Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T06:03:12.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of the SB5 and the CAS in Educational Psychology Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2012

Jeanette Berman  and
Ian Price
Jeanette Berman*
Affiliation:
School of Education, University of New England, Australia
Ian Price
Affiliation:
School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, Australia
*
address for correspondence: Dr Jeanette Berman, School of Education, University of New England NSW 2351, Australia. Email: jberman@une.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

Two tests of intellectual ability were compared in terms of quantitative measures and professional utility in the context of 41 students who were referred for psychoeducational investigation of their learning. Full-scale, Composite, and Factor scores from The Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales — Fifth Edition (SB5) and the Das Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) were compared and individual profiles were examined. The SB5 is the latest version of a traditional test referenced to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll factor model of intelligence, while the CAS was developed from an information processing theory of intelligence. Full-scale measures of intellectual ability were found to differ significantly, with the SB5 approximately 8 points higher than the CAS. Analysis of the profiles assisted in understanding specific learning abilities and guided interventions. The implications of this for the relative utility of the two instruments, their interchangeablity, the meaningful interpretation of results, and their complementary contribution to practice are discussed.

Keywords

Cognitive Assessment SystemCASStanford-BinetSB5intellectual abilityassessment
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , June 2013 , pp. 18 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). (2005–2011). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales - SB5. Retrieved from https://shop.acer.edu.au/acer-shop/group/XS/31Google Scholar
Das, J., Parrila, R., & Papadopoulos, T. (2000). Cognitive education and reading disability. In Kozulin, A. & Rand, B. (Eds.), Experience of mediated learning: An impact of Feuerstein's theory in education and psychology (pp. 274–291). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Davis, C., Tomporowski, P., McDowell, J., Austin, B., Miller, P., Yanasak, N., . . . Naglieri, J. (2011). Exercise improves executive function and achievement and alters brain activation in overweight children: A randomised, controlled trial. Health Psychology, 30, 91–98. DOI: 10.1037/a0021766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, D., Ortiz, S., & Alfonso, V. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Haywood, C. (2010). Cognitive education: A transactional metacognitive perspective. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 9, 21–35. DOI: 10.1891/1945–8959.9.1.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, A. S. & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). Kaufman assessment battery for children: Interpretive manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Keith, T., Kranzler, J., & Flanagan, D. (2001). What does the Cogntive Assessment System (CAS) measure? Joint confirmatory factor analysis of the CAS and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitve Ability (3rd Edition). School Psychology Review, 30, 89–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kranzler, J. H., & Keith, T. Z. (1999). Independent confirmatory factor analysis of the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS): What does the CAS measure? School Psychology Review, 28, 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Luitt, J. E. H., & Naglieri, J. A. (2003). Mathematical learning difficulties and PASS cognitive processes. Journal of Learning Difficulties, 36, 574–582. DOI: 10.1177/00222194030360060801Google ScholarPubMed
McCrea, S. (2007). Measurement of recovery after traumatic brain injury: A cognitive-neuropsychological comparison of the WAIS-R with the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) in a single case of atypical language lateralisation Applied Neuropsychology, 14, 296–304. DOI: 10.1080/09084280701719419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naglieri, J. (1999). Essentials of CAS Assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Naglieri, J., & Bornstein, B. (2003). Intelligence and achievement: Just how correlated are they? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 244–260. DOI: 10.1177/073428290302100302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naglieri, J., & Das, J. (1997a). Das Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
Naglieri, J., & Das, J. (1997b). Das Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System: Interpretive handbook. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
Naglieri, J., & Das, J. (1997c). Das Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System: Administration and scoring manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside PublishingGoogle Scholar
Naglieri, J., De Lauder, B. Y., Goldstein, S., & Schwebech, A. (2006). WISC-III and CAS: Which correlates higher with achievement for a clinical sample? School Psychology Quarterly, 21, 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naglieri, J. A., Goldstein, S., Iseman, J. S., & Schwebach, , (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. DOI: 10.1177/073428290302100103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naglieri, J., Salter, C., & Edwards, G. (2004). Assessment of children with attention and reading difficulties using the PASS Theory and Cognitve Assessment System. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22, 93–105. DOI: 10.1177/073428290402200201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, M. (1999). Neale analysis of reading ability (3rd Ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council of Educational research (ACER).Google Scholar
Ooi Boon, K., & Ismail, K. B. H. (2011). The relationship between cognitive processing and reading. Asian Social Studies, 7, 44–52. DOI: 10.5539/ass.v7n10p44Google Scholar
Roid, G. H. (2003a). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (5th ed.).: Itasca, IL: Riverside PublishingGoogle Scholar
Roid, G. H. (2003b). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (5th ed.).: Examiner's manual Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
Roid, G. H. (2003c). Stanford –Binet Intelligence Scales (5th ed.).: Technical manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
Roid, G. H., & Barram, R. (2004). Essentials of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5) Assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Sattler, J. (2001). Assessment of Children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M Sattler.Google Scholar
Sattler, J. (2008). Assessment of children: Cogntive foundations (5th ed.). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M Sattler.Google Scholar
Sparrow, S., & Davis, S. (2000). Recent advances in the assessment of intelligence and cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 117–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomson, D. (2001). Review of the Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System. In Plake, B. & Impara, J. (Eds.), The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 368–370). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.Google Scholar
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement (3rd ed.). Itasca, IL: RiversideGoogle Scholar