Su búsqueda

Giftedness, a dynamic construct, develops over time. During the transition from adolescence into adulthood, gifted individuals move first from broad educational experiences to more narrowly focused efforts in universities, colleges, institutes, or conservatories, followed by the pursuit of scholarly productivity, innovation, or artistry. The focus of this chapter is on the catalysts for these transitions. I take the view of talent development as the transformation of abilities into competencies, competencies into expertise, and expertise into outstanding performance or seminal ideas. Finally, I explore the stages of talent development experienced by gifted adolescents as they move into scholarly productivity or artistry in adulthood, focusing on the increasingly important role played by psychosocial variables in the fulfillment of their potential. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In this chapter, I argue that researchers of giftedness should shift emphasis from null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) to confidence intervals (CIs) and other preferred techniques. I start with a brief summary of arguments put forward by statistical reformers and describe basic features of CIs. I then report a small survey of current statistical practices in giftedness research and a comparison with practices in psychology generally. The main part of the chapter is a discussion of p values and CIs in relation to replication; I focus on the Pearson’s r correlation, because r is so widely used in giftedness research. A simulation demonstrates the large variability in r, and even greater variability in p values, over replications of a simple experiment. Calculations confirm that a p value gives only very vague information about replication, and therefore any p value could easily have been very different, simply because of sampling variability (Cumming, 2008). The severe deficiencies of p values in relation to replication give an additional strong reason for giftedness researchers to turn from NHST and pursue statistical reform with vigor. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Asher (1986) identified two factors that limit theory development and validation in gifted education research: imprecise measurement and small numbers of participants. He made this important point: “These two factors...combine to insure (sic) that results are obscure and that statistical significance is difficult to obtain” (p. 7). Asher was right about statistical significance being difficult to obtain: In fact, it may well be an unnecessarily difficult hurdle. The fact that p < .05 is difficult to obtain is only really a problem if statistical significance is considered the only acceptable evidence of result noteworthiness. In this chapter, I argue that it should not be and that falsely equating statistical significance with result noteworthiness has serious consequences. To demonstrate this, I draw lessons from other disciplines. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Especially gifted and creative people are in relatively short supply, but are also very interesting. Because Q-technique factor analysis is especially suited for the intensive study of a small number of especially interesting people, Q-technique factor analysis is especially suitable for inquiry about giftedness and creativity. The purpose of the present chapter is to provide a primer on using Q-technique factor analysis in the intensive study of gifted or creative people, or other especially interesting people. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter addresses some of the most frequent misconceptions about the talent development framework. The misconceptions include: emphasizing domains of talent over general giftedness means that everyone is gifted in something; including a wider range of students may lead to talent development programs being watered down; talent development supporters do not value IQ or general ability; talent development ignores psychological needs by not focusing on the "whole child"; in a talent development framework, it is possible to 'lose' one's giftedness, whereas with the IQ model, once gifted, always gifted; a talent development framework does not serve underachievers; everyone could be gifted if they just had the right opportunities; and talent development only focuses on individuals who can become eminent. Gifted education will continue to evolve and change as new information is learned from basic and applied research studies. New conceptions of intelligence, giftedness, and talent development may emerge as a result. Revision of prevalent models based on new understandings keeps a field fresh and relevant. Talent development offers a new perspective on how to serve gifted and talented students with a greater focus on a broader range of students as well as a broader range of talents and abilities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Two major objectives motivated us to develop a volume of contributions from developmental psychologists and from experts in gifted education. First, we wanted to better understand how recent advances in developmental psychology might enhance our understanding of high-level achievement and performance and help to translate the science in light of research, policy, and practice in gifted and talented education. Second, we wanted to interest developmental psychologists in a consideration of exceptionally high-end abilities in their conceptual frameworks. These understandings also have implications for clinicians working with clients throughout the life span. This concluding chapter discusses key themes across the volume; gaps in the research literature; implications for policy; implications for educational practice; and challenges met and challenges ahead. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

The family of statistical techniques that make up structural equation modeling (SEM) offers many potential advantages in education research, including studies about gifted students. These techniques are highly versatile and permit the evaluation of a wide range of hypotheses, including those about direct or indirect effects, measurement, or mean differences on either observed or latent variables. They have also become quite popular among researchers. Indeed, it is increasingly difficult to look through an issue of an education research journal and not find at least one article in which results of SEM analyses are reported. In gifted research, SEM has been used less often, but there are more and more such studies in this area, too. However, there are some potential pitfalls of using SEM in gifted research that are inherent to the study of a special population, including range restriction, regression effects, and the need for large samples. Accordingly, the goals of this chapter are to (a) review the general characteristics of SEM with special consideration of possible advantages in educational research and (b) consider specific potential pitfalls of using SEM in gifted research. Outlined next are important issues in basically all applications of SEM. Later sections deal with problems specific to the use of SEM in education research in general and in gifted research in particular. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Given my interest in statistics and design, I was pleased to be able to read the chapters in Parts 1 and 2 of this book and think about applying the concepts within them to my own work. I am going to respond to the earlier chapters from two different perspectives—as a former editor of two of the major journals in the field of gifted education and as a current reviewer for several others, and as a researcher in the field of gifted education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

To understand and better serve the needs of the gifted, the field must produce quality research to inform practice. Far too often, recommendations in the field of gifted education are based on conventional wisdom or anecdotes instead of data-driven research. This book provides accessible introductory treatments of several modern analytic methods that can be used to advance our knowledge within the field of gifted education. It also alerts researchers about potential pitfalls of inferential statistics in general as well as analytical areas of particular concern within the field of giftedness. As someone who is passionate about both gifted education and research methodology, I am honored to be able to provide some comments about the techniques contained in this volume and to provide thoughts about future methodological directions for our field. This chapter contains three sections. First, I describe some of my own research within the field of gifted education. Then, I briefly describe studies that I am planning or contemplating that utilize some of the methodologies described in this book. Finally, I offer some thoughts on methodological issues that researchers in the field of gifted education should consider as they are planning their studies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Factor analysis is often used to summarize relationships among many variables into a manageable, smaller set of factors. The methodology is frequently employed in instrument development and assessment of score validity, but it has other applications as well. This chapter reviews some common applications of factor analysis, provides an accessible treatment of how to conduct and interpret the analysis with a heuristic example, and discusses some potential benefits and problems that may be faced when conducting factor analysis in the study of giftedness. Factor analysis has enjoyed a long history of use across the social sciences. With most approaches, factor analysis is employed when researchers seek to reduce many variables to a smaller set of factors. The factors can then be thought of as a synthesis, or representation, of the many variables from which the factors were created. There are other uses of the methodology, such as Q-technique factor analysis, which can be used to identify types of people (see chap. 2, this volume), but most often variables are the subject of the analysis and therefore are the focus of this chapter. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Five strategic steps posited here suggest a course of action that can lead to systemic and sustainable innovation in public-school music education: (1) reconcile perspectives regarding the purpose of music education; (2) establish a framework for comprehensive, interdisciplinary programs that are intended to benefit all children; (3) prepare advanced college-conservatory students to contribute to the development and sustainability of innovative programs as 'artist-teacher- scholars'; (4) form networks of college-conservatory, arts organization, and public school partnerships; and (5) explore and promote new conceptions of giftedness that result from the implementation of innovative forms of music education practices in public schools. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

We all have an intuitive feel for the terms gifted, talented, high performer, expert, and eminent and often use the words interchangeably. Most have identified themselves as talent developers as well as psychologists of high performance. They have in some way engaged with programs serving children, youth, and adults who have been classified as gifted. They have been called experts themselves, and some are eminent psychologists, scientists, artists, and sporting greats. This chapter serves to frame the discussion of talent development and high performance. It begins with an overview of the talent development mega model because it provides the theoretical basis for this volume. The chapter provides brief definitions of several of the terms that reoccur in discussing high performance including potential, giftedness, talent development, high performance, expertise, and eminence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Mathematical talent is an intriguing human phenomenon. From the time of Poincare (1908/1952), who linked mathematical talent to mathematical creation, the relationship between mathematical talent and mathematical creativity has been at the heart of the discussion of mathematical talent. Analysis of the criteria used for empirical examination of mathematical talent shows that researchers connect mathematical talent to general giftedness, to mathematical achievement, or to mathematical creativity. This chapter discusses the developing mathematical talent in schoolchildren. It starts by discussing the components and complexities of mathematical talent and goes on to review several frameworks for its development. It briefly addresses characteristics of mathematical content and didactical principles directed at the development of mathematical talent. Finally, it briefly addresses the proficiency required for teaching the gifted and presents examples of mathematical problems and their solutions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The chapters in Parts 1 and 2 of this book provide considerable detail about myriad approaches to quantitative and mixed method research designs and important issues to consider when using those designs. The authors build a compelling case for the importance of using those designs in moving the research base in gifted studies toward greater sophistication. The first author’s awareness of the need to enhance the literature base by incorporating increasingly sophisticated research approaches crystallized in November 1997 at the National Association of Gifted Children conference just after a symposium on research methodology had ended, when Laurence J. Coleman, Michael Pyryt, and I stood talking about the session. I asked Michael if he thought the field of gifted studies was ready to move in a postpositivistic direction. As he was known to do, he thought about what I had asked him and carefully responded with his own question: “How can the field of gifted studies become postpositivistic when our research base is still prepositivistic?” That was Michael’s way of critiquing our field as being reliant on too many studies that were theoretically unsound and poorly conducted. The symposium had emphasized the epistemological and ontological assumptions of qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Arguments were made during the session for the utility of both approaches, but with an emphasis being placed on the limitations of each in terms of the nature of the research questions that can and cannot be addressed by either. While few academics these days still question the usefulness of either quantitative or qualitative research (see Capraro & Thompson, 2008; Larabee, 2003), what Michael did in few words was summarize the research in the field of gifted studies circa 1997. This book is intended to be both a catalyst and a primer for future research in gifted studies to help us move from prepositivistic to positivistic and postpositivistic approaches. Michael would be pleased. In this chapter, we describe the various research approaches we have utilized over the years, including both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Other chapters in this volume have provided fodder for additional discussions about our research. As a result of the ideas generated by our fellow authors in this volume, we propose an enhancement to our existing research through the use of structural equation modeling (SEM) as described by Kline in chapter 7 of this volume. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Bias attributable to missing data conditions is often ignored by applied researchers. In response, journal editors (e.g., von Elm et al., 2007) and governing bodies (e.g., Wilkinson & APA Task Force, 1999) are increasingly calling for missing data analysis as routine assessment. The term missing data is traditionally used in reference to the condition of a study participant missing one or more, but not all, survey responses, test items, or other data points. In addition, methods to control the bias resulting from nonequivalent comparison groups could be viewed as a “missing data” scenario (Dates & King, 2009), though in this chapter we emphasize the former. Consideration of the effects of missing data is critically needed in studies of giftedness. Frequent causes of missing data include study dropouts in longitudinal studies of children through adolescence and adulthood and incomplete data records due to oversight on the part of respondents, refusal to answer certain questions, or a host of other reasons. Missing values can sometimes be safely ignored if observed for only a very small percentage of items. Yet even a few omitted responses can significantly bias results if the data are missing systematically. For example, consider a hypothetical study of 10,000 children in which 5% are categorized as gifted. Observing a modest missing data rate of 2% may nonetheless be of concern should the absent values all fall within the gifted population (i.e., 40% of gifted children would have missing data). In such an instance, ignoring missing values or applying ineffective adjustments may drastically alter study outcomes and lead to invalid conclusions. It is therefore imperative that giftedness researchers carefully examine the consequences of even modest amounts of missing data and familiarize themselves with best practices for handling these conditions. This chapter proceeds by briefly describing a typology for categorizing missing data. We then provide a review of the strengths and weaknesses of a number of traditional and contemporary methodologies for handling missing data, followed by discussion and detailed application of a new, “hybrid” approach that is capable of adjusting for both item-level missing data and missing cases in a nonequivalent groups design, a scenario frequently faced by the applied researcher. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In this chapter, I want to capture what it is like to be young, gifted, and Black in America. My theoretical perspective is that of a motivational psychologist, so I focus on how contemporary approaches to motivation research can shed light on giftedness in African American adolescents. I organize my discussion of African American gifted adolescents around overarching questions about "can" and "want." In framing my discussion, I focus on both the normative challenges of adolescence relevant to giftedness as well as the unique challenges that gifted Black adolescents are likely to encounter. To do this, I must cast a broad net and begin with factors that are unique to the everyday lives of people of color. Everything that I write in this chapter is shaped by the recognition that many racial and ethnic minority groups in contemporary America are positioned at the bottom of a status hierarchy wherein barriers to opportunity often override personal strivings for achievement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Lynn Liben raises three broad, thought-provoking issues in her chapter on giftedness in the spatial-graphic domain (see chap. 4, this volume; see record 2009-00231-004). First is the role of the study of giftedness in developmental psychology and the question of why giftedness is such a neglected area of study within psychology. Second, she prods readers to consider just how one should undertake the study of spatial giftedness, which is itself a much neglected domain of study within the area of giftedness relative to the study of mathematical and verbal giftedness. And finally, she leads readers to recognize what can be learned from the study of spatial-graphic giftedness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In this chapter, the authors have presented here a model of giftedness by referring to the specific domain of music. The model defines giftedness as a transitional process in which different characteristics contribute to the transformation of abilities into competencies and expertise and, in exceptional cases, into scholarly productivity or artistry. This transformation is made possible through the interaction of innate abilities and context, as specified at each stage. The authors have also outlined how they believe education can best facilitate the passage from abilities to competencies to expertise and scholarly productivity or artistry. They offer this model, based on research in the domain of music in the United States, as a useful framework for understanding, comparing, and nurturing talent development in other domains and other countries. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

This chapter briefly discusses programming options for the primary grades, intermediate grades, and upper grades. Adopting a talent development framework for gifted education services in schools requires significant shifts in perspective and practice, but these are shifts that many administrators find appealing and that communities will support. A talent development approach expands the traditional concept of a gifted education program. Gifted education programs that emphasize domains of talent instead of a notion of global giftedness are easily understood and embraced, not only by other education professionals, but also by the public, which can lead to expanded parental, legislative, and corporate support for services for gifted students. With this support from important stakeholders, parents of gifted learners and K–12 educators are able to address a wide variety of challenges that impede school districts from providing appropriate services across all grade levels on a day-to-day basis for students with gifts and talents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The consideration of giftedness and talent in a developmental perspective requires an understanding of the current issues in developmental theory with respect to the origins of individual differences and prediction across the life span—from infancy through the adult years. In this chapter I discuss these matters along with changes in the definition of giftedness and talent, the emerging themes in the developmental discourse on giftedness and talent, the role of cultural contexts and matters of diversity, and the implications of all of these issues for setting the research agenda in the field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)