http://www.aaa3.net/rating-scale-questionnaires/
Development and Validation of giftedness Assessment Instrument (GAI) for the identification of the productive capacity of Creative-giftedness
INTRODUCTION
Every society, and every school (formal or informal) within it, has its own gifted and talented people. In all cultures and over period of history as gifted and talented individuals have been recognized through its positive contribution to society slopes significantly or for some spectacular achievements or demonstration of positive behavior. Children are said to be gifted if their cognitive faculties, when developing the requirements to become in innovative high-level evaluators, problem solvers, leaders or perpetuating of complex society in which they live (Oghounu And Oniyama, 2004). It is said to have talent if in the process of doing things, evidence of positive uniqueness and creativity is manifested (UN 2002). It is sometimes difficult to separate or distinguish between the two terms and often, one connotes the other (anih, 2001).
The majority of countries in the world deliberately and systematically identify and raising their such children are of high intellectual capacity. Those who show evidence of exceptional performance or show a high degree of creativity, memory, motivation, physical psychomotor skill or ability, social or skill for leadership skills, aesthetic sensibility or capacity pronounced in the visual and performing arts, or showing potential in any of these areas (Senate, 1988).
Often, some of these countries are rocked into action by specific cases or factors such as the Sputnik which shocked America, or seeing Israel in the desert or in Japan after the Second World War or Korea after some bad experiences or even some countries planning to dominate the world of sport and gymnastics (Yoloye, 1986).
Nigeria is eager to modernize the technological take-off its economy and improve the over-all living standards and life to the generality of its citizens. The decision, therefore, to identify children in Nigeria under an excellent capacity are capable of high performance is paramount. Onu (2002) argues that children so identified need for educational programs, experiences and services beyond those normally provided by regular school program.
However, the development and recognition of giftedness in children began to be the main concern for the Federal Government of Nigeria in the past two decades (anih, 2001). The National Policy on Education (2004) recognized the existence of gifted and talented individuals emphasizing that:
People (children and adults) who have / have very high IQ (IQ) and are naturally endowed with special features (in the arts, creativity, music, leadership, intellectual precocity, etc) and therefore both are insufficiently challenged by the regular school / college / university programs (p. 47-48).
The most listed policy that " opportunities should be set exceptionally gifted and talented children to develop their talent, natural resources features / in your own pace in the interest of economic and technological development of the nation ".
The Federal Government's continuing efforts to see the talented and gifted through its educational system, a capture operation of genius "was launched in 1982 with the help of Aminu – Federal Minister of Education at that time (Makinde, 1998). The minister clearly stated that the policy objective was to ensure that children in Nigeria were not neglected any longer. This policy was strengthened by the establishment of the Suleja Academy for Gifted and Talented which launched on May 25, 1990 (Omoegun, 1998).
Silverman (2003) argues that giftedness is as developmental delay, which must be identified in children as soon as possible. She says early intervention is essential for optimal development. She also that "Equipped with four or five years of mental age six or seven years old, and usually have periods of excellent service, so this is a time ideal for testing. "In Nigeria, the selection in the talent show is in primary six levels, which fall in the average age of 12 years, according to the original project on the Education of Gifted and Talented (1986), is the ideal age when children should have finished primary school and are about to start high school.
However, the task of identifying gifted and talented children has become a growing concern for our public Nations and private school systems. For years, our society has given intelligence in the performance records and high scores equate with a high intellect. Although many educators and researchers eventually realized that many of our brightest students are not necessarily the "A" students. Apart this, some current definitions of giftedness have also grown out of awareness that IQ alone does not define all potential areas of giftedness. Some people have talents in his projects advanced social values can not be measured by intelligence tests. Intelligence tests are Guilford (1985) suggests, "Only a small sample of intellectual activity in limited areas of human activity."
The concept of giftedness has also expanded recently to include many talents who have contributed substantially to the quality of life of people, and society (Robinson, 2003). By example, contributions from individuals endowed William Jerferson, Philip Emeagwali, Wole Soyinka, to name only a few have called for the redefinition of what the giftedness and to identify the "real people gifted for special program placement. As our main challenge as educators in Nigeria is to create the conditions that turn on the yield potential, is relevant both to identify creativity – productive gifted people, using tools proper identification (Renzulli, 2005).
Renzulli (2005) conceptualizes creative – giftedness productive as the group of three – namely, the ability to interlock, above average creativity and task commitment and motivation. It also explains that gifted children are those who have or may develop this set consists of features and apply them to any potentially valuable area of human performance.
Fig: 1 Renzulli's Three Ring Conception giftedness
The groups above capabilities focused on the cognitive and non cognitive / affective educational objective. Unfortunately, all the instruments used in Nigeria and abroad to identify gifted children have focused on cognitive development domain is based on tests of intelligence and observation with rating scales by teachers.
In the past, Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives has been expanded to include six, which is creativity. This can only be properly assessed by the use of attitude scales. Depending on the comments also not reliable as teachers of Nigeria can not visit the homes to observe, or to keep an accurate record of their observations (Obe and Nna, 2004). Reliable approach is through the use of attitude scales, they said.
Aiken and Groth-Marnat (2006) argue that one of the affective variables that has received a great deal of research attention is the attitude scale. Allport, quoted by Obe and Nna (2004) defined attitude as a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive and dynamic influence on the response from one individual to all objects and situations with which it is linked. Ramsden (1998) also considers the attitude as the cognitive, emotional and action components tends it is this action, the tendency that leads to particular behavioral intentions.
An overview of the gifted program as currently happens in Nigeria it seems that children have made no impact on society like their counterparts in other in the U.S., Canada, UK and Israel, despite all the amount spent on the program (UN 2002, anih, 2001). The reason also seems to be based on the fact that the "real" gift-creative- productive people are outside because of the over-reliance on cognitive ability / intelligence test only in the selection process. This is similar to that of Renzulli (2005) definition of giftedness is composed of three groups of terminal blocks of the ability to know, above average (cognitive ability), creativity and commitment to work and motivation, with its attributes underlined. The cognitive ability test is currently used only two attributes (verbal and numerical (Quantitative) of fitness among all the other attributes listed by Renzulli (2005), the conception of giftedness. Secondly, the length and complexity of administration scoring and interpretation make its use difficult for teachers and career teachers with little sophistication in psychometrics.
On the other hand, the percentile standards are used for the selection process for gifted children. Unfortunately, percentile ranks are mixed performance units and ordinal level rather than interval measures, therefore, the units are not equal in all parts of the scale. The fact that lots units percentile rank in the center and out into the ends of the scale that causes difficulty in interpreting the changes and differences in scores transformed (Aiken and Groth-Marnat, 2006)
The other two groups of giftedness (creativity and task commitment and motivation are totally neglected as screening measures. However, some scales have been developed by psychologists to measure creativity and commitment to work and motivation, their application to the selection criteria for the gifted program has not yet been made by stakeholders. Likewise, this scale also does not include all the attributes of the creative gifts, productive, as indicated by Renzulli (2005). Even for use outside the African context, some other properties that require an urgent review of these instruments includes at considerable length that makes their use more time and scoring method is quite cumbersome for the gifted program. It is in light of these numerous problems that this instrument is being developed with the use factor analysis.
The theoretical basis of measuring the creative-productive giftedness is that the use of non-cognitive factors such as creativity and work commitment are as important as the ability to process information, reason analytically, to understand the spatial relationships and think conceptually that is associated with the use of intelligence / cognitive test. This means you must incorporate components of giftedness nonacademic or non-cognitive as well as the interaction of features extraordinary nature and abilities of socio-cultural adaptation appear to be essential to it.
The traditional method of identification of giftedness was based solely on intelligence tests with evidence of the works of Terman 1925, Getzels & Jackson (1962), witty (1958) and DeHaan (1962). A review of the literature shows that most of the intelligence tests were used for the version of Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children (WISC-IV), Wechsler (2003) has four indices namely verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory and processing speed. The Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) for children and adults Slosson (1985) which measures general intelligence and the differential ability scales (DAS), which is particularly useful with visual – spatial children (Silverman, 2003). Gifted children detection Education examination 1 and 2 (English, math and verbal and quantitative) (NECO 2005) has four subsections of 80 items. The main demerits IQ tests of this nature is to underestimate children's abilities rather than overestimate them.
Second, these tests are difficult to administer, requiring training and experience to do so, and the administration time is quite long because of which sometimes are bored you test and uninterested in the exercise. The use of intelligence tests to identify partially remedied in the trials and Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) (Torrance, 1998), Scales for Assessment of the Characteristics of Superior Students Behavioual (SRBCSS) (Renzulli, 2004), Ibadan Creative Assessment Scale (ICAS) (Akinboye 1979).
While these tests of creativity as an aspect of giftedness, have their own problems. For example, requires assessments SRBCSS only the teacher, which can be subjective. ICAS has 5 paragraphs and 75 articles; TTCT has four subsections and sections 72. The education of gifted children review Screening I & II program has two sections, each with 80 multiple choice questions each. Numerous articles on these tests and the time long it takes to complete them unsuitable as tests that can be used for rapid screening for the identification of gifted children for placement in a gifted program. Secondly, these tests, each measuring one aspect of giftedness may be the creativity (affective) or above capacity half (cognitive).
Another aspect of the review of the literature regarding the effort has been made to use multiple criteria approach for the identification gifted children in Nigeria blue print on the identification of gifted and Onu (2002).
- Although many of the instruments were Developed to explore the cognitive and non-cognitive characteristics of gifted children. For example, standardized tests, tests of special abilities, school history cumulative information, peer teachers questionnaire observation technique and the list of students. The basic assumption of the authors is that students who obtained 80 percent and above all these measures together should be regarded as gifted. The focus of many previous measures were rather close to the instruments did not go through proper validation and standardization process (Fakolade, 2006). Moreover, Nigeria is even more dependent on the use of intelligence test it is only one aspect of giftedness.
These numerous problems of the cognitive and various non-cognitive instruments for identifying of giftedness are the main challenges have been addressed in the development of giftedness Assessment Instrument (GAI). The GAI is the integration of measures of cognitive and noncognitive. Cognitive aspect covers the characteristics of the above average capacity, which is one of the domains of giftedness and non-cognitive measures referred to the affective (creativity and task commitment / motivation) domains of giftedness, respectively (Renzulli 2005).
The main objective develop and validate GAI is to produce a reliable and valid instrument that possess these characteristics by Renzulli (2005) for the identification of gifted ability creative-production between the six primary school pupils. To achieve this goal by using a sample size large enough so as to minimize the short comings existing instruments that have been listed. Therefore, the hypothesis that GAI have adequate psychometric properties.
Methodology
The participants
Study participants were 600 (males = 275, female = 325) in the age of 9.13 (mean = 12.24, SD = 1.94) selected years random both public and private elementary schools in Lagos State. stratified random sampling technique, we selected four schools (two public and two private) each school district in Lagos, while intact classes were adopted for the study in order not to eliminate people from the target group-creative-productive gifted. The locations of schools cut across all local governments in the state.
INSTRUMENTATION
The following instruments were used to obtain relevant data for the study.
(1) Above Average and cognitive ability test (GAI-a)
(2) Creative ability scale (GAI – 2)
(3) Task Commitment / Motivation Scale (GAI – 3)
(4) Gifted Education Program on the screening test (2005) Paper I (math and quantitative skills)
(5) Gifted Education Program on the screening test (2005) paper 2 (language English and Verbal Ability).
(6) Answer sheet (Form OMR)
(7) Lagos State (2007) Six Primary Model Test in the aptitude test Civic and General Paper /
(8) Creativity Ibadan Assessment Scale (ICAS)
(9) Ibadan Task Commitment / Motivation Scale (ITCMS)
(10) Mathematics Attitude Scale (MAS)
Above Capacity / cognitive tests (GAI-1): The first GAI component. It is a 40-product multiple-choice aptitude test designed by the researcher and their supervisor, to measure the cognitive ability of the participants. Account with five choices of letters AE, testing is expected to choose the letter that is the answer to the question. They are allowed 20 minutes to complete the test. It is currently undergoing a validation process.
Ability Scale Creative (GAI -2). It is the second component comprises a 22 GAI – goods inventory, also designed by the researcher and their supervisors, to measure the student's creative capacity. It yields scores on a 4-point response format ranging from 1-4. The scale is also going through a validation process.
Task commitment scale Motivation: This is the third component the GAI as part of an inventory of 21 items designed by the researcher and supervisors to measure student motivation and ability in achieving competent of a certain task. It is also a self-rating scale gives a score on four-point response format ranging from 1-4. It is also a section of the instrument Newly constructed through the process of validation.
Gifted – Screening for Children's Book I and II
This test was designed by the National Examination Council of Nigeria (NECO 2005), to identify students who are gifted for placement at the Academy of Child Gifted in Suleja.It consists of a 80-product multiple-choice aptitude test, respectively, for mathematics and quantitative paper I and English verbal skills and paper II. The time allotted for exams is 1 ½ hours respectively. NECO three weeks reported a test-retest reliability coefficient of 0.88 and 0.85 respectively. It has an internal consistency of 0.87.
Scoring: Each question carries 1 point for 80 questions. The test results for each testee becomes at percentile and the highest score in the percentile rank is considered as gifted and is admitted to the school for the gifted and talented in Suleja. The objective of using this test is to determine its construct validity with the GAI-1.
answer sheet: This is an OMR form, designed to be used by students for provide answers to multiple choice questions. There are three types, the form used for GAI-test result contains 40-items with 5 choices of AE, while form for review and mock exams contain 80-items with 5 choices of AE and 50 points respectively. Students are expected to use HB pencil to shade the correct answer, as the OMR was obtained by the computer. The form is divided into two sections, section A demographic information of students while section B contains the options.
Six core exams Model 2007 (general document): This is composed a 50-element of choice multiple aptitude test and even a topic of multiple-choice questions 50, in general, and civic knowledge developed by the state Lagos Examination Board. The first test is designed specifically to measure students' proficiency in mathematics, quantitative, English, verbal skills and qualifications. Developers receive a test-retest reliability of 0.82 and 0.88 internal consistency with Cronbach alpha method. The second part of the exam is the student's mock test knowledge of the world around them. Developers also get a test of test-retest reliability of 0.73 and 0.86 internal consistency with Cronbach alpha method.
Scoring: Each type of test has a total score of 100% with 2 points for each correct answer. The total score is calculated by multiplying the correct answers in general by 2.
Ibadan Creativity Assessment Scale (ICAS): This is a self-rating scale designed attitude by Akinboye (1979) to assess an individual's level of creativity. The scale has four subsections: the ideative fluidity, flexibility, originality and motivation tasks. This is a list of 75 items with 9-point scale. Akinboye reported a test-retest reliability of 0.79 and internal consistency with coefficient alpha of 0.76.
Scoring: There is a point-9 Likert scale ranging from 0 (totally unlike me) to 9 (very similar to me.) Method has both direct and scoring is reversed. Mathematics Attitude Scale (MAS) was developed by Obe (2002) to measure one's attitude of individuals towards mathematics. It consists of 30 items that yield scores on a 5-point Likert scale. Obe (2002) showed a high stability coefficient of 0.79 and Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranging from 0.76 to 0.82.
Score: Score of the instruments was through the allocation of 5,4,3,2 and 1 for the elements positively stated. Points were also awarded in reverse order for the items stated negatively.
Instrument development The development of GAI started by selecting options based on the attributes and theories of giftedness. GAI-1 for an initial group of 64 items was generated. These Articles were then assessed for face and content validity with the help of experts in measurement and evaluation, and psychology as the supervisors' work. Based on the recommendation of these individuals were removed some items and revised or redrafted, following which the number of items was trimmed to 50.
The draft instrument was written then place in a multiple choice test designed to measure five option Fitness respondents. Was administered to a sample of 100 men and 100 women students in the basic six Owerri, Imo state for the initial pilot study. The proof was obtained in accordance the manual and the results were subjected to item analysis. In the analysis of issues, items whose index ranges between 0.5 and 0.9 are selected as good, while than those below 0 and 0.4 were eliminated as defective items (Ilogu, (1994) & Doran, (1980). This brought the final test of 40 items. A table of specifications also used in the construction of the test also indicates the validity of the GAI.
Table 1: Table of specifications for GAI-1
Content and performance objectives
Weight
Knowledge
Understanding
Application
Analysis
Synthesis
Evaluation
Total
30%
20%
15%
15%
14%
6%
100%
Abstract thinking
30%
9, 3, 4
2,8,34
1.7
–
36
6
10
Verbal Reasoning
24%
10,11,12,13
14, 36
15, 17
16
18
–
10
numerical reasoning
18%
19,24,25,
20
22
23
–
21
7
Special reasoning
14%
35, 32,33
30
–
29
26.28
–
8
Vocational Aptitude
14%
39,37,5
–
40
27
–
38
6
Total
100%
17
7
6
4
4
3
40
Scoring: There is a special rule on the whole test marker GAI-1.The carries 40 brands of 1 point for each correct answer. The overall score of a participant is calculated by counting the total number of correct answers. The higher the score, the higher the possession of above average ability.
The scale development of creative ability (GAI-2) also followed the same process, an initial group of 48 items generated and the appreciation of experts. This also was reduced to 22 points after item analysis. The project was also written to the response of the Likert scale of 4 points 1-4 is generally accepted format instruments designed to measure attitudes.
Score: total score was obtained by inversion of values points 2, 4,6,9,12,14,17,20,21 and the direct use of punctuation for the remaining items. The sum of direct and inverse score wins gave the participant's Guide in GAI-2.The highest score, the greater the possession of an individual's creative capacity.
Development of the third section of the IEG also followed the same method, after generating an initial group of 45 items that are given to experts for evaluation. The items were reduced to version end of 21.
Score: total score was obtained by reversing the values of items 2, 4,7,9,10,14,17,19,21 and direct the use of punctuation for the remaining items. The sum of direct and inverse score wins gave the participant's Guide GAI-3.The higher the score, greatest is the possession of a work commitment and motivation for individual capacity.
Procedure
The first set of instruments GAI comprising administering them. The second day, the preliminary test for Gifted Children was administered to them in the morning period, the period of the afternoon was used to ICAS, and MAS.The ITCAS third and final day was used for the mock examination. As a kind of reinforcement and also to maintain their interest and presence constant duration of exercise, the researcher had a large amount of soft drinks were handed out after each test section. Students were happy and each Once committed to participate in the next session's good behavior received cash prizes as a kind of encouragement to others.
Data analysis and presentation of results
The data obtained in this study were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for the program to calculate mean, standard deviation, standard scores, Cronbach's alpha, correlation coefficients and factor analysis by the principal factoring with the iteration.
Rules: To get the measurement of productive creative talents (GAI), the three components were administered to participants. The mean scores, standard deviations and standard scores (Z-score T-score) obtained across gender and type of school with the normal test condition is calculated as the local standard.
Table 2: results of the mean, standard deviation of the participants on IEG
Sex
Descriptive Statistics
GAI-I
IEG-2
GAI-3
Male
Average
SD
N
19.88
5.30
275
74.78
7.63
275
54.12
7.65
275
Female
Average
SD
N
21.17
5.40
325
74.65
7.05
325
56.03
7.58
325
Total
Average
SD
N
20.54
5.40
600
74.71
7.31
600
55.15
7.67
600
School type
Descriptive Statistics
GAI-I
GAI-two
GAI-3
Public
Average
SD
N
17.43
4.4
350
74.02
7.1
350
53.56
7.3
350
Private
Average
SD
N
24.9
3.4
250
75.67
7.5
250
57.39
7.7
250
Total
Average
SD
N
20.54
5.4
600
74.71
7.31
600
55.15
7.7
600
The descriptive data presented in Table 3 indicates that females recorded higher scores on the GAI GAI-I and 3-while males recoded with higher scores in GAI-2. Consequently, students of private schools recorded higher scores than their counterparts in public schools.
To improve further the interpretation of the rules for GAL-1, the raw score of the participants were grouped and becomes the standard scores (T-score) as presented in Table 3.
Table 3: T-score standards for GAL-1 (N = 600)
CLASS INTERVAL
X
F
Z – Score
T – score
7-9
8
5
-2.3
27
10-12
11
65
-1.7
33
13-15
14
57
1.2
38
16-18
17
87
-0.6
44
19-21
20
118
-0.1
49
22-24
23
95
0.5
55
25-27
26
127
1.0
60
28-30
29
42
1.6
68
31-33
32
5
2.1
71
Table 3 indicates that T – Tens of 60-71 are above average scores. The T – Score is useful to allow a layperson to understand and easy to interpret scores for parents (Nwadinigwe, 2002).
In order to determine the reliability coefficient of the GAI, a two-week test – retest reliability with Pearson product moment statistical technique, Cronbach's Alpha internal consistency and split – half were calculated.
Table 4: coefficient of reliability of the components of the GAL
GAI COMPONENTS
N
X1
X2
Sd1
Sd2
r
Cronbach
alpha
Split-half
GAI – 1
200
29.17
28.40
4.83
5.35
0.89
0.94
0.89
GAI – 2
200
66.56
65.68
7.41
9.28
0.78
0.87
0.86
GAI – 3
200
61.42
60.97
6.26
7.21
0.84
0.86
0.78
* Significant at P <0.05 gl 198 r crit. = 0.139
The results in Table 6 shows that GAL has a high reliability significant consistency test-retest and internal coefficient with GAI – I with r = 0.89, 0.94 and Alpha split – average reliability coefficient of 0.89, respectively. GAI – 2 registered a significant value of r = 0.78, alpha of 0.87 and split – half reliability coefficient of 0.86 in particular, while analysis also produced by a coefficient GAI -3 alpha of 0.86, 0.84 and divide r – 0.78 average.
To determine the concurrent and discriminant validity of GAI, Pearson product movement statistics was used to correlate the ratings of the 600 participants in the three components of GAI and other psychological measures (criteria) as shown in Table 6.
Table 5: GAI Intercorelation matrix components and other measures (Criterion).
GAI-1
GAI-2
GAI-3
Mock (aptitude test)
ICAS
MAS
GCSE-1
GCSE-2
IBTCMAS
Model (general knowledge / citizen)
GAI-1
1
GAL-two
0.129 **
1
GAL-3
0.251 **
038
1
Mock (aptitude test)
0.823 **
0.153 **
0.235 **
1
ICAS
0.151 **
0.679 **
0.306 **
0.116 **
1
MAS
-. 074
-. 085 *
-. 009
-. 080
033
1
GCSE-1
0.203 **
0.145 **
075
0.191 **
0.247 **
-. 010
1
GCSE-2
0.361 **
0103 *
0.148 **
0.296 **
0.197 **
041
0.474 **
1
IBTCMAS
0.148 **
0.183 **
646
0.166 **
0.297 **
-. 085
0.146 **
0.111 **
1
Model (knowledge General / citizen)
0.123 **
035
0.056 **
0.265 **
0.171 **
018
0.121 **
0.189 **
026
1
** Correlation is significant at 0.05 (two tailed).
Table This indicates that the components of the IAG have meaningful relationships with other convergent and divergent criteria.
Factorial validity: To determine GAI factorial validity of the technique of principal component analysis with iteration factor was used to analyze the results of 200 participants, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6: initial Eignevalues significant components of GAI – 1.
COMPONENTS
TOTAL
% Variance
% Cumulative
1.
5.16
12.90
12.90
2
5.86
12.15
25.05
3
3.21
8.06
33.11
4.
2.79
6.97
40.08
5.
2.64
6.61
46.69
6.
1.91
4.77
51.45
7.
1.73
4.39
63.32
8.
1.67
4.17
59.94
9.
1.36
3.39
63.32
10.
1.34
3.35
66.68
11.
1.25
3.12
69.78
12.
1.03
2.57
72.38
Evidence Table 6: Shows the components analysis extracted 12 factors that conformed the Kaiser criterion for each of the values of a welcome window as before the rotation. The result also shows that the factors explain 12% of the 72.38 total variance.
The factors were extracted using varimax rotation to the maximum. Using the formula of Burt-Bank to determine significant factor loadings, 5 factors were extracted as complying with Kaiser criterion and the principle Thurnston as shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Names, Eigenvalues and percentages of Varimax differences – GAI rotated orthogonal factors – 1.
FACTORS
NAME
Eigenvalue
% Variance
% Cumulative
1.
Abstract Reasoning
4.64
11.59
11.59
2.
Verbal Reasoning
4.53
11.33
22.93
3.
Numerical Reasoning
3.59
8.97
31.89
4.
Spatial reasoning
3.17
7.92
39.82
5.
Vocational Aptitude
2.75
6.92
46.69
The result shows that 46.69% of the total variation is explained by five factors. The factors were appointed on the basis of the burden that significantly different groupings or individual factors.
Table 8: Initial Eigenvalues component extracted from GAI – 2
FACTORS
Eigenvalue
% Variance
% Cumulative
1
2.45
11.15
11.15
2
2.06
9.34
20.49
3
1.93
8.76
29.28
4
1.80
8.19
37.47
5
1.42
6.45
43.92
6
1.29
5.89
49.82
7
1.19
5.40
55.22
8
1.097
4.99
60.22
This indicates that the GAI-2 analysis extracted eight factors on which was consistent with the Kaiser criterion for each the values of having more than one before the rotation. The result also shows that the eight factors accounted for 60.22% of the total variance. The factors are extracted using maximize the varimax rotation. Using the formula of Burt-Bank to determine significant factor loadings, seven factors were extracted that conformed to the criterion of Kaiser and Thurnston principle as shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Names, Eigenvalues and percentage of differences Varimax – turn orthogonal factors GAI-2.
FACTORS
NAMES
EIGENVALUES
% Variance
%
CUMULATIVE
1
Fluidity
2.00
9.09
9.09
2
Flexibility
1.80
8.19
17.29
3
Originality
1.79
8.16
25.46
4
Curiosity
1.73
7.85
33.31
5
Speculative
1.71
7.79
41.09
6
Adventurer
1.59
7.20
48.29
7
Elaboration
1.52
6.92
55.22
Table 9 shows that 55.22% of the total variance was accounted for, and seven factors were extracted according to the Kaiser criterion and the principle of Thurnston. Therefore, factors were named based on the items that significantly loaded or grouped in each factor.
Table 10: Component Initial Eigenvalues extracted from GAI – 3
FACTORS
EIGENVALUES
% Variance
CUMULATIVE%
1
2.07
9.87
9.87
2
1.76
8.37
18.24
3
1.63
7.77
26.01
4
1.56
7.55
33.56
5
1.33
6.35
39.91
6
1.18
5.61
45.52
7
1.14
5.41
50.93
8
1.04
4.97
55.90
The evidence of Table 10 shows that the analysis of the factors extracted GAI -3 8 components that made up the Kaiser criterion for each have more than one eigenvalues before rotation. The result also shows that the factors accounted for 55.90% total variance.
The factors extracted is maximized by varimax rotation. With Burt – Banco formula for determining significant factor loadings were extracted 7 factors that conformed to the criterion of Kaiser Thurnston and principle. The result is presented in Table 11.
Table 11: Names, eigenvalues and percentage differences Varimax – turn orthogonal factors of GAI-3.
FACTORS
NAMES
EIGENVALUES
% Variance
%
CUMULATIVE
1
Interest
1.70
8.10
8.10
2
Enthusiasm
1.61
7.69
15.79
3
Fascination
1.55
7.38
23.17
4
Perseverance
1.49
7.08
30.25
5
Resistance
1.49
7.07
37.33
6
Determination
1.45
6.91
44.24
7
Self-confidence
1.41
6.69
50.93
The result in Table 11 shows that 50.93% of the variance corresponded to total seven factors. Therefore, the factors were named based on the elements that significantly burden or grouped in each factor.
DISCUSSION
The results, which are basically the psychometric properties of GAI, reflect the degree to which it is a reliable and valid measure of creative-productive giftedness. The rules in Table 2 indicate the cutoff points for assessing the relative potential of the individual participants and therefore the level of performance for decision making in recruitment and selection of students (Omoluabi, 2006). The importance of standards lies in the fact that making this decision is not arbitrary but is based on objective criteria. This view therefore denies arbitrary common practice to have a 80% yield as a criterion for decision making when cognitive testing was only approved for the recruitment of students at the Academy of Gifted. A rule thus represents a fair value of the relative performance of all participants in the standardization sample.
The reliability coefficient obtained a Cronbach alpha, test retest and split-half are high and significant (p <0.05) and confirming the hypothesis. This result is consistent with Aiken (2006), who stated that the acceptable reliability coefficient of a new test should not be less than 0.70.
With regard to the validity of GAI, the result in Table 5 shows that its components have high convergent validity coefficient with different criteria and address related expected (negative) with divergent validity coefficient of unrelated measures (criterion). The low value is expected, because it shows that GAI components and these measures are not connected even when they are both cognitive and attitude measures (Anastasi & Urbina, 2004). The skills needed for GAI-1 are very different from those provided to GAI-2 or the fact that ICAS.The least GAL relationship between components and other measures may be due to the similarity in the skills required for the subscales.
Tables 6 to 11 reported the factorial validity of the GAI with the analysis of the factors. 5, 7 and 7 orthogonal factors extracted by the different components GAI indicate that similar elements or those describing similar events are grouped together. The factors can be considered as different domains of creative-productive giftedness contained in the IAG components because they conformed to the criterion of Kaiser in the process of initial factoring. The fact that these factors met Thurnstone principle suggests that domains or groups are separate and distinct. Moreover, the fact that all the factors that each eigenvalues greater than one suggests that they are independent. This implies an individual may score higher in one and low in another factor which suggests the lack of accumulation of points. This apparent lack of accumulation of elements also involves improving the factorial validity of GAI.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The psychometric properties indicate that GAI is a reliable and valid measure of the creative-productive giftedness and its use can be generalized to other populations due to the heterogeneous characteristics the objectified sample.GAI therefore works Akinboye (1979), Neco (2005), Wechsler (2004), Torrance (1998) and Renzulli (2004). Increase generalization If this study is replicated with the sample of adults.
In particular, individuals whose scores are equal to or above the standards of the components to qualify for gifted placements in the Academy.
REFERENCES
Oghounu, AE & Oniyama, HO (2003). Introduction to Talentedness giftedness. Oniyama in EE and EE (Ebiowie Ed), Fundamentals of Special (Education 130-140), Warri: Press and Umpeta.
Onu, VC (2001). Effects of Bloom's taxonomy of strategy-based teaching of students high-capacity cognitive abilities. A doctoral thesis. Nsukka, University of Nigeria.
Anih, HV (2001). Evaluation of the practices of education gifted in Nigeria: A case study of Suleja Academy. A PhD thesis, Nsukka. University of Nigeria.
Omoegun, M. (1998). Identification and Management Chidlren Gifted National Science and technological progress: a case study Unilag school staff. African Journal of Education, one (1) 236-244.
Blue Print on Education for the Gifted and Talented People, 11-15.
Omoluabi, PF (2006). Development and Standardization integrated management Perafom Aptitude Test (PAIT). Psychologla Ife. 14 (1) 0.1 to 14.
Federal Ministry of Education (2004). National Education Policy. Lagos: NERDC.
Fokolade, OA (2006). Efficiency of the WISC-R and SIT in the identification of gifted and talented children in Nigeria. Ife Psychologia, 14, (2), 142-151.
Obe, EO and Nna, CE (2004). Development, validation and application of scales of attitudes toward mathematics, Integrated Science and technology introduction. Lagos Journal of educational research. LAJER.
Guilford, JP (1985). The nature of intelligence human. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Renzulli, J. (2003). "What makes giftedness and how we can develop a high level of talent in young people." Gifted and Talented, 7, 2.
Aiken, LR & Marnat Groth, G. (2006). Psychological Testing and Evaluation. Boston: Pearson inc.
Obe, EO (1982). Scholastic Aptitude Test: User's Manual. Lagos Premier Press and Publishers. 1-22.
Obe, EO (2002). Mathematics Attitude Scale.
Silverman, LK (2003). A comparison of assessments to identify gifted children. http://www.gifteddevelopment.com
Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (2004). Psychological Testing. India: Pearson Education Inc.
Senate Select Committee on Education of Gifted and Talented (1998). Definition and identification 3, 1, 46.
Akinboye, JO (1979). Ibadan Creativity Rating Scale. Menograph, Department of guidance and counseling from the University of Ibadan. Ibadan.
Nwadinigwe, IP (2002). Fundamentals of the method research and statistics. Ibadan: Sibon Paper Limited.
Nicola, B, Richard, K & Snelgar, R. (2006). SPSS for Psychologists. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.
Yoloye, EA (1986). Identification of gifted persons. Everyone Psychology for life. One Nigerian Journal of Psychology Applied. 2, 47.
Ilogu, GC (1994). The validation of the instrument using factor analysis. Diary Studies in Curriculum (JOISC), 2, 122-131.
Renzulli, JS (2005). The Ring Three, Conception of Giftedness. A development model to promote creative productivity. In RJ Sternberg and JE Davidson (Eds), Conceptions of giftedness. 246-279. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Terman, LM (1925). Genuius genetic studies: vol. 1. Mental physical facts of a thousand gifted children. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Wechsler, D. (2003). The WISC-IV technical manual interpretation. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Slossons, RL (1991). Manual Test Administration and interpretation. New York: Slosson Education Publications Inc.
Akinboye, JO (1979). Ibadan Creativity Rating Scale. Menograph, Department of guidance and counseling from the University of Ibadan. Ibadan.
Fakolade, OA (2006). Effectiveness of the WISC-R and SIT in identifying gifted and talented children in Nigeria. Ife Psychologia, 14,2,142-151.
Makinde, SA (1998). Identification and Oversight of gifted children in the 6-3-3-4 educational system in Nigeria. Journal of Counseling and Development, from 5.102 to 108.
Ramsden, JM (1998). Mission impossible? Can anything be done about attitudes to science?. International Journal of Science Education, 20, from 2.125 to 137.
Cronbach, LJ (1971). The Validation. In RI Educational Measurement Thorndike (Ed.). Washington DC: American Council of Education.
Doran, RL (1980). Basic Measurement and Evaluation in Science. Washington DC: STANL.
Torrance, EP (1998). Torrance Test creative thinking. Retrieved on September 6, 2006. http://www.creativelearning.com/assess/test 72.html
Terman, L. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol 1 Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Witty, PA (1958). Who are the gifted? In WBHenry (Ed.), Education for gifted children. Fiftieth Seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, from 2.41 to 63. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DaHaan, RG (1962). Education for gifted children. Chicago: University Press.
About the Author
i am a doctorial student of univer sity of lagos, Nigeria.
The work has been presented in an international conference.it is supervised by dr. I.P.Nwadinigwe-senior lecturer
Creating a Data Entry Form in Excel for SPSS/PASW
