Skip to main content

Cognitive Assessment System - Second Edition (CAS2)

The Cognitive Assessment System – Second Edition (CAS2; Naglieri & Das, 2014) measures cognitive processing abilities based on the cognitive/neuropsychological theory known as PASS (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Sucessive).

Overview

The CAS2 is an individually administered measure of cognitive ability designed to assess Planning, Attention, and Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS) processes in individuals 5 years to 18 years, 11 months old. Planning tasks require the test taker to develop an approach to solving a task in an efficient and effective manner. Attention tasks require the individual to selectively attend to one and ignore the other aspect of a two-dimensional stimulus. Simultaneous tasks require the individual to interrelate the component parts of a particular item to arrive at the correct answer. Finally, successive tasks require the individual to either reproduce a particular sequence of events or answer questions that require correct interpretation of the linearity of events.

There are eight subtests in the Basic Battery and 12 subtests in the Standard Battery. The CAS2 may be used for diagnosis, eligibility, determination of discrepancies, reevaluation, and instructional planning.

Summary

Author (yr) Age Range (yrs) Method of Administration/Format Approx. Time to Administer Subscales
Cognitive Assessment System – Second Edition (CAS2) Naglieri & Das (2014) Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) Naglieri & Das (1997) 5–18

Individually administered, norm-referenced measure of cognitive processes, based on PASS Theory (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous & Successive); two batteries (basic, standard)

Yields scaled scores, standard scores, percentiles, age equivalents
Basic battery, 45 min.; Standard battery, 60 min.

13 subtest scaled scores

4 processing scales: Planning (Matching Number, Planned Codes, Planned Connections); Attention (Expressive Attention, Visual Selective Attention, Receptive Attention); Simultaneous (Matrices, Simultaneous Verbal, Figure Memory); and Successive (Word Series, Sentence Repetition, Sentence Questions, Speech Rate)

5 Supplemental Composite Scores: Executive Function without Working Memory, Executive Function with Working Memory, Working Memory, Verbal Content, and Nonverbal Content.

Provides a visual vs. auditory comparison.

Availability: Riverside Publishers, http://bit.ly/1QUUZlO

Misconceptions

<p>This table provides information regarding misconceptions surrounding cognitive assessment in general and is not specific to this assessment. </p>
Myth Reality
Full-scale IQ is a good description of a student’s cognitive ability. Students with autism typically demonstrate a scattered profile on comprehensive cognitive measures, performing better on tasks involving rote skills than on tasks involving problem solving, conceptual thinking, and social knowledge (Mayes & Calhoun, 2008; Meyer, 2001-2002).
If a student has an average IQ, an adaptive behavior measure is unnecessary. Although a student has an average IQ and may even be doing well academically, it does not mean that an adaptive measure is not necessary. Research indicates that many students with autism have deficits in communication, daily living skills, and socialization (Lee & Park, 2007; Myles et al., 2007). Klin and Volkmar (2000) stated that adaptive behavior is a critical area of planning for students with Asperger Syndrome (now referred to as autism spectrum disorder, Level 1) to facilitate transition from the school environment to work and community environments.
If a student demonstrates a well-below-average IQ, the student does not have any cognitive skills. A flat profile of skills may indicate difficulty accessing what the student knows. Formal cognitive assessments may not yield valuable information for assessing current level of functioning and needs for programming. In addition, students with autism spectrum disorder may not be able to generalize skills from the classroom setting to the testing environment, or the manner in which the information is being assessed may prohibit the child from demonstrating mastery of skills. For example, if the student has learned to perform a task in one way with a certain prompt and the assessment asks for it in a different way, the student may not be able to demonstrate knowledge of the skill.
Formal IQ is more valid than informal data from the classroom. Informal classroom data provide information about how the student functions on a daily basis. Analyzing formal and informal data to determine patterns of skills and learning is a key component of assessment (Hagiwara, 2001-2002). Informal data from the classroom may be more valuable than information gathered in a contrived one-on-one setting when determining programming for a student with autism spectrum disorder.