The identification of gifted underachievement: Validity evidence for the commonly used methods.
gifted education
identification
measurement
simple difference method
underachievement
Journal
The British journal of educational psychology
ISSN: 2044-8279
Titre abrégé: Br J Educ Psychol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0370636
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
revised:
12
02
2022
received:
21
10
2021
accepted:
12
02
2022
pubmed:
25
2
2022
medline:
17
8
2022
entrez:
24
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Much confusion exists about the underachievement of gifted students due to significant variations in how the phenomenon has been identified. From a review of the literature, five methods were found to be commonly used to identify gifted underachievement. The purpose of the study was to assess the equivalence of the commonly used methods to identify gifted underachievement, and to determine which of these methods may be optimal. Data were collected from a school in Sydney, Australia. Three measures of convergence (i.e., difference in proportions, phi association, and kappa agreement) were used to assess the equivalence of the identification methods, while latent class analysis was used to determine the optimal identification method. The convergence evidence suggested that the commonly used identification methods may not be considered convergent, while the criterion evidence indicated that one of the five identification methods may have strong levels of criterion validity. A conclusion was reached that the simple difference method may be the most valid method to identify gifted underachievement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Much confusion exists about the underachievement of gifted students due to significant variations in how the phenomenon has been identified. From a review of the literature, five methods were found to be commonly used to identify gifted underachievement.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of the study was to assess the equivalence of the commonly used methods to identify gifted underachievement, and to determine which of these methods may be optimal.
SAMPLE
METHODS
Data were collected from a school in Sydney, Australia.
METHOD
METHODS
Three measures of convergence (i.e., difference in proportions, phi association, and kappa agreement) were used to assess the equivalence of the identification methods, while latent class analysis was used to determine the optimal identification method.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The convergence evidence suggested that the commonly used identification methods may not be considered convergent, while the criterion evidence indicated that one of the five identification methods may have strong levels of criterion validity.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A conclusion was reached that the simple difference method may be the most valid method to identify gifted underachievement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35199852
doi: 10.1111/bjep.12492
pmc: PMC9543815
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1133-1159Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological Society.
Références
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Apr;117(4):883-885
pubmed: 21422860
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Jul;52(7):2633-6
pubmed: 24759715
Diagn Cytopathol. 2012 May;40 Suppl 1:E62-8
pubmed: 21557534
Am J Hum Genet. 2009 Dec;85(6):862-72
pubmed: 20004761
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2009 Sep;18(3):169-84
pubmed: 19701924
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37908
pubmed: 22662248
Child Dev. 2000 May-Jun;71(3):785-801
pubmed: 10953943
Sch Psychol Q. 2015 Dec;30(4):457-469
pubmed: 25581001
Am J Cardiol. 2013 Aug 15;112(4):560-6
pubmed: 23683972
Phys Ther. 2005 Mar;85(3):257-68
pubmed: 15733050
J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2009 Sep;38(5):630-8
pubmed: 20183648
Stat Med. 2014 Oct 30;33(24):4141-69
pubmed: 24910172
Stat Med. 1999 Nov 30;18(22):2987-3003
pubmed: 10544302
J Learn Disabil. 2002 May-Jun;35(3):194-204
pubmed: 15493316
Radiology. 2003 Aug;228(2):303-8
pubmed: 12819342
Front Psychol. 2019 Oct 22;10:2367
pubmed: 31695651
Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60
pubmed: 10501650
Med Educ. 2014 Jun;48(6):614-22
pubmed: 24807437
AACN Adv Crit Care. 2008 Apr-Jun;19(2):223-34
pubmed: 18560291