This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Puhan, G. Articles by Naglieri, J. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Separating Planning and Attention

Evidential and Consequential Validity

University of Alberta, gpuhan{at}ets.org

J. P. Das

University of Alberta

Jack A. Naglieri

George Mason University

In this article the authors present several justifications in favor of the position that the constructs of planning and attention as described in the planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive (PASS) theory of information processing are separate but interdependent processes. There are two parts to the article. The first part comprises a discussion of issues on the need for separating planning and attention and provides evidential validity by reviewing some selected studies. The second part reexamines a factor-analytic study that has questioned the separation of planning and attention processes. The reexamination showed a negligible statistical difference between the proposed three-factor model and the previously established four-factor model. Because the evidential validity of the four-factor model seems reasonably strong, the authors conclude by suggesting that there is little reason to choose the three-factor model that combines attention with planning.

Key Words: cognitive assessment • planning • attention • PASS

References

• Bandalos, D. L. (1993). Factors influencing cross-validation of confirmatory factor analysis models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 351-374.
• Barkley, R. A. (1997). ADHD and the nature of self-control. New York: Guilford.
• Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness to test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Das, J. P. (2002). A better look at intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 28-33.[CrossRef]
• Das, J. P., Kar, B. C., & Parrila, R. K. (1996). Cognitive planning: The psychological basis of intelligent behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Assessment of cognitive processes: The PASS theory of intelligence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Das, J. P., Snyder, T. J., & Mishra, R. K. (1992). Assessment of attention: Teachers’ rating scales and measures of selective attention. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 10, 37-46.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
• Hu, L., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351-362.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Kranzler, J. H., & Keith, T. Z. (1999). The absence of structural fidelity precludes construct validity: Rejoinder to Naglieri on what the Cognitive Assessment System does and does not measure. School Psychology Review, 28, 303-321.
• Kranzler, J. H., Keith, T. Z., & Flanagan, D. P. (2000). Independent examination of the factor structure of the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS): Further evidence challenging the construct validity of the CAS. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 143-159.[Abstract]
• Luria, A. R. (1966). Human brain and psychological processes. New York: Harper and Row.
• Mackey, L., English, M., Bisanz, J., & Kulak, A. (2003). Executive functioning and prenatal exposure to alcohol. Manuscript submitted for publication.
• Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: American Council on Education and MacMillan.
• Naglieri, J. A. (1999). Essentials of CAS assessment. New York: John Wiley.
• Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
• Naglieri, J. A., Goldstein, S., Iseman, J. S., & Schwebach, A. (2003). Performance of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and anxiety/depression on the WISC-III and Cognitive Assessment System (CAS). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 32-42.[Abstract]
• Panskeep, J. (1998). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorders, psychostimulants, and intolerance of childhood playfulness: A tragedy in the making? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 91-98.[CrossRef]
• Posner, M. I., & Boies, S. J. (1971). Components of attention. Psychological Review, 78, 391-408.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Canadian Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1-2, 75-83 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0829573506295466


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Puhan, G. Articles by Naglieri, J. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?