Differences in Using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 7 Nonverbal Battery Versus the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) 2 to Identify the Gifted/Talented

Abstract

The two most commonly used nonverbal tests for gifted identification, the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) and the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) nonverbal battery, have not been compared in their newer versions to explore the effects of their use on the identification of underserved populations. Additionally, the effects of the use of various norming groups and cutoff scores on both instruments’ identification abilities has not been compared. This study compared 15,733 CogAT7 nonverbal battery scores and 14,421 NNAT2 scores of kindergartners between 2013 and 2015 from one large urban school district to explore the differences between how each test relates to major demographic variables and examine the effects on who is selected for participation in gifted programming based on which instrument, which norming group, and which cutoff scores are used. Both instruments were less likely to identify students from demographic groups that have been traditionally underrepresented than students from traditionally overrepresented demographic groups, but identification varied based on the type of norming plan used and which instrument was taken. Suggestions are made as to the best instrument for use with various demographic groups and norming plans.

Keywords

Cognitive Abilities Test Naglieri Nonverbal Abilities Test identification nonverbal school-level norming local norming group-specific norming opportunity to learn

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acock

A. C.

(2008). A gentle introduction to Stata (2nd ed.). Stata Press.

Anastasi

Urbina

(1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Brown, D. C. (1994). Subgroup norming: Legitimate practice or reverse discrimination? American Psychologist, 49(11), 927–928. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.11.927

Callahan

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

(2013). Status of elementary gifted programs: 2013. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/key%20reports/ELEM%20school%20GT%20Survey%20Report.pdf

Carman

C. A.

(2013). Comparing apples and oranges: Fifteen years of definitions of giftedness in research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12472602

Carman

C. A.

Taylor

D. K.

(2010). Socioeconomic status effects on using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) to identify the gifted/talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209355976

Carman

C. A.

Walther

C. A. P.

Bartsch

R. A.

(2018). Using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 7 Nonverbal Battery to identify the gifted/talented: An investigation of demographic effects and norming plans. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752097

Domina

Pharris-Ciurej

Penner

A. M.

Penner

E. K.

Brummet

Porter

S. R.

Sanabria

(2018). Is free and reduced-price lunch a valid measure of educational disadvantage? Educational Researcher, 47(9), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18797609

Edmonds

M. M.

(2015). Identifying gifted minorities using nonverbal tests: The Cognitive Abilities Test, Form 7, versus the Naglieri Nonverbal Abilities Test, Second edition [Doctoral dissertation]. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI No. 3730349)

10.

Giessman

J. A.

Gambrell

J. L.

Stebbins

M. S.

(2013). Minority performance on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, second edition, versus the Cognitive Abilities Test, Form 6: One gifted program’s experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213477190

11.

Lakin, J. M. (2012). Assessing the cognitive abilities of culturally and linguistically diverse students: Predictive validity of verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal tests. Psychology in the Schools, 49(8), 756–768. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21630

12.

Lakin

J. M.

(2018). Making the cut in gifted selection: Score combination rules and their impact on program diversity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752099

13.

Lohman, D. F. (n.d.). Introducing form 7 of the Cognitive Abilities Test. https://web.archive.org/web/20160221232248/https:/faculty.education.uiowa.edu/docs/dlohman/CogAT7-on-the-road4.pdf

14.

Lohman

D. F.

(2011). Introducing CogAT Form 7. https://www.hmhco.com/∼/media/sites/home/hmh-assessments/assessments/cogat/pdf/cogat-cognitively-speaking-v7-aug-2011.pdf?la=en

15.

Lohman

D. F.

(2012). Cognitive Abilities Test Form 7: Research and development guide. Riverside.

16.

Lohman

D. F.

(2013). Cognitive Abilities Test Form 7 Score interpretation guide Version 2. Riverside.

17.

Lohman

D. F.

Gambrell

J. L.

(2012). Using nonverbal tests to help academically talented children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911428194

18.

Lohman

D. F.

Korb

Lakin

(2008). Identifying academically gifted English language learners using nonverbal tests: A comparison of the Raven, NNAT, and CogAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208321808

19.

Lohman

D. F.

Lakin

(2007). Nonverbal test scores as one component of an identification system: Integrating ability, achievement, and teacher ratings. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 41–66). Prufrock Press.

20.

Matthews, M. S. (2007). Assessing the impact of a proposed rule change on the identification of gifted English language learners. Gifted Children: An Electronic Journal of the AERA SIG for Research on Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent, 2(1), 12–13. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/giftedchildren/vol2/iss1/5

21.

Matthews

M. S.

Kirsch

(2011). Evaluating gifted identification practice: Aptitude testing and linguistically diverse learners. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(2), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2011.565281

22.

McBee

M. T.

Peters

S. J.

Miller

E. M.

(2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656256

23.

Michaelson

Hardin

J. M.

(2010). Statistical significance. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 1361–1366). Sage.

24.

Monarrez

(2018). Attendance boundary policy and the segregation of public schools in the United States [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.

25.

Muthen

L. K.

Muthen

B. O.

(2012). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide. Muthen & Muthen.

26.

Naglieri

J. A.

(2008a). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (2nd ed.). NCS Pearson.

27.

Naglieri

J. A.

(2008b). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test manual: Technical information and normative data (2nd ed.). NCS Pearson.

28.

Naglieri

J. A.

Ford

D. Y.

(2005). Increasing minority children’s participation in gifted classes using the NNAT: A response to Lohman. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900104

29.

Naglieri

J. A.

Ronning

M. E.

(2000). Comparison of White, African American, Hispanic, and Asian children on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 328–334. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.12.3.328

30.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). NAGC pre-K-grade 12 gifted education programming standards: A blueprint for high quality gifted education programs. Author.

31.

Orfield

Frankenberg

Kuscera

(2014). Brown at 60: Great progress, a long retreat and an uncertain future. https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/brown-at-60-great-progress-a-long-retreat-and-an-uncertain-future/

32.

Pearson Education. (n.d.). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test–Second edition. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/learningassessments/products/100000287/naglieri-nonverbal-ability-testsecond-edition-nnat2-nnat-2.html#tab-details

33.

Peters

S. J.

Engerrand

K. G.

(2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165

34.

Peters

S. J.

Gentry

(2012). Group-specific norms and teacher-rating scales: Implications for underrepresentation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12438717

35.

Peters

S. J.

Gentry

Whiting

G. W.

McBee

M. T.

(2019). Who gets served in gifted education? Demographic representation and a call for action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219833738

36.

Plucker

Hardesty

Burroughs

(2013). Talent on the sidelines: Excellence gaps and America’s persistent talent underclass. University of Connecticut, Center for Education Policy Analysis.

37.

Raven

J. C.

(1941). Standardization of progressive matrices, 1938. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 19(1), 137–150. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1941.tb00316.x

38.

Rea

L. M.

Parker

R. A.

(1992). Designing and conducting survey research. Jossey-Bass.

39.

Richards

M. P.

(2014). The gerrymandering of school attendance zones and the segregation of public schools: A geospacial analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1119–1157. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214553652

40.

Rothstein

(2013). For public schools, segregation then, segregation since: Education and the unfinished march. Economic Policy Institute.

41.

Sharkey

(2013). Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. University of Chicago Press.

42.

Warne

R. T.

(2009). Comparing tests used to identify ethnically diverse gifted children: A critical response to Lewis, DeCamp-Fritson, Ramage, McFarland, & Archwamety. Multicultural Education, 17(1), 48–53. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ871365.pdf

43.

Warne, R. T. (2015). Test review: Cognitive abilities test, Form 7 (CogAT7). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(2), 188–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914548324