An Independent Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Differential Ability Scales

Abstract

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.

Sex differences in latent cognitive abilities ages 5 to 17: Evidence from the Differential Ability Scales—Second Edition

“…Although not based on any one theory, the DAS factor structure was generally consistent with what is now often termed Cattell-HornCarroll (CHC) theory (Dunham, McIntosh, & Gridley, 2002;Keith, 1990Keith, , 2005Keith, Quirk, Schartzer & Elliott, 1999;Sanders, McIntosh, Dunham, Rothlisberg, & Finch, 2007;Stone, 1992). The second edition of the DAS is also based on multiple theories and empirical findings, but is also explicitly tied to CHC theory (Elliott, 2007).…”

Differential Ability Scales – Second Edition (neuro)psychological predictors of math performance for typical children and Children with Math Disabilities

“…The Verbal (Gc), Nonverbal Reasoning (Gf), and Spatial (Gv) abilities factor structure hypothesized for the DAS and DAS-II Core subtests has been validated using large standardization samples (Elliott, 1990(Elliott, , 2007; children with cultural, linguistic, or racial differences (DiCerbo & Barona, 2000;Keith, Quirk, Schartzer, & Elliott, 1999;Riccio, Ross, Boan, Jemison, & Houston, 1997); and children with developmental and learning disabilities (Dumont, Cruse, Price, & Whelley, 1996;Elliott, 2001;Gibney, McIntosh, Dean, & Dunham, 2002;Hughes & McIntosh, 2002;Kercher & Sandoval, 1991;McIntosh & Gridley, 1993;Shapiro, Buckhalt, & Herod, 1995). The structure is also supported by independent exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (Daleo et al, 1999;Dunham, McIntosh, & Gridley, 2002;Keith, 1990). The DAS-II Introductory and Technical Handbook (Elliott, 2007) provides evidence that the Core subtest factor structure remains unchanged from the original DAS.…”

Higher‐order factor structure of the Differential Ability Scales–II: Consistency across ages 4 to 17

“…The DAS was developed to emphasize specific individual cognitive strengths and weaknesses as well as general intelligence. Independent validation studies found support for the intended structure of the DAS (Dunham, McIntosh, & Gridley, 2002; Keith, 1990) and showed that it measured the same constructs across its age range, 2 1 / 2 through 17 (Keith, 1990). Although designed from an eclectic theoretical orientation, the DAS factor structure was generally consistent with Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory (cf.…”