The factor structure, the concurrent validity, and test–retest reliability of the Czech translation of the Gifted Rating Scales-School Form [GRS-S; Pfeiffer, S. I., & Jarosewich, T. (2003). GRS (gifted rating scales) - manual. Pearson] were evaluated. Ten alternative models were tested. Four models were found to exhibit acceptable fit and interpretability. The factor structure was comparable for both parent (n = 277) and teacher raters (n = 137). High correlations between the factors suggest that raters might be subject to a halo effect. Ratings made by teachers show a closer relationship with criteria (WJ IE II COG, CFT 20-R, and TIM3–5) than ratings made by parents. Test–retest reliability of teacher rating (with median 93 days) was quite high for all GRS-S subscales (r = .84–.87).
AcarS.SenS.CayirdagN. (2016). Consistency of the performance and nonperformance methods in gifted identification: A multilevel meta-analytic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 81-101. doi:10.1177/0016986216634438
2.
BensonN. F.FloydR. G.KranzlerJ. H.EckertT. L.FeferS. A.MorganG. B. (2019). Test use and assessment practices of school psychologists in the United States: Findings from the 2017 national survey. Journal of School Psychology, 72, 29-48. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2018.12.004
3.
BensonN. F.KranzlerJ. H. (2018). Another look at the construct validity of the gifted rating scales: Preschool/Kindergarten and school forms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(8), 782-797. doi:10.1177/0734282917710377
4.
CaoT. H.JungJ. Y.LeeJ. (2017). Assessment in gifted education: A review of the literature from 2005 to 2016. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(3), 163-203. doi:10.1177/1932202X17714572
5.
CarrM.Kurtz-CostesB. E. (1994). Is being smart everything? The influence of student achievement on teachers' perceptions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64(2), 263-276. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1994.tb01101.x
6.
CíglerH.JabůrekM.StrakaO.PortešováŠ. (2017). Psychometrická analýza TIM3–5 – Testu pro identifikaci nadaných žáků v matematice pro 3.–5. třídu [Psychometric analysis of TIM3–5 – Test for identifying gifted students in mathematics in grades 3 to 5]. Brno, Czechia: Masarykova Univerzita. https://munispace.muni.cz/library/catalog/book/968
7.
FajmonováV.HönigováS.UrbánekT.ŠirůčekJ. (2015). CFT 20-R - Cattelův test fluidní inteligence [CFT 20-R - cattel test of fluid reasoning]. Prague: Hogrefe-Testcentrum.
8.
GeiserC.MandelmanS. D.TanM.GrigorenkoE. L. (2016). Multitrait-multimethod assessment of giftedness: An application of the correlated traits-correlated (methods - 1) model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23, 76-90. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.937792
9.
Hagmann-von ArxP.LemolaS.GrobA. (2018). Does IQ = IQ? Comparability of intelligence test scores in typically developing children. Assessment, 25(6), 691-701. doi:10.1177/1073191116662911
10.
HambletonR. K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In HambletonR. K.MerendaP. F.SpielbergerC. D. (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3-38). Hambleton - New Jersey: LEA, Inc. doi:10.4324/9781410611758
11.
Hassan Hemdan MohamedA.Mahdi KazemA.PfeifferS.AlzubaidiA.-Q.Abu ElwanR.AmbosaidiA., … Al-KharosiT. (2017). Identification of gifted students in oman: gender and grade differences on the gifted rating scales-school form. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(3), 289-301. doi:10.1177/0162353217718277
LeeD.PfeifferS. I. (2006). The reliability and validity of a korean-translated version of the gifted rating scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(3), 210-224. doi:10.1177/0734282906287829
14.
LiH.LeeD.PfeifferS. I.KamataA.KumtepeA. T.RosadoJ. (2009). Measurement invariance of the gifted rating scales-school form across five cultural groups. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(3), 186. doi:10.1037/a0017382
15.
LiH.LeeD.PfeifferS. I.PetscherY. (2008). Parent ratings using the Chinese version of the parent gifted rating scales–school form reliability and validity for Chinese students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(4), 659-675. doi:10.1177/0013164407313365
16.
LiH.PfeifferS. I.PetscherY.KumtepeA. T.MoG. (2008). Validation of the gifted rating scales-school form in China. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 160-169. doi:10.1177/0016986208315802
17.
MachtsN.KaiserJ.SchmidtF. T. C.MöllerJ. (2016). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students' cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 19, 85-103. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.06.003
18.
MarquliesA. S.FloydR. G. (2004). Book review: Gifted Rating Scales (GRS). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22, 275-282. doi:10.1177/073428290402200306
19.
MundfromD. J.ShawD. G.KeT. L. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159-168. doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_4
20.
NeberH. (2004). Teacher identification of students for gifted programs: Nominations to a summer school for highly-gifted students. Psychology Science, 46(3), 348-362.
21.
PetersS. J.PereiraN. (2017). A replication of the internal validity structure of three major teaching rating scales. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(2), 101-119. doi:10.1177/1932202X17701940
22.
PetscherY.Huijun LiH. (2008). Measurement invariance of the Chinese gifted rating scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26(3), 274-286. doi:10.1177/0734282907303873
23.
PetscherY.PfeifferS. I. (2018). Reconsidering the psychometrics of the gifted rating scales – school Form: Evidence for parsimony in measurement. Manuscript submitted for publication. doi:10.31234/osf.io/4ctfp
24.
PfeifferS. I. (2015). Essentials of gifted assessment. New Jersey: Wiley.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
27.
RosadoJ. I.PfeifferS. I.PetscherY. (2008). The reliability and validity of a Spanish translated version of the gifted rating scales. Gifted and Talented International, 23(1), 105-114. doi:10.1080/15332276.2008.11673517
28.
RosadoJ. I.PfeifferS.PetscherY. (2015). Identifying gifted students in Puerto Rico. Gifted Education International, 31(2), 162-175. doi:10.1177/0261429413507178
29.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R Package for structural equation modeling. Journal of statistical software, 48(2), 1-36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02
30.
RuefM.FurmanA.Muñoz-SandovalA. (2010). Woodcock-Johnson Czech international edition II. MarešJ.VondrákováE.ZapletalováJ.HeiderD.BurešováJ. (Eds.). Czech: The Woodcock-Muñoz Foundation.
31.
SchneiderW. J.McGrewK. S. (2018). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In Flanagan,D. P.McDonoughE. M. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed., pp. 73-163). New York: The Guilford Press.
32.
WardS. (2005). [Review of the gifted rating scales by S. I. Pfeiffer & T. Jarosewich]. In SpiesR. A.CalrsonJ. F.PlakeB. S. (Eds.), The sixteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1311-1312). Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
33.
WechslerD. (2002). Wechsler individual achievement test – second edition (WIAT-II). New York: The Psychological Corporation. doi:10.1037/t15173-000
34.
WechslerD. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children – Fourth edition (WISC-IV). New York: The Psychological Corporation.
35.
WeissR. H. (2006). Grundintelligenztest Skala 2 – revision (CFT 20-R) [Culture fair intelligence test 20 - revision]. Boston: Hogrefe.
36.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN.SchrankF. A. (2003). Woodcock-Johnson III diagnostic supplement to the tests of cognitive abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
