Examining Prevalence at the Ends of the Spectrum

Shriner, James G.; Ysseldyke, James E.; Gorney, Deborah J.; Franklin, Mary Jo

doi:10.1177/074193259301400506

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The complexity of the prevalence question increases significantly when definitions of giftedness, and the ensuing identification criteria, include multiple abilities or traits. Most published definitions identify multiple traits (e.g., Davis & Rimm, 1994;Gagné, 1985Gagné, , 2003Gardner, 1983Gardner, /1994Marland, 1972;Renzulli, 1986;Shriner, Ysseldyke, Gorney, & Franklin, 1993;Sternberg, 1986;Tannenbaum, 1983). In some cases, the number of criteria remains small, like in Sternberg's distinction of three forms of giftedness associated with the three major components of his triarchic theory of intelligence (metacomponents, performance components, knowledge-acquisition components), or Tannenbaum's four categories of talent (scarcity, surplus, quota, anomalous).…”

Section: The Number Of Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the Size of the Gifted/Talented Population from Multiple Identification Criteria

Bélanger

Gagné

2006

Journal for the Education of the Gifted

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

à Montréal "How many are gifted or talented?" although very important, this question has received little attention from most scholars in gifted education. four major variables are identified that directly impact prevalence estimates: (a) the type of definition endorseddisjunctive or conjunctive, (b) the number of abilities/characteristics included, (c) the minimum selection threshold chosen, and (d) the correlations observed between the abilities included. a range of values was determined for the last three variables. By combining these values, we produced four tables of prevalence estimates, which reveal how these variables interact and how they affect the "how many" question. the results show that both the type of definition endorsed for the giftedness or talent concepts and the selection ratio have a crucial impact on the prevalence estimates. the authors argue that gifted education will never be recognized as a proper scientific field unless its scholars reach a consensus on both the definition and prevalence issues. How many individuals can be labeled gifted or talented? This question, commonly called the prevalence issue, appears quite simple, deceptively so. As we will see below, so many considerations need to be made that no simple answer can be given. The present article aims to explore some of the factors that affect the answer and show how interactions between them modify prevalence estimates. Common sense and simple statistical knowledge do reveal basic rules. For instance, the higher (more selective) the cutoff value chosen (e.g., top 15%, top 5%, or top 1%), the smaller the number of individuals labeled gifted and talented. Similarly, if giftedness and talent can take many forms (e.g., intellectual, social, artistic, athletic), the prevalence will increase as the number of domains or fields increases. Or, if two criteria are highly correlated, those who excel in one of Jean Bélanger is Professor in the Department of Special Education and Training at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM). Professor Françoys Gagné is a French Canadian from Montreal, Quebec. He has been active in gifted education since the early 1980s and has published extensively in that field.

show abstract

Section: The Number Of Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the Size of the Gifted/Talented Population from Multiple Identification Criteria

Bélanger

Gagné

2006

Journal for the Education of the Gifted

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By vaguely defining the characteristics of this population, however, the states invite variability in assessing and identifying grfted students, talented students, or both. In fact, Shriner, Ysseldyke, Gomey, and Franklin (1993) found that the category of grfted and talented was more variable than the categories of learning disability, educable mental retardation, and behavior disorders. Some states had prevalence rates as high as 9.9%, whereas others only 1.7%.…”

Section: Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Assessment beyond definitions

Johnsen¹

1997

Peabody Journal of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Hidden Gifted” Students: Underachiever Prevalence and Profile

Lupart

Pyryt

1996

Journal for the Education of the Gifted

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the present study was to provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the prevalence of one type of “hidden gifted” population (gifted underachievers) and to identify some of the key academic and personal characteristics that define this group. Study participants were selected from 19 elementary, junior, and senior high schools in a large Western Canadian urban school district. A formula was used to identify grades 4, 7, and 10 students whose measured intellectual potential was 120 or higher and who demonstrated a significant achievement-potential discrepancy. Out of a total of 80 prospective students, a final sample of 58 students was administered the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised (WJPB-R), the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale (PHSCS), and Thinking About My School (TAMS). Results of a MANOVA and discriminant analysis indicate that there was a significant interaction effect between gender and school level and a significant grade-level effect. Major findings were: (a) achievement scores on the WJPB-R were higher than their course grades; (b) there was a significant decline in attitudes toward school for this group of students at the junior high level, particularly for females; and (c) overall achievement declined as students progress from grade 4 to grades 7 and 10.

show abstract

Examining Prevalence at the Ends of the Spectrum

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

Estimating the Size of the Gifted/Talented Population from Multiple Identification Criteria

Estimating the Size of the Gifted/Talented Population from Multiple Identification Criteria

Assessment beyond definitions

“Hidden Gifted” Students: Underachiever Prevalence and Profile

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About