Increasing concern has been focused on the under-representation of African-American and Hispanic students in programs for the academically talented. The Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM) has been suggested as a possible instrument to help remedy this situation, although little research has been conducted about its viability in identifying academic potential in minority populations. A sample of low-income minority students was given the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) along with a more traditional measure of academic aptitude (The School and College Ability Test) to compare the ability of each to identify students who might profit from advanced-level coursework. There were differences among ethnic groups in results of both tests, but a significantly higher proportion of minority children scored at a high level on the RPM than on the traditional mcasure. In addition, the RPM does appear to be a useful instrument for identifying academic potential in students with limited English proficiency However, there are still issues and concerns surrounding the use of the APM as the sole instrument for selecting students to participate in special programs stressing high-level academic standards and content. The RPM appears to hold more promise as a general screening instrument, to be used in conjunction with other measures to identify students with academic potential who could profit from special programs designed to enhance their academic skills.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ablard, K.E., Mills, C.J., & Tissot, S.L. (1993). Academically talented students precocious cognitive development and its predictors. Unpublished Manuscript.
2.
Adler, M. (1967). Reported evidence of giftedness among ethnic groups . Exceptional Children, 34, 101-105.
3.
Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological Testing (5th ed). New York: Macmillan.
4.
Baldwin, A.Y. (1987). Undiscovered diamonds. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(4), 271-285.
5.
Baldwin, A.Y. (1991). Ethnic and cultural issues. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education (pp. 416-427) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
6.
Baska, L. (1986). Alternatives to traditional testing. Roeper Review, 8(3), 181-184.
7.
Bolig, E.E., & Day, J.D. (1993). Dynamic assessment and giftedness: The promises of assessing training responsiveness. Roeper Review, 16(2), 110-116.
8.
Brody, L.E. & Mills, C.J. (in press). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
9.
Burke. H.R. (1958). Raven's Progressive Matrices: A review and critical evaluation. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 93, 199-228.
10.
Campione, J.C. (1989). Assisted assessment: A taxonomy of approaches and an outline of strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 151-165.
11.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1987, May/June). Minority access: A question of equity . Change, 35-39. Cavazos , L.F. (1990, December). Strategies for educating gifted, disadvantaged vouth. NASSP Bulletin, 64-69.
12.
Ceci, S.J. (1991). How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A reassessment of the evidence. Developmental Psychology, 27, 703-722.
13.
Chin, P.C., & Hughes, S. (1987). Representation of minority students in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 41-46.
14.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. Ed.). New York: Academic Press.
15.
Court, J.H., & Raven, J. (1982). Research and references: 1982 update. London: H. K. Lewis.
16.
Dillon, R.E., Pohimann, J.T., & Lohman D.E. (1981). A factor analysis of Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices freed of difficulty factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1295-1302.
17.
Educational Testing Service. (1980). (School and College Ability Tests (SCAT-III): Manual and technical report . Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley .
18.
Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded individuals: The Learning Potential Assessment Device, theory, instruments, and techniques . Baltimore, MD: University Park .
19.
Foster, W. (1986). Giftedness: The mistaken metaphor. In C. J. Maker, Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for the gifted (pp. 5-30). Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.
20.
Frasier, M. (1987). The identification of gifted black students: Developing new perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted , 10(3), 155-180.
21.
Gainotti, G., D'Erme, P., Villa, G., & Caltagirone, C. (1986). Focal brain lesions and intelligence: A study with a new version of Raven's Colored Matrices. Journal of Clinical and Experinnental Neuropsychology, 8(1), 37-50.
22.
Gallagher, J.J. (1991). The gifted. A term with surplus meaning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(4), 353-365.
23.
Harris, J.J., & Ford, D.Y. (1991). identifying and nurturing the promise of gifted black American children. Journal of Negro Education, 60(1), 3-18.
24.
Horn, J.L., & Cattell, R.B. (1966). Refinement of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253-270.
25.
Kier, G. (1949). The Progressive Matrices as applied to school children. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 2, 140-150.
26.
Kirschenbaum, R.J. (1988). Methods for identifying the gifted and talented American-Indian student. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11(3), 53-63.
27.
Kirschenbaum, R.J. (1993). Dynamic Assessment and its use with high ability students. The National Research Center on Gifted and Talented Newsletter, Fall 1993, 12-13.
28.
Kyle, J.G. (1977). Raven's Progressive Matrices: Thirty years later . British Psychological Society Bulletin, 30, 406-407.
29.
Lynch, S., & Mills, C.J. (1993). Identifying and preparing disadvantaged and minority youth for high level academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 66-76.
30.
Masten, W.G. (1985). Identification of gifted minority students: Past research, future directions. Roeper Review, 8(2), 83-85.
31.
Matthews, D. (1988). Raven's Matrices in the identification of giftedness . Roeper Review, 10(3), 159-162.
32.
Mercet, J. (1977). Identifying the gifted Chicano child. In J. L. Martinez (Ed.), Chicano psychology. New York: Academic Press .
33.
Mills, C.J., Ablard, K.E., & Brody, L. (1993). The Raven's Progressive Matrices: Its usefulness for identifying gifted/talented students. Roeper Review. 15(3), 183-186.
34.
Mills, C.J., Ablard, K.E., & Stumpf, H. (1993). Gender differences in academically talented young students' mathematical reasoning: Pattertrs across age and subskills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 1-7.
35.
Mills, C.J., Stork, E.J., & Krug, D. (1992). Recognition and development of academic talent in educationally disadvantaged students, Exceptionality, 3, 165-180.
36.
Natriello, G., McDill, E.L., & Pallas, A.M. (1990). School disadvantaged children: Racing against catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.
37.
Nettles, S.M. (1991). Community involvement and disadvantaged students: A review. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 379-406.
38.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, ( 1993), National excellence: A case for developing America's talent (No, ISBN 0.16-042928-5). Washington. D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Passow, A. (1972). The gifted and the disadvantaged. The National Elementary Principal, 51, 24-31.
41.
Pearce, N. (1983). A comparison of the WISC-R, Rauen's Standard Progressive Matrices, and Meeker's SOI-Scieening form for Gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(1),13-19.
42.
Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (1991). Giftedness from a multiple intelligence perspective . In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis, Handbook of gifted education (pp. 55-64). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
43.
Raven, J., & Court, J.H. (1989). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and vocabulary scales, Research Supplement No. 4: Additional national and American norms and summaries of normative, reliability and validity studies. London: H. K. Lewis.
44.
Raven, J.C., Court, J.H., & Raven, J. (1977). Coloured Progressive Matrices. London: H. K. Lewis.
45.
Raven, J.C., Court, J.H., & Raven, J. (1983a). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and vocabulary scales, section 4: Standard Progressive Matrices. London : H. K. Lewis.
46.
Raven, J.C., Court, J.H., & Raven, J. (1983b). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and vocabulary scales, section 4: Advanced Progressive Matrices, sets I and II. London: H. K. Lewis.
47.
Ravitch, D. (1989, March 6). Test scores don't lie: Back to basics . The New Republic, 13-15.
48.
Richardson, Jr., R. C., Simmons, H., & de les Santes, Jr., A.G. ( 1987 May/June). Graduating minority students. Change, 20-27.
49.
Richert, E.S. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted studentsGifted Child Quarterly, 31(4), 149-154.
50.
Robinson, A., Bradley, R.H., & Stanley, T.D. (1990). Opportunity to achieve: Identifying mathematically gifted black students. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 15, 1-12.
51.
Rycraft, J.R. (1990). Bchind the walls of poverty: Economically disadvantaged gifted and talented children. Early Child Development and Care, 63, 139-147.
52.
Stauley, J.C. (1974). Intellectual precocity. In J. C. Stanley, D. P. Keating , & L. H. Fox (Eds.) Mathematieal talent: Discovery, description, and development. Baltimore : The Johns Hopkins University Press.
53.
Sternberg, R.J. (1991). Giftedness according to the triarchic theory of human intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 45-54). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
54.
Tonemah, S. (1987). Assessing American Indian gifted and talented students abilities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted , 10(3), 181-194.
55.
Torrance, E.P. (1977). Discovery and nurturance of giftedness in the culturally different. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
56.
Torrance, E.P. (1979). Unique needs of the creative child and adult In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talented: Their education and development (The 78th vearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, pp. 352-371). Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press.
57.
Tyler-Wood, T., & Carri. L. (1993). Verbal measures of cognitive ability: The gifted low SES student's albatross. Roeper Review, 16(2), 102-105.
58.
Vincent, K.R., & Cox, J.A. (1974). A re-evaluation of Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices. The Journal of Psychology, 88, 299-303.
