Assessing the psychometric properties of scores on self-concept measures with gifted students may provide guidance for interpretation and selection of appropriate instruments to use for individual assessments and in studies of self-concept. Given the widespread use of the Harter Self-Perception Profiles for Children and Adolescents, the purposes of this study were to replicate reliability studies of the Self-Perception Profile for Children in a sample of gifted students, to assess the reliability of gifted students' scores on the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents, and to examine the validity of scores on both instruments for use with gifted populations. Results provide evidence of validity and reliability for use with gifted populations.
Byrne, B. (1990). Self-concept and academic achievement: Investigating their importance as discriminators of academic track membership in high school . Canadian Journal of Education, 15, 173-182.
2.
Chan, D.W. (2001). Global and specific self-concepts of gifted adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 34-364.
3.
Comrey, A.L., & Lee, H.B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Cornell, D.G., Delcourt, M.A.B., Goldberg, M.D., & Bland, L.C. (1995). Achievement and self-concept of minority students in elementary school gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 189-209.
5.
Cornell, D., Pelton, G., Basin, L., Landrum, M., Ramsay, S., Cooley, M., et al. (1990). Self-concept and peer status among gifted program youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 456-463.
6.
Dixon, F.A., Cross, T.L., & Adams, C.M. (2001). Psychological characteristics of academically gifted students in a residential setting: A cluster analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 433-445.
Hamachek, D. (1995). Self-concept and school achievement: Interaction dynamics and a tool for assessing the self-concept component. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 419-425.
9.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children . Denver, CO: University of Denver .
10.
Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents . Denver, CO: University of Denver .
11.
Hoge, R., & McSheffrey, R. (1991). An investigation of self-concept in gifted children. Exceptional Children, 57, 238-245.
12.
Hoge, R., & Renzulli, J. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept . Review of Educational Research, 63, 449-465.
13.
Kelly, K.R., & Colangelo, N. (1984). Academic and social self-concepts of gifted, general, and special students. Exceptional Children, 50, 551-554.
14.
Marsh, H. (1990). Self-Description Questionnaire—II. Campbelltown, Australia: University of Western Sydney.
15.
Marsh, H.W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/ external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal , 23, 129-149.
16.
Marsh, H., Plucker, J., & Stocking, V. (2001). The Self-Description Questionnaire II and gifted students: Another look at Plucker, Taylor, Callahan, and Tomchin's (1997) “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall.”Educational and Psychological Measurement , 61, 976-996.
17.
Marsh, H.W. (1992). Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ) III: A theoretical and empirical basis for the measurement of multiple dimensions of adolescent self-concept. A test manual and research monograph. Macarthur, Australia: University of Western Sydney, Faculty of Education .
18.
Muldoon, O., & Reilly, J. (2003). Career choice in nursing students: Gendered constructs as psychological barriers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43, 93-100.
19.
Niehart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being [Electronic version]. Roeper Review, 22(1).
20.
O'Connor, B.P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396-402.
21.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Turner, D. (2002). Gender differences among elementary school-aged gifted students in achievement, perceptions of ability, and subject preference . Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 233-268.
22.
Osipow, S. (1983). Theories of career development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), Perception (pp. 239-266). London: Ablex.
24.
Plucker, J., & Stocking, V. (2001). Looking outside and inside: Self-concept development of gifted adolescents. Exceptional Children, 67, 535-548.
25.
Plucker, J., Taylor, J., Callahan, C., & Tomchin, E. (1997). Mirror, mirror, on the wall: Reliability and validity evidence for the Self-Description Questionnaire—II with gifted students . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 704-713.
26.
Pyryt, M.C., & Mendaglio, S. (1994). The multidimensional self-concept: A comparison of gifted and average-ability adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 299-305.
27.
Schneider, B., Clegg, M., Byrne, B., Ledingham, J., & Crombie, G. (1989). Social relations of gifted children as a function of age and school program. Journal of Educational Psychology , 81, 48-56.
28.
Strein, W. (1993). Advances in research on academic self-concept: Implications for school psychology. School Psychology Review , 22, 273-284.
Tenenbaum, H., & Leaper, C. (2003). Parent-child conversations about science: The socialization of gender inequities?Developmental Psychology , 39, 34-47.
31.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC : American Psychological Association.
32.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Kulieke, M. (1994). A study of self-concept and social support in advantaged and disadvantaged seventh and eighth grade gifted students. Roeper Review, 16, 186-191.
33.
Worrell, F.C. (1997). An exploratory factor analysis of Harter's Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents with academically talented students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 1016-1024.
