Reconsidering the Psychometrics of the GRS-S: Evidence for Parsimony in Measurement

Abstract

The authors evaluated measurement-level, factor-level, item-level, and scale-level revisions to the Gifted Rating Scales–School Form (GRS-S). Measurement-level considerations tested the extent to which treating the Likert-type scale rating as categorical or continuous produced different fit across unidimensional, correlated trait, and bifactor latent factor structures. Item- and scale-level analyses demonstrated that the GRS-S could be reduced from a 72-item assessment on a 9-point rating scale down to a 30-item assessment on a 3-point rating scale. Reliability from the reduced assessment was high (ω > .95). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve comparisons between the original and reduced versions of the GRS-S showed that diagnostic accuracy (i.e., area under the curve) of the scales was comparable when considering cut scores of 120, 125, and 130 on the WISC-IV Full Scale (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Child–Fourth Edition) and verbal IQ and the WIAT-III (Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition) composite score. The findings suggest that a brief form of the GRS-S can be used as a universal or selective screener for giftedness without sacrificing key psychometric considerations.

Keywords

gifted rating scales gifted screening measurement item response theory WISC

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Borgers

Sikkel

Hox

(2004). Response effects in surveys on children and adolescents: The effect of number of response options, negative wording, and neutral mid-point. Quality & Quantity, 38, 17–33.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Cao

T. H.

Jung

J. Y.

Lee

(2017). Assessment in gifted education: A review of the literature from 2005 to 2016. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28, 163–203.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

Gardner

(Ed.). (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: National Commission on Excellence.

Lee

Pfeiffer

S. I.

(2006). The reliability and validity of a Korean-translated version of the Gifted Rating Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 210–224.

Lee

Paek

(2014). In search of the optimal number of response categories in a rating scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32, 663–673.

Lee

Pfeiffer

S. I.

Kamata

Kumtepe

A. T.

Rosado

(2009). Measurement invariance of the Gifted Rating Scales–School form across five cultural groups. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 186–198.

Lee

Pfeiffer

S. I.

Petscher

(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, 659–675.

10.

Lozano

L. M.

García-Cueto

Muñiz

(2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology, 4, 73–79.

11.

Margulies

A. S.

Floyd

R. G.

. (2004). Book review: Gifted Rating Scales (GRS). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22, 275–282.

12.

Marland

(1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

13.

McNeish

(2017). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23, 412–433.

14.

NCS Pearson. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Author.

15.

Petscher

(2008). Measurement invariance of the Chinese Gifted Rating Scales: Teacher and parent forms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 274–286.

16.

Pfeiffer

S. I.

(2015). Essentials of gifted assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

17.

Pfeiffer

S. I.

(2017). Success in the classroom and in life: Focusing on strengths of the head and strengths of the heart. Gifted Education International, 33, 95–101.

18.

Pfeiffer

S. I.

Jarosewich

(2003). Gifted Rating Scales. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

19.

Pfeiffer

S. I.

Jarosewich

(2007). The Gifted Rating Scales–School Form: An analysis of the standardization sample based on age, gender, race, and diagnostic efficiency. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 39–50.

20.

Pfeiffer

S. I.

Kumtepe

Rosado

(2006). Gifted identification: Measuring change in a student’s profile of abilities using the Gifted Rating Scales. The School Psychologist, 60, 106–111.

21.

Pfeiffer

S. I.

Petscher

Kumtepe

(2008). The Gifted Rating Scales–School Form: A validation study based on age, gender, and race. Roeper Review, 30, 140–146.

22.

Raykov

Marcoulides

G. A.

(2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. New York, NY: Routledge.

23.

Reise

S. P.

Morizot

Hays

R. D.

(2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 16, 19–31.

24.

Renzulli

J. S.

Reis

S. M.

(2017). The three-ring conception of giftedness. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

Shaunessy-Dedrick

Foley-Nicpon

(Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 185–200). Washington, DC: APA Books.

25.

Rhemtulla

Brosseau-Liard

P. É.

Savalei

(2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17, 354–373.

26.

Robertson

S. G.

Pfeiffer

S. I.

(2016). Development of a procedural guide to implement Response to Intervention (RTI) with high ability learners. Roeper Review, 38, 9–23.

27.

Rosado

J. I.

Pfeiffer

Petscher

(2008). The reliability and validity of a Spanish translated version of the gifted rating scales. Gifted and Talented international, 23, 105–114.

28.

Rosado

J. I.

Pfeiffer

Petscher

(2015). Identifying gifted students in Puerto Rico: Validation of a Spanish translation of the Gifted Rating Scales. Gifted Education International, 31, 162–175.

29.

Ross

(1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

30.

Schmitt

(1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350–353.

31.

Siegle

(2018). Understanding underachievement. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (2nd ed., pp. 285–298). New York, NY: Springer.

32.

Wechsler

(2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth edition (WISC-IV). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

33.

Ziegler

Heller

K. A.

(2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In Heller

K. A.

Monks

E. J.

Sternberg

R. J.

Subotnik

R. F.

(Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent, 2nd edition (pp. 3–21). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

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.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB