In recent years, Das and his colleagues (Das, 2002; Das, Kar, & Parrila, 1996; Das, Naglieri, & Kirby,
1994) have offered the planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive (PASS) theory as an alternative to the
conceptualization of intelligence as a general mental ability. Specifically, the PASS theory is based on the view
that intelligence is composed of multiple interdependent cognitive processes. From a more applied perspective,
the Das–Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS; Naglieri & Das, 1997) was developed to measure the
PASS processes. Together, the PASS theory and the CAS have enabled psychologists to make great progress in
the prediction of academic achievement as well as the diagnosis and treatment of learning disabilities (Das,
2002; Naglieri, 1999). Numerous validation studies of CAS scores have been conducted; however, criterion-
related validation has been limited to educational contexts where criterion measures primarily involve cognitive
learning outcomes (e.g., reading comprehension and mathematics reasoning). Although the PASS theory and
CAS were developed with an emphasis on academic achievement, it is our assertion that the PASS theory and
the CAS hold considerable promise for practical applications outside education, including industrial and
military settings. Accordingly, the purpose of the present study was to extend the validation literature by
examining the criterion-related validity of CAS scores in regard to the learning of a complex skill that has both
strong cognitive and psychomotor requirements. Specifically, we assessed the degree to which CAS scores
predicted knowledge and skill acquisition on a computer task that simulated the demands of complex and
dynamic aviation environment.
Until recently, the practice of measuring cognitive ability through process-based models has been almost
nonexistent (Ackerman & Humphreys, 1990). However, it is now widely recognized that cognitive ability is a
multifaceted construct (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997), and attempts have been made to identify the multiple
processes underlying cognitive ability (e.g., Kaufman and Kaufman, 1983, Kaufman and Kaufman, 1993;
Naglieri & Das, 1997; Sternberg, 1988; Woodcock & Johnson, 1989). One noteworthy trend emerging from this
burgeoning literature is the distinction made between higher-order control processes and sensory-based
information-processing components. For example, Sternberg, 1985, Sternberg, 1989 made distinctions between
metacomponents, performance components, and knowledge-acquisition components. In this theory,
metacomponents are higher-order control processes used in planning, monitoring, and evaluating task
performance. Performance components are mental processes used in encoding stimuli, inferring relations
between stimuli, and applying previously learned relations to new situations. Finally, knowledge-acquisition
components are processes involved in learning new information and storing it in memory.
Indeed, research on human learning and memory indicates there is a fundamental distinction between higher-
order control processes and sensory-based processes. For example, Brown (1978) offered a distinction between
metacognitive processes, which he defined as executive skills people use to control their own information
processing, and lower-order cognitive processes of nonexecutive, task-specific skills. In further support of such
a distinction, Carroll (1981) proposed a tentative list of ten basic cognitive processes, which include
metacognitive elements such as monitoring and attention and sensory-based elements such as apprehension and
encoding. However, with respect to the assessment of cognitive ability, no empirical research in the published
literature has addressed the distinction between higher-order and lower-order cognitive processes as it relates to
the acquisition of a complex skill. Therefore, the present study contributes to the extant literature by exploring
the predictive validity of a process-based test of cognitive ability, in which higher-order and lower-order
cognitive processes are distinguished, regarding the acquisition of a complex skill. Because a substantial body
of theoretical and empirical support exists in the educational literature for the CAS (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997;
Das, 2002), we considered it to be the most promising assessment tool for our investigation.
Overview. The CAS measures individual differences in cognition by examining the four distinct but interrelated
cognitive processes articulated in the PASS theory of intelligence: planning, attention, simultaneous processing,
and successive processing (Naglieri, 1999; Naglieri & Das, 1997). Components of the CAS battery reflect the
distinction between (a) higher-order control processes used in planning and monitoring task performance (i.e.,
planning and attention) and (b) information-processing components that involve the movement of information
through working memory (i.e., simultaneous and successive processing). For the present investigation we used
the Basic Battery, which consists of two subtests for each of the four PASS cognitive processes. Planning
subtests require individuals to engage in multiple self-regulatory processes such as creating, applying,
monitoring, and revising plans of action while solving novel tasks. The attention subtests require the detection
of particular stimuli and the inhibition of responses to distracting stimuli. Simultaneous processing subtests
require individuals to integrate separate stimuli into a conceptual group or whole. Successive processing
subtests require individuals to comprehend meaning as it is derived from the order of information.
