Exploring Correlations between CAS-2:ES and CEFI Attention Scales in a Sample of Young Hispanics

Autores/as

  • Nicole Ruiz-Raíces Ponce Health Sciences University Autor/a
  • Christian De León-Casillas Ponce Health Sciences University Autor/a
  • Rosanna Rodríguez Ponce Health Sciences University Autor/a
  • Giliam Torres Ponce Health Sciences University Autor/a
  • Mary Moreno-Torres Ponce Health Sciences University Autor/a

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71332/cb1dtq11

Resumen

The purpose of this study was to explore the correlation between the Cognitive Assessment System-2: Español (CAS-2:ES) and the Comprehensive Executive Function Inventory (CEFI) Attention Sub-Scales. Best, Miller, and Naglieri (2011) indicated that executive functions (EF) are related to behavioral control and academic achievement. The authors observed an increase in EF and academic task performance in children, but a gradual reduction in adolescents. The PASS theory conceptualized intelligence as the interrelationship of four neurocognitive processes: planning, simultaneous, successive and attention, which are linked to EF (Das, Naglieri and Kirby, 1994). These four cognitive processes are measured by the CAS-2:ES while the CEFI measures the behavioral component of executive functioning. There are nine sub-scales of CEFI: Attention, Emotion Regulation, Flexibility, Inhibitory Control, Initiation, Organization, Planning, Self-Monitoring, and Working Memory (Naglieri & Goldstein, 2013). Since the CAS-2:ES measures the cognitive component of EF and the CEFI measures the behavioral component of EF, we hypothesized that both Attention sub-scales will not correlate between the instruments. Using a correlational-causal transactional design, the sample of this study is n = 29 youth between 12 to 16 years of age. Pearson correlations was conducted for the within-group comparisons between EF and attention variables. Our statistical analysis did not correlate between the sub-scales (r = 0.04; p = .837). According to the literature, both attitude sub-scales should correlate; however, due to the different instruments utilized our findings is inconsistent with the discussion reported by Naglieri & Goldstein (2013). These findings suggest divergent validity between the instruments.

Descargas

Los datos de descarga aún no están disponibles.

Publicado

2019-04-05

Número

Sección

Resúmenes

Artículos más leídos del mismo autor/a