With increasing attention to examining cognitive strengths and achievements related to social and emotional variables, it is imperative that instruments developed and used to assess change be valid and reliable for measuring underlying constructs. This study examines instruments identified and/or developed to measure four noncognitive constructs (i.e., student engagement, self-efficacy, growth mindset, and stereotype threat) as outcome variables in a study with elementary-aged students in high-poverty rural communities. The process of creating and examining the psychometric properties of these instruments is a necessary step in documenting the usefulness of the instruments not just in our study but also in other studies with elementary students. We note in our descriptions of the development and assessment of measures that underlying factors may or may not parallel those identified in the general population or in older students and that measurement of noncognitive variables in the population of young gifted students requires considerable attention.
AinleyM.HidiS.BerndorffD. (2002).
Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology,
94, 545–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545
2.
AmbadyN.ShihM.KimA.PittinskyT. L. (2001).
Stereotype susceptibility in children: Effects of identity activation on quantitative performance. Psychological Science,
12, 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00371
3.
AndradeH.WangX.DuY.AkawiR. (2009).
Rubric-referenced self-assessment and self-efficacy for writing. The Journal of Educational Research,
102(4), 287–302.
4.
AppletonJ. J.ChristensonS. L.DongjinK.ReschlyA. L. (2006).
Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology,
44, 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
5.
AronsonJ.FriedC.GoodC. (2002).
Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
38, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1491
6.
AronsonJ.InzlichtM. (2004).
The ups and downs of attributional ambiguity: Stereotype vulnerability and the academic self-knowledge of African-American students. Psychological Science,
15, 829–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00763.x
7.
AronsonJ.LustinaM. J.GoodC.KeoughK.SteeleC. M.BrownJ. (1999).
When White men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
35, 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1371
8.
AronsonJ.SteeleC. M. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of human competence, motivation, and self-concept. In DweckC.ElliotE. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 436–456).
Guilford Press.
9.
AronsonJ.SteeleC. M.SalinasM. F.LustinaM. J. (1998). The effects of stereotype threat on the standardized test performance of college students. In AronsonE. (Ed.), Readings about the social animal (8th ed., pp. 415–430).
Freeman.
10.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
W.H. Freeman.
11.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5., pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
12.
BanduraA.BarbarnelliC.CapraraG. V.PastorelliC. (1996).
Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development,
67, 1206–1222. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131888
BianL.LeslieS.CimpianA. (2017).
Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science,
355, 389–391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524
16.
BlackwellL. S.TrzesniewskiK. H.DweckC. S. (2007).
Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development,
78, 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
17.
Brown, R. P., & Josephs, R. A. (1999). The importance of importance: The Mathematics Identification Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin.
18.
Brown, R. P., & Pinel, E. C. (2003). Stigma on my mind: Individual differences in the experience of stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 626–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00039-8
19.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.
20.
CalkinsL.EhrenworthM. (2016).
Growing extraordinary writers: Leadership decisions to raise the level of writing across a school and a district. The Reading Teacher,
70(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1499
21.
CallahanC. M. (2012). In closing. In SubotnikR. F.RobinsonA.C. M. CallahanGubbinsE. J. (Eds.), Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education (pp. 267–269).
University of Connecticut,
The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
22.
ChanD. (2007).
Positive and negative perfectionism among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong: Their relationship to general self-efficacy and subjective well-being. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
31(1), 77–102.
23.
ChristensonS. L.AndersonA. R. (2002).
Commentary: The centrality of the learning context for students’ academic enabler skills. School Psychology Review,
31, 378–393.
24.
ChristensonS. L.ReschlyA. L.AppletonJ. J.BermanS.SpanjersD.VarroP. (2008). Best practices in fostering student engagement. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th ed., pp. 1099–1119).
National Association of School Psychologists.
25.
ChristensonS. L.ReschlyA. L.WylieC. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement.
Springer.
26.
ClinkenbeardP. R. (2012).
Motivation and gifted students: Implications of theory and research. Psychology in the Schools,
49, 622–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21628
27.
ConnellJ. P.WellbornJ. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In GunnarM.SroufeL. A. (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology: Vol. 23. Self processes in development (pp. 43–77).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
DaiD. Y.ChenF. (2013).
Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Child Quarterly,
57(3), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490020
29.
DésertM.PreauxM.JundR. (2009).
So young and already victims of stereotype threat: Socio-economic status and performance of 6 to 9 years old children on Raven’s progressive matrices. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
24, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173012
30.
DweckC. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Psychology Press.
31.
DweckC. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success.
Random House.
32.
DweckC. S.ChiuC.HongY. (1995).
Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry,
6, 267–285.
33.
EsparzaJ.SchumowL.SchmidtJ. A. (2014).
Growth mindset of seventh grade students in science. NCSSSMST Journal,
19(1), 6–13.
34.
FinnJ. D.ZimmerK. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter. In ChristensonS. L.ReschlyA. L.WylieC. (Eds.), High school reform and student management (pp. 97–131).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5
35.
FiskeS. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In GilbertD. T.S. T. FiskeLindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol.
2, pp. 357–411).
McGraw Hill.
36.
FredricksJ. A.BlumenfeldP. C.ParisA. H. (2004).
School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research,
74, 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
37.
GallagherK. (2011). Write like this: Teaching real-world writing through modeling and mentor texts.
Stenhouse.
38.
GreenwaldA.BanajiM. (1995).
Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review,
102, 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4
39.
Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Parents’ views of failure predict children’s fixed and growth intelligence mind-sets. Psychological Science, 27(6), 859–869. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616639727
40.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Pearson.
41.
HébertT. P.BeardsleyT. M. (2001).
Jermaine: A critical case study of a gifted black child living in rural poverty. Gifted Child Quarterly,
45, 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500203
42.
HongY. Y.ChiuC. Y.DweckC. S.LinD.WanW. (1999).
Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77, 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588
43.
HonickeT.BroadbentJ. (2016).
The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review,
17, 63–84.
44.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
45.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070551990954011
46.
JimersonS. J.CamposE.GreifJ. L. (2003).
Towards an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist,
8, 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340893
LandisR. N.ReschlyA. L. (2013).
Reexamining gifted underachievement and dropout through the lens of student engagement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
36, 220–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353213480864
49.
LüfteneggerM.KollmayerM.BergsmannE.JöstlG.SpielC.SchoberB. (2015).
Mathematically gifted students and high achievement: The role of motivation and classroom structure. High Ability Studies,
26, 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1095075
50.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302–318. https:// doi/10.1177/0146167292183006
51.
MakelM. C.SnyderK. E.ThomasC.MaloneP. S.PullatzM. (2015).
Gifted students’ implicit beliefs about intelligence and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly,
59, 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215599057
52.
McGloneM. S.AronsonJ. (2006).
Stereotype threat, identity salience, and spatial reasoning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
27, 486–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2006.06.003
53.
MelikeJ. (2018).
Investigation of gifted students’ epistemological beliefs, self-efficacy beliefs and use of metacognition. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists,
6(3), 1–10.
54.
MofieldE. L.PetersM. P. (2018).
Mindset misconception? Comparing mindsets, perfectionism, and attitudes of achievement in gifted, advanced, and typical Students. Gifted Child Quarterly,
62, 327–329.
55.
MuellerC. M.DweckC. S. (1998).
Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75, 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33
56.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards (English Language Arts).
57.
NguyenD.RyanA. (2008).
Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
93, 1314–1334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012702
58.
PajaresF. (1996).
Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
21, 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0025
59.
PajaresF. (2003).
Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
19, 139–158.
60.
PajaresF.GrahamL. (1999).
Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
24, 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0991
61.
PajaresF.JohnsonM. J.UsherE. L. (2007).
Sources of writing self-efficacy beliefs of elementary, middle, and high school students. Research in the Teaching of English,
42(1), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024048
62.
PajaresF.MillerM. D.JohnsonM. J. (1999).
Gender differences in writing self-beliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
91, 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.50
63.
ParkS.CallahanC. M.RyooJ. H. (2016).
Assessing gifted students’ beliefs about intelligence with a psychometrically defensible scale. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
39, 288–314.
64.
PichoK.BrownS. W. (2011).
Can stereotype threat be measured? A validation of the Social Identities and Attitudes Scale (SIAS). Journal of Advanced Academics,
22, 374–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1102200302
65.
PichoK.RodriquezA.FinnieL. (2013).
Exploring the moderating role of context on the mathematics performance of females under stereotype threat: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Social Psychology,
153, 299–233.
66.
ReeveJ.LeeW. (2014).
Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in classroom motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology,
106, 527–540.
67.
ReschlyA. L.ChristensonS. L. (2006).
Prediction of dropout among students with mild disabilities: The case for the inclusion of student engagement variables. Remedial and Special Education,
27, 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270050301
68.
RomeoC.MasterA.PauneskuD.DweckC. S.GrossJ. J. (2014).
Academic and emotional functioning in middle school: The role of implicit theories. Emotion,
14, 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035490
69.
ShellD. F.ColvinC.BruningR. H. (1995).
Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology,
87, 386–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.386
70.
ShellD. F.MurphyC. C.BruningR. H. (1989).
Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
81, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.91
71.
SkinnerE. A. (1991). Development and perceived control: A dynamic model of action in context. In GunnarM.SroufeL. A. (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Development: Vol. 23. Self processes in development (pp. 167–216).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
72.
SkinnerE. A.KindermannT. A.FurrerC. J. (2009).
A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
69, 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233
73.
SkinnerE. A.PitzerJ. R.SteeleJ. S. (2016).
Can student engagement serve as a motivational resource for academic coping, persistence, and learning during late elementary and early middle school?Developmental Psychology,
52, 2099–2117.
74.
SpencerB.CastanoE. (2007).
Social class is dead. Long live social class! Stereotype threat among low socioeconomic status individuals.Social Justice Research,
20, 418–432.
75.
SpencerS.SteeleC. M.QuinnD. (1999).
Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
35, 4–28.
76.
SteeleC. M. (1997).
A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist,
52, 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613
77.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995).
Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69, 797–811.
78.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1998). How stereotypes influence the standardized test performance of talented African American students. In JencksC.PhillipsM. (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 401–427).
Brookings Institution.
79.
StewartT. T. (2011).
Demystifying what it means to be a writer: Making membership in the writing club possible. Florida English Journal,
45(2), 5–10.
80.
StrayhornT. L. (2009).
The burden of proof: A quantitative study of high-achieving Black collegians. Journal of African American Studies,
13(4), 375–387.
81.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011).
Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
12, 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
82.
UpadyayaK.Salmela-AroK. (2013).
Engagement with studies and work: Trajectories from postcomprehensive school education to higher education and work. Emerging Adulthood,
1, 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696813484299
83.
WaltonG. M.CohenG. L. (2003).
Stereotype lift. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
39, 456–467.
84.
WaltonG. M.SpencerS. J. (2009).
Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science,
20, 1132–1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02417.x
85.
WasserbergM. J. (2014).
Stereotype threat effects on African American children in an urban elementary school. Journal of Experimental Education,
82, 502–517.
86.
WigfieldA.EcclesJ. S.FredricksJ. A.SimpkinsS.RoeserR.SchiefeleU. (2015). Development of achievement motivation and engagement. In Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (pp. 1–44).
Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy320
87.
ZimmermanB. J.Martinez-PonsM. (1990).
Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82, 51–59.
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.
