Neuropsychology Review, Vol. 9, No.

2, 1999

A Neo-Lurian Approach to Assessment and Remediation

J. P. Das1,2

The first part of this article presents an operational battery of tasks for measuring the four cognitive
processes of Planning, Arousal-Attention, and Simultaneous and Successive processing (PASS) not
only based on the qualitative data provided in Luna's syndrome analysis, but also taken from tasks
in experimental cognitive psychology and neuropsychology. The second part of the article presents
a remedial program based on PASS for enhancement of reading. Because this part provides in some
detail the efficacy of the remedial procedure, it simultaneously validates the PASS constructs as well.
In both parts of the article, I have been unmistakably guided by Luria's views: Tests are approaches
to investigating cognitive functions, and the purpose of testing is to guide rehabilitation.
KEY WORDS: Luria; neuropsychology; assessment; neo-Lurian; PASS; remediation.

INTRODUCTION

ropsychological findings to the area of intelligence (Das,

Naglieri, and Kirby, 1994), I and my coworkers found
that his syndrome analysis is consistent with a psychometric analysis of four major cognitive processes composing
Planning, Arousal-Attention, and Simultaneous and Successive processes (PASS) that were directly derived from
his writings on the functional organization of the brain.
Further, Luria's clinical research into neurological disorders and rehabilitation after brain injury (Luria, 1963) has
influenced the construction of a remedial program (PREP)
for ameliorating cognitive deficits, especially those related
to dyslexia and poor reading. Both of these, that is, conceptualizing intelligence in terms of a battery of tests and
constructing a remedial program, are the subject matter of
this article.

I had the good fortune of visiting Luria in October

and November of 1975. Beyond any doubt, he is the best
known and the most frequently cited Russian psychologist
in Western psychological literature. As I wrote in a short
biography (Das, 1994), Luria remained productive under
Stalin, did not slow down when removed for a few years
from the Neurosurgical Institute to the Institute of Defectology, retained his optimism, and worked extremely
hard until his death following a third heart attack. When
I met Luria less than 2 years before his death, I found
that neuropsychology was thriving under his leadership.
He held clinics three times a week at the Neurosurgical
Institute and through case presentations discussed many
fine points of assessing intellectual and emotional problems as well as methods for rehabilitation (Das, 1976). He
worked hard until the end of his life, without any intention
of retirement, because, as he told me, he did not think that
mature scientists should retire and be left to grow roses!
Luria was born in Kazan, Russia, on July 16, 1902,
and he died in Moscow on August 14, 1977. His ideas
have been extremely helpful in understanding cognitive
deficits, including dyslexia. While extending Luria's neu-

THE PASS THEORY IN BRIEF

We must remember that underlying each method of psychological investigations (and this is also true of psychological tests)
are theoretical assumptions about the structure of psychological
processes and their breakdown. Each has its own theory, its own
ideology. Therefore, any failure to recognize the theory or their
ideology which lies behind these tests, will quickly lead to disenchantment, and sometimes also to great errors. (Zeigamik el al.,
1977, p. 91)

1 University

of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

should be directed to the author at Developmental
Disabilities Centre, 6-123D Education North, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, AB, Canada T5G 2E5. E-mail: J.P.Das@ualberta.ca.

The four PASS processes are presented in the context of PASS theory of intelligence. This theory identifies
three operational units that are important to understanding

2A11 correspondence

107
1040-7308/99/0600-0107$16.00/0C1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

Das

108

mental functioning: Attention, Simultaneous and Successive processing, and Planning (Das, Naglieri, and Kirby,
1994). Based on the work of Luria (1966a, 1966b, 1973),
the PASS theory is grounded in neuropsychology. A neuropsychological view of intelligence is different from the
existing psychometric tests of intelligence; it attempts to
determine how the mind works by anchoring its functions
on the brain and by detecting dysfunctions. It does not seek
to place people on a scale of merit and therefore is not a tool
for social selection as IQ tests have been used in the past.

The maintenance of attention and regulation of cortical tone, the processing and storing of information, and
the management and direction of mental activity compose
the activities of the functional units that work together to
produce cognitive processing (Das, Naglieri, and Kirby,
1994; Luria, 1966b).
In the schematic diagram of the PASS model shown
in Fig. 1, there are three main divisions: input, processing, and output. Input arrives through sense organseyes,
ears, nose, tongue, and skinas well as through muscles,

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the PASS model of cognitive processes.

PASS
joints, and internal organs, through which we receive sensations of movement and pain. All this input must be
sorted, analyzed, stored, and interpreted, which is broadly
described as processing. We then use this information in
performance, which is the output. Once received, the input
is transformed by the sense organ into messages and sent
to be processed. As far as cognitive tasks or problems in
intelligence tests are concerned, the input is processed in
three blocks or functional units.
Arousal-Attention is the first unit to be discussed.
It comprises basic behaviors such as the orienting reflex
(Pavlov, 1928), as well as instances of complex behavior
involved in discrimination learning and selective attention.
Attention is considered to be much more complex
than the simple orienting response in cognitive psychology. It is certainly a basic component of intelligent behavior involving allocation of resources and effort. Arousal,
attention, effort, and capacity are the concepts that have
a complex relationship. All of them have importance in
understanding cognitive behavior. Hyperactive behavior
is an example of a complex disorder in arousal-attention.
The second functional unit includes SimultaneousSuccessive coding of information. Simultaneous processing involves the arrangement of incoming information into
a holistic pattern, or a gestalt, that can be "surveyed" in its
entirety. For example, sight recognition of whole words
involves this kind of processing (Das, 1988). In geometry,
and, to a certain extent in understanding math problems,
the child may be required to hold all elements of the task
together in the mind, surveying the elements before solving the problem. Successive processing refers to coding
information in discrete, serial order where the detection
of one portion of the information depends on its temporal position relative to other material. It is used in skills
such as spelling, where the child has to pay attention to
the sequence or succession of letters in the word in order to spell it correctly. It may also be used in sequential
tasks such as writing. To restate a Lurian principle, no part
of the brain works by itself. Similarly, no cognitive task
solely requires simultaneous or successive processing or
any other process for that matter; it is a matter of emphasis.
An individual may use one or the other process, depending
on (a) the task requirement, such as in spelling and decoding words phonetically (use of successive processing), and
(b) the child's habitual mode of information processing.
The relationship between simultaneous-successive processing and school learning illustrates the usefulness of
the process model and its advantage over a general ability
measure (Das, 1988).
The last major function to evolve developmentally
is Planning and decision making. Luria (1966b) referred
to planning as that which consists of programming, reg-

109
ulation, and verification of behavior. Planning is viewed
as a process that incorporates the nonroutine selection of
programs and that, in Shallice's (1982) view, functions
through a supervisory attentional system. Parenthetically,
it should be noted that theoretical work on planning, aside
from Luna's work, takes a variety of forms (see Das et al.,
1996); however, most views include the main elements
stressed by Cicerone and Tupper (1986): (a) the ability to
formulate goals, (b) the ability to develop a plan to reach
the goals, (c) the ability to execute plans, and (d) the ability
to monitor the execution and revision of plans as required.
As part of Luria's systems approach, the interaction
between planning and the other functions of the brain, particularly the attentional functions, is emphasized. Luria
particularly stressed the fact that the physiological relationships between attention and planning are evident in
the major ascending and descending cortical fibers that
link the first and third functional unit areas of the human
brain, respectively, and that behavioral studies strongly
confirm the interdependence between these units.
Although we have inferred that the four processes
contribute to cognitive performance, output, or performance, is the response or behavior that alone can be measured. Individuals sometimes show a gap between what
they know and what they can do, that is, between knowledge and performance. Output, or performance, may have
to be properly programmed before we can express what
we know. Performance can thus be influenced by cognitive
factors, such as the failure to come up with an appropriate
motor program, or by motivational and personality factors.
An important component of the PASS theory of intelligence is the knowledge base. We can solve any problem only when we have an adequate base of knowledge
for those tasks. The base is built by both formal and informal learning. The knowledge base is also increased
through processing information as well as from the response or output. Prior knowledge influences all processing and output.

TESTS AS TOOLS: OPERATIONALIZING PASS

The tests in this model are not tests of mental abilities; rather, following Luria, we regard them as approaches
or occasions for studying cognitive processes. For example, consider the cognitive functioning of persons with
dyslexia. Despite having adequate general intelligence,
persons with dyslexia or individuals with specific reading deficits display considerable difficulties in reading.
How do these tests help us to understand the processes involved in this disorder? Can the operationalized measures
of PASS (PASS tests) provide tools for analyzing processes

no

Das

Fig. 2. Scheme for assessment of Planning, Attention, and Simultaneous and Successive processing
(PASS).
that are associated with dyslexia? Several studies suggest
that this is possible (Das, 1992). The arrangement of tests
for the PASS functions is given in Fig. 2.
As can be seen in Fig. 2, at the most general level, PASS tests measure the four processes: Arousal-Attention, Simultaneous-Successive processing, and Planning.
Then, for each process, the tests are named. For instance,
Arousal-Attention is divided into two major parts: sustained attention and selective attention. A task for sustained attention is Auditory Vigilance, in which a man's
voice and a woman's voice are recorded on a tape recorder
cassette and played back to the individual who is being
tested. The man's voice says the names of five animals

and five items of furniture. The woman's voice does the

same, but the animal and furniture words occur at random
at the rate of one per second. The individual's task is to tap
the table or desk in front of the tester whenever an animal
word is spoken by the man and a furniture word is spoken by the woman. This is an excellent task not only for
sustained attention, but also for false detections. We have
observed that children with attention deficit are identified
more easily by their false detection scores than by their
correct detections (Das, Mishra, and Kirby, 1994).
In selective attention, we have two kinds of tasks; one
involves selection at the level of reception of the stimulus, and the other at the stage of expression. The first task

PASS
consists of a Posner-type test (Posner and Boies, 1971),
which has two parts. The first consists of letter pairs (BB,
DD,...) that are identical (physical match) and some distractor pairs (BN, TP, ...), which are not. An individual
is to cross out those that "look the same," that is, those
pairs that are physically identical. In Name Match, on the
other hand, the letters, such as Bb, Dd, are to be crossed
outone of them is written in the upper case, whereas the
other is written in the lower case. This is a receptive attention test; selective attention to the letter pairs occurs at the
stage of presentation. In contrast, selection at the expression, or response, stage is tested by the familiar Stroop
Test (Stroop, 1935). The last card in Stroop is used by
the PASS tests as a measure of interference in selecting to
respond to the color of the ink, a conflict card on which
the four color words are written in ink color that does not
go with the word.
The simultaneous scale may consist of Figure Memory, in which the individual is allowed to look at a geometrical figure such as a diamond for 5 seconds and then
find the figure embedded in another geometrical figure.
The other simultaneous tests are Tokens, Design Construction, and Matrices, which are widely used for verbal
(Tokens) and nonverbal spatial tests. The successive tasks
include Successive Ordering, in which the subject is asked
to watch the examiner as he or she turns over little chips;
then, the subject is required to turn over the same chips
in the order that the examiner did. In Serial Word Recall,
nine words, all familiar one-syllable words, are presented
repeatedly in list lengths of three to nine words; the subject's task is to repeat the words in the order in which they
were presented. Sentence Repetition similarly involves repeating a sentence that is read to the individual ("The purple blued the green yellow"). Speech Rate (Hulme et al.,
1984) is an interesting test in which three words are given
to the individual and the subject is required to repeat the
words aloud as fast as possible ("Say 'egg, bus, leaf, egg,
bus, leaf, egg, bus, leaf,' on and on, until I ask you to
stop"). The examiner stops the subject after 10 repetitions
and records the time that the subject took for repetition.
Sentence Questioning is an extension of Sentence Repetition. After the subject listens to the sentence, instead of
repeating it, the subject must answer a question from the
sentence ("The pink blued the yellow. Who was blued?").
The planning tasks are the familiar Visual Search (a
number target embedded among a field of randomly scattered numbers, a letter target among letters, a picture target
among pictures) and Trails at the low level of planning.
At the medium level of planning, the tasks are Matching
Numbers (finding two numbers that are identical in a row
of six numbers: 5736, 8295,7168,5736,4273,9571) and
Verbal Fluency ("Say as many words beginning with letter

111
d as you can"). At the high level of planning, Crack-theCode and Planned Composition have been used. Crackthe-Code is like the Mastermind game. In Planned Composition, the subject is shown a vague picture and is asked
to write a story about it on one page (see Das, Naglieri,
and Kirby, 1994, for a description of these PASS tasks).
A diagram, presenting the division of the PASS tasks and
their links to perception, memory (mnestic), and conceptualization, is provided in Fig. 2.
All these tasks are measures of the processes that
were previously identified. However, there are two ways
of evaluating whether or not these tests do measure these
processesone is construct validity, and the other is
through correlations and factor analysis, both of which
are discussed in the next section. We prefer construct validity to factor analysis.
To measure attention, simultaneous and successive
processing, and planning, the instruments must be consistent with both the "process of interest" and the theoretical foundation from which the theory was derived (Das,
Naglieri, and Kirby, 1994, p. 102). Tasks used to measure
the components of the PASS model are varied in terms
of format and content. Figure 2 provides a brief overview
of selected tasks used to measure each functional unit of
the PASS model. Extensive research demonstrating the
validity of these tasks has been conducted not only by the
author in his lab, but also by outsiders (Naglieri, 1989;
Naglieri et al., 1989; Naglieri and Reardon, 1993). Many
of the above tests are now normed and included in the
Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (1997).
SYNDROME ANALYSIS AND MULTIVARIATE
ANALYSIS
Of fundamental concern here is the question of the
possible relationships between Luria's theory and data
drawn from clinical investigations of subjects with brain
damage, and the various investigations as conducted by
a variety of researchers using primarily multivariate statistical methods on data from normal and high-incidence
atypical populations (Das et al., 1975, 1979). Das and
Jarman (1991) discussed this issue and suggested that the
relationship between these lines of research may be examined from three points of view:
1. To what extent should these investigations accept
Luria's model uncritically and merely apply it in the
interpretation of the multivariate data?
2. To what extent does a logical and empirical relationship exist between the results of Luria's investigations, especially syndrome analysis, and the results
from multivariate studies?

Das

112
3. To what extent can or should Luria's model be revised and affected by the outcome of various multivariate investigations?
With respect to the first question, we can find an increasing acceptance of his work among neuropsychologists and the corresponding growing trend toward a .systems perspective in neuropsychology (Walsh, 1985,1987).
Briefly, the second question relates to syndrome analysis. Its basis may be found in Luria's clinical technique
and the interlocking concepts of a functional system and
a behavioral syndrome. Luria's technique of clinical research was based on two principles:
1. That a qualitative analysis of behavior was necessary, utilizing virtually hundreds of tasks in some
cases, to lead to the identification of a defect.
2. That a single lesion or defect may demonstrate itself
in diverse behaviors (Cicerone and Tupper, 1986).
The concept of a syndrome, as an extension of these
principles, was central to Luria's work, whereby a syndrome was identified as a constellation of signs and symptoms, which, in turn, supplied what we would now term
an operational definition for a functional system. Thus,
Luria's clinical method entailed the accumulation of converging evidence from many tasks to define a syndrome.
The syndrome, then, emerged as a common cognitive process that was disrupted in seemingly disparate tasks. This
clinical method, in turn, allowed Luria to define various
areas of regional specialization in the brain and to map
sets of functional systems that operate at various levels of
generality within and between these areas.
The research process that Luria utilized, therefore,
involved the definition of a variety of syndromes by identifying one or more cognitive processes that are common
to tasks performed by subjects with brain damage. A parallel approach is to operationally define constructs. This is
achieved by identifying one or more cognitive processes
that form the principal basis for individual differences
within a set of tasks. Such differences among normal and
various atypical subjects are then supported by using multivariate methods, particularly factor analysis, whenever
possible.
The approach adopted in the multivariate studies by
Das and collaborators (Das et al., 1979; Das, Naglieri,
and Kirby, 1994) has been to focus mainly on the use of
tasks that were employed extensively by Luria or tasks
that are very similar to them (although, as noted previously, the tasks used by Luria are many and frequently too
easy for a nonclinical population), combined with other
tasks derived from the constructs of planning, arousalattention, and so forth. Thus, in factor analytic terms,
this research is confirmatory in two ways: the selection

of tasks and the hypothesized outcomes of the analyses.

By using both a variety of tasks common to Luria's investigations and a wide selection from cognitive psychology,
and then by varying subject populations with known disorders, research support for the neo-Lurian model, PASS,
has gradually emerged. There is increasing evidence that
multivariate investigations of normal subjects that parallel
syndrome analysis can inform theory in neuropsychology
(Clark, 1981; Dean, 1985).
Among the multivariate techniques, a new advancement, structural factor analysis, or LISREL, has added
significant power to traditional factor analysis (McArdle,
1996). This procedure allows hypothesis testing and,
through path diagrams, can even suggest causal pathways
between cognitive processes and performance. "Is the observed syndrome consistent with the model of cognitive
dysfunction?" is the sort of question Luria would have
asked and answered had he been given the technique for
structural factor analysis. However, he would not have
looked for a model after doing the factor analysis, but
before; nor would he have determined that a certain test
is good for diagnosis of the syndrome merely because it
has a high loading on a factorfor these are some of the
pitfalls in using the advanced structural factor analysis,
as they were in traditional factor analysis. If multivariate
analysis must inform neuropsychological theory, we cannot, for example, assume that a test of planning or attention
is a test of that process simply because it loads on the same
factor as two other tests of planning or attention. Clinical
data obtained from known cases of attentional or planning
deficit must support the use of the test. Alternatively, the
test must have been used in cognitive psychology experiments as a test of attention or planning.
The last question is answered in the context of the
section on Future Directions.
USING PASS THEORY FOR READING
REMEDIATION
When primary school children of otherwise normal
intelligence fail to acquire reading, they are labeled as
learning disabled, poor readers, or dyslexic. In an attempt
to remediate their problem in word reading, which also
created difficulties in reading comprehension, we used a
cognitive remedial program, PREP (The PASS Remedial
Program) (Das, 1999).
Remediation Program: PREP
The PREP was designed to improve selected aspects
of children's information-processing skills and to increase
their word-reading and decoding abilities. Procedures such

113

PASS
as rehearsal, categorization, monitoring of performance,
prediction, revision of prediction, word sounding, and
sound blending are an integral part of each of the PREP
tasks. Rather than being explicitly taught by the tutor, children receiving training in PREP are encouraged to become
aware of the use of underlying cognitive processes. This
is achieved through discussion of what they did during the
tasks. In this way, inductive inference and internalization
occur spontaneously rather than through deductive rule
learning (Campione and Brown, 1987; Vygotsky, 1962).
The first part of the remediation program consists of
training tasks that challenge the children to use successive
or simultaneous processing when required. The objective
is to improve children's "global" processes. These precede the "bridging" tasks that have reading-related material. Children are taken through the training tasks in a
way that provides structured experience in using the targeted cognitive process and facilitates the discovery and
internalization of the strategies.
Transfer occurs as a result of the fact that the surface
structures of the tasks are diverse and not too much time
is spent in practicing a single task. "High road" transfer
(Salomon and Perkins, 1989), a transfer of principle, occurs in the "bridging" part of this program, as evidenced in
the study by Das et al. (1995) and the new studies reported
in the next section. The "global" part is essential for the
program to be effective in improving word-decoding performance, as shown in empirical studies (Das et al., 1995;
Das, Naglieri, and Kirby, 1994, chapters 9 and 10).
The PREP remediation program comprises 8 tasks,
each with a global-processing training form and a curriculum-related bridging form. The global form has no reading content, but it provides a structured series of exercises
that require the application of successive and simultaneous strategies as well as planning and attentional resource
allocation. The bridging form has the same cognitive demands as its matched global form, but it employs letters
and their combinations.
Each task has three levels of difficulty; the easiest
level allows the child to have initial success with the materials and to become familiar with the task and the expectations of the training program. The more difficult levels
build on the easiest level through added complexity. Depending on the progress the child makes, the remediation
program typically requires 15 to 18 hours during approximately 12 weeks. In each session, one teacher gives the
PREP to four students.
Through its cognitive-processing tasks, the PREP
program provides children with an opportunity to develop
strategies for the key cognitive processes required for word
decoding. In contrast to direct practicing of phonemic
skills, the cognitive strategies that children with reading

disabilities discover and learn by themselves in one part

of the program are then transferred to word decoding and
spelling in the second part. The PREP's application for improving reading skills in underachieving children is briefly
discussed in the next section.

The Remediation Studies

The most recent study of the PREP program, using a
multistudent format, four students to one tutor, was done
by Carlson and Das (1997), to improve reading in underachieving children (the so-called Chapter 1 children) in
Hemet, California. In this study, one teacher instructed
children in two 50-minute sessions per week during a
3-month period. Both the PREP (N = 22) and control
(N = 15) group samples continued to participate in the
regular Chapter 1 programs offered in their schools. To examine the efficacy of the PREP in terms of improvement
in reading achievement, we administered Word Attack
and Letter-Word Identification subtests of the Woodcock
Reading Mastery TestRevised (WRMT-R; Woodcock,
1987) at the beginning and the end of the study in a
pre/post design. The results showed that the children who
received PREP remediation gained substantially (almost
1 year in word reading and decoding). The children in
the control group did not show any improvement. However, when comparing the treated and untreated students
to determine the efficacy of PREP training, one must remember that the gains achieved for the group exposed to
PREP were compared with the gains of untreated students
in the control group who were nonetheless receiving the
usual remedial education in their classroom.
Although the data from the initial Hemet study provided support for the utility of the PREP program in improving word reading, the number of children in the sample was small (N = 22 in the remedial group, N = 15 in
the comparison group).
In the second study in Hemet, we asked (a) if the
improvement due to the PREP could be replicated with a
larger group of Chapter 1 children, and (b) if the PREP
could also bring about any improvement in some of the
PASS cognitive functions underlying word reading and
decoding.
As mentioned earlier, in recent research on reading
disability, deficits in phonological coding and articulation
have been identified as core difficulties associated with
reading disabilities, despite normal intelligence (Torgesen
et al., 1987). We have conducted studies that show that
successive processing is required for phonological coding
and articulation of sequences of letters and sounds (Das,
Mishra, and Kirby, 1994; Kirby and Das, 1990), and that

Das

114
the path of the relationship between short-term memory
span and reading passes is through abilities for phonological coding and articulation (Das and Mishra, 1991).
Thus, beyond phonological coding, which is recognized as the primary deficit in reading disability (Share
and Stanovich, 1995; Stanovich, 1988), Chapter 1 children also have difficulty in using successive processes as
well as in planning and attention (Das, 1995). Within the
context of successive processes, the PREP training tasks
require planning and attention processes in the global part
and both phonological coding and articulation in the bridging part. Thus, for the second study, we selected PASS tests
that measure these processes as pre- and post-test cognitive measures. Forty-one children in the remediation group
and 37 children in the comparison group were included.
All children in the sample were pre- and post-tested on
the Word Attack and Word Identification subtests of the
WRMT-R.
The following tasks from the PASS battery were administered as pre- and post-tests to all children: Speech
Rate, Sequence Repetition, Serial Word Recall, Sentence
Repetition, Sentence Questioning, and selective attention
tasks. Results indicated that, as before, the pre- to post-test
gains for the control and experimental groups were significantly different; that is, the latter had higher scores. The
results in regard to word-decoding tests, Word Identification and Word Attack, showed clear gains for the PREPtreated group. This new information concerns the gains in
PASS test performance following remedial training.
The PASS test improvements following treatment occurred for the treated group in tests of expressive attention
that correspond to the Stroop (1935) interference score
("Name the color of the ink, not the word"). The experimental group became faster on the post-test, which resulted in the significant interaction (p = .028). Considering the successive tests, Sentence Repetition is close to
a test of working memory, as is Serial Word Recall; both
use successive processing. However, the former is a test
of articulation because the nonsense syntax ("The blue
yellows the red that greens the pink") must be remembered and repeated verbatim. In contrast, Serial Word Recall requires the sequential recall of discrete words. The
F ratio for interaction is significant (p = .04) for the former and approaches significance (p = .10) for the latter.
The two remaining successive tests, Sequence Repetition
and Speech Rate, have a heavy component of articulation
speed. The first is clearly significant; the second reaches
a p = .066. When time or speed is the score, a greater
instability is expected than for accuracy scores. Therefore,
we are encouraged to accept the significant results when
speed scores are involved, but with caution.

Our results are consistent with other empirical evidence that PREP training is effective in enhancing decoding in word reading and spelling (Spencer et al., 1989). The
global and bridging tasks facilitate transfer of phonological and orthographic principles learned during training to
word identification as well as decoding of pseudo-words
in Word Attack tests. What is of particular importance
in this study is that the PREP led to improvement in the
successive processing tasks that are at the base of word
decoding. The finding that an intervention program can
lead to improvement in the broader underlying cognitive
processes that moderate the targeted achievement, in this
case decoding and word reading, is remarkable and unusual.

Future Directions
For future research on the PREP, we suggest a closer
look at what happens during PREP sessions by observing the crucial interactions between the student and the
instructor or academic therapist. In session after session
of practice, we can use the microgenetic method (Kuhn,
1995; Siegler, 1994) to study on-line changes that occur
and accumulate to produce transfer of principles or strategies such as successive cognitive processing.
Observation of those crucial interactions among three
agents during remediationthe child, his or her attempt
at solving a task, and the instructor or therapistwas of
central importance to Luria. Along with Tsvetkova, he extended his dynamic approach to psychological assessment
to remediation and rehabilitation (Luria and Tsvetkova,
1990). When I was shown around the rehabilitation hospital in Moscow in 1975, accompanied by Professor
Tsvetkova, what impressed me was the "labor-intensive"
therapy procedure that was in progress. For example, a patient with aphasia was being taught to read by a medical
doctor and a psychologist who were bending over him,
engaged in intense interactions! Transferring the LuriaTsvetkova technique of rehabilitation of patients with brain
damage to remediation of reading or problem-solving difficulties will be neither necessary nor appropriate. However, the basic principles can be transferred: Observe the
children's cognitive deficiency associated with their dysfunction in reading or math, obtain a thorough understanding of the cognitive and neuropsychological functions associated with that dysfunction, then proceed with
an appropriate remedial technique. Luria (1963) began
his treatise on rehabilitation by stating that rehabilitation
of patients with brain injury must have a scientific basis. The scientific basis he was looking for was found in

PASS
the functional organization of higher cortical processes;
the PASS model and the PREP provide a neo-Lurian expansion.
In conclusion, we hope that the PREP program is
just the beginning of a scientific approach to learning dysfunctions; it should be developed to remediate math problem solving, and even beyond learning disabilities to other
learning problems such as attention deficit disorder.
The gap between a theory of cognitive functions and
amelioration of cognitive deficits needs to be bridged; our
approach is one attempt to fulfill this need. We have tried to
provide a scientific basis for remediation and intervention
and, at the same time, question the rationale of administering standardized intelligence tests.
Great changes have occurred in the field of intelligence and the neuropsychology of cognitive processes
since Luria's time. It would be a mistake to ignore these,
and Luria would have been the first to advise us against
adhering to his original notions. The greatest changes
have occurred in our understanding of the functions of
the frontal lobes, and Luria longingly suggested that only
the young scientists who would follow him would be able
to discover such functions, which are planning and consciousness. The challenge for a neo-Lurian theory is to investigate the highest cognitive functions of humans, which
was begun by Luria and has been followed by Sperry, Shallice, and others (see Das et al., 1996), and the challenge
can be met not so much by theorizing, but by observation
and more observation, to quote Pavlov's dictum.

REFERENCES
Campione,J and Brown, A. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with
school achievement. In Lidz, C. (ed.), Dynamic Assessment, Guilford Press, New York, pp. 82-115.
Carlson, J., and Das, J. P. (1997). A process approach to remediating word
decoding deficiencies in Chapter 1 children. Learning Disability
Quarterly 20: 93-102.
Cicerone, K. D., and Tupper, D. E, (1986). Cognitive assessment in the
neuropsychological rehabilitation of head-injured adults. In Uzzell,
B. P., and Gross, Y. (eds.), Clinical Neuropsychology of Intervention, Martinus Nijhoff, Boston.
Clark, C. M (1981). Statistical models and their application in clinical
neuropsychological research and practice. In Filskov, S. B., and
Boll, T, J. (eds.), Handbook of Clinical Neuropsychology, Wiley,
New York.
Das, J. P. (1976). Psychological science: Some impressions of the scene
in Moscow. Canadian Psychological Review 17:151-157.
Das, J. P. (1988). Simultaneous-Successive processing and planning.
In Schmeck, R. (ed.), Learning Styles and Learning Strategies,
Plenum, New York, pp. 101-129.
Das, J. P. (1992). Beyond a unidimensional scale of merit. Intelligence
16:137-149.
Das, J. P. (1994). Luria. In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Human
Intelligence, Macmillan, New York, pp. 678-681.
Das, J. P. (1995). Is there life after phonological coding? Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology 1, 87-90.

115
Das, J. P. (1999). PASS Reading Enhancement Program, Sarka Educational Resources, Deal, NJ.
Das, J. P., and Jarman, R. F. (1991). Cognitive integration: An alternative
model for intelligence. In Rowe, H. (ed.), Intelligence: Reconceptualization and Measurement, Erlbaum, New York.
Das, J. P., Kar, B. C., and Parrila, R. (1996). Cognitive Planning: The
Psychological Basis of Intelligent Behavior, Sage, New Delhi,
India.
Das, J. P., Kirby, J. R., and Jarman, R. F. (1975). Simultaneous and
successive synthesis: An alternative model for cognitive abilities.
Psychological Bulletin 82: 87-103.
Das, J. P., Kirby, J. R., and Jarman, R. F. (1979). Simultaneous and
Successive Cognitive Processes, Academic Press, New York.
Das, J. P., and Mishra, R. K. (1991). Relation between memory span,
naming time, speech rate, and reading competence. Journal of
Experimental Education 59:129-139.
Das, J. P., Mishra, R. K., and Kirby, J. R. (1994). Cognitive patterns of
children with dyslexia: Comparison between groups with high and
average nonverbal intelligence. Journal of Learning Disabilities 4:
235-242,253,
Das, J. P., Mishra, R. K., and Pool, J. E. (1995). An experiment on
cognitive remediation of word-reading difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities 28:66-79.
Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., and Kirby, J. R. (1994). Assessment of
Cognitive Processes, Allyn & Bacon, New York.
Dean, R. S. (1985). Foundation and rationale for neuropsychological
bases of individual differences. In Haulage L. C, and Telgrow,
C. F. (eds.), The Neuropsychology of Individual Differences: A
Developmental Perspective, Plenum, New York.
Hulme, C., Thomson, N., Muir, C., and Lawrence, A. (1984). Speech
rate and the development of short-term memory span. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology 38: 241-253.
Kirby, J. R., and Das, J. P. (1990). A cognitive approach to intelligence:
Attention, coding and planning. Canadian Psychology 31: 320331.
Kuhn, D. (1995). Microgenetic study of change: What has it told us?
Psychological Science 6:113-139.
Luria, A. R. (1963). Restoration of Functions After Brain Injury,
Macmillan, New York.
Luria, A. R. (1966a). Higher Cortical Functions in Man, Basic Books,
New York.
Luria, A. R. (1966b). Human Brain and Psychological Processes,
Harper & Row, New York.
Luria, A. R. (1973). The Working Brain: An Introduction to Neuropsychology, Basic Books, New York.
Luria, A. R., and Tsvetkova, L. S. (1990). The Neuropsychological
Analysis of Problem Solving, Paul M. Deutsch Press, Orlando, FL.
McArdle, J. J. (1996). Current directions in structural factor analysis.
Current Directions 5: 11-18.
Naglieri, J. A. (1989). A cognitive processing theory for the measurement
of intelligence. Educational Psychologist 24:185-206.
Naglieri, J. A., and Das, J. P. (1997). Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment
System, Riverside Publishers, Itasca.
Naglieri, J. A., Prewett, P., and Bardos, A. N. (1989). An exploratory study for planning, attention, simultaneous and successive
cognitive processes. Journal of School Psychology 27: 347364.
Naglieri, J. A., and Reardon, S. M. (1993). Traditional IQ is irrelevant
to learning disabilitiesIntelligence is not Journal of Learning
Disabilities 26: 127-133.
Pavlov, I. P. (1928). Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes (W. H. Grant,
trans.), International Publishers, New York.
Posner, M. I., and Boies, S. J. (1971). Components of attention.
Psychological Review 78: 391-408.
Salomon, G., and Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational
Psychologist 24:113-142.
Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London 298:199-209.

116
Share, D., and Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early
reading development: Accommodating individual differences into
a model of acquisition. Issues in Education: Contributions from
Educational Psychology 1:1-57.
Siegler, R. (1994). Cognitive variability: A key to understanding cognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science 3:
1-4.
Spencer, F., Snart, F., and Das, I. P. (1989). A process-based approach
to the remediation of spelling in students with reading disabilities.
The Alberta Journal of Educational Research 35:269-282.
Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic
and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable
difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities 21: 590-604,
612.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.
Journal of Experimental Psychology 18: 643-661.

Das
Torgesen, J. K., Kistner,J., and Morgan, S. (1987). Component processes
in working memory. In Borkowski, J., and Day, J. (eds.), Memory
and Cognition in Special Children: Perspectives on Retardation,
Learning Disabilities and Giftedness, Ablex Publishing, Norwood,
NJ, pp. 49-86.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language, M.I.T. Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Walsh, K. W. (1985). Understanding Brain Damage, Churchill
Livingstone, London.
Walsh, K. W. (1987). Neuropsychology: A Clinical Approach, Churchill
Livingstone, London.
Woodcock, R. W, (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery TestRevised,
American Guidance Service, Circle Pines, MN.
Zeigarnik, B. V., Luria, A. R., and Polyakov, Y. F. (1977). On the use of
psychological tests in clinical practice in the USSR. Intelligence
1:82-93.