Stability of Measure In High Intellectual AbilityPreliminary Results
-
1
Universidad de La Rioja
info
-
2
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
info
ISSN: 0212-9728, 1695-2294
Year of publication: 2018
Volume: 34
Issue: 3
Pages: 510-518
Type: Article
More publications in: Anales de psicología
Related Projects
Abstract
Despite there having been improvements in efficiency and ease on test scoring for individuals with high intellectual ability, the stability of these scores is not assured. The main objective of our research is a preliminary detection of variations in test scores from a group of children that were identified as having HIA. This was done by means of a single-time assessment of children currently following an enrichment program. A total of n=26 students participated (19 male and 7 female) in the study. The age range was between 12 and 17 years, being the average age 13.89 years (SD = 1.09 years). Differential Aptitude Test (DAT-5) and Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) were used to assess the logical-deductive intellectual skills and creative thinking. The results show that test scores may change in a considerable amount in many supposedly HIA individuals. More than 30% of the variance cannot be attributed to common components in the two measurements points. The scores in creativity were the most fluctuating, something that could be expected of these scales having the lowest reliability indexes. Only eight participants remain steady, according to the one standard deviation criterion, and it is quite notorious that two participants show a decrease in three subscales out of five. On the other hand, two other participants have shown an increase in one subscale as well as a decrease in another. In order to foster HIA individuals and their wellbeing, it is essential to be careful with mistaken diagnoses (false-negatives and false-positives), given the fact that they will lead to developmental consequences.
Bibliographic References
- Acar, S., Sen, S., & Cayirdag, N. (2016). Consistency of the performance and nonperformance methods in gifted education: A multilevel meta-analytic review. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 81–101. doi:10.1177/0016986216634438.
- Akobeng, A. K. (2016). Understanding type I and type II errors, statistical power and sample size. Acta Paediatrica, 105, 605–609. doi:10.1111/apa.13384.
- Bennett, G., Seashore, G., & Wesman, A. (2000). DAT-5, Test de Aptitudes Diferenciales. Madrid: TEA ediciones S.A.
- Dai, D. Y. (2005). Reductionism Versus Emergentism: A framework for understanding conceptions of giftedness. Roeper Review, 27, 144–151. doi:10.1080/02783190509554308.
- Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2014). Paradigms of Gifted Education: A Guide to Theory-Based, Practice-Focused Research. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
- Feldhusen, J. F. (2005). Giftedness, Talent, Expertise, and Creative Achievement. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 64-79). New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Ferrando, M., Ferrándiz, C., Bermejo, M.R., Sánchez, C., Parra, J., & Prieto, M.D. (2007). Internal structure and standardised scores of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Psicothema, 19, 489-96.
- Fiedler, K., Kutzner, F., & Krueger, J. I. (2012). The long way from α-error control to validity proper: problems with a short-sighted false-positive debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 661–669. doi:10.1177/1745691612462587.
- Geake, J. G. (2009). Neuropsychological characteristics of academic and creative giftedness. L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness (pp. 261–273). Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
- Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2008). The Munich High Ability Test Battery (MHBT): A multidimensional, multimethod approach. Psychological Science, 50, 173–188.
- Horowitz, F. D. E., Subotnik, R. F. E., & Matthews, D. J. E. (2009). The development of giftedness and talent across the life span. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Keating, D. P. (2009). Developmental science and giftedness: An integrated life-span framework. In F. D. Horowitz, R. S. F., and D. J. Matthews (eds), The development of giftedness and talent across the life span (189–208). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Mareschal, D. (2011). From neoconstructivism to neuroconstructivism. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 169–170. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00185.x.
- Neubauer, A. C., & Fink, A. (2009). Intelligence and neural efficiency. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 33, 1004–1023. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.04.001.
- Nisbett, R. E. (2009). Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count. W. W. Norton & Company.
- Pfeiffer, S. I. (2008). Handbook of Giftedness in Children: Psychoeducational Theory, Research, and Best Practices. Springer US: Media, Springer Science+Business.
- Pfeiffer, S. I. (2011). Current perspectives on the identification and assessment of gifted students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 3–9. doi:10.1177/0734282911428192.
- Pierson, E. E., Kilmer, L. M., Rothlisberg, B. A., & McIntosh, D. E. (2012). Use of Brief Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftednes. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 10–24.
- Plomin, R., & Spinath, F. M. (2004). Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 112–129. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.112.
- Robinson, A., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2008). History of Giftedness: Perspectives from the Past Presage Modern Scholarship. In Pfeiffer, Steven I. (Ed.) Handbook of Giftedness in Children. Psychoeducational Theory, Research and Best Practices (pp.13-31). Springer US: Media, Springer Science+Business.
- Silverman, L. (2009). The Measurement of Giftedness. In Shavinina, Larisa (Ed.) International Handbook of Giftedness (pp. 1313–1326). Springer Netherlands.
- Sternberg, R. J. (2004). International Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
- Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2011). Explorations in giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Subotnik, R. F. (2003). A developmental view of giftedness: From being to doing. Roeper Review, 26, 14–15. doi:10.1080/02783190309554233.
- Subotnik, R. F. (2009). Developmental transitions in giftedness and talent: Adolescence into adulthood. in F. D. Horowitz, R. F. Subotnik, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent across the lifespan (pp. 155-170). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness an gifted education: a proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science, 12, 3–54.
- Terman, L. (1926). Genetic studies of genius. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). Myth 8: The patch-on approach to programming is effective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 254–256.
- Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B- Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton: NJ Pers. Press.
- VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., & Evans, B. L. (2007). Patterns of identification and performance among gifted students identified through performance tasks: A three-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 218–231. doi:10.1177/0016986207302717.
- Warne, R. T. (2016). Five reasons to put the g back into giftedness: an argument for applying the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of intelligence to gifted education research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 3–15.
- Worrell, F. C. (2009). What does gifted mean? Personal and social identity perspectives on giftedness in adolescence. In F. D. Horowitz, R. F. Subotnik, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent across the lifespan (pp. 131-152). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.