This study investigated the structure of the Differential Ability Scales (DAS; Elliott, 1990a) using confirmatory factor analysis with 130 normal school-aged children. Maximum likelihood estimation, using the six Core subtests, found an extremely good fit with the data and supported the DAS model proposed by Elliott (1990a). In addition, the six Core subtests were found to be strong measures of g, supporting their contribution to the General Conceptual Ability. Replication of Keith's (1990) final model, which included the six Core subtests and three Diagnostic subtests, was also conducted. This model was based on the same theoretical framework against which Keith (1990) tested his models. This theoretical framework was derived from a logical analysis of the nature of the subtests in light of prior research. The present study found a reasonably good fit for the data when the model included both the Core and Diagnostic subtests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arbuckle, J. (1997). Amos user's guide version 3.6. Chicago: Small Waters.
2.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models, Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
3.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures, Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
4.
Braden, J. (1992). The Differential Ability Scales and special education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 10, 92-98.
5.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen &J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equations models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
Byrd, P., & Buckhalt, J. (1991). A multitrait-multimethod construct validity study of the Differential Ability Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 121-129.
7.
Dumont, R., Cruse, C., Price, L., & Whelley, P. (1996). The relationship between the Differential Ability Scales (DAS) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISGIII) for students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 203-210.
8.
Elliott, C. (1990a). The DAS administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
9.
Elliott, C. (1990b). Differential Ability Scales: Introductory and technical handbook. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
10.
Elliott, C. (1997). The Differential Ability Scales. In D. Flanagan, J. Genshaft, & P. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 183-208). New York: Guilford.
11.
Elliott, S. (1990). The nature and structure of the DAS: Questioning the test's organizing model and use. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 406-411.
12.
Gridley, B., & McIntosh, D. (1992). The Differential Ability Scales. In D. J. Keyser & R. L. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques: Vol. 10 (pp. 167-183), Kansas City, KS: PRO-ED.
13.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LIS-REL-VI user's guide (3rd. ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
14.
Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISCIII. New York: Wiley.
15.
Keith, T. (1990). Confirmatory and hierarchical confirmatory analysis of the Differential Ability Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 391-405.
16.
Keith, T. (1999). Effects of generalized and specific abilities on student achievement: Similarities and differences across ethnic groups. School Psychology Quarterly, 14(3), 239-262.
17.
Keith, T., Quirk, K., Schartzer, C., & Elliott, C. (1999). Construct bias in the Differential Ability Scales? Confirmatory and hierarchical factor structure across three ethnic groups. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17, 249-268.
18.
Kercher, A., & Sandoval, J. (1991). Reading disability and the Differential Ability Scales. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 293-307.
19.
McGrew, K. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed comprehensive Gf-Gc frame-work. In D. Flanagan, J. Genshaft, & P. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151-174). New York: Guilford.
20.
McIntosh, D. E., & Gridley, B. (1993). Differential Ability Scales: Profiles of learning-disabled subtypes. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 11-24.
21.
Oh, H., Glutting, J., & McDermott, P. (1999). An epidemiological-cohort study of the DAS processing speed factor: How well does it identify concurrent achievement and behavior problems?Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17, 362-375.
22.
Platt, L., Kamphaus, R., 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.
23.
Shapiro, S., Buckhalt, J., & Herod, L. (1995). Evaluation of learning-disabled students with the Differential Ability Scales (DAS). Journal of School Psychology, 33, 247-263.
24.
Stone, B. (1992). Prediction of achievement by Asian-American and white children. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 91-99.
25.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
