Bass, S. A., Giesbrecht, T., Othman, O., & Singley, J.
(year unknown). Second and third grade performance on the Differential
Ability Scale and the K-ABC. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Compared the performance of 58 regular education second
and third grade children on the DAS and K-ABC. Strong correlations were
found between the global scales of the two tests with Mental Processing
Composite/GCA r=.66 and Global Intelligence composite/GCA r=.74.
"...ascribing validity to the DAS as an acceptable measure of cognitive
functioning in school age children." Differences were noted between the
scores obtained on the SEQ-V, SEQ-NV, and SEQ-Spatial scales "thereby
suggesting that these scales may be statistically independent and may thus
be measuring different constructs." "The substantial correlations
between the GCA and ACH, which was greater than the MPC-GCA correlation,
suggests that the DAS core subtests may well be measuring acquired knowledge
and prior learning as well as immediate problem solving ability. Similarly
high GCA-VIC and GCA-GIC correlations may also reflect the achievement
related task demands of the DAS core subtests, suggesting that the GCA may
also measure achievement of school age children."
Braden, J. P. (1992). The Differential Ability Scales and
special education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 10, 92-98.
A review of the DAS with special emphasis on how well it may be used to
identify and to plan for children with learning disabilities.
"Extensive data, meticulously provided in the Technical Manual, suggest
that the instrument is a psychometric improvement over existing techniques
for measuring intellectual abilities and for determining intra-cognitive and
Byrd, P. D., & Buckhalt, J. A. (1991). A multitrait-multimethod construct
validity study of the Differential Ability Scales. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 121-129.
Cagnina, P. A. (1991). A study of the construct validity of
the Differential Ability Scales (DAS) for children with language impairments.
Unpublished master's thesis, University of Central Florida.
Cross, D. L. (1993). DAS and WISC-III: Response pattern and
cognitive profiles among children with ADD symptomatology, Unpublished Masters
Dumont, R., Cruse, C. L., Price, L., & Whelley, P. (1996). The
relationship between the Differential Ability Scales (DAS) and the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III) for students with
learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 203-209.
The DAS and WISC-III was administered to a sample of 53 children
identified as having a learning disability. Each of the children had been
administered the WISC-III and approximately 3 years later, was administered
the DAS. For this group, all of the DAS composites correlated moderately
with the WISC-III Full Scale IQ (range .64 to .78). There was a high (.78)
correlation between the DAS GCA and the WISC-III Full Scale IQ. The DAS
Verbal score correlated highest with the WISC-III Verbal IQ (.77), while the
DAS Nonverbal Reasoning score correlated higher with the WISC-III
Performance than with the Verbal (.55 vs. .65). The DAS Spatial cluster
correlated highest with the WISC-III Performance scale (.67). The DAS
Verbal, Nonverbal, Spatial, and GCA scores were slightly lower than the
WISC-III Verbal, Performance, and Full Scales. The average difference
between the GCA and the Full Scale IQ was 2.4 points (87.2 vs. 89.7) and may
reflect the differences in the constructs measured by the two tests.
Dumont, R., Willis, J. O., Farr L. P., McCarthy, T., & Price, L. (2000)
The relationship between the Differential Ability Scales (DAS) and the
Woodcock-Johnson Revised-Cognitive (WJ-R COG) for a Sample of Referred Children.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 27-38
The Differential Ability Scales (DAS) and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Cognitive Ability - Revised (WJ-R COG standard battery) were administered to
81 children referred for Special Education services evaluation. The WJ-R BCA-STD
correlated .65 with the DAS GCA, .64 with the DAS Verbal, .50 with the DAS
Nonverbal Reasoning, and .51 with the DAS Spatial clusters. Mean differences
(DAS vs. WJ-R BCA-STD) were -2.80 (GCA), -0.74 (Verbal), -6.07 (Nonverbal
Reasoning), and 0.84 (Spatial). Dumont et al. (2000, p. 36) characterized the
correlation between the CGA and BCA-STD as significant, but only moderate.
Some, but not all of the correlations between DAS and WJ-R subtests conformed
to predictions based on broad and narrow ability classifications from the
McGrew, Flanagan, and Ortiz Integrated Carroll/Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc theory
(McGrew & Flanagan, 1998). Dumont et al. caution against the assumption
that subtests purporting to measure the same broad and narrow abilities will
actually yield comparable scores for any individual.
Elliott, C. D. (1990). The nature and structure of children's abilities:
Evidence from the Differential Ability Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 8, 376-390.
Topics: The problem with "intelligence"; Focus and assumption;
The nature of psychometric g; The structure of abilities, Specificity
of cluster and subtest scores.
Elliott, C.D. (1993). Differential Ability Scale (DAS). Child
Assessment News, 3(2), 1-10.
Elliott, C.D., Daniel, M.H., & Guiton, G. (1991).
Preschool cognitive assessment with the Differential Ability Scales. In B. A.
Bracken (Ed.), The Psychoeducational Assessment of Preschool Children,
(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
A comprehensive review of the DAS for preschool
assessment. Topics: Description of the DAS; preschool level of the cognitive
battery; Description and interpretation of the core subtests; Description
and interpretation of the diagnostic subtests; Technical Characteristics;
Factor structure; Correlations to other tests; An approach to
Elliott, C. D. (1997). The Differential Ability Scales. In D. F. Flanagan, J.
L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual
assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 183-208). New York: Guilford.
Elliott, S. N. (1990). The nature and structure of the DAS: Questioning the
test's organizing model and use. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (1995). A critical review of the
technical characteristics of new and recently revised intelligence tests for
preschool children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 66-90.
Gridley, B. E., & McIntosh, D. E. (1992). Review of the Differential
Ability Scales. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test Critiques
(Vol. 9, pp. 167-183). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.
Hansen, C. R., & Olsen, J. (1993). Fra WISC til DEP (1) [From WISC to DEP
(1)]. Psykologisk Paedagogisk Radgivning, 30, 363-371.
Holland, A. M., & McDermott, P. A. (1996). Discovering core profile types
in the school-age standardization sample of the Differential Ability Scales. Journal
of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 131-146.
Hull, T., & Mason, H. (1995). The conversion of a psychometric test for
use with the blind. Educational Psychology in Practice, 10, 220-224.
Irvin, M. G. (1992). Preschool assessment with the Differential Ability
Scales (DAS). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 10, 99-102.
Topics: Why Test Preschoolers; Theoretical Construct; Technical
Qualities; Other Test Choice Considerations. "Given its heuristic
theoretical orientation, the solid psychometric properties of the test, and
its economy of testing time in its use with young children, an early
investment of money and time to master the DAS appears warranted."
Keith, T. Z. (1990). Confirmatory and hierarchical confirmatory analysis of
the Differential Ability Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
This study determined whether the DAS measures the same constructs across
its wide age range, and what constructs and abilities were being measured by
the DAS. "...suggested that the constructs measured by the DAS are
quite consistent across overlapping age ranges. ... suggested that the DAS
first provides a good measure of g, general intelligence."
Keith, T. Z., Quirk, K. J., Schartzer, C., & Elliott, C. D. (in press).
Construct bias in the Differential Ability Scales? Confirmatory and hierarchical
factor structure across three ethnic groups. Journal of Psychoeducational
Kercher, A. C., & Sandoval, J. (1991). Reading disability and the
Differential Ability Scales. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 293-307.
Lynn, R. (1996). Racial and ethnic differences in intelligence in the United
States on the Differential Ability Scale. Personality and Individual
Differences, 20, 271-273.
McDermott, P. A. (1995). Sex, race, class, and other demographics as
explanations for children's ability and adjustment: A national appraisal. Journal
of School Psychology, 33, 75-91.
McDermott, P. A., & Glutting, J. J. (1997). Informing stylistic learning
behavior, disposition, and achievement through ability subtests: Or, more
illusions of meaning? School Psychology Review, 26, 163-175.
McGhee, R. (1993). Fluid and crystallized intelligence: Confirmatory factor
analyses of the Differential Ability Scales, Detroit Tests of Learning
Aptitude-3, and Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Journal
of Psychoeducational Assessment [Monograph Series: Woodcock-Johnson
Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised monograph], 20-38.
McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The Intelligence Test Desk
Reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc Cross-Battery Assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
McIntosh, D. E., Brown, M. L., & Ross, S. L. (1995). Relationship between
the Bracken Basic Concept Scale and the Differential Ability Scales with an
at-risk sample of preschoolers. Psychological Reports, 76, 219-224.
McIntosh, D. E., & Gridley, B. E. (1993). Differential Ability Scales:
Profiles of learning-disabled subtypes. Psychology in the Schools, 30,
Wardís method of cluster analysis was used to group 83
school verified children with learning disabilities from the standardization
sample. Six subgroups were identified. "The study provided evidence of
the DASís ability to diagnose the learning disabled differentially and
provide distinct profiles of LD subgroups."
McIntosh, D. E., Mulkins, R., Pardue-Vaughn, L., Barnes, L. L., et al.
(1992). The canonical relationship between the Differential Ability Scales Upper
Preschool Verbal and Nonverbal clusters. Journal of School Psychology,
McIntosh, D. E., Wayland, S. J., Gridley, B., & Barnes, L. L. B. (1995).
The relationship between the Bracken Basic Concept Scale and the Differential
Ability Scales with a preschool sample. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 13, 39-48.
Olinger, E.J. (1992). Teaching Differential Ability Scales
tasks according to Sternberg's theory of human intelligence. Unpublished
master's thesis, Wichita State University.
Platt, L. O., Kamphaus, R. W., Keltgen, J., & Gilliland, F. (1991). An
overview and review of the Differential Ability Scales: Initial and current
research findings. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 271-277.
Topics: Purpose and Design; Rationale and Theoretical
Background; Psychometric Properties; Conclusions. "These features of
the DAS may be harbingers of the future of intelligence testing. The DAS
appears to have promise as a useful addition to the field of intelligence
testing and seems to be worthy of at least trail clinical and research
Reinehr, R. C. (1992). Review of the Differential Ability Scales. In J. J.
Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), Eleventh mental measurements yearbook
(pp. 282-283). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Riccio, C. A., Ross, C. M., Boan, C. H., Jemison, S., & Houston, F.
(1997). Use of the Differential Ability Scales (DAS) Special Nonverbal Composite
among young children with linguistic differences. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 15, 196-204.
Sandoval, J. (1992). Using the DAS with multi-cultural populations: Issues of
test bias. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 10, 88-91.
This is an excellent, short article addressing the issues
of Bias and face Validity, Bias and Content Validity, Bias and the Test
Construct, and Bias and Predictive Validity. "My overall conclusion is
that the DAS is one of the least obviously biased tests available today. The
test development and the test results have resulted in a relatively
culturally fair measure...I for one believe that having a diagnostic test
such as the DAS will be important for all children and that, as we learn
more about it, we will be able to use it with increasing levels of
Shapiro, S. K., Buckhalt, J. A., & Herod, L. A. (1995). Evaluation of
learning-disabled students with the Different Ability Scales (DAS). Journal
of School Psychology, 33, 247-263.
Spelling, K. (1992). Dansk evneprove [Danish Ability Test]. Psykologisk
Paedagogisk Radgivning, 29, 127-132.
Stone, B. J. (1992). Prediction of achievement by Asian-American and White
children. (1992). Journal of School Psychology, 30, 91-99.
Stone, B. J. (1992). Joint confirmatory factor analysis of the DAS and
WISC-R. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 185-195.
A 4 factor solution emerged, consisting of Verbal
conceptual, Visual Spatial, Attention-Quantitative, and Processing Speed.
Using The Differential Ability Scales in ADHD Assessment,
The DAS was administered to 55 children, 18 identified as
ADHD on the basis of DSM-III-R criteria while 37 were randomly selected and
not receiving any special education services. Discrepancies based upon T
test comparisons were made. "As a group the children classified as ADHD
scored lowest on the three subtests whose tasks are most dependent on
sustained attention (Seq & Quant. Reasoning, Recall of Digits, Speed of
Information Processing)." Discriminate analysis indicated that 70.6% of
the ADHD group were correctly identified by a linear combination of SEQ, RD,