A Meta-Analytic Evaluation: Investigating Evidence for the Validity of the Cognitive Abilities Test

Abstract

Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) is one of the most frequently used gifted identification tools. In this meta-analytic study, we investigated empirical evidence of the validity of CogAT, in relation to different types of instruments. After reviewing 1,480 studies, a total of 24 with 33 effect sizes were included in the meta-analysis. According to our findings, the average effect size of r was found to be .63 with a 95% confidence interval [.57, .69]. Based on the heterogeneity test, significant variation due to the systematic between-study differences exists among the included correlations. Egger’s test for funnel plot asymmetry also indicates that no obvious publication bias exists in our study pool, which indicates there might not be a serious threat to alter the obtained results with publication bias. The moderator analysis revealed Lohman’s authorship and publication type influenced the effect size differences among studies. CogAT’s overall correlation with other identification tools (.63) might suggest using at least one more identification tool besides CogAT.