Identifying Academically Gifted English-Language Learners Using Nonverbal Tests

Abstract

In this study, the authors compare the validity of three nonverbal tests for the purpose of identifying academically gifted English-language learners (ELLs). Participants were 1,198 elementary children (approximately 40% ELLs). All were administered the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven), the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT), and Form 6 of the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT). Results show that the U.S. national norms for the Raven substantially overestimate the number of high-scoring children; that because of errors in norming, the NNAT overestimates the number of both high-scoring and low-scoring children; that primary-level ELL children score especially poorly on the NNAT; that the standard error of measurement was twice as large for the NNAT as for the Raven or the CogAT; that ELL children scored .5 to .67 standard deviations lower than non-ELL children on the three nonverbal tests; and that none of the nonverbal tests predict achievement for ELL students very well. Putting Research to Use: Do nonverbal reasoning tests level the field for ELL children? Many practitioners have assumed that they do. However ELL children in this study scored 8 to 10 points lower than non-ELL children on the three nonverbal tests. The study also shows that practitioners cannot assume that national norms on the tests are of comparable quality. When put on the same scale as CogAT, Raven scores averaged 10 points higher than CogAT and NNAT scores. For NNAT, the mean is correct but the variability was up to 40% too large. Thus, when using national norms, both the Raven and NNAT will substantially overestimate the number of high-scoring children.

Analyse of the Relation between the Coloured Progressive Matrices Test and the Cognitive Abilities Test Form-6 in the Preschool Period of Gifted Children

“…This test is often used in the diagnosis of gifted children in the early ages (Cotton et al, 2005). Lohman et al (2008) It is said that the non-verbal Coloured Progressive Matrices Test (CPM), the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) and the Nonverbal Battery of Cognitive Abilities Test are often used to identify preschool gifted children who speak English in the US and who are new English learners. Again, the need to apply non-verbal tests such as CPM, NNAT, Nonverbal Battery of CogAT is emphasized to English learners to ensure that the abilities can be measured fairly (Lohman et al, 2008).…”

“…Investigations are continuing to answer this question. (Lewis et al, 2007;Lohman et al, 2008;Schroth & Helfer, 2008). Although the results of the study differ, the use of more than one means of measurement and the common use of non-verbal and verbal tests are suggested.…”

“…(Cao, Jung & Lee, 2017;Carman, Walther & Bartsch, 2018;Lohman & Hagen, 2003;Lohman, Korb & Lakin, 2008;Yang, 2009). The validity and reliability study in Turkey of this test was conducted by İnal (2011) on 380 children at the age of 61-72 months.…”

“…Although the results of the study differ, the use of more than one means of measurement and the common use of non-verbal and verbal tests are suggested. When foreign literature is studied, it is seen that different tests are used together in the diagnosis of preschool gifted children as well as of children in different age groups (Lohman et al, 2008;Cao, Jung & Lee, 2017). From this point, in this study, it is aimed to investigate the relation between the non-verbal and culturally independent CPM, which is frequently used in the international literature during the preschool period and the CogAT Form-6, which is a group of tests evaluating the cognitive abilities in verbal, quantitative and non-verbal dimensions of children in different age groups, including the preschool period and which is also used in the international literature to diagnose gifted children.…”

The Interest Issues of Gifted Children

“…For example, neuropsychological tests and neuropsychological tasks (Karakaş & Doğutepe-Dinçer, 2011) in the neuro-cognitive approach, creative productive activities-experiences in the educational approach (Renzulli, 1999), parental observations (Özbay, 2013), teacher evaluations (Schroth & Helfer, 2008), peer evaluations (Callahan, Hunsaker, Adams, Moore, & Bland,1995), and intelligence tests (Burns & O'leary, 2004;Castellano, 2002;Lohman, Korb, & Lakin, 2008;Mönks & Pfluger, 2004;Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998) are applied for determining gifted and talented children.…”