Planning, Attention, Simultaneous,Successive (PASS) Theory

A Revision of the Concept of Intelligence

JACK A. NAGLIERIJ. R DAS

ORIGINS OF THE THEORY

Authors of psychometric approaches to measurementof intelligence have become increasingly theoryconscious, realizing the importance of explicitlystating the basis for derivation of the procedures.Without a theory, it is very difficult to evaluate therelevance and information value of the procedure.

—LlDZ (1991, p. 60)

The Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, andSuccessive (PASS; Naglieri & Das, 1997a)theory is rooted in the work of A. R. Luria(1966, 1973a, 1973b, 1980) on the func-tional aspects of brain structures. We usedLuria's work as a blueprint for defining theimportant components of human intelligence(Das, Naglieri, & Kirby, 1994). Our ef-forts represent the first time that a specificresearched neuropsychological theory wasused to reconceptualize the concept of hu-man intelligence.

Luria theorized that human cognitivefunctions can be conceptualized within aframework of three separate but related"functional units" that provide four basicpsychological processes. The three brain sys-tems are referred to as functional units be-cause the neuropsychological mechanisms

work in separate but interrelated systems.Luria (1973b) stated that "each form of con-scious activity is always a complex func-tional system and takes place through thecombined working of all three brain units,each of which makes its own contribution"(p. 99). The four processes form a "workingconstellation" (Luria, 1966, p. 70) of cogni-tive activity. A child may therefore performthe same task with different contributions ofthe PASS processes, along with the applica-tion of the child's knowledge and skills.

Although effective functioning is accom-plished through the integration of all pro-cesses as demanded by the particular task, notevery process is equally involved in every task.For example, tasks like math calculation maybe heavily weighted or dominated by a singleprocess, while tasks such as reading decodingmay be strongly related to another process. Ef-fective functioning—for example, processingof visual information—also involve three hi-erarchical levels of the brain. Consistent withstructural topography, these can be describedin a simplified manner. First, there is the pro-jection area, where the modality characteristicof the information is intact. Above the projec-tion area is the association area, where infor-

120

PASS Theory 121

mation loses part of its modality tag. Abovethe association area is the tertiary areaor overlapping zone, where information isamodal. This enables information to be inte-grated from various senses and processed at ahigher level. Thus modality is most importantat the level of initial reception, and less impor-tant at the level where information is integrat-ed.

Description of the Three Functional Units

The function of the first unit provides reg-ulation of cortical arousal and attention;the second codes information using simulta-neous and successive processes; and the thirdprovides for strategy development, strategyuse, self-monitoring, and control of cognitiveactivities.

According to Luria, the first of these threefunctional units of the brain, the attention-arousal system, is located primarily in thebrainstem, the diencephalon, and the medialregions of the cortex (Luria, 1973b). Thisunit provides the brain with the appropriatelevel of arousal or cortical tone, as wellas directive and selective attention (Luria,1973b). When a multidimensional stimulusarray is presented to a person who is then re-quired to pay attention to only one dimen-sion, the inhibition of responding to other(often more salient) stimuli, and the alloca-tion of attention to the central dimension,depend on the resources of the first func-tional unit. Luria stated that optimal condi-tions of arousal are needed before the morecomplex forms of attention, involving "se-lective recognition of a particular stimulusand inhibition of responses to irrelevantstimuli" (1973b, p. 271), can occur. More-over, only when individuals are sufficientlyaroused and their attention is adequately fo-cused can they utilize processes in the secondand third functional units.

The second functional unit is associatedwith the occipital, parietal, and temporallobes posterior to the central sulcus of thebrain. This unit is responsible for receiving,processing, and retaining information theperson obtains from the external world. Thisunit involves simultaneous processing andsuccessive processes. Simultaneous process-ing involves integrating stimuli into groupsso that the interrelationships among thecomponents are understood. For example, in

order to produce a diagram correctly whengiven the instruction "Draw a triangle abovea square that is to the left of a circle under across," the relationships among the differ-ent shapes must be correctly comprehended.Whereas simultaneous processing involvesworking with stimuli that are interrelated,successive processing involves informationthat is linearly organized and integrated intoa chain-like progression. For example, suc-cessive processing is involved in the decodingof unfamiliar words, production of syntacticaspects of language, and speech articulation.Following a sequence such as the order ofoperations in a math problem is another ex-ample of successive processing. In contrast,simultaneous processing involves integrationof separate elements into groups.

The third functional unit is associatedwith the prefrontal areas of the frontal lobesof the brain (Luria, 1980). Luria stated that"the frontal lobes synthesize the informationabout the outside world . . . and are themeans whereby the behavior of the organismis regulated in conformity with the effectproduced by its actions" (1980, p. 263). Thisunit provides for the programming, regula-tion, and verification of behavior, and is re-sponsible for behaviors such as asking ques-tions, solving problems, and self-monitoring(Luria, 1973b). Other responsibilities of thethird functional unit include the regulationof voluntary activity, conscious impulse con-trol, and various linguistic skills such asspontaneous conversation. The third func-tional unit provides for the most complex as-pects of human behavior, including personal-ity and consciousness (Das, 1980).

Functional Units: Influences and Issues

Luria's organization of the brain into func-tional units accounts for cultural influenceson higher cognition as well as biological fac-tors. He stated that "perception and memo-rizing, gnosis and praxis, speech and think-ing, writing, reading and arithmetic, cannotbe regarded as isolated or even indivisible'faculties' " (Luria, 1973b, p. 29). That is,we cannot, as phrenologists attempted to do,identify a "writing" spot in the brain; in-stead, we must consider the concept of unitsof the brain that provide a function. Luria(1973b) described the advantage of this ap-proach:

122 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

It is accordingly our fundamental task not to"localize" higher human psychological pro-cesses in limited areas of the cortex, but to as-certain by careful analysis which groups ofconcertedly working zones of the brain are re-sponsible for the performance of complex men-tal activity; when contributions made by eachof these zones to the complex functional sys-tem; and how the relationship between theseconcertedly working parts of the brain inthe performance of complex mental activitychanges in the various stages of its develop-ment, (p. 34)

Activities such as reading and writing can beanalyzed and linked as constellations of ac-tivities to specific working zones of the brainthat support them (Luria, 1979, p. 141). Be-cause the brain operates as an integratedfunctional system, however, even a small dis-turbance in an area can cause disorganiza-tion in the entire functional system (Das &Varnhagen, 1986).

Luria's concept of dynamic functionalunits provides the foundation for PASS pro-cesses. These basic psychological processesare firmly based on biological correlates, yetdevelop within a sociocultural milieu. Inother words, they are influenced in part bythe cultural experiences of the child. Luria(1979) noted that "the child learns to orga-nize his memory and to bring it under volun-tary control through the use of the mentaltools of his culture" (p. 83). More recently,Kolb, Gibb, and Robinson (2003) have alsonoted that although "the brain was onceseen as a rather static organ, it is now clearthat the organization of brain circuitry isconstantly changing as a function of experi-ence" (p. 1). Similarly, Stuss and Benson(1990) recognize this interplay and especiallythe use of speech as a regulatory functionwhen they state:

The adult regulates the child's behavior bycommand, inhibiting irrelevant responses. Hischild learns to speak, the spoken instructionshared between the child and adult are takenover by the child, who uses externally statedand often detailed instructions to guide his orher own behavior. By the age of 4 to 4!<i, atrend towards internal and contract speech (in-ner speech) gradually appears. The child beginsto regulate and subordinate his behavior ac-cording to his speech. Speech, in addition toserving communication thought, becomes amajor self-regulatory force, creating systems of

• connections for organizing active behavior in-hibiting actions irrelevant to the task at hand(P- 34)

Luria stressed the role of the frontal lobesin language, organization, and direction ofbehavior and speech as a cultural tool thatfurthers the development of the frontal lobesand self-regulation. Cultural experiencesthus actually help to accelerate the utiliza-tion of planning and self-regulation, as wellas the other cognitive processes.

Luria (1979) also points out that ab-straction and generalizations are themselvesproducts of the cultural environment.Children learn, for example, to attend selec-tively to relevant objects through playfulexperiences and conversations with adults.Even simultaneous and successive processesare influenced by cultural experiences (e.g.,learning songs, poems, rules of games, etc.).Naglieri (2003) has summarized the influ-ence of social interaction on children's useof plans and strategies, and the resultingchanges in performance on classroom tasks.This will be further discussed in a later sec-tion of this chapter, and by Naglieri in Chap-ter 20 of this volume.

The relationship between the third andfirst functional units is particularly strong.The first functional unit works in coopera-tion with, and is regulated by, higher systemsof the cerebral cortex, which receive andprocess information from the external worldand determine an individual's dynamic activ-ity (Luria, 1973b). In other words, this unithas a reciprocal relationship with the cortex.It influences the tone of the cortex and is it-self influenced by the regulatory effects ofthe cortex. This is possible through theascending and descending systems of thereticular formation, which transmit impulsesfrom lower parts of the brain to the cortexand vice versa (Luria, 1973b). For the PASStheory, this means that attention and plan-ning are necessarily strongly related, becauseattention is often under the conscious con-trol of planning. That is, our planning ofbehavior dictates the allocation of our lim-ited attentional resources.

* - - "

Three Functional Units and PASS Theory

Luria's concept of the three functional unitsused as the basis of the PASS theory is

PASS Theory 123

diagrammatically shown in Figure 7.1. Al-though rendering a complex functional sys-tem in two-dimensional space has its limita-tions, the diagram illustrates some of theimportant characteristics of the PASS theory.First, an important component of the theoryis the role of a person's fund of information.Knowledge base is a part of each of the pro-cesses, because past experiences, learning,emotions, and motivations provide the back-ground as well as the sources for the infor-mation to be processed. This information isreceived from external sources through theirsense organs. When that sensory informationis sent to the brain for analysis, central pro-cesses become active. However, internal cog-nitive information in the form of images,memory, and thoughts becomes part of theinput as well. Thus the four processes oper-ate within the context of an individual's

knowledge base and cannot operate outsidethe context of knowledge. "Cognitive pro-cesses rely on (and influence) the base ofknowledge, which may be temporary (as inimmediate memory) or more long term (thatis, knowledge that is well learned)" (Naglieri& Das, 1997c, p. 145). Cognitive processingalso influences knowledge acquisition, andlearning can influence cognitive processing.Both are also influenced by membership inparticular social and cultural milieus (Das &Abbott, 1995, p. 158). The importance ofknowledge is therefore integral to the PASStheory. A person may read English very welland have good PASS processes, but may fal-ter when required to read Japanese text—due to a deficient knowledge of Japanese,rather than a processing deficit.

Planning is a frontal lobe function. Morespecifically, it is associated with the pre-

Third functional unit(frontal)

Planning

e

/~~~~\V— V

First functional unit-(brainstem)

Attention

CDo>TJ<D

OC

CD£0CO

CD

Second functional unit(occipital, parietal, and temporal)

Simultaneous

oo^ q£ ^

Successive

Oo^ <^ ^e

0)O)•oCD

oc

wco

CD

FIGURE 7.1. PASS theory.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

frontal cortex and is one of the main abilitiesthat distinguishes humans from other pri-mates. The prefrontal cortex

plays a central role in forming goals and objec-tives and then in devising plans of action re-quired to attain these goals. It selects the cogni-tive skills required to implement the plans,coordinates these skills, and applies them in acorrect order. Finally, the prefrontal cortexis responsible for evaluating our actions assuccess or failure relative to our intentions.(Goldberg, 2001, p. 24)

Planning therefore helps us select or developthe plans or strategies needed to completetasks for which a solution is needed, and iscritical to all activities where a child or adulthas to determine how to solve a problem. Itincludes generation, evaluation, and execu-tion of a plan, as well as self-monitoring andimpulse control. Thus planning allows forthe solution of problems; the control of at-tention, simultaneous, and successive pro-cesses; and selective utilization of knowledgeand skills (Das, Kar, & Parrila, 1996).

Attention is a mental process that isclosely related to the orienting response. Thebase of the brain allows the organism to di-rect focused selective attention toward astimulus over time and to resist loss of atten-tion to other stimuli. The longer attention isrequired, the more the activity is one that de-mands vigilance. Attention is controlled byintentions and goals, and involves knowl-edge and skills as well as the other PASS pro-cesses.

Simultaneous processing is essential fororganization of information into groups or acoherent whole. The parietal, occipital, andtemporal brain regions provide a critical"ability" to see patterns as interrelated ele-ments. Because of the strong spatial charac-teristics of most simultaneous tasks, there isa strong visual-spatial dimension to activi-ties that demand this type of processing. Si-multaneous processing, however, is not lim-ited to nonverbal content, as illustrated bythe important role it plays in the grammati-cal components of language and comprehen-sion of word relationships, prepositions, andinflections.

Successive processing is involved in the useof stimuli arranged in a specific serial order.Whenever information must be remembered

or completed in a specific order, successiveprocessing will be involved. Importantly,however, the information must not be able tobe organized into a pattern (e.g., the number9933811 organized into 99-33-8-11); in-stead, each element can only be related tothose that precede it. Successive processing isusually involved with the serial organizationof sounds and movements in order. It istherefore integral to, for example, workingwith sounds in sequence and early reading.

The PASS theory is an alternative to ap-proaches to intelligence that have tradition-ally included verbal, nonverbal, and quanti-tative tests. Not only does this theory expandthe view of what "abilities" should be mea-sured, but it also puts emphasis on basic psy-chological processes and precludes the use ofverbal achievement-like tests such as vocabu-lary. In addition, the PASS theory is an alter-native to the anachronistic notion of a gen-eral intelligence. Instead, the functions of thebrain are considered the building blocksof ability conceptualized within a cognitiveprocessing framework. Although the theorymay have its roots in neuropsychology, "itsbranches are spread over developmental andeducational psychology" (Das & Varnhagen,1986, p. 130). Thus the PASS theory of cog-nitive processing, with its links to develop-mental and neuropsychology, provides anadvantage in explanatory power over the no-tion of general intelligence (Naglieri & Das,2002).

OPERATIONALIZATION ANDAPPLICATION OF THE THEORY

The PASS theory is operationalized by theCognitive Assessment System (CAS; Naglieri& Das, 1997a). This instrument is amply de-scribed in the CAS Interpretive Handbook(Naglieri & Das, 1997b) and by Naglieri inChapter 20 of this book. We (Naglieri & Das,1997a) generated tests to measure the PASStheory, following a systematic and empi-rically based test development programdesigned to obtain efficient measures of theprocesses that could be individually adminis-tered. The PASS theory was used as the foun-dation of the CAS, so the content of the testwas determined by the theory and not influ-enced by previous views of ability. This is fur-ther elaborated in Chapter 20 of this book.

PASS Theory 125

EMPIRICAL SUPPORTFOR THE THEORY

Dillon (1986) suggested six criteria (validity,diagnosis, prescription, comparability, rep-licability/standardizability, and psychodiag-nostic utility) for evaluation of a theory ofcognitive processing. Naglieri (1989) evalu-ated the PASS model on these criteria, usingthe information available at that time; in thischapter, we use the same criteria to evaluatethe current status of the PASS theory as oper-ationalized by the CAS. This section includessummaries of research due to space limita-tions, but additional information is providedin Chapter 20 of this text and in other re-sources (Naglieri, 1999, 2003; Naglieri &Das, 1997b).

Validity

The fundamental validity of the PASS theoryis rooted in the neuropsychological work ofLuria (1966, 1973a, 1973b, 1980, 1982),who associated areas of the brain with basicpsychological processes as described earlierin this chapter. Luria's research was based onan extensive combination of his and other re-searchers' understanding of brain functions,amply documented in his book The WorkingBrain (1973b). Using Luria's three functionalunits as a backdrop, Das and colleagues(Das, 1972; Das, Kirby, & Jarman, 1975,1979; Das, Naglieri, & Kirby, 1994) initi-ated the task of finding ways to measure thePASS processes. These efforts included ex-tensive analysis of the methods used byLuria, related procedures used within neuro-psychology, experimental research in cogni-tive and educational psychology, and relatedareas. This work, subsequently summarizedin several books (e.g., Das, Naglieri, &Kirby, 1994; Kirby, 1984; Kirby & Williams,1991; Naglieri, 1999; Naglieri & Das,1997b), demonstrated that the PASS pro-cesses associated with Luria's concept of thethree functional units could be measured.This work also illustrated that the theoreti-cal conceptualization of basic psychologicalprocesses had considerable potential for ap-plication.

Initial studies of the validity of the PASStheory included basic and essential elementsfor a test of children's cognitive competence,such as developmental changes. Researchers

found that performance on early versions oftests of these processes showed evidence ofdevelopmental differences by age for chil-dren of elementary and middle school ages(Das, 1972; Das & Molloy, 1975; Garofalo,1986; Jarman & Das, 1977; Kirby & Das,1978; Kirby & Robinson, 1987; Naglieri &Das, 1988, 1997b) and for high schooland college samples (Ashman, 1982; Das &Heemsbergen, 1983; Naglieri & Das, 1988).

We and our colleagues have also demon-strated that the constructs represented in thePASS theory are strongly related to achieve-ment. A full discussion of those results isprovided by Naglieri in Chapter 20 of thisbook. The results demonstrate that the PASSconstructs are strongly related to achieve-ment, and the evidence thus far suggeststhat the theory is more strongly related toachievement than are other measures of abil-ity. Importantly, despite the fact that themeasures of PASS processes do not includeachievement-like subtests (e.g., vocabularyand arithmetic), the evidence demonstratesthe utility of the PASS theory as operational-ized by the CAS for predication of academicperformance. Because one purpose of theCAS is to anticipate levels of academic per-formance on the basis of levels of cogni-tive functioning, these results provide criticalsupport for the theory.

Diagnosis

There are two important aims of diagnosis:first, to determine whether variations incharacteristics help distinguish one group ofchildren from another; and second, to deter-mine whether these data help with prescrip-tive decisions. Prescription is discussed in thenext section; the question of diagnosis is ad-dressed here. One way to examine the utilityof PASS cognitive profiles is by analysis ofthe frequency of PASS cognitive weaknessesfor children in regular and special ed-ucational settings. Naglieri (2000) hasconducted such a study. A second way toexamine diagnostic utility is by examin-ation of specific populations (e.g., childrenwith attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder[ADHD] or learning disabilities). Both ofthese topics are summarized here; we beginwith a discussion of PASS profiles in general,and then take a look at two particulargroups of special children.

126 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

PASS Profiles

GJutting, McDermott, KonoJd, Snelbaker,and Watkins (1998) have suggested that re-search concerning profiles for specific chil-dren is typically confounded, because the"use of subtest profiles for both the initialformation of diagnostic groups and the sub-sequent search for profiles that might inher-ently define or distinguish those groups"(p. 601) results in methodological problems.They further suggested that researchersshould "begin with unselected cohorts (i.e.,representative samples, a proportion ofwhich may be receiving special education),identify children with and without unusualsubtest profiles, and subsequently comparetheir performance on external criteria" (p.601). Naglieri (2000) followed this researchmethodology, using the PASS theory and his(Naglieri, 1999) concepts of relative weak-ness and cognitive weakness.

Naglieri (1999) described how to finddisorders in one or more of the basic PASSprocesses as follows. A relative weakness is asignificant weakness in relation to the child'smean PASS score determined using theipsative methodology originally proposed byDavis (1956) and modified by Silverstein(1982, 1993). A problem with the approachis that a child may have a significant weak-ness that falls within the average range if themajority of scores are above average. In con-trast, a cognitive weakness is found when achild has a significant intraindividual differ-ence on the PASS scale scores of the CAS (ac-cording to the ipsative method), and the low-est score also falls below some cutoffdesigned to indicate what is typical or aver-age. The difference between a relative weak-ness and a cognitive weakness, therefore, isthat the determination of a cognitive weak-ness is based on dual criteria (a low score rel-ative to the child's mean and a low score rel-ative to the norm group). Naglieri furthersuggested that a cognitive weakness shouldbe accompanied by an achievement testweakness comparable to the level of thePASS scale cognitive weakness. Childrenwho have both a cognitive and an achieve-ment test weakness should be consideredcandidates for special educational services ifother appropriate conditions are also met(especially that the children's academic needscannot be met in the regular educational en-vironment).

Naglieri (2000) found that the relative-weakness method (the approach more com-monly used in school psychology) identifiedchildren who earned average scores on theCAS as well as on achievement, and that ap-proximately equal percentages of childrenfrom regular and special education classeshad a relative weakness. Thus the concept ofrelative weakness did not identify childrenwho achieved differently from children inregular education. By contrast, children witha cognitive weakness earned lower scores onachievement, and the more pronounced thecognitive weakness, the lower the achieve-ment scores. Third, children with a PASSscale cognitive weakness were more likely tohave been previously identified and placed inspecial education. Finally, the presence of acognitive weakness was significantly relatedto achievement, whereas the presence of arelative weakness was not.

The findings for relative weakness par-tially support previous authors' argumentsagainst the use of profile analysis for testslike the Wechsler (see Glutting et al., 1998,for a summary). The results for cognitiveweakness support the PASS-theory-drivenapproach that includes the dual criteria of asignificant profile with below-normal perfor-mance (Naglieri, 1999). The approach is alsodifferent from the subtest analysis approach,because the method uses the PASS theory-based-scales included in the CAS, rather thanthe traditional approach of analyzing a pat-tern of specific subtests. Finally, the ap-proach is different because the focus is oncognitive, rather than relative, weaknesses(Naglieri, 1999).

Naglieri's (2000) findings support theview that PASS theory can be used to identifychildren with cognitive and related academicdifficulties for the purpose of eligibility de-termination and, by extension, instructionalplanning. Naglieri (2003) and Naglieri andPickering (2003) provide theoretical andpractical guidelines about how a child'sPASS-based cognitive weakness and accom-panying academic weakness might meet cri-teria for special educational programming. Ifa child has a cognitive weakness on one ofthe four PASS constructs and comparablescores in reading and spelling, along withother appropriate data, the child may qualifyfor specific learning disability (SLD) services.

The example presented in Figure 7.2 illus-trates how this theory could be used to iden-

PASS Theory 127

tify a child as having an SLD. The 1997amendments to the Individuals with Disabil-ities Education Act define an SLD as "a dis-order in one or more of the basic psychologi-cal processes [PASS processes are clearlyconsistent with this language] involved inunderstanding or in using language, spokenor written, that may manifest itself in an im-perfect ability to listen, think, read, write,spell, or to do mathematical calculations" (p.27). In the hypothetical case described here,there is a disorder in successive processingthat is involved in the child's academic fail-ure in reading and spelling. Assuming thatthe difficulty with successive processing hasmade attempts to teach the child ineffective,some type of special educational programmay be appropriate.

The PASS theory provides a workableframework for determination of a disorderin basic psychological processes that can beintegrated with academic performance andall other relevant information to help make a

diagnosis. Of course, the determination of anSLD or any other disorder is not made solelyon the basis of PASS constructs, but theseplay an important role in the identificationprocess. The connections between PASS andacademic instruction (discussed elsewhere inthis chapter and in Chapter 20) have also ledresearchers to begin an examination of thediagnostic potential of PASS profiles.

It is important to note that emphasis isplaced at the PASS theoretical level ratherthan the specific subtest level. Subtests aresimply varying ways of measuring each ofthe four processes, and by themselves haveless reliability than the composite scale scorethat represents each of the PASS processes. Itis also important to recognize that profileanalysis of the PASS constructs should not bemade in isolation or without vital informa-tion about a child's academic performance.The procedure described here illustrates thatPASS profile analysis must include achieve-ment variation, which allows differential di-

Planning (105)

Attention (99)

Simultaneous (93)

Successive (80)Cognitive weakness No significant

differences

'Significant difference (p < .05) from Naglieri (1999).

Reading Decoding (77)Spelling (78)

FIGURE 7.2. Illustration of using the PASS theory (and scores on the CAS scales derived from this the-ory) to identify a child as having a basic psychological processing disorder model.

128 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

agnosis based upon a configuration of vari-ables across tests rather than simply withinone test. Thus a child with a written lan-guage disorder could have a cognitive weak-ness in planning, with similarly poor perfor-mance on tests that measure skills in writinga story (Johnson, Bardos, & Tayedi, 2003).In contrast, a child with an attention deficitmay have a cognitive weakness in planning,along with behavioral disorganization, im-pulsivity, and general loss of regulation.Planning weaknesses may be seen in bothchildren, but the larger context of their prob-lems is different.

Children with ADHD

In contrast to an attention deficit, a planningdeficit is hypothesized to be the distinguish-ing mark of ADHD within the constraints ofPASS theory. A recent study by Naglieri,Goldstein, Iseman, and Schwebach (2003) isexemplary. The part of the study that is rele-vant here concerns the comparison betweenchildren with ADHD and the normativegroups on two tests, the CAS and the Wechs-ler Intelligence Scale for Children—ThirdEdition (WISC-III). The purpose was to ex-amine the assumption that the PASS theoryand its derivative test, the CAS, may be par-ticularly sensitive to the cognitive difficultiesof children with ADHD, whereas a generalintelligence test (the WISC-III) is inadequatefor diagnosis of ADHD. Specifically, a lowCAS Planning mean score was expected forthe sample with ADHD. The results showeda large effect size for Planning between thechildren with ADHD and the standardiza-tion sample. However, in regard to the CASAttention scale, a small effect size was ob-served. The differences between the twosamples on the CAS Simultaneous and Suc-cessive scales were not significant. In regardto the WISC-III, the only difference that hada significant but small effect size was foundwhen children with ADHD were comparedto the normative samples on the ProcessingSpeed Index.

Naglieri, Salter, and Edwards (2004) con-firm the weakness of planning, but not atten-tion, among children with ADHD in a recentreport. Participants in the study were 48 chil-dren (38 males and 10 females) referred toan ADHD clinic. The contrast group con-sisted of 48 children (38 males and 10 fe-males) in regular education. The results indi-

cated that the children in regular educationsettings earned mean PASS scale scores onthe CAS that were all above average, rangingfrom 98.6 to 103.6. In contrast, the experi-mental group earned mean scores close tothe norm on the CAS Attention, Simulta-neous, and Successive scales (ranging from97.4 to 104.0), but a significantly lowermean score on the Planning scale (90.3).

The low mean Planning score for the chil-dren with ADHD in this study is consistentwith the poor Planning performance re-ported in the previous study (Naglieri etal., 2003), as well as with previous re-search (Dehn, 2000; Paolitto, 1999) for chil-dren identified as having ADHD of thehyperactive-impulsive or combined types(Barkley, 1997). The consistency across thesevarious studies suggests that some of thesechildren have difficulty with planning ratherthan attentional processing as measured bythe CAS. This finding is consistent withBarkley's (1997) view that ADHD is a failureof self-control (e.g., planning in the PASStheory) rather than a failure of attention.The PASS profiles of these groups have beendifferent from those with reading failure andanxiety disorders (Naglieri et al., 2003).

Children with Reading Disability

The inability to engage in phonological cod-ing has been suggested as the major cause ofreading disability for children (Stanovich,1988; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994).Reading researchers generally agree thatphonological skills play an important role inearly reading. One of the most frequentlycited articles in the field, by Torgesen, Wag-ner, and Rashotte (1994), argues that phono-logical skills are causally related to normalacquisition of reading skills. Support for thisclaim can also be found in the relationshipbetween prereaders' phonological scores andtheir reading development 1-3 years later(e.g., Bradley &C Bryant, 1985). A review byShare and Stanovich (1995) concluded thatthere is strong evidence that poor readers, asa group, are impaired in a very wide range ofbasic tasks in the phonological domain.

We have suggested (Das, Naglieri, &Kirby, 1994) that underlying a phonologicalskills deficit is a specific cognitive processingdeficit that is involved in word-reading defi-cits. For example, successive processing canunite the various core correlates of word de-

PASS Theory 129

coding; its binding strength increases if theword is a pseudoword, and further if it is tobe read aloud, requiring pronunciation. Thecorrelates are speech rate (fast repetition ofthree simple words), naming time (for nam-ing simple short and familiar words arrangedin rows, naming rows of single letters, or dig-its and color strips), and short-term memoryfor short lists of simple and short words. Ofthese tasks, speech rate correlates best withdecoding pseudowords. Although the corre-lation with naming time is the next best one,it has, however, a slight edge over speech ratein decoding short familiar words (Das,Mishra, & Kirby, 1994). Thus in adiscriminant-function analysis of normalreaders versus children with dyslexia, it wasshown that a test of strictly phonemic cod-ing, such as phonemic separation, led to ap-proximately 63% of correct classification,whereas two tests that involve articulationand very little phonemic coding (Speech Rateand Word Series, both Successive subtests inthe CAS) contributed nearly 72% to cor-rect classification. In other words, thediscriminant-function analysis showed thatthe two subtests, Speech Rate and Word Se-ries, were better at distinguishing normalreaders from children with dyslexia than adirect test of phonemic segmentation was.Several studies on the relationship betweenPASS and reading disability have since sup-ported the hypothesis that in predicting read-ing disability, distal processes (such as thePASS processes) are as important as proxi-mal ones (such as phonological awarenessand other tests of phonological coding) (Das,Parrila, & Papadopoulos, 2000).

Word reading and comprehension are tworelatively separate skills. If some aspects ofword-reading or decoding disability can bepredicted by successive processing, disabilityin comprehension has been shown to be pri-marily related to deficits in simultaneousprocessing (Das, Kar, & Parrila, 1996; Das,Naglieri, & Kirby, 1994; Naglieri & Das,1997c), as well as (to a relatively lesser ex-tent) in successive processing and planning.

In concluding this section on the uses ofPASS theory, we have presented some sam-ples of empirical studies on all four processesthat help in understanding the role of atten-tion in attention deficits, planning in ADHD,and finally successive and simultaneousprocessing in reading disabilities. Moreover,

PASS theory has had several applications inareas of contemporary concern in educa-tion relating to diagnosis and placement, asNaglieri (1999) has discussed. Because ofspace limitations in this chapter, we cannotpresent them here. However, Chapter 20 ofthis book includes this discussion.

The research on PASS profiles has sug-gested that different homogeneous groupshave distinctive weaknesses. Children withreading disabilities perform adequately onall PASS constructs except successive pro-cessing. This is consistent with Das's view(see Das, 2001; Das, Naglieri, & Kirby,1994) that reading failure is the results of a'deficit in sequencing of information (succes-sive processing). Those with the combinedtype of ADHD perform poorly in planning(they lack cognitive control), but adequatelyon the remaining PASS constructs (Dehn,2000; Naglieri et al., 2003; Paolitto, 1999).Children with the inattentive type of ADHDhave adequate PASS scores except on atten-tion (Naglieri & Pickering, 2003). Finally,Naglieri and colleagues (2003) found thatchildren with anxiety disorders had a differ-ent PASS profile from those with ADHD.These findings suggest that the PASS theoryand associated scores may have utility fordifferential diagnosis and, by extension, forinstructional planning. Moreover, these find-ings provide some support for the diagnosticvalidity of the PASS theory.

Prescription

Dillon (1986) argued that the extent towhich a theory of cognitive processing in-forms the user about interventions is an im-portant dimension of validity. The PASS the-ory appears to have an advantage in thisregard.

There are at least four main resources forapplying the PASS theory to academicremediation and instruction, which we dis-cuss briefly. The first is the PASS RemedialProgram (PREP), developed by Das; the sec-ond is the Planning Facilitation Method, de-scribed by Naglieri; the third is Kirby andWilliams's 1991 book Learning Problems:A Cognitive Approach; and the fourth isNaglieri and Pickering's (2003) bookHelping Children Learn: Intervention Hand-outs for Use in School and at Home. Thefirst two methods are based on empiricalstudies and discussed at length by Das

130 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

(2001), Das, Mishra, and PooJ (1995), Dasand colleagues (2000), and Naglieri (2003).The two books contain several reasonableapproaches to academic interventions. Theinstructional methods use structured and di-rected instructions (PREP) as well as mini-mally structured instructions (Planning Fa-cilitation). The books vary from very applied(Naglieri & Pickering, 2003) to more general(Kirby & Williams, 1991). In this chapter,the concepts behind the first two methodsare more fully described in the sections thatfollow.

Description of the PREP

The PREP was developed as a cognitivelybased remedial program based on the PASStheory of cognitive functioning (Das,Naglieri, & Kirby, 1994). It aims at improv-ing the processing strategies—specifically, si-multaneous and successive processing—thatunderlie reading, while at the same timeavoiding the direct teaching of word-readingskills such as phoneme segmentation orblending. PREP is also founded on the prem-ise that the transfer of principles is best facili-tated through inductive, rather than deduc-tive, inference (see Das, 2001, for details).The program is accordingly structured sothat tacitly acquired strategies are likely tobe used in appropriate ways.

PREP was originally designed to be usedwith students in grades 2 and 3. Each of the10 tasks involves both a global training com-ponent and a curriculum-related bridgingcomponent. The global components, whichrequire the application of simultaneous orsuccessive strategies, include structured non-reading tasks. These tasks also facilitatetransfer by providing the opportunity forchildren to internalize strategies in their ownway (Das et al., 1995). The bridging compo-nents involve the same cognitive demands astheir matched global components—that is,simultaneous and successive processing.These cognitive processes have been closelylinked to reading and spelling (Das, Naglieri,& Kirby, 1994).

Das and colleagues (1995) studied 51grade 3 and grade 4 students with readingdisabilities who exhibited delays of at least12 months on either the Word Identificationor Word Attack subtest of the WoodcockReading Mastery Tests—Revised (WRMT-R). Participants were first divided into two

groups: a PREP remediation group and a no-intervention control group. The PREP groupreceived 15 sessions of training, involvinggroups of two students apiece, over a periodof 2V2 months. Children in the control groupparticipated in regular classroom activities.After the intervention, both groups weretested again with the WRMT-R Word Identi-fication and Word Attack subtests. The re-sults indicated that although both groupsgained during the intervention period, thePREP group gained significantly more onboth Word Identification and Word Attack.

Carlson and Das (1997) report on twostudies using a small-group version of thePREP for underachieving grade 4 students inChapter 1 programs. In the first study, theexperimental group received 15 hours of"add-on" training with PREP over an 8-week period. Both the PREP and controlgroups (22 and 15 students, respectively)continued to participate in the regular Chap-ter 1 program. The Word Attack and WordIdentification subtests of the WRMT-R wereadministered at the beginning and the end ofthe study. The results showed significant im-provement following training in PREP, aswell as significant group x time interactioneffects. The second study essentially repli-cated these results with a larger sample ofgrade 4 students. Since then, several otherreplication studies completed in the sameschool district have essentially reproducedthe original results with children from grades3, 4, 5, and 6, and with both bilingual (Span-ish- and English-speaking) and monolingual(English-speaking only) children.

The effectiveness of a modified version ofPREP (for an older group) was studied byBoden and Kirby (1995). A group of fifth-and sixth-grade students who were identifieda year earlier as poor readers were randomlyassigned to either a control or an experimen-tal group. The control group received regularclassroom instruction, and the experimentalgroup received PREP in groups of four stu-dents for approximately 14 hours. As in pre-vious studies, the results showed differencesbetween the control and PREP groups on theWRMT-R Word Identification and Word At-tack subtests after treatment. In relation tothe previous year's reading scores, the PREPgroup performed significantly better than thecontrol group.

Finally, the study by Parrila, Das, Kendrick,Papadopoulos, and Kirby (1999) was an ex-

PASS Theory 131

tension of the above-described experiments,but with three important changes: (1) Thecontrol condition was a competing programgiven to a carefully matched group of chil-dren; (2) the participants were beginningreaders in grade 1, and therefore youngerthan the grade 3 to grade 6 participants inthe previous studies (8 of the 10 originalPREP tasks were selected and modified forthe grade 1 level); and (3) the training wasshorter in duration than in most of the previ-ous studies. The more stringent control con-dition was seen as an important test of the ef-ficacy of PREP. The study attempted todemonstrate the efficacy of PREP by show-ing the advantage of PREP over the meaning-based reading program received by the con-trol group.

Fifty-eight grade 1 children experiencingreading difficulties were divided into twomatched remediation groups, one receivingthe modified version of PREP and the otherreceiving the meaning-based program. Re-sults showed a significant improvement ofreading (WRMT-R Word Identification andWord Attack) for the PREP group, the gainin reading was greater than it was for themeaning-based training group. The rele-vance of the children's CAS profile was dem-onstrated as follows: Further results indi-cated that the high gainers in the PREPgroup were those with higher CAS Succes-sive scores at the beginning of the program.In contrast, the high gainers in the meaning-based program were characterized by higherCAS Planning scores.

Taken together, the studies described heremake a clear case for the effectiveness ofPREP in remediating deficient reading skillsduring the elementary school years. Thesefindings are further examined in Chapter 20of this book.

Essentials of Planning Facilitation

The effectiveness of teaching children tobe more strategic when completing in-classmath calculation problems is well illustratedby research that has examined the relation-ship between strategy instruction and CASPlanning scores. Four studies have focusedon planning and math calculation (Hald,1999; Naglieri & Gottling, 1995, 1997;Naglieri & Johnson, 2000). The methodsused by these researchers were based on sim-ilar research by Cormier, Carlson, and Das

(1990) and Kar, Dash, Das, and Carlson(1992). The researchers utilized methods de-signed to stimulate children's use of plan-ning, which in turn had positive effects onproblem solving on nonacademic as wellas academic tasks. The method was basedon the assumption that planning processesshould be facilitated rather than directlytaught, so that the children would discoverthe value of strategy use without being spe-cifically told to do so.

The Planning Facilitation Method hasbeen applied with individuals (Naglieri& Gottling, 1995) and groups of children(Naglieri & Gottling, 1997; Naglieri &Johnson, 2000). Students completed mathe-matics worksheets that were developed ac-cording to the math curriculum in a series ofbaseline and intervention sessions over a 2-month period. During baseline and interven-tion phases, three-part sessions consisted of10 minutes of math, followed by 10 minutesof discussion, followed by a further 10 min-utes of math. During the baseline phase, dis-cussion was irrelevant to the mathematicsproblems; in the intervention phase, how-ever, a group discussion designed to encour-age self-reflection was facilitated, so that thechildren would understand the need to planand use efficient strategies.

The teachers provided questions or obser-vations that facilitated discussion and en-couraged the children to consider variousways to be more successful. Such questionsincluded "How did you do the math?","What could you do to get more correct?",or "What will you do next time?" The teach-ers made no direct statements such as "Thatis correct," or "Remember to use that samestrategy." Teachers also did not provide feed-back about the accuracy of previous mathwork completed, and they did not give math-ematics instruction. The role of the teacherswas to facilitate self-reflection and encour-age the children to complete the worksheetsin a planful manner. The positive effects ofthis intervention have been consistent acrossthe research studies, as presented in Chapter20 of this book.

Comparability •

The extent to which cognitive processingconstructs have relevance to some target taskis an important criterion of validity for a the-ory, and one that is relevant to evaluation of

132 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

the PASS theory. One example of the compa-rability of PASS and classroom performancecan be found in the examination of the rela-tionships between the attention portion ofthe theory and in-class behaviors of children.

Attention Tests and Teachers' Ratingsof Attention

A good example of the comparability ofPASS is the relationship between the con-structs and classroom performance. Earlierin this chapter, we have discussed the re-lationship between PASS and academicachievement scores. In this section we lookat one particular issue: the relationship be-tween attention measures and ratings of at-tention in the classroom. This is an environ-ment where a child must selectively attend tosome stimuli and ignores others. The selec-tivity aspect relates to intentional discrim-ination between stimuli. Ignoring irrelevantstimuli implies that the child is resisting dis-traction. In terms of the PASS theory, thismeans that attention involves at least threeessential dimensions, which are selection,shifting, and resistance to distraction. Oneway to examine the comparability of thePASS theory to classroom attention is there-fore to look at the relationships betweenmeasures of attention and attending in theclassroom.

Das, Snyder, and Mishra (1992) examinedthe relationship between teachers' rating ofchildren's attentional behavior in the class-room and those children's performances onthe CAS subtests of Expressive Attention andReceptive Attention. An additional test, Se-lective Auditory Attention, was included inthis study; this test was taken from an earlierversion of the CAS (Naglieri & Das, 1988).All three of these tasks had been shown toform a separate factor identified as Atten-tion, which is independent of the three otherPASS processes (Das et al., 1992).

Teachers' ratings of students' attentionstatus in class were made with Das's Atten-tion Checklist (ACL). This is a checklist con-taining 12 items that rate the degree to whichattentional behavior is shown by a child. Allthe items on this checklist load on one factorthat accounts for more than 70% of the vari-ance, and the ACL has high reliability (alphaof .94; Das & Melnyk, 1989). In addition tothe CAS and ACL, the children were given

the Conners 28-item rating scale. Das andcolleagues (1992) found that the ACL andConners Inattention/Passivity items werestrongly correlated (r = .86), but that the cor-relation between the ACL and the ConnersHyperactivity scale was substantially lower(r - .54). This is logical, because the ACL ismore a measure of inattention than of hyper-activity.

The correlations of ACL and the Attentionsubtest scores suggested that classroom be-haviors and performance on measures ofcognitive processing were related. The ACLcorrelated significantly (p < .01) with Ex-pressive Attention (r = .46) and the SelectiveAuditory Attention false-detection score(r = .37). All other correlations with the ACLwere not significant. The relationship be-tween the ACL and children's performanceon the CAS was further examined via factoranalysis. Two factors were obtained: Onehad high loadings on the CAS Attentionsubtest scores (Receptive Attention and asmaller loading on Expressive Attention) andthe omission score on the Selective AuditoryAttention task, whereas the other factor hadhigh loadings on the ACL, the commissionerrors on the Selective Auditory Attentiontask (which reflects distractibility), and theExpressive Attention task. Thus it was clearthat the ACL, which measures teachers' rat-ings of attention in the classroom, was asso-ciated with performance on objective tasksthat require resistance to distraction. Theircommon link is most probably failure of in-hibition of attention to distractors. This wasfurther supported in subsequent studies(Das, 2002). Therefore we suggest that at-tention as defined by the PASS theory isuseful to explain why teachers' ratings of at-tention in the classroom correlated with per-formance on the two CAS tasks that requireselectivity and resistance to distraction.

Replicability/Standardizability

The value of any theory of cognitive process-ing is ultimately related to the extent towhich it can be uniformly applied acrossexaminers and organized into a formaland standardized method to assure replica-tion across practitioners. The availability ofnorms and interpretive guidelines providedthe basis for accurate, consistent, and reli-able interpretation of PASS scores as opera-

PASS Theor 13

tionalized by the CAS (Naglieri & Das,1997a). The CAS instrument is a reliablemeasure of PASS constructs normed on alarge representative sample of children 5through 17 years of age (see Naglieri, Chap-ter 20, this volume). In summary, we suggestthat the CAS is acceptable as a reliable andvalid assessment of the PASS processes, andthat it can be used in a variety of settings fora number of different purposes, as shownin several books and the CAS interpretivehandbook (Naglieri & Das, 1997b).

Psychodiagnostic Utility

Dillon's (1986) psycho diagnostic utility cri-terion deals with the ease with which a par-ticular theory of cognitive processing can beused in practice. This criterion is linked toMessick's (1989) idea of consequential valid-ity and emphasizes the transition from the-ory to practice, the extent to which the the-ory can be effectively applied. The besttheory of intelligence, ability, or cognitiveprocessing will ultimately have little impacton the lives of children unless the constructs(1) have been operationalized into a practicalmethod that can be efficiently administered;(2) can be assessed in a reliable manner; and(3) yield scores that are interpretable withinthe context of some relevant comparison sys-tem. As we have mentioned here and in otherpublications, the PASS theory and the CASappear to have sufficient applications for di-agnosis and treatment. They have valuein detecting the cognitive difficulties ex-perienced by children in several diagnosticgroups (children with dyslexia, ADHD/trau-matic brain injury, and mental retardation[including Down syndrome]), as well as inconstructing programs for cognitive en-hancement (Das, 2002; Naglieri, 2003).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The concept of general intelligence has en-joyed widespread use since it was originallydescribed at the turn of the last century. In-terestingly, Pintner (1923) noted over 80years ago that although researchers wereconcerned with the measurement of separatefaculties, processes, or abilities, they "bor-rowed from every-day life a vague term im-plying all-round ability and knowledge" and

are still "attempting to define it more sharpl;and endow it with a stricter scientific connotation" (p. 53). Thus the concept of intelli-gence that has included the use of verbal,nonverbal, and quantitative tests to defineand measure intelligence for about 100 yearshas been and remains just that—a concept inneed of more clarity.

In some ways, PASS theory is an attemptto revive the intentions of early intelligencetest developers by taking a multidimensionalapproach to the definition of ability. Themost important difference between tradi-tional IQ and PASS theory, therefore, lies inthe use of cognitive processes rather thangeneral ability. The multidimensional, ratherthan unidimensional, view of intelligencethat the PASS theory provides is one of itsdistinguishing aspects (Das & Naglieri,1992). It is a theory for which research hasincreasingly demonstrated utility (as summa-rized in this chapter and in Chapter 20), andpractitioners have noted its consistency withthe more modern demands placed on suchtests. We suggest that PASS is a modern alter-native to g and IQ, based on neuropsycholo-gy and cognitive psychology, and that it iswell suited to meet the needs of psychologistspracticing in the 21st century.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Preparation of this chapter was supported in partby Grant No. R215K010121 from the U.S. De-partment of Education.

REFERENCES

Ashman, A. F. (1982). Strategic behavior and linguisticfunctions of institutionalized moderately retardedpersons. International Journal of Rehabilitation Re-search, 5, 203-214.

Barkley, R. A. (1997). ADHD and the nature of self-control. New York: Guilford Press.

Boden, C., & Kirby, J. R. (1995). Successive processing,phonological coding, and the remediation of reading.Journal of Cognitive Education, 4, 19-32.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme and reason inreading and spelling. Ann Arbor MI: University ofMichigan Press.

Carlson, J., & Das, J. P. (1997), A process apprqach toremediating word decoding deficiencies in Chapter 1children. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 20, 93-102.

Cormier, P., Carlson, J. S., & Das, J. P. (1990). Planning

134 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

ability and cognitive performance: The compen-satory effects of a dynamic assessment approach.Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 437-449.

Das, J. P. (1972). Patterns of cognitive ability in non-retarded and retarded children. American Journal ofMental Deficiency, 77, 6-12.

Das, J. P. (1980). Planning: Theoretical considerationsand empirical evidence. Psychological Research [W.Germany], 41, 141-151.

Das, J. P. (1999). PASS Reading Enhancement Program.Deal, NJ: Sarka Educational Resources.

Das, J. P. (2001). Reading difficulties and dyslexia. Deal,NJ: Sarka Educational Resources.

Das, J. P. (2002). A better look at intelligence. CurrentDirections in Psychology, 11, 28-32.

Das, J. P., & Abbott, J. (1995). PASS: An alternative ap-proach to intelligence. Psychology and DevelopingSocieties, 7(2), 155-184.

Das, J. P., & Heemsbergen, D. (1983). Planning as a fac-tor in the assessment of cognitive processes. Journalof Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 1-16.

Das. J. P., Kar, B. C, & Parrila, R. K. (1996). Cognitiveplanning: The psychological basis of intelligent be-havior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Das, J. P., Kirby, J. R., & Jarman R. F. (1975). Simulta-neous and Successive syntheses: An alternative modelfor cognitive abilities. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 87-103.

Das, J. P., Kirby, J. R., & Jarman, R. F. (1979). Simulta-neous and successive cognitive processes. New York:Academic Press.

Das, J. P., & Melnyk, L. (1989). Attention checklist: Arating scale for mildly mentally handicapped adoles-cents. Psychological Reports, 64, 1267-1274.

Das, J. P., Mishra, R. K., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Cog-nitive patterns of dyslexics: Comparison betweengroups with high and average nonverbal intelligence.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 235-242.

Das, J. P., Mishra, R. K., & Pool, J. E. (1995). An ex-periment on cognitive remediation or word-readingdifficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 66-79.

Das,J. P., &MolIoy, G. N. (1975). Varieties of Simulta-neous and Successive processing in children. Journalof Educational Psychology, 67, 213-220.

Das, J. P., & Naglieri, J. A. (1992). Assessment of atten-tion, simultaneous-successive coding and planning.In H. C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds.), InteractiveAssessment (pp. 207-232). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Assess-ment of cognitive processes. Needham Heights: MA:Allyn & Bacon.

Das, J. P., Parrila, R. K., & Papadopoulos, T. C. (2000).Cognitive education and reading disability. In A.Kozulin & Y. Rand (Eds.), Experience of medi-ated learning (pp. 276-291). Amsterdam: PergamonPress.

Das, J. P., Snyder, T. J., & Mishra, R. K. (1992). As-sessment of attention: Teachers' rating scales and

measures of selective attention. Journal of Psycho-educational Assessment, 10, 37-46.

Das, J. P., & Varnhagen, C. K. (1986). Neuropsycholo-gical functioning and cognitive processing. In J. E.Obzrut & G. W. Hynd (Eds.), Child neuropsycholo-gy: Vol. 1. Theory and research (pp. 117-140). NewYork: Academic Press.

Davis, F. B. (1959). Interpretation of differences amongaverages and individual test scores. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, SO, 162-170.

Dehn, M. J. (2000). Cognitive Assessment System per-formance of ADHD children. Paper presented at theannual convention of the National Association ofSchool Psychologists, New Orleans, LA.

Dillon, R. F. (1986). Information processing and testing.Educational Psychologist, 21, 161-174.

Garofalo, J. (1986). Simultaneous synthesis, regulationand arithmetical performance. Journal of Psychoedu-cational Assessment, 4, 229-238.

Glutting, J. J., McDermott, P. A., Konold, T. R.,Snelbaker, A. J., & Watkins, M. L. (1998). More upsand downs of subtest analysis: Criterion validity ofthe DAS with an unselected cohort. School Psychol-ogy Review, 27, 599-612.

Goldberg, E. (2001). The executive brain: Frontal lobesand the civilized mind. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Hald, M. E. (1999). A PASS cognitive processes inter-vention study in mathematics. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Northern Colorado.

Jarman, R. E, & Das, J. P. (1977). Simultaneous andsuccessive synthesis and intelligence. Intelligence, 1,151-169.

Johnson, J. A., Bardos, A. N., & Tayebi, K. A. (2003).Discriminant validity of the Cognitive AssessmentSystem for students with written expression disabili-ties. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 21,180-195.

Kar, B. C., Dash, U. N., Das, J. P., & Carlson, J. S. (1992).Two experiments on the dynamic assessment of plan-ning. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 13-29.

Kirby, J. R. (1984). Cognitive strategies and educationalperformance. New York: Academic Press.

Kirby, J. R., & Das, J. P. (1978). Information processingand human abilities. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 70, 58-66.

Kirby, J, R., & Robinson, G. L. (1987) Simultaneousand successive processing in reading disabled chil-dren. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 243-252.

Kirby, J. R., & Williams, N. H. (1991). Learning prob-lems: A cognitive approach. Toronto: Kagan & Woo.

Kolb, B., Gibb, R., & Robinson, T. E. (2003). Brainplasticity and behavior. Current Directions in Psy-chological Science, 12, \-^>.

Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner's guide to dynamic as-sessment. New York: Guilford Press.

Luria, A. R. (1966). Human brain and psychologicalprocesses. New York: Harper & Row.

Luria, A. R, (1973a). The origin and cerebral organiza-tion of man's conscious action. In S. G. Sapir & A. C.

PASS Theory 135

Nitzburg (Eds.), Children with teaming problems

(pp. 109-130). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Luria, A. R. (1973b). The working brain. New York:

Basic Books.Luria, A. R. (1979). The making of mind: A personal ac-

count of Soviet psychology. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press.

Luria, A. R. (1980). Higher cortical functions in man(2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Luria, A. R. (1982). Language and cognition. NewYork: Wiley.

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educa-tional measurement (pp. 13-103). New York: Ameri-can Council of Education/MacMillan.

Naglieri, J. A. (1989). A cognitive processing theory forthe measurement of intelligence. Educational Psy-chologist, 24, 185-206.

Naglieri, J. A. (1999). Essentials of CAS assessment.New York: Wiley.

Naglieri, J. A. (2000). Can profile analysis of ability testscores work?: An illustration using the PASS theoryand CAS with an unselected cohort. School Psychol-ogy Quarterly, 15, 419-433.

Naglieri, J. A. (2003). Current advances in assessmentand intervention for children with learning disabili-ties. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Ad-vances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol.16. Identification and assessment (pp. 163-190).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1988). Planning-arousal-simultaneous-successive (PASS): A model for assess-ment. Journal of School Psychology, 26, 35-48.

Naglieri,]. A., & Das, J. P. (1997a). Das-Naglieri: Cog-nitive Assessment System. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997B). Das-Naglieri Cog-nitive Assessment System: Interpretive handbook.Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Naglieri,J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997c). Intelligence revised.In R. Dillon (Ed.), Handbook on testing (pp. 136-163). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (2002). Practical implica-tions of general intelligence and PASS cognitive pro-cesses. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.),The general factor of intelligence: How general is it?(pp. 855-884). New York: Erlbaum.

Naglieri, J. A., Goldstein, S., Iseman, J. S., &Schwebach, A. (2003). Performance of children withattention deficit hyperactivity disorder and anxiety/depression on the WISC-III and Cognitive Assess-ment System (CAS). Journal of PsychoeducationalAssessment, 21, 32-42.

Naglieri, J. A., & Gottling, S. H. (1995). A cognitive ed-ucation approach to math instruction for the learning

disabled: An individual study. Psychological Reports,76, 1343-1354.

Naglieri, J. A., & Gottling, S. H. (1997). Mathematicsinstruction and PASS cognitive processes: An inter-vention study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30,513-520.

Naglieri, J. A., & Johnson, D. (2000). Effectiveness ofa cognitive strategy intervention to improve mathcalculation based on the PASS theory. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 33, 591-597.

Naglieri, J. A., & Pickering, E. (2003). Helping childrenlearn: Instructional handouts for use in school and athome. Baltimore: Brookes.

Naglieri, J. A., Salter, C. J., & Edwards, G. (2004).Assessment of children with ADHD and reading dis-abilities using the PASS theory and Cognitive Assess-ment System. Journal of Psychoeducational Assess-ment, 22, 93-105.

Paolitto, A. W. (1999). Clinical validation of the Cogni-tive Assessment System with children with ADHD.ADHD Report, 7, 1-5.

Parrila, R. K., Das, J. P., Kendrick, M., Papadopoulos,T, & Kirby, J. (1999). Efficacy of a cognitive readingremediation program for at-risk children in grade 1.Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 27, 1-31.

Share, D. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive pro-cesses in early reading development: Accommodatingindividual differences into a model of acquisition. Is-sues in Education, 1, 1-57.

Silverstem, A. B. (1982). Pattern analysis as simulta-neous statistical inference. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, SO, 234-240.

Silverstein, A. B. (1993). Type I, Type II, and other typesof errors in pattern analysis. Psychological Assess-ment, 5, 72-74.

Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differencesbetween the dyslexic and the garden-variety poorreader: The phonological-core variable-differencemodel. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590-604, 612.

Stuss, D. T, & Benson, D. F. (1990). The frontal lobesand language. In E. Goldberg (Ed.), Contemporarypsychology and the legacy of Luria (pp. 29-50).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A.(1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological pro-cessing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities,27, 276-286.

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A.(1994). Development of reading-related phonologi-cal processing abilities: New evidence of bi-direc-tional causality from a latent variable longitudinalstudy. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73-87.

L