![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
This study further examined the Gifted Rating Scales (GRS) at the internal and external stages of test validation by (a) testing structural fidelity as indicated by the number of factors supported as well as the correspondence of the latent factor structure with the scoring model proposed by the authors and (b) examining the external relations of factors underlying GRS ratings with the general factor from two widely used standardized tests of intelligence using the multimethod confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results of our analyses revealed the presence of a large general factor on both the GRS-Preschool (GRS-P) and the GRS-School (GRS-S) forms. This factor accounted for 80% of the variance on the GRS-P and 72% of the variance on the GRS-S, revealing that the vast majority of what the GRS measures is the general factor. In addition, coefficient ω for both the GRS-P and the GRS-S was .95 and ωH for the GRS-S was .92, demonstrating that this general factor is measured with a high degree of reliability. Results of multimethod CFAs indicated the general factor underlying the GRS correlated substantially with the general factor underlying the Wechsler scales, which may suggest that the GRS primarily reflects general cognitive ability and not multiple dimensions of giftedness. Implications of these results and directions for further research are discussed.
References
Section:
|
Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: A test anxiety example. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 17, 10-17. Google Scholar | |
|
Canivez, G. L. (2013). Incremental criterion validity of WAIS-IV factor index scores: Relationships with WIAT-II and WIAT-III subtest and composite scores. Psychological Assessment, 25, 484-495. Google Scholar | Medline | |
|
Canivez, G. L. (2014). Construct validity of the WISC-IV with a referred sample: Direct versus indirect hierarchical structures. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 38-51. Google Scholar | Medline | |
|
Canivez, G. L. (2016). Bifactor modeling in construct validation of multifactored tests: Implications for multidimensionality and test interpretation. In Schweizer, K., DiStefano, C. (Eds.), Principles and methods of test construction: Standards and recent advancements (pp. 247-271). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Google Scholar | |
|
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge. Google Scholar | |
|
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI | |
|
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Glorfeld, L. W. (1995). An improvement on Horn’s parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 377-393. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar | |
|
Jarosewich, T., Pfeiffer, S. I., Morris, J. (2002). Identifying gifted students using teacher rating scales: A review of existing instruments. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20, 322-336. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44, 3486-3507. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Kranzler, J. H., Floyd, R. G. (2013). Assessing intelligence in children and adolescents: A practical guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Li, H., Pfeiffer, S. I., Petscher, Y., Kumtepe, A., Mo, G. (2008). Validation of the Chinese Gifted Rating Scales-School Form in China. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 160-169. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Lucke, J. F. (2005). The α and the ω of congeneric test theory: An extension of reliability and internal consistency to heterogeneous tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 65-81. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Margulies, A. S., Floyd, R. G. (2004). Test review: The Gifted Rating Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22, 275-282. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U. S., Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Google Scholar | |
|
McClain, M., Pfeiffer, S. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 59-88. Google Scholar | |
|
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validity of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Muthén, L. K., Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Google Scholar | |
|
No Child Left Behind Act, P.L . 107-110 (2002). Google Scholar | |
|
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar | |
|
Petscher, Y., Li, H. (2008). Measurement invariance of the Chinese Gifted Rating Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 274-286. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2015). Essentials of gifted assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Google Scholar | |
|
Pfeiffer, S. I., Blei, S. (2008). Gifted identification beyond the IQ test: Rating scales and other assessment procedures. In Pfeiffer, S. I. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 177-198). New York, NY: Springer. Google Scholar | |
|
Pfeiffer, S. I., Jarosewich, T. (2003). Gifted Rating Scales. San Antonio, TX: Pearson. Google Scholar | |
|
Pfeiffer, S. I., Jarosewich, T. (2007). The gifted rating scales-school form: An analysis of the standardization sample based on age, gender, race, and diagnostic efficiency. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(1), 39-50. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667-696. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI | |
|
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137-150. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI | |
|
Sternberg, R. J., Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar | |
|
U.S. Bureau of the Census . (2000). Current population survey, October 2000: School enrollment supplement file [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Wagenmakers, E. J., Farrell, S. (2004). AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 192-196. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI | |
|
Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson Assessment. Google Scholar | |
|
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson Assessment. Google Scholar | |
|
Zigler, A., Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In Heller, K. A., Mönks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 3-21). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. Google Scholar |
