives. Horn, Blankson, Foundations for Better Understanding of Cognitive Abilities. Schneider, McGrew, The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Model of Intelligence. Chen, Gardner, Assessment of Intellectual Profile: A Perspective from Multiple-Intelligences Theory. Sternberg, The Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence. Naglieri, Das, Goldstein, Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS): A Cognitive Processing-based Theory of Intelligence. Part III: Contemporary Intelligence, Cognitive, and Neuropsychological Batteries (and Associated Achievement Tests). Drozdick, Wahlstrom, Zhu, Weiss, The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) and the Wechsler Memory Scale - Fourth Edition (WMS-IV). Wahlstrom, Breaux, Zhu, Weiss, The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence - Third Edition (WPPSI-III), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test - Third Edition (WIAT-III). Roid, Pomplun, The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5). Singer, Lichtenberger, J.C. Kaufman, A.S. Kaufman, N.L. Kaufman, The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children - Second Edition (KABC-II) and the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Second Edition (KTEA-II). Schrank, Wendling, The Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update (WJ III NU): Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Tests of Achievement. Elliott, The Differential Ability Scales - Second Edition (DAS-II). McCallum, Bracken, The Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT): A Multidimensional Nonverbal Alternative for Cognitive Assessment. Naglieri, Otero, The Cognitive Assessment System (CAS): From Theory to Practice. Reynolds, Kamphaus, Raines, The Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS) and the Reynolds Intellectual Screening Test (RIST). Matthews, Riccio, Davis, The NEPSY-II. Naglieri, Otero, The Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV): Assessment of Diverse Populations. Part IV: Contemporary Interpretive Approaches and Their Relevance for Intervention. Flanagan, Alfonson, Ortiz, The Cross-Battery Assessment (XBA) Approach: An Overview, Historical Perspective, and Current Directions. Fiorello, Hale, Wycoff, Cognitive Hypothesis Testing (CHT): Linking Test Results to the Real World. Floyd, Kranzler, Processing Approaches to Interpreting Information from Cognitive Ability Tests: A Critical Review. Ortiz, Ochoa, Dynda, Testing with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations: Moving Beyond the Verbal-performance Dichotomy into Evidence-Based Practice. Mather, Wendling, Linking Cognitive Abilities to Academic Interventions for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD). Part V: Assessment of Intelligence and Cognitive Functioning in Different Populations. Ford, Kozey, Negreiros, Cognitive Assessment in Early Childhood: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives. McIntosh, Dixon, Pierson, Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness. Flanagan, Alfonso, Mascolo, Sotelo-Dynega, Use of Ability Tests in the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) within the Context of an Operational Definition. Klinger, O'Kelley, Mussey, Goldstein, DeVries, Assessment of Intellectual Functioning in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Hale, Yim, Schneider, Wilcox, Henzel, Dixon, Cognitive and Neuropsychological Assessment of ADHD: Redefining a Disruptive Behavior Disorder. Decker, Englund, Roberts, Intellectual and Neuropsychological Assessment of Individuals with Sensory and Physical Disabilities and Traumatic Brain Injury. Armstrong, Hangauer, Nadeau, Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Children with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD). Part VI: Contemporary and Emerging Issues in Intellectual Assessment. Braden, Niebling, Using Joint Test Standards to Evaluate the Validity Evidence for Intelligence Tests. Keith, Reynolds, Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to Aid in Understanding the Constructs Measured by Intelligence Tests. Miller, Maricle, The Emergence of Neuropsychological Constructs into Tests of Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities. Maricle, Avirett, The Role of Cognitive and Intelligence Tests in the Assessment of Executive Functions. Brown-Chidsey, Andren, Intelligence Tests in the Context of Emerging Assessment Practices: Problem-solving Applications. McCloskey, Whitaker, Murphy, Rogers, Intellectual, Cognitive, and Neuropsychological Assessment in Three-tier Service Delivery Practices in Schools. Carroll, Appendix: The Three-Stratum Theory of Cognitive Abilities.

A reply to Kranzler and Weng's shooting in the dark

In this short article we examine a proposed revision of the PASS theory suggested by Kranzler and Weng (this issue) following their analysis of a study we conducted some years ago. On the basis of LISREL analyses of a small sample of students, Kranzler and Weng have suggested a revision in the planning, attention, simultaneous, successive (PASS) cognitive processing model. We developed this model from the neuropsychological work of A. R. Luria and from cognitive psychological findings that have been published over the past 40 years. Kranzler and Weng's suggestion is that planning and attention are not distinct enough to warrant separation and the model should be changed to (PA)SS. We firmly and completely reject this suggestion because (a) they use a factorial approach to theory building that we reject; (b) their suggestion is based on one factor analysis of a relatively small sample based on some tests that have since been modified or rejected; (c) they ignore the large volume of evidence from neuroscience and cognitive psychology that attentional and planning processes are separate cognitive functions; (d) more recent confirmatory research supports the separation of planning and attention; and (e) they provide insufficient evidence to make such a modification.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) Cognitive Processing Model for a Kindergarten Sample

This study examined the relationships among experimental tasks developed by Das and Naglieri (1988) to measure Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS) cognitive processing and other tests that theoretically fit within the model of intelligence. Luria's theoretical model was examined by Lisrel confirmatory factor analysis to examine the congruence between the variables and the PASS model for kindergarten-aged normal males and females. The results demonstrated that the PASS model is a sound conceptualization of the relationships that underlie the tasks in this study. These results support other confirmatory factorial studies that have found the PASS model to be a viable alternative model of cognitive functioning.

Traditional IQ Is Irrelevant to Learning Disabilities—Intelligence Is Not

This investigation examined the relationship between intelligence and phonological coding when ability was redefined according to the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) cognitive processing model. This study directly tested the hypothesis that traditional IQ tests may be irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities, but a different theory of intelligence may be more sensitive to deficiencies related to reading failure. Normally achieving students (n = 30) and students with reading disabilities (n = 30) ranging in age from 7.7 years to 15.3 years (mean = 11.9 years, SD = 2.4 years) were administered measures of the PASS cognitive processes, the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised pseudoword reading, and the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R) reading recognition tests. Results showed that the sample with reading disabilities earned significantly lower scores on the WRAT-R Reading (mean = 69.3) than the nondisabled subjects (mean = 91.4) and, similarly, on pseudowords those with reading problems earned a mean of 78.9 while the nondisabled earned a mean of 96.3. For the sample with reading disabilities, pseudoword reading scores were significantly predicted by successive processing scores (R2 = .267), but no other processing variable added to the prediction; successive scores (R2 = .212) and the combination of successive and planning (R2 = .296) were significant predictors of WRAT-R Reading scores.

Gender differences in planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive (PASS) cognitive processes.

Gender differences on academic and intelligence tests have been the focus of a large body of literature that has often left basic questions unanswered. Recently, researchers have suggested that sex-related differences be examined from a theoretical view of ability related to neurological models of cognitive functioning. This study applied the planning, attention, simultaneous, successive (PASS) cognitive processing model, based on the neuropsychological work of A. R. Luria (1973), to the study of gender differences for 3 samples of boys and girls. Girls significantly outperformed boys on attention tasks at Grade 3 (n = 67) and on planning tests at Grade 6 (n = 66)