Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-9
Using a Nonverbal Cognitive Abilities Screening Test in Identifying Gifted and Talented Young Children in Jordan: A Focus Group Discussion of Teachers *
This qualitative study aimed to discover teachers’ perceptions about the effectiveness of using the nonverbal Cognitive Abilities Screening Test (CogAT) in identifying gifted and talented children. The study’s sample of six teachers participated in standardizing the Jordanian version of the CogAT. Teachers attended a focus group discussion, and they were asked to discuss four open-ended questions. The focus group discussion results indicated strong agreement by teachers of the effectiveness of using the Arabic Jordanian version of CogAT. Specifically, teachers expressed their satisfaction about the test items and guidelines. Moreover, they unanimously agreed that the test is appropriate to use in Jordan. Also, teachers provided many positive comments and feedback about the ability of this test to identify young gifted children. Finally, teachers described the reality of gifted education services in Jordan.
AbdalrhmanM.Alzo’biS. (2014). The problems faced by teachers of pioneer centers for talented and gifted students in Jordan. The International Journal for Talent Development, 9, 165–186.
2.
AcarS.SenS.CayirdagN. (2016). Consistency of the performance and nonperformance methods in gifted identification: A multilevel meta-analytic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 81–101.
3.
Al-HroubA.WhitebreadD. (2008). Teacher nomination of “mathematically gifted children with specific learning difficulties” at three state schools in Jordan. British Journal of Special Education, 35, 152–164.
4.
AlodatA.ZumbergM. (2018). Standardizing the Cognitive Abilities Screening Test (CogAt 7) for identifying gifted and talented children in kindergarten and elementary schools in Jordan. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(2), 1–13.
5.
Al RosanF.Al BatshM. (1990). Factor analysis of a Jordanian version of PRIDE scale to identify gifted children in preschool. Dirasat Journal, the University of Jordan, 8, 114–133.
6.
Al RosanF.Al BatshM.QatamiY. (1990). A Jordanian modified version of PRIDE scale to identify gifted children in preschool. Dirasat Journal, the University of Jordan, 18(4), 7-28.
7.
Besjes-de BockK. M.de RuyterD. J. (2011). Five values of giftedness. Roeper Review, 33, 198–207.
8.
CallahanC. M.HunsakerS. L.AdamsC. M.MooreS. D.BlandL. C. (1995). Instruments used in the identification of gifted and talented students. Charlottesville: The University of Virginia.
9.
CardD.GiulianoL. (2015, September). Can universal screening increase the representation of low income and minority students in gifted education? (Working Paper No. 21519). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org
10.
CarmanC. A.WaltherC. A.BartschR. 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, 193–209.
11.
ChanD. W. (2011). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners: The Hong Kong student perspective. Roeper Review, 33, 160–169.
12.
ChongB. H. (2000). Early childhood gifted education: Relationship of screening tests with measured intelligence. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 61(5-A), 1736.
13.
ColemanM. R. (2003). The identification of students who are gifted (ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education). Retrieved from https://www.ericdigests.org/2004-2/gifted.html
14.
CramondB. (1997). The use of multiple criteria for identifying gifted students. Roeper Review, 20(2), A1–A8.
15.
CreswellJ. W.MillerD. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39, 124–130.
16.
CrossT. L.ColemanL. J. (2014). School-based conception of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 94–103.
17.
FiciciA.SiegleD. (2008). International teachers’ judgment of gifted mathematics student characteristics. Gifted and Talented International, 23, 23–38.
18.
GadzikowskiA. (2013). Challenging exceptionally bright children in early childhood classrooms. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
19.
GloverT. A.AlbersC. A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 117–135.
20.
GoodhewG. (2009). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented students. London, England: Bloomsbury.
21.
Hernández-TorranoD.TursunbayevaX. (2016). Are teachers biased when nominating students for gifted services? Evidence from Kazakhstan. High Ability Studies, 27, 165–177.
22.
Hertberg-DavisH. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 251–253.
23.
HeyderA.BergoldS.SteinmayrR. (2018). Teachers’ knowledge about intellectual giftedness: A first look at levels and correlates. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 17, 27–44.
24.
HuangS. Y. (2008). Early identification: Cultivating success for young gifted children. Gifted Education International, 24, 118–125.
25.
JohnsenS. K. (2009). Best practices for identifying gifted students. Principal, 88(5), 8–14.
26.
Jordan Legislation. (n.d.). Educational laws in Jordan. Retrieved from http://www.lob.jo
27.
KriselS. C.BrownR. S. (1997). Georgia’s journey toward multiple-criteria identification of gifted students. Roeper Review, 20, A1–A3.
28.
LassigC. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted: The importance of professional development and school culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18, 32–42.
29.
LohmanD. F. (2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 111–138.
30.
LohmanD. F. (2011). Cognitive abilities test, Form 7. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
31.
LohmanD. F. (2012). CogAT score interpretation guide. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
32.
LohmanD. F.HagenE. P. (2001). Cognitive abilities test, Form 6. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
33.
LohmanD. F.KorbK. A.LakinJ. M. (2008). Identifying academically gifted English-language learners using nonverbal tests: A comparison of the Raven, NNAT, and CogAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 275–296.
34.
LohmanD. F.LakinJ. M. (2009). Consistencies in sex differences on the cognitive abilities test across countries, grades, test forms, and cohorts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 389–407.
35.
McClainM.-C.PfeifferS. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 59–88.
36.
McGowanM. R.RungeT. J.PedersenJ. A. (2016). Using curriculum-based measures for identifying gifted learners. Roeper Review, 38, 93–106.
37.
MerriamS. B.TisdellE. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
38.
Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Ministry of education in Jordan, Gifted department. Available from http://www.moe.gov.jo
39.
PetersS. J.GentryM. (2010). Multigroup construct validity evidence of the HOPE scale: Instrumentation to identify low-income elementary students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 298–313.
40.
PfeifferS. I.PetscherY. (2008). Identifying young gifted children using the gifted rating scales—Preschool/kindergarten form. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 19–29.
41.
PlunkettM.KronborgL. (2011). Learning to be a teacher of the gifted: The importance of examining opinions and challenging misconceptions. Gifted and Talented International, 26, 31–46.
42.
PrionS.AdamsonK. A. (2014). Making sense of methods and measurement: Rigor in qualitative research. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 10, e107–e108.
43.
RoachP.BellD. (1986). Identifying the gifted: A multiple criteria approach. The Clearing House, 59, 393–395.
44.
SaldañaJ. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
45.
ShnikatF. (2010). Building a scale to identify kindergarten gifted children and verify its effectiveness in Jordanian sample (Master’s thesis). The University of Jordan, Amman.
46.
SiegleD.PowellT. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 21–29.
SpradleyJ. P. (2016). The ethnographic interview. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
49.
SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness. New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.
50.
ThomasE.MagilvyJ. K. (2011). Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research: Scientific inquiry. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16, 151–155.
51.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
52.
VreysC.NdungbogunG. N.KieboomT.VenderickxK. (2017). Training effects on Belgian preschool and primary school teachers’ attitudes towards the best practices for gifted children. High Ability Studies, 29, 3–22.
53.
WalshR. L.KempC. R.HodgeK. A.BowesJ. M. (2012). Searching for evidence-based practice: A review of the research on educational interventions for intellectually gifted children in the early childhood years. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 103–128.
54.
WarneR. T. (2015). Test review: Cognitive abilities test, Form 7 (CogAT7). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 188–192.
55.
WidiatmoH. S. (2004). A simulation and evaluation of computerized adaptive testing designs for the verbal battery of the cognitive abilities test (CogAT). Iowa City: The University of Iowa.
56.
WorrellF. C. (2009). Myth 4: A single test score or indicator tells us all we need to know about giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 242–244.
57.
WorrellF. C.ErwinJ. O. (2011). Best practices in identifying students for gifted and talented education programs. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 319–340.
