Not exactly. It has some of the same traits, but it's designed to focus more on the separate abilities, and less on the global ability. However, it is certainly a legitimate cognitive/IQ instrument, and one I've historically preferred for culturally/linguistically diverse populations, and some less-verbally-inclined children. I also like it for primary age children, as I find it more developmentally appropriate for many first graders. Also, the transformation of the z scores for the subtests is in the form of T scores, instead of scaled scores, where the mean = 50, and the standard deviation = 10 (versus x = 10, SD = 3). The composites are still in standard scores (x = 100, SD = 15).
It has three different, but slightly overlapping forms, for ages 2.6 to 3.5, 3.6 to 6.11, and 7.0 to 17.11. Not all composites are available for all age groups (fewer for the little ones). The school-age tests can also be administered to bright children as young as 5.0, so if you have a kindergartner being tested for giftedness, I would suggest that you inquire about having the higher test administered, as it has a much higher ceiling (all the way to nearly 18 y-o).
The breakdown of comparable composites is roughly like this:
GCA (Global Conceptual Ability) = FSIQ
Verbal = VCI
Spatial = PRI (part of it), or VSI (WISC-V)
Nonverbal = PRI (the other part of it), or FRI (WISC-V)
Working Memory = WMI
Processing Speed = PSI
Special Nonverbal Composite = NVI (WISC-V)
The GCA is composed of the V, S, and NV Composites (except in the toddlers, where S and NV are a mixed composite).
Here's an overview from the publisher:
http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/PDF/DAS-IIHandout.pdf
