Evaluation of satisfaction in an extracurricular enrichment program for high-intellectual ability participants

  1. Sastre Riba, Sylvia 1
  2. Fonseca Pedrero, Eduardo 1
  3. Santarén Rosell, Marta 1
  4. Urraca Martínez, María Luz 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

Journal:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Year of publication: 2015

Volume: 27

Issue: 2

Pages: 166-173

Type: Article

DOI: 10.7334/PSICOTHEMA2014.239 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Psicothema

Institutional repository: lock_openOpen access Editor

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the satisfaction of an extracurricular enrichment program of the cognitive and personal management of participants with high intellectual ability. Method: At the first time point, the sample consisted of n= 38 participants, and n= 20 parents; n= 48 participants at the second time point; and n= 60 participants at the third time point. The Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSA in Spanish), both for students (CSA-S) and for parents (CSA-P), was constructed. Results: The CSA-S scores showed adequate psychometric properties. Exploratory factor analysis yielded a unidimensional structure. Cronbach's alpha ranged between 85 and .86. Test-retest reliability was 0.45 (p<.05). The generalizability coefficient was .98. A high percentage of the sample was satisfied with the program, perceived improvements in cognitive and emotional management, motivation and interest in learning, and in the frequency and quality of their interpersonal relationships. Conclusions: The evaluation of educational programs is necessary in order to determine the efficacy and the effects of their implementation on the participants' personal and intellectual management.

Bibliographic References

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, D.C: Author.
  • Bennett, G.K., Seashore, H.G., & Wesman, A.G. (2000). Test de Aptitudes Diferenciales (DAT-5): manual. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
  • Blanco, A., Sastre, S., & Escolano, E. (2010). Desarrollo ejecutivo temprano y Teoría de la Generalizabilidad: bebés típicos y prematuros [Executive function in early childhood and Generalizability Theory: Typical babies and preterm babies]. Psicothema, 22, 221-226.
  • Brighton, C.M., Brown, E., Gubbins, E.J., & Moon, T.R. (2005). Institute on gifted program evaluation: Evaluating the effectiveness of services for gifted children. Presentation at National Association for Gifted Children. Columbus OH (november).
  • Castelló, A., y Batlle, C. (1998). Aspectos teóricos e instrumentales en la identifi cación del alumno superdotado y talentoso [Theoretical and instrumental aspects in the identifi cation of gifted and talented students]. Faísca, Revista de Altas Capacidades, 6, 26-66.
  • Chacón, S., Sanduvete, S., Portell, M., & Anguera, M.T. (2013). Reporting a program evaluation: Needs, program plan, intervention, and decisions. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 13, 58-66.
  • Chacón, S., Anguera, M.T., & López-Rioz, J. (2000). Diseños de evaluación de programas: bases metodológicas [Program evaluation designs: Methodological foundations]. Psicothema, 12, 127-131.
  • Cronbach, L.J., Gleser, G.C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profi les. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Dai, D.Y. (2005). Reductionism versus emergentism: A framework for understanding conceptions of giftedness. Roeper Review, 27, 144-151.
  • Dai, Y.D., & Chen, F. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 151-168.
  • Downing, S.M. (2006). Twelve steps for effective test development. In S.M. Downing & T.M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 3-25). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Haladyna, T.M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test item (3ª ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
  • Illinois Exemplary Program Handbook (1979). Springfi eld: Illinois Offi ce of Education.
  • International Panel of Experts for Gifted Education (2009). Professional promotion of the gifted and talented: Recommendations for the qualifi cation of experts in gifted education. Salzburg: ÖZBF.
  • Lord, E.W., & Cotabish, A. (2010). Snapshot survey of gifted programming effectiveness factors. In Using the National Gifted Teacher Preparation Standards and NAGC Program Standards to Inform Practice. Session presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Atlanta, GA.
  • Lozano, L.M., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology, 4, 73-79.
  • Matthews D.J., & Foster, J.F. (2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted education. Roeper Review, 28, 64-69.
  • McCoach, B., Rambo, K., & Welsh, M. (2013). Assessing the growth of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 56-67.
  • Moreno, R., Martínez, R., & Muñiz, J. (2006). New guidelines for developing multiple-choice items. Methodology, 2, 65-72.
  • Muñiz, J., García-Cueto, E., & Lozano, L.M. (2005). Item format and the psychometric properties of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 61-69.
  • Renzulli, J.S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 150-159.
  • Rios, J., & Wells, C. (2014). Validity evidence based on internal structure. Psicothema, 26, 108-116.
  • Sastre-Riba, S. (2013). High intellectual ability: Extracurricular enrichment and cognitive management. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 119-132.
  • Sastre-Riba, S. (2014). Intervención psicoeducativa en la Alta Capacidad Intelectual: funcionamiento intelectual y enriquecimiento extracurricular [Psychoeducational intervention in high ability: Intellectual functioning and extracurricular enrichment. Revista de Neurología, 58, 589-598.
  • Schmeiser, C.B., & Welch, C. (2006). Test development. In R.L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed.) (pp. 307-353). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
  • Sireci, S., & Faulkner-Bond, M. (2014). Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema, 26, 100-107.
  • Subotnik, R.F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F.C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science, 12, 3-54.
  • Torrance, E.P. (1974). The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Normstechnical manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
  • Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2012). Curriculum issues: Curriculum, instruction, and assessment for the gifted: A problem-based learning scenario. Gifted Child Today, 36, 71-75.
  • Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2011). An evaluation of the Gifted Programs in Bellevue. Washington: College Wiliam and Mary.
  • VanTassel-Baska J., MacFarlane, B., & Feng A. (2006). A cross-cultural study of exemplary teaching: What do Singapore and the United States secondary gifted class teachers say? Gifted and Talented International, 21, 38-47.
Data source: Dialnet