A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test: Exploring Its Validity Evidence and Effectiveness in Equitably Identifying Gifted Students

IF 3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2021-03-10 DOI:10.1177/0016986221997800
Hyeseong Lee, Nesibe Karakis, Bekir Olcay Akce, Abdullah Azzam Tuzgen, Sareh Karami, Marcia Gentry, Y. Maeda
{"title":"A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test: Exploring Its Validity Evidence and Effectiveness in Equitably Identifying Gifted Students","authors":"Hyeseong Lee, Nesibe Karakis, Bekir Olcay Akce, Abdullah Azzam Tuzgen, Sareh Karami, Marcia Gentry, Y. Maeda","doi":"10.1177/0016986221997800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) was developed to more equitably identify students of color, as it advertises itself as a culture-fair measure. In this meta-analytic evaluation, we aimed to investigate (a) the generalizability of validity evidence of NNAT by checking its construct and criterion validity with other measures (Part I) and (b) whether NNAT truly meets its goal to identify more culturally diverse students (Part II). After reviewing 1,714 studies, a total of 29 studies met our criteria (59 effect sizes from 22 studies for Part I and 7 effect sizes from 7 studies for Part II). In Part I, we investigated empirical evidence of validity of NNAT in relationship with different types of measures (overall effect size of r was .44); The results revealed that the correlation between NNAT and the achievement test results was 0.68, followed by the intelligence measures similar to NNAT (e.g., Cognitive Abilities Test, Otis–Lennon School Ability Tests; r = .31) and other alternative measures often used to identify gifted students (e.g., teacher-rating scale; r = .20). The moderator analysis results showed high correlations between NNAT and other measures when Naglieri is an author of the study. In Part II, although NNAT identified more students of color compared with other nonverbal tests (overall effect size of risk ratio was 0.42), findings revealed that students of color remain underrepresented in gifted programs and services.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"24 1","pages":"199 - 219"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gifted Child Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986221997800","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

The Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) was developed to more equitably identify students of color, as it advertises itself as a culture-fair measure. In this meta-analytic evaluation, we aimed to investigate (a) the generalizability of validity evidence of NNAT by checking its construct and criterion validity with other measures (Part I) and (b) whether NNAT truly meets its goal to identify more culturally diverse students (Part II). After reviewing 1,714 studies, a total of 29 studies met our criteria (59 effect sizes from 22 studies for Part I and 7 effect sizes from 7 studies for Part II). In Part I, we investigated empirical evidence of validity of NNAT in relationship with different types of measures (overall effect size of r was .44); The results revealed that the correlation between NNAT and the achievement test results was 0.68, followed by the intelligence measures similar to NNAT (e.g., Cognitive Abilities Test, Otis–Lennon School Ability Tests; r = .31) and other alternative measures often used to identify gifted students (e.g., teacher-rating scale; r = .20). The moderator analysis results showed high correlations between NNAT and other measures when Naglieri is an author of the study. In Part II, although NNAT identified more students of color compared with other nonverbal tests (overall effect size of risk ratio was 0.42), findings revealed that students of color remain underrepresented in gifted programs and services.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Naglieri非语言能力测验的元分析评价:探讨其效度、证据及公平识别资优学生的有效性
纳格列里非语言能力测试(NNAT)是为了更公平地识别有色人种学生而开发的,因为它标榜自己是一种文化公平的衡量标准。在这个荟萃分析评估中,我们的目的是通过检查NNAT的结构和标准效度来调查(a) NNAT效度证据的普遍性(第一部分)和(b) NNAT是否真正达到了识别更多文化多样性学生的目标(第二部分)。在回顾了1714项研究后,共有29项研究符合我们的标准(第一部分中22项研究的59个效应量,第二部分中7项研究的7个效应量)。我们调查了NNAT与不同类型测量之间的效度的经验证据(总体效应值r为0.44);结果表明,NNAT与成就测验结果的相关系数为0.68,其次是与NNAT相似的智力测验(如认知能力测验、Otis-Lennon学校能力测验;R = 0.31)和其他通常用于识别资优学生的替代措施(例如,教师评定量表;R = .20)。调节分析结果显示,当Naglieri是该研究的作者时,NNAT与其他措施之间存在高度相关性。在第二部分中,尽管与其他非语言测试相比,NNAT识别出了更多的有色人种学生(风险比的总体效应大小为0.42),但研究结果显示,有色人种学生在资优项目和服务中的代表性仍然不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
29.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ) is the official journal of the National Association for Gifted Children. As a leading journal in the field, GCQ publishes original scholarly reviews of the literature and quantitative or qualitative research studies. GCQ welcomes manuscripts offering new or creative insights about giftedness and talent development in the context of the school, the home, and the wider society. Manuscripts that explore policy and policy implications are also welcome. Additionally, GCQ reviews selected books relevant to the field, with an emphasis on scholarly texts or text with policy implications, and publishes reviews, essay reviews, and critiques.
期刊最新文献
A Meta-Analytic Evaluation: Investigating Evidence for the Validity of the Cognitive Abilities Test Voices of Families of Color: Navigating White Spaces in Gifted Education Research Topics and Trends in Gifted Education: A Structural Topic Model Evidence-Based Instructional Practices for Twice-Exceptional Students With Autism Toward Equity and Transparency: A Content Analysis of Florida Elementary Acceleration Policies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1