The Impossible Figures Task (IFT-28), which consisted of 28 possible and impossible figures assembled for brief exposure and recognition, was completed by 297 Hong Kong Chinese gifted students. Expert judges (N = 2) rated these students' drawing abilities based on their performance on 2 drawing tasks adapted from Clark's Drawing Abilities Test (Clark, 1989). The IFT-28 scores correlated substantially and significantly with expert ratings of drawing abilities and with mental rotation test scores. IFT-28 also was found to be sensitive to age effect. The conjecture that IFT-28 scores could reflect drawing abilities and possibly indicate visual arts talents was generally supported even when the effects of age and general spatial ability were controlled for in partial correlation analyses. A brief version (IFT-9) based on retaining 9 figures that discriminated students with high drawing abilities from those with low drawing abilities was suggested as a possibly more sensitive measure for screening students with talents in visual arts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarrascoM.SeamonJ. G. (1996). Priming impossible figures in the object decision test: The critical importance of perceived stimulus complexity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 344–351
2.
CaseyM. B.NuttallR.PezarisE.BenbowC. (1995). The influence of spatial ability on gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores across diverse samples. Developmental Psychology, 31, 697–705
3.
ChanD. W. (2001). Assessing giftedness in Chinese secondary school students in Hong Kong: A multiple intelligences perspective. High Ability Studies, 12, 215–234
4.
ClarkG (1989). Screening and identifying students talented in the visual arts: Clark's Drawing Abilities Test. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 98–105
5.
ClarkG.WilsonT. (1991). Screening and identifying gifted/talented students in the visual arts with Clark's Drawing Abilities Test. Roeper Review, 13, 92–97
6.
ClarkG.ZimmermanE. (2004). Teaching talented art students: Principles and practices.New York: Teachers College, Columbia University
7.
Curriculum Development Council. (2002). Arts education key learning area curriculum guide (Primary 1–Secondary 3).Hong Kong: Government Printer
8.
DiLeoJ. H. (1977). Child development: Analysis and synthesis.New York: Brunner/Mazel
9.
Education Commission. (1990). Education Commission Report No. 4.Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government
10.
GardnerH (1983). Frames of mind.New York: Basic Books
HalpernD. F.LaMayM. L. (2000). The smarter sex: A critical review of sex differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 229–246
13.
HanyE. A. (1997). Modeling teachers' judgment of giftedness: A methodological inquiry of biased judgment. High Ability Studies, 8, 159–178
14.
HaroutounianJ (2002). Kindling the spark: Recognizing and developing musical talent.New York: Oxford University Press
15.
Impossible World. (n.d.). Figures library. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from http://im-possible.info
16.
JacksonD. N. (2003). Multidimensional Aptitude Battery II manual.Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems
17.
KaL (1999). The relationship between drawing ability and academic ability among primary one students in Hip Mei School [in Chinese]. In WongS. (Ed.), Art education: Research and horizon (pp. 71–78. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Society for Education in Art
18.
KranzlerJ. H. (1991). The construct validity of the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery: A word of caution. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 691–697
19.
KranzlerJ. H.JensenA. R. (1991). The nature of psychometric g: Unitary process or a number of independent processes?Intelligence, 15, 397–422
20.
KrieshokT. S.HarringtonR. G. (1985). A review of the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 87–89
21.
LinnM.PetersenA. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498
22.
MilbrathC (1998). Patterns of artistic development in children: Comparative studies of talent.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
23.
MottronL.BellevilleS. (1993). A study of perceptual analysis in a high-level autistic subject with exceptional graphic abilities. Brain and Cognition, 23, 279–309
24.
MurfeeE (1995). Eloquent evidence: Arts at the core of learning.Washington, DC: National Assembly of State Arts Agencies
25.
RavenJ.RavenJ. C.CourtJ. H. (1998). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scale.Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press
26.
RuppertS. S. (2006). Critical evidence: How the arts benefit student achievement.Washington, DC: National Assembly of State Arts Agencies
27.
SchacterD. L. (1992). Understanding implicit memory: A cognitive neuroscience approach. American Psychologist, 47, 559–569
28.
SchacterD. L.CooperL. A.DelaneyS. M. (1990). Implicit memory for unfamiliar objects depends on access to structural descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 5–24
29.
Von KarolyiC. (2001). Visual spatial strength in dyslexia: Rapid discrimination of impossible figures. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 380–391
30.
Von KarolyiC.WinnerE. (2004). Dyslexia and visual spatial talents: Are they connected? In NewmanT. M.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning disabilities: Identification, assessment, and outcomes (pp. 95–117. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
31.
Von KarolyiC.WinnerE.GrayW.ShermanG. F. (2003). Dyslexia linked to talent: Global visual-spatial ability. Brain and Language, 85, 427–431
32.
WallbrownF. H.CarminC. N.BarnettR. W. (1988). Investigating the construct validity of the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery. Psychological Reports, 62, 871–878
33.
WallbrownF. H.CarminC. N.BarnettR. W. (1989). A further note on the construct validity of the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 429–433
34.
WechslerD (1981). Manual of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised.New York: Psychological Corporation
35.
WinnerE.FrenchL.SeligerC.RossE.WeberC. (2001). Dyslexia and visual-spatial talents: Compensation vs. deficit model. Brain and Language, 76, 81–110
36.
WinnerE.MartinoG. (2000). Giftedness in non-academic domains: The case of the visual arts and music. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 95–110). New York: Elsevier
37.
WinnerE.MartinoG. (2003). Artistic giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 335–349). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
38.
YuS. T. (Ed.). (2001). The revolution of arts education [in Chinese].Hong Kong: Hong Kong Society for Education in Art
