Resulfs from scores on the Structure of Intellect (SOI-LA) Gifted Screening Form of approximately 300 gifted students in the 4th, 7th, and 10th grade showed significant differences by sex on five variables and by grade on each of the ten subtests. Boys scored significantly higher on CFU (visual closure) and CMU (vocabulary) Girls scored significantly higher on NSI (analysis), DMU (verbal-creative) and CMS (extended verbal systems) Implications of these findings and cautions about the use of the SOI because of its limited reliability and validity are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baldwin, A.Y. (1978). The Baldwin Identification Matrix. Educational planning for the gifted: Overcoming cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic barriers. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
2.
Clarizio, H.F., & Mehrens, W.A. (1985). Psychometric limitations of Guilford's Structure of Intellect Model for identification and programming of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 781-782.
3.
Coffman, W.E. (1985). Review of Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test. In Buros, O.K. (Ed.), The Ninth Mental MeasurementYearbook: Vol. 2. (pp. 1486-1489). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
4.
Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
5.
Heinemann, A. (1980). Star power: Providing for the gifted and talented. Module 6. Underachievers among gifted/talented. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 176 505)
Hinkle, D.E.Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S.G. (1988). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
8.
Hopkins, K.D. & Stanley, J.C. (1981). Educational and Psychological Measurement and Evaluation, 6th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9.
Kanter, H. (1984). The anatomy of a curriculum. Laredo, TX: United Independent School District. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 233 512)
10.
McGowan, L. (1982). Developing and implementing a model for the remediation of weaknesses of learning abilities in gifted and high achieving fourth grade students. (ERIC Reproduction Services No. ED 209 813)
11.
Meeker, M. (1979). Using SOI test results: A teacher's guide. EI Sequndo, CA: SOI Institute.
12.
Meeker, M., Meeker, R., & Roid, G.H. (1985). Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test (SOI-LA) Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
13.
O'Tuel, F.S., Rawl, R.K., & Ward, M. (1983). The SOI as an identification tool for the gifted: Windfall or washout?Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 126-134.
14.
Pearce, N. (1983). A comparison of the WISC-R, Raven Standard Progressive Matrices, and Meeker's SOI Screening Form for Gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 13-19.
15.
Roid, G.A. (1984). Construct validity of the figural, symbolic, and semantic dimensions of the Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Tests . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 697-702.
16.
Stenson, C.M. (1982). Note on concurrent validity of Structure of Intellect Screener with Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. Psychological Report, 50, 552.
17.
Thompson, B., & Anderson, B.Y. (1983). Construct validity of the divergent production subtests from the Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test. Educational and Pyschological Measurement, 43, 651-655.
18.
Thompson B., Alston, H.L., Cunningham, C.H., & Wakefield, J.A. (1978). The relationship of a measure of structure of intellect abilities and academic achievement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 1207-1210.
19.
Weiner, N.C., & Robinson, S.E. (1986). Cognitive abilities personality and gender differences in math achivement of gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 83-87.
