User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 29 |  Issue 4 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Abilities, elementary information processes, and other sights to see at the zoo. In R. Kanfer, P. L. Ackerman, & R. Cudeck (Eds.), Abilities, motivation, and methodology: The Minnesota symposium on learning and individual differences (pp. 281–293). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Anderson, J. E. (1939). The limitations of infant and preschool tests in the measurement of intelligence. Journal of Psychology, 3, 351–379.
  • Barton, P. E. (2005). One-third of a nation: Rising dropout rates and declining opportunities. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy Evaluation and Research Center.
  • Bayley, N. (1949). Consistency and variability in the growth of intelligence from birth to eighteen years. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 25, 165–196.
  • Callahan, C. M. (1992). Determining the effectiveness of educational services: Assessment issues. In Challenges in gifted education: Developing potential and investing in knowledge for the 21st century (pp. 109–114). Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED344416).
  • Carpenter, P., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Psychological Review, 97, 404–431.
  • Daniel, M. H. (2000). Interpretation of intelligence test scores. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 477–491). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171–191.
  • Flynn, J. R. (1999). Searching for justice: The discovery of IQ gains over time. American Psychologist, 54, 5–20.
  • Gagné, F., & St Père, F. (2001). When IQ is controlled, does motivation still predict achievement? Intelligence, 30, 71–100.
  • Gustafson, J. P. (2002). Empirical Bayes estimators as an indicator of educational effectiveness: The Bryk and Raudenbush school performance model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
  • Haney, W., Maduas, G., Abrams, L., Wheelock, A., Miao, J., & Gruia, I. (2004). The education pipeline in the United States 1970–2000. Boston: Boston College, National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.
  • Hoover, H. D., Dunbar, S. B., & Frisbie, D. A. (2001). The Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Form A. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
  • Hoover, H. D., Hieronymus, A. N., Frisbie, D. A., & Dunbar, S. B. (1993). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Form K: Survey Battery. Chicago: Riverside.
  • Humphreys, L. G. (1985). General intelligence: An integration of actor, test, and simplex theory. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence: Theories, measurement, and applications (pp. 201–224). New York: Wiley.
  • Humphreys, L. G., & Davey, T. C. (1988). Continuity in intellectual growth from 12 months to 9 years. Intelligence, 12, 183–197.
  • Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (2nd ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Lohman, D. F. (2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in the identification of academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 111–138.
  • Lohman, D. F. (in press-a). Beliefs about differences between ability and accomplishment: From folk theories to cognitive science. Roeper Review.
  • Lohman, D. F. (in press-b). Identifying academically talented minority students (Research Monograph). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
  • Lohman, D. F., & Hagen, E. P. (2001). Cognitive Abilities Test (Form 6). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
  • Lohman, D. F., & Hagen, E. P. (2002). Cognitive Abilities Test (Form 6): Research handbook. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
  • Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718–729.
  • Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. -T. (2002). Multilevel modeling of longitudinal growth and change: Substantive effects or regression toward the mean artifacts? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 37, 245–282.
  • Martin, D. J. (1985). The measurement of growth in educational achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
  • McCall, R. B., Appelbaum, M., & Hogarty, P. S. (1973). Developmental changes in mental performance. Monographs of the Society for Child Development, 38(3, Serial No. 150).
  • McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III technical manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
  • Milich, R., Roberts, M. A., Loney, J., & Caputo, J. (1980). Differentiating practice effects and statistical regression on the Conners Hyperactivity Index. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 549–552.
  • Mills, J. R., & Jackson, N. E. (1990). Predictive significance of early giftedness: The case of precocious reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 410–419.
  • Nesselroade, J. R., Stigler, S. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1980). Regression toward the mean and the study of change. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 622–637.
  • Otis, A. S., & Lennon, R. T. (2003). Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, Eighth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt.
  • Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., Osmond, W. C., & Maynard, A. M. (2002). Relative reading achievement: A longitudinal study of 187 children from first through sixth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 3–13.
  • Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Denmarks Pædagogiske Institut.
  • Roid, G. (2003). Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition: Technical manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
  • Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.
  • Spangler, R. S., & Sabatino, D. A. (1995). Temporal stability of gifted children’s intelligence. Roeper Review, 17, 207–210.
  • Tannenbaum, A. J. (1965). Review of the Culture Fair Intelligence Test. The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook, 445, 721–722.
  • Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted at mid-life, thirty-five years follow-up of the superior child: Vol. 3. Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Thorndike, R. L. (1933). The effect of the interval between test and retest on the constancy of the IQ. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 543–549.
  • Thorndike, R. L. (1975). Mr. Binet’s test 70 years later. Educational Researcher, 4, 3–7.
  • Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. (1993). The Cognitive Abilities Test (Form 5). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
  • Tibbetts, K. A. (2004). When the test fails: The invalidity of assumptions of normative stability in above-average populations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai’i, Mãnoa.
  • Wainer, H. (1999). Is the Akebono school failing its best students? A Hawaiian adventure in regression. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18, 26–31, 35.
  • Willerman, L., & Fiedler, M. F. (1977). Intellectually precocious preschool children: Early development and later intellectual accomplishments. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 131, 13–20.
  • Wilson, R. S. (1983). The Louisville twin study: Development synchronies in behavior. Child Development, 54, 198–216.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 29
  •  Issue 4
  • Publication Date: Summer 2006



Gifted Today but Not Tomorrow? Longitudinal Changes in Ability and Achievement During Elementary School

David F. Lohman and Katrina A. Korb

The term gifted implies a permanent superiority. However, the majority of children who score in the top few percentiles on ability and achievement tests in 1 grade do not retain their status for more than a year or 2. The tendency of those with high scores on one occasion to obtain somewhat lower scores on a later occasion is one example of regression to the mean. We first summarize some of the basic facts about regression to the mean. We then discuss major causes of regression: errors of measurement, individual differences in growth, changes in the content of the developmental score scale, and changes in the norming population across age or grade cohorts. We then show that year-to-year regression is substantial, even for highly reliable test scores. Different ways of combining achievement and ability test scores to reduce regression effects are illustrated. Implications for selection policies and research on giftedness are also discussed.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.